I would like to counter a few of your observations and preferences:
I will go through my reasons for leaning toward the Democrats: I like public
education, I am totally against vouchers- in our huge multicultural society one
of the few places where we are forced to come together and learn how to relate
to each other, is in the public schools.
Unfortunately, public schools expose the student population to bad influence as well as
good influence. A principle in a public high school told me that they do not teach right
from wrong, only that there are choices and not to prejudge a choice. I would prefer a
better display of leadership than that. I assume you talked to a Canadian principle? We have zero tolerance at our schools for fighting, name calling, sexual harassment, etc. Children are taught to treat each other with respect. These are things that can be taught irrespective of the religion of the child- unless you think there are religions that require fighting, name calling and sexual harassment?
I want public money to be focused on the public schools- so that they will be
places where the majority of our citizens become well educated with their
fellow citizens of every race, religion, and socioeconomic group.
Unfortunately, if the quality of education in a particular school or district is of poor
quality, then it is equally poor for everyone.and if it is EQUALLY poor for everyone than the incentive for EVERYONE is to improve the public school. With vouchers people who have extra money will still go to better schools, The cost of all private schools will go up , you will have money diffused throughout more institutions, you will have to pay a whole separate layer of bureaucrats (UGH) to regulate your new private schools - because these schools will be getting public money so they will have to be watched by someone. But most importantly it encourages separatism. You're from Canada- with your problems with Quebec you should be cognizant of the dangers of letting people breakaway from the mainstream. Our US Constitution gives people great latitude to be individualistic- but I don't think we should encourage that kind of experimentation with public money in the education of our young. It's a social policy decision I make here- about the kind of country I want. I want better public schools that educate the majority of our citizens together- in one system- so they come out knowing they are one people.
I accept that not everyone wishes to be publicly educated- but we must make a
value judgment with public money, and in my opinion it should be spent on
institutions that bring all people together, not on institutions that encourage
separatism.
Seperatism of sorts is in the schools now in the form of class segregation, gang
association etc.
I always thought schools were primarily for education, not social manipulation. The
value judgement you mention would be "whos" idea of value?
As I understand it, a voucher system would, in effect, force schools to compete with
each other to accomplish higher level of education for students. How can this be bad?
Even those with low income benefit because they would have the option of taking a
child out of a non performing school and enroll that child in a better school. A level
playing field based on educational competetiveness is, in my opinion, better for
students than one that is dumbed down.It can be bad because there is simply not enough money to create two excellent separate systems of education in this country. I would like us to focus all that energy and money on the public schools- if we don't, we may destroy the public schools. If all the motivated parents and or the parents with enough money to supplement the vouchers leave the public schools- who will be left in public school? Private Schools aren't going to want to take the special education youngsters, for these kids are extremely expensive to educate. How about the learning disabled? Again - very expensive to educate, nope, private schools won't take them. Private schools might work out to the advantage of some, but I feel it would not work out to the advantage of the majority and I fail to see why we shouldn't just FIX what we have, rather than creating a new untested system with new problems and a new bureaucracy (and if you don't want to create a new bureaucracy to monitor the new schools than you would be letting these new schools run open loop, with no idea of how they are spending public money- and if you don't think there would be new schools, you may not realize that most private schools have waiting lists already- even with vouchers, where would the kids go?).
Further, as relates to education, because of the diversity in our culture, no
religious instruction should take place in school for ANY religion. All children
should be able to come to school with their faith safely tucked inside them.
Subject matter in school should be objective and non-sectarian. The theory of
evolution should be taught and children should know what theory means. The
Christian Jewish Biblical explanation for creation is not appropriate in public
schools. There should be no encouragement for prayer in the public schools.
Religion in schools......hmmmmm it's probably not a good idea to teach religion as
there are so many, but religion has and is a big part of an awful lot of cultures. Should
the history books be rewritten with no mention of religion? It wouldn't be history then,
would it? It would become fiction and we see where fiction gets us in a lot of Gores
statements.
In British Columbia, a Christian girl was suspended from high school for wearing a
cross on a small chain. A few months later the supreme court ruled that Sihks could
wear their daggers in the schools because they have "religeous significance" .....hardly a
level playing field and hardly a way to discourage seperatism.I've no idea what Canada is up to- but our kids in public school are free to wear crosses,or Catholic medals or Jewish stars of David- or whatever. WWJD- What Would Jesus Do jewelry is very popular and the children in our public school district are certainly allowed to wear this as well. I would be upset too- if my school did what yours did.
I find it hard to comprehend why a public funded school system can have kids, dressed
in trench coats, sporting Nazi medallions and carrying ghetto blasters playing music that
"preaches" drug use, killing, suicide and such crap should be regulated into forbiding a
student from reciting the Lord's prayer.All public schools don't do this. In fact all public schools in our district have dress codes- shorts can only be 4" above the knee, no gang related clothing- no hats turned backwards, no pants hanging down to the knees, no beer, alcohol or drug slogans on clothing, no foul language on clothing, no midriffs can show, no high heels in the elementary schools- and also in the elementary schools no make up or perfume. I could go on- the dress code in our district is very specific- and kids do get sent home for violating it.
On the environment, again I lean toward the Democratic view of higher
standards for air and water purity, and I would like to see open space
preserved, more national parks, more attention to alternative energy sources,
etc etc.
Gore has hardly been a saint with playing politics with environmental issues while filling
his pockets at the same time. Bush made a valid point when he said that technology has
advanced significantly in the handling of emissions and incentives should be offered to
entice companies to upgrade to the newest technologies. Alternative energy
development has an exciting future and private sector development will continue
without Gore. Companies compete with each other to be the first with the best. If you
have invested in any of the companies currently developing fuel cell technology, you
will know what I mean.
I have worked in the oil exploration industry for close to 35 years now and have
witnessed first hand unbelieveable change. There are tight regulations and enforcement.
Companies are extremely environmentally conscious and much better corporate
citizens than they were a few decades ago.
Most of the fear mongering I see is nothing more than uninformed sensationalism.Sorry- can't agree with you here. Democrats are on average better than Republicans on the environment. I always look at the voting guidelines by the Sierra CLub and it's pretty clear who is better for the environment. Bush is not an environmentalist. At least Gore has talked about it- and in some detail. I can't possibly trust Bush in this area.
Medicare- I don't agree with any political party on this. We are very wasteful
(imo) in using the bulk of our health care dollars on the last few months of life.
I see no purpose to that. I would like to see patient sufferring minimized but I
do not like to think my tax dollars are going to heroic measures for people who
are critically ill and have no hope of recovery. I would like to see medicare
reformed- and see it offer a great deal more in the way of preventive medicine
and less in the way of heroic measures.
This a tough one....hits close to home for most people. As a Canadian there is one
thing I know for sure.....the US does not need a sytem that mimics ours. The
misconception that our system is "free" is stupid one. It is state run, state controled,
inefficent and low quality.
People die on waiting lists here. Kemo for Prostrate cancer can take 3 to 4 months to
start. Up to 16 weeks for hip replacement surgery. You get the picture.
What is important I think, is to somehow get level heads to work on an answer. Fear
mongering and politicing only sells newspapers, nothing more.
Internationally I do not agree to involving the US overseas except where
international borders are at issue- and where the issues are clearly defines and
our national interest is at stake- so according to the league I would lean toward
the Republicans on this. I do not think free trade is a very good way to go
when the rest of the world is not playing by that rule. I am truly worried about
the vast outflow of cash to China- we have a severe imbalance there and it
worries me. Of course since I am sort of anti- free trade this again causes me
to lean toward the Democrats.
As Canadians, we live under the hypocritical umbrella of American protectionism,
while our liberal government criticizes the US at every opportunity. Personally, I am
thankful for the leadership the US has shown in defending freedom and democracyDefending freedom and democracy? Where? Not in Kuwait. And I'm not sure you can defend freedom and democracy in a region that hasn't had either- the Balkans. What we are doing is getting in the midst of a civil war. We can't settle the age old disputes in that region- imo.
Free trade, I think is good in more ways than not, but could use improvement. Govt
subsidies should be eliminated and trade refused with countries that subsidise their
industries to give them competetive advantage. I truly believe that govt is necessary,
but too much of it in most cases is a deterent to progress.
Social Security- you shouldn't get it if you don't need it, but you should get your money
back. Social Security should kick in at a later age- when it was first proposed the
median age of death was very close to 65. Of course the median age of death has been
pushed back- so the age to collect social security must be also- 70 at the very least.
No one wants to do this. I can't blame them- those seniors are powerful. They are a lot
more powerful, for example, than children- who have no lobby- so the old folks get a
lot of benefits- but is that sensible? I would argue no. It is the young on whose
shoulders all those old people will be standing. Those kids will need to work darned
hard to put enough money into the pot to keep the older folks checks rolling in- since
we all know there is not stash of cash for these programs.
You have things a bit backwards here....The elderly have been paying into Social
Security They haven't been paying nearly enough for the benefits they receive- check out the data for yourself- it's a pyramid scheme- there were big returns for the first folks to cash in, but the system is not sustainable in it's present form.and should be entitled to reap the benefits of their laborsThat does not include a windfall though.. Perhaps if the
money had been invested at more than a 2% return, you wouldn't be so selfish with it.That's really not my fault- the system was created before I was born. I wouldn't have designed it this way- but I'm sure not going to sit quietly while my children are squeezed financially to pay for the stupidity of others. They may still have to pay a disproportionate share- but I'm not going to be quiet about it.
We have no qualm about leaving mountainous debt to our descendants....perhaps it
would be poetic justice if they pulled the plug on our retirement "security". Liberals
seem to favor all sorts of "programs" for the weak, the poor, the underpriveledged, our
youth I don't find a lot of programs for youth- not compared to the programs for the elderly. Why? Because the elderly vote. Check out the dollars for yourself- you can find out where they go.. We have govt programs to "help" every special group immagineable and
probably some that even the wildest immagination would have trouble
comprehending...why not offer dignity to unfortunate elderly?We are offering a lot more than dignity, and we are offering it to all of the elderly, not just the unfortunate. I can understand where you might think this is ok. But if resources are going to be unfairly distributed I'd like to get something for them- and if you spend the money wisely on the young you get a lifetime of productivity out of them. Of course that assumes we could spend the money wisely.
I am prochoice, and so again that forces me toward the Democrats
Prochoice is OK if it's educated prochoice. I believe we covered that in an earlier
discussion.
I also believe strongly that leaders should lead by example...that makes character a
strong point. Youth should have leadership they can look up to. Honesty is a quality
that a leader MUST possess if he is to be credible and taken seriously. Anything short
of that is an unacceptable influence on our youth.I'm not sure honesty is something you want in a leader. If your leader is negotiating with the Russians do you want him to be completely honest? I don't think so. Bush senior was in intelligence- do you think those folks are honest all the time? I don't think so. What I want in a leader is intelligence, education, a world view as close to mine as possible, and creative thinking. I admire morality- but I'm not sure it makes for great leadership. In fact, moral people don't seem to do well in politics- perhaps because the drive to succeed in politics is a lot like the drive for sucess in the entertainment industry. These are people who need to appeal to the masses. These are people who wish to put themselves forward, and who seem to need fame. I don't think "moral" people usually have those needs. I suppose you might rarely get a truly moral leader- Jimmy Carter was one, I think, but people weren't very pleased with him.
There are those that say we should not be influencing our youth with our own morals,
but judging from some of the things our youth is inflicted with it seems very damaging
not to. |
