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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 democracy.
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 and should be entitled to reap the benefits of their labors. Perhaps if the money had been invested at more than a 2% return, you wouldn't be so selfish with 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. 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?
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.
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. |
