Burnt Orange Report

Kind of interesting, alot of those who oppose vouchers, including Bill Clinton, sent their own children to private schools without the stress of where the money was going to come from. Lower income individuals can't just take a drop in the bucket from a $2000 bi-weekly paycheck because they don't get paid that much!
Instead, liberals prefer to cut the kids off afer putting them through some failed government program such as Head Start (which my mom once worked for and resigned from because they were so unprofessional as to how they handled the kids), then they're confused when such kids wind up having to go through an alternative education program. When all this time, they could've had some financial assistance to enroll in one of the best-performing schools in their community that would've instilled strong values and a solid work ethic in them.
But it comes down to two things when liberals bring forward their views on education: 1)Liberals cringe at the mention of the word "God" in any institution of learning; 2)Liberals oppose giving children an extra push toward something that will better their lives for the long term, and instead prefer to have them right at the faucet of social programs for the rest of their lives.

Conpared to conservatives who have to go willy nilly cutting higher education funds to make up for a deficit that is their doing. Yeah, liberals don't support kids and education at all in comparison.

Neo-con, kool-aid drinking, made-in-China Wal-Mart flag-waving clones use the term God as if they actually believe in a higher power. Admit it - your higher power is the Almighty dollar. Using God, the flag, and a troop in uniform are all PR tools to get what you want out of people. Instead of intelligently working through the complexities of any issue, you accuse those who disagree with you of hating God and demanding social services. Public schools are not social sevices. The only reason neo-cons hate public school is because there's no profit to be made for themselves.
And don't pretend that you give a damn about God or educating kids. It's about the contracts Republicans want to give to their friends who keep the campaign coffers filled.

Trey, the problem with vouchers paying for kids to "enroll in one of the best-performing schools in their community", is that is not about choice for parents at all. It gives the "choice" to the private school whether to choose to have that child enroll. The parents can "choose" in theory, but the real choice is for the receiving school to make. Public schools must take our kids, whether they are great students with a lot of promise, or marginal students with a lot of problems. And my last child, a senior in a local high school, has been better served by his public school than he would have been in most private schools in our city, and as well as he would have at the best private schools in town. And it didn't cost us $1000. a month.

And as a liberal, I don't cringe at the mention of "God" in schools, I am intrigued. I wonder what is the context? - a philosophy course, a literature course, a religion course, a science course? I have heard and participated in discussions of "God" in every one of those types of courses, with no objection on my part, or anyone else's. I do object, though, to somebody telling my child in a public school what my child should believe about God. Discussing "God" and being evangelized are two different things.

Our public schools are beginning to change, mostly in response to tragedies like the shootings at Columbine High School. Cutting-edge districts are experimenting with small magnet schools to very good effect. Most of these programs cost less to the taxpayer than sending their kids to Big Box High, and prepare them for college better. The only down side to this type of school is that kids that want to be left alone can't hide. But as a parent, I think this is an up side.

Kids that participate in these taxpayer provided programs do "better their lives in the long run" and they are kept from "the faucet of social programs for the rest of their lives." Or maybe not - if you consider state-supported schools like UT, or (sorry!) OU coming from that faucet. Or if you consider the interstate highways coming out of the faucet, or the courts where you can go for redress, or the stop signs that keep traffic under control, or the libraries you use, or the public health departments at every governmental level that keep TB patients on their meds coming out of the faucet. How about the FDA? Is food safety and drug safety coming out of the faucet you seem to disapprove of? We can go back to keeping and slaughtering, dressing and canning our own meat? Or growing our own wheat, examining it ourselves for contamination before grinding it and baking it into our bread? At what point and for whom is the faucet turned on?

Our public school systems were started, most of them over a century ago, for the common good, the good of all of us. But then, maybe you don't think it is good for our country to have adults who can read, balance their checkbooks, and earn enough to pay taxes so people like you and me have air traffic controllers to make sure our planes don't fly into each other when we take our skiing vacation in Colorado this winter. (Well, I wish I could go skiing in Colorado or anywhere else this winter.)

Kind of interesting, how those of us who benefit from public programs, seem to think those programs we no longer use are somehow broken, and can only be fixed by having them "privatized".

Sounds like you had a little too much sugar in the kool aid this morning, Trey.

Exactly what "extra push" are you talking about for these oppressed students flowing from the "social faucet"?

Comparing private and public schools is apples and oranges, and to suggest that a private education would absolutely produce results better than that of public ed. is ridiculous.

Private schools don't have to offer transportation to students, free or reduced lunches to children without money to eat, or the garauntee that there will at least be an attempt to reform disruptive students. This is why it is apples and oranges, and exactly why private schools being the answer is a panacea.

Study after study has shown the educational and economic benefits of Head Start. Maybe your mother worked at a dysfunctional office, or maybe, just maybe, it is impossible for someone who doesn't believe in government institutions to work for the best interests of those that they serve.

Liberals don't cringe at the mention of God in institutions of learning -- instead, we realize that there is a place for the word of God to be taught and a place for science, history and the laws of man to be taught. Of course, wingers like yourself don't take the time or effort to consider details like what sect of religion would be taught. If you are Jewish you don't want Catholisism being taught to your children, and the same goes for being Methodist, and so on.

Those played out talking points you regurgitated are lame and are exactly why the majority of Americans do not support sending tax dollars to a corporation that is more interested in generating a profit than producing an educated workforce.

Larry, awesome response. Not only am I a fan of yours for running, but it's also how you explain these issues and the fact that you are engaging people in any forum to do so. I wish we had a candidate like you for every district.

Well, K-T, I'll hold the chair 'til you're ready to take it yourself. But first we have to take it away from Frank Corte.

Vouchers would be OK if wealthy people received $Zero, Middle class people received $1000, and poor people received $10,000 -- or some other reasonably progressive scale. Otherwise, schools that today allow the wealthy the ability to avoid mingling with "those" people would simply raise their tuitions by an amount similar to the voucher amount and nothing would change.

Michael:
Exactly. The neo-cons and the wingnuts would rather THEY receive the government handouts - vouchers!

Vouchers serve one purpose. To ensure segregated education for the white upper class Republicans, and some Democrats, that like everything else, the poor and middle class will pay for. That is the reality of vouchers.

Private schools will admit who they want to so if the middle class and poor believe they will have a choice as well they are sadly mistaken. The choice will be the private school's choice as to who they will admit. Most private schools are not going to admit underprivileged kids from the ghetto. Even though the Republicans, and some Democrats, would like you to believe they will. Parochial schools and many private schools already offer scholarships and financial aid
to gifted students. But an underprivileged student from the ghetto? They belong in public schools. That sums up the attitude and the approach to public education in this state and in this country. Public schools are for the "less thans" and private schools are for the "better thans" and some of them are finding it difficult to "keep up with the Joneses" so in the great Republican tradition of legislative tricks once again they find ways to convince the public that what only will benefit them will benefit everyone. It will only benefit them. They "deserve" better. They are Republicans.

Additionally, the vouchers will only cover part of the costs. So if you're poor and can't afford the extras like the books and the fees and the uniforms, well, that's just too bad, isn't it? Corte may have used his own costs as a measure but the Republicans will make sure it only covers part of the costs to further exlude and further segregate. And that really is what is behind the move to legalize vouchers under the guise of offering better education to our children. It will offer a more segregated choice in a society that has yet to be completedly integrated. And some would still prefer it not be. Given the opportunity, quite a few in this country, the majority of them Republicans, and some Democrats, would rescind the Civil Rights Act.

Maybe at some point when the Democrats regain a majority in Congress they can pass an amendment the rest of us can force our legislatures to approve as an amendment to the Constitution and ban the Republican Party altogether. The way the Nazi Party was banned in Germany.

The Republicans always talk about God and about being good Christian people. They don't know God and they are anything but good Christian people.

My three cents worth.

Do you libs keep in touch with Richard Gephardt and David Bonior for your talking points? Sounds like either one or both of them sent you an email to copy and paste to this post. The same tired, old point "Republicans are for the rich and want to let the poor rot on the streets," does not work any more. Otherwise, we'd be writing about a Governor Sanchez and President Kerry, as well as a House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Secondly, if you think a school voucher system would work to only benefit students of wealthy families, you apparently have been too blinded to see how some of today's public assistance programs issue (gasp!) VOUCHERS!! Don't choke on the smoke from your joints, libs, there's something else: these vouchers are only issued to lower-income individuals. One such program is the Hurricane Katrina displacement victim assistance program. Those left homeless by the hurricane were given vouchers to take to various participating apartment complexes and hotels. Such participating entities were then reimbursed by their local municipal governments.
And to Baby Snooks: if you want to compare the Republican Party to the Nazi party, consider this: if liberal ideas actually work, then why did the U.S.S.R. fall, and why did Germany unify in the 1990's and obliterate socialism there?
Sorry libs, but the more you take cues from over-the-cliff lefties like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann and Nancy Pelosi, the longer you candidates will remain as just that -- candidates.

How odd, Trey, that you didn't address a very specific point made in two of the posts in response to your original comment. That point is that public education is not welfare, it is open to all, rich or poor, and it does not breed dependence on anything other than that which we all depend on; stuff like safe drugs, uncontaminated food, clean air and water, basic licensing standards (like, for that brain surgeon you may need some day),a fair judicial system, libraries, just stuff like that. Why don't you respond to specific points in these posts, rather than pulling out your tired right-wing talking points? We have addressed you with specifics, why can't you do the same?

A little history lesson for you, Trey. But first, you said

"And to Baby Snooks: if you want to compare the Republican Party to the Nazi party, consider this: if liberal ideas actually work, then why did the U.S.S.R. fall, and why did Germany unify in the 1990's and obliterate socialism there?"

To believe that the USSR fell because of its "liberal" polity is to be willfully ignorant writ large. When Gorbachev set perestroika and glasnost in motion, he did so in spite of a lack of a liberal polity - i.e., no accountability by public officials, no protection for individual rights, no reliable banking system, no independent judiciary, and no decent civil service structure. The fall followed.

You might want to read "Armageddon Averted, The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000", by Stephen Kotkin, an historian at Princeton University. ". . . and the truth shall set you free", and all that.

St. Reagan didn't cause the fall, contrary to popular misinformation, nor did the late Pope, although the latter probably helped more than a little bit. And no, I am no fan of the late JPII.

As for West and East Germany, the two reunited because nationalism trumped reality, as continuing tensions between the two clearly teach that the last page has not been written, nor has socialism been obliterated, as you state.

The underlying importance of Mr. Stallings' post was its reference to the "common good", as I read it.

I take it as a given that the "common good" has several components to it. Education. Military or community service. Health care. Benefits for children and the elderly. Labor rights. Gender, religious, racial, and the whole panoply of civil rights based on a shared equality. In short and generally speaking, the things mentioned in Articles 1 and 7 of the Texas Constitution, and in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

To my way of thinking, that which detracts from the common good is necessarily bad. And, unfortunately, "that" is usually disguised as a gimee, a deceptive name (think "vouchers") a misused concept (think "freedom" to choose a doctor), an economic policy (think "privatization"). For if the Republicans are good at anything, it is at twisting the language.

And the twisting is more often than not done by amoral buffoons (think "compassionate conservatism", and pin the tail on the oaf).

Real conservatives I know don't question the concept of the "common good." They question the manner of reaching it; i.e., those fool liberals think that throwing money at it solves the problem!

But people of your stripe, Trey, as with all neocons and neolibs, are to their respective parties as the communists were to the Democratic Party (note the correct usage, as opposed to the "Democrat" Party truncated adjective posturing as an unwilling noun) of the 20s and 30s. They are radicals, and not only garden variety radicals, but radicals so committed to their folly that they fall clean off the political scale.

Texas once had men and women of earned national stature working for the common good as they saw it: Ralph Yarbrough and the GI Bill, the Mavericks and Gonzalez of San Antonio, Judges R. E. Thomason, Sarah Hughes and Williams Wayne Justice of El Paso, Dallas and Athens, Dr. Hector Garcia of Mercedes, lawyers Warren Burnett, Gus Garcia, Bill Kugle, David Richards, Carlos Cadena - and yes, Lyndon Johnson, who would surely be numbered among the great presidents had it not been for his blind allegiance to the Pentagon's follies of the times -

and now we have politicians on the national stage whose success is measured by the level of their corruption, all pushing for private (non faith based) schools, private prisons, private this, that and the other - a plague is on the land, and to hell with the common good. The privatization frenzy is, like unfettered free trade, making corporate interests accountable to no one, and the Republican courts are going along. Small wonder that a national policy allowing torture is not only on the menu, but has practically been served.

And Baby Snooks may not be too far off the mark, pace free speech, for earlier today I read the allegedly recently declassified (?) "Strategy for Victory in Iraq", and not only was I appalled at the banality of the thing -

I was taken back to the early forties, when my Mom would take me to the movies and during the newsreel I would see massed armies marching past the Reichstag while Hitler screamed out this or that - and the roaring reply of "Seig Heil, Seig Heil" filled the theatre -

and I thought, it is not too far a cry to imagine Bush, or Cheney, or Rove, or Libby, or DeLay , for does it really matter? standing before a massed crowd of soldiers, yelling out, all hail, all hail, all hail - think it can't happen here?

Pardon the rant, but I've really had it with the willfully ignorant who can't or won't answer to criticism. All I am left with is to tell them to crawl the hell back to whatever hole they came from, so that good people can take back the country, I would hope, in my lifetime.

Cheapest Disney Vacation and Orlando Vacation Homes Links and Resources. Great source of information ...Book Online and Save. Locate Dream Disney - Orlando Vacation.http://www.cheapdisneyvacationspackagesandtickets.com/ Disney Vacation Disney World Vacation - Disney World. http://www.cheapdisneyvacationspackagesandtickets.com/ Disney World