On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Congressional Dems Choosing against Choice
by: Scott Martin posted: 2009-03-02 17:11:00
Viewed 571 times. 48 Comments.
Democrats are once again proving that "choice" as it relates to children applies only to killing them, not to parents choosing where to educate them. Sorry, but for pro-choice politicians to argue against school choice shows that they care only about the teachers unions that elect them, and not for the lives of the people they represent.
The Washington Post called congressional democrats on their hypocrisy in an editorial today:
REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.
Good assessment, until the part about going to President Obama about it. Obama owes his current job to the same people that the congressional democrats do. We have already seen how anxious he is to reward those who enabled his coronation.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500.
In the most massive bill in our nation's history, the one thing they found worthy of cutting was the opportunity for inner-city kids to go to schools that will give them a better chance at life. And when I talk about the evils of liberalism, people think I am overreacting?
But the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn't about facts. It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program? Why wouldn't Congress want to get the results of a carefully calibrated scientific study before pulling the plug on a program that has proved to be enormously popular? Could the real fear be that school vouchers might actually be shown to be effective in leveling the academic playing field?
You don't need an education to know that the answer to the last question is "duh."
Related Articles
- Contest: Win a pre-release copy of John Yoo's 'Crisis and Command' in time for Christmas delivery!
- Dems Said The Class Act “Ponzi Scheme” Strip It, But It Is Included In Final Health Care Bill
- Novel idea: It is Time for Republican Leaders to Step Down - on Principle
- Excellent one-click tweet and contact page for important Senators - Please RT
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/congressional-dems-choosing-against-choice/trackback
Comments 48
I'm being shocked a lot lately. Seriously. Like I said, targets everywhere. Even the media can't help stumbling over a few of 'em.
Scott -- this is an excellent philosophical observation. Women are entitled to use tax money (theirs, and, very frequently, mine, as I actually pay taxes) to end the lives of their children, but they are not entitled to use tax money (either mine or their own) to decide which school they attend?
I didn't 'get' that it was a WaPo editorial until I read the comments...that IS astounding. I think it's because the Post sees enough of the actual dysfunction of those schools to know better than to just spout tripe about raising the standards there.
It amazes me that anyone would think that DC should be treated as a state. It could barely function as a decent Maryland county.
What I found interesting was trying to find Obama's opinion on the subject. A quick Google search makes me think Obama has tried very hard to make sure nobody knows his opinion on school choice. I was amused that the Post assumed that he was in favor of it. Obama says he would support it if studies show it worked, but seems to doubt that it would.
The DC public schools aren't good enough for Barry's children; he enrolled them at Sidwell Friends.
And now we know that the children of DC aren't good enough for Sidwell Friends.
There are 2 Americas, just not the two that John Edwards and Eric Holder want to talk about.
I support school choice, and I'm a Democrat.
This is partly because growing up, I benefited hugely from a voucher scheme started by the Thatcher government (and then later abolished by Labour), where smart kids from poor families got nearly all their fees paid to attend private schools. It got abolished in part because families that weren't poor were taking advantage of it through connections, so the money wasn't going where it should.
I also think that giving teachers tenured contracts is a recipe for keeping in place teachers who are not good at what they do. Making someone effectively unsackable is very dangerous: it places you and the school's children entirely at the mercy of their sense of good will and professionalism.
Parents on the whole know what schools are good and what schools are not. With school choice, they can send their kids to the good schools, which can expand, and the bad schools will wither and die, resulting in higher quality for all.
I thought you would agree on this one, Alex. I don't know how anyone could be against it, unless they actually were anti-minority and anti-poor. I think it is a question more democrats should be asking their leaders.
"Explain the hypocrisy or I will have to assume the Republicans are right when they also accuse you of being anti-free speech, and perhaps everything else they say."
Alex, I'm going to raise my mug of hot chocolate to you -- in celebration of our agreement on this subject.
Is the notion that competition and creative destruction lead to higher overall quality inherent in your analysis? I'm just checking for future reference ;)
I went to a parochial school until the 9th grade; we did not have vouchers, so my family stretched to be able to afford the tuition, as many did. Interestingly enough, there were Muslims in my school -- as it was the best school in town -- and they simply didn't have religion class with us, but went off to pray themselves when it was time. So I sort of shake my head when I hear people get so wrapped around the axle at the thought of using the vouchers for parochial schools. Darwinism is a religion in my book, and they teach that in a lot of public schools.
Raised in return.
Is the notion that competition and creative destruction lead to higher overall quality inherent in your analysis? I'm just checking for future reference ;)
Competition is generally better than monopoly at achieving higher quality. There are circumstances where a government product (say, a socialized healthcare system) achieves better average outcomes at a lower cost than a patchwork of private and nonprofit provision. If government schools achieved demonstrably better outcomes than charter schools, I would not be a fan of charter schools.
When I went to school in England, the law mandated a "broadly Christian" act of worship at the beginning of each school day. My friend, the school's only Muslim, attended it because there weren't enough Muslims to have an imam come in. The Catholics had their own worship in the library. That level of "inclusiveness", to my mind, isn't good enough.
I do not think that government money can be given to schools with a religious focus: to me, the First Amendment would prohibit it (and on the whole the Supreme Court agrees).
Darwinism is only a religion if DNA tests are a matter of pure belief without any factual basis. The validity of DNA testing rests on the validity of evolutionary biology: you can't have one without the other.
There are circumstances where a government product (say, a socialized healthcare system) achieves better average outcomes at a lower cost than a patchwork of private and nonprofit provision.
That is certainly debatable :)
Oh, BTW, I found out that my health plan premium costs less than 30% of what yours does.
I also think that giving teachers tenured contracts is a recipe for keeping in place teachers who are not good at what they do. Making someone effectively unsackable is very dangerous: it places you and the school's children entirely at the mercy of their sense of good will and professionalism.
We already have that, it called the teachers' unions.
I'm sorry, Scott, but I am confused. Are you upset that this cut moves the country further away from the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto, or are you upset because your tax dollars will not be going to less deserving children. I wouldn't think of you as one to want to pay for education so that poor parents won't have to pay for their own children.
We pay tax money for all kids to attend school, I'm not asking for any extra for anyone. Private schools could and would step in and educate kids better for the same money or less, and are already doing so all over the country where it is allowed, like here in Phoenix. Unfortunately, government in states that are run by liberals (and going to pot so fast it makes our collective heads spin) do not allow private schools to compete with public schools for federal tax dollars, making an experimental program like this the only possibility. One such program had great success in Milwaukee. Yet there is no widespread school choice in Wisconsin, thanks to the influence of the teachers unions.
People like Barack Obama say they won't allow school voucher programs until it is proven that they work (despite the fact that it has been proven to work everywhere its been tried) and then when they get in power they shut it down before the results are in. What are their motives? Do you think they care about the quality of education little kids in the inner city get? No f-ing way. I do. I would hope we all do. Why don't the teachers unions, and why don't the politicians who get their power from them?
The editorial specifically mentions a family with 2 children in Sidwell Friends thanks to the voucher program. The voucher is $7500 per year, but the tuition at that school is significantly more. Perhaps the school is accepting the voucher in lieu of the full tuition? If that were the case then Mr. Obama can very well see the results for himself since his daughters attend the same school.
If I were that mother I'd find a way for her kids to befriend the Obama girls pdq. Then when her kids are unceremoniously yanked out of school Barry will have to deal with his girls asking where their friends went. If only I could be a fly on the wall during that conversation!
Ok before we discuss this any further, I guess I need to know what your qualifications are for a voucher program "working." We could debate about whether or not they work all day but if we don't agree on the term we are arguing about it would be useless.
Secondly, and I mean this in all seriousness, why wouldn't the teachers unions care about the kids in the inner city? Most people don't go into teaching for the shit-load of money they will be rolling in all summer long, but for the kids.
Teachers unions are member service and collective bargaining organizations. Their purpose is to protect the jobs and benefits of the teachers. Individual teachers do care about the kids, but individual teachers don't lobby against education reform; the unions do.
I'd imagine it's pretty easy to compare SOL scores of the voucher-placed students to the average of the schools they left. It's also very likely that simple peer culture in itself is a huge benefit; if you're surrounded by well-mannered kids who do their homework, you'll be much more likely to behave that way than if you're in a school where it's the exception. I'm not one of these people that will tell you that education is useless as it can't counteract a bad family situation, but there's no doubt that the entire context of a child's life affects their behavior and experience. If you place those children in a different environment, they're going to be fundamentally different children. In that sense, the mere fact that there is an option is a success.
Can I assume, then, that teachers at private schools are for the most part non-union? If so, I guess that would go a long way in explaining why the teachers union is against them.
Back to the other part, about private schools being "better." SOL scores are very poor indicators of a school's success for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, they seem to be the best tool we have available at this time. That being said, I think it is only common sense that the ones who are in school on a voucher are better students than the ones at their old school, on average, because kids who give a shit and who's parents give a shit are going to be better educated than those with crappy parents and those that just don't care. And the good parents are going to do their best to get their kids into better schools. Which starts a downward spiral, because the "bad" school loses funding and the dean of the private school has a little nicer car now.
Can I assume, then, that teachers at private schools are for the most part non-union? If so, I guess that would go a long way in explaining why the teachers union is against them.
Yes, you can. And most states, like Arizona, that offer charter schools as am option are right to work states to begin with. No unions.
How about graduation rates? Here are the results of Milwaukee's experiment:
http://schoolchoicewi.org/currdev/detail.cfm ?id=271
Dr. Warren’s analysis reports the following comparative graduation rates:
Milwaukee Public Schools students - Milwaukee School choice program students
2003: 49% - 62%
2004: 64% - 61%
2005: 52% - 61%
2006: 55% - 64%
2007: 58% - 85%
You can see that the longer the program went on, the better the students did. Either way, results are meaningless. If people don't feel that they are being served by their public school, they ought to be free to pursue an opportunity at an equal cost to taxpayers whether or not it actually works out better for them. That is what we call freedom of choice, and Democrats claim to be in favor of it, while doing the exact opposite.
Maybe the "good" schools (surely you believe there ARE some) get more funding and grow? Maybe the marginal schools retool and look for more best management practices?
And yes -- the Virginia Education Association and the NEA both expressly state that they are 'committed to advancing the cause of public education' -- not, mind you, advancing learning at all grade levels, or learning opportunities for all children. I believe the NEA does represent educators and support staff in private higher ed, but not in K-12.
Just for fun, here is what the VEA says it does:
VEA advocates for public education, as well as the professional development and fair treatment of educators.
VEA helps members develop their skills, and VEA members help each other become better teachers through mentoring and sharing of ideas and techniques.
VEA helps members save time by providing easy access to information and resources to help them with their profession.
VEA advocates at both the state and school division level for competitive salaries as well as increased school funding, so Virginia can retain and attract good teachers.
VEA works to show the public the important social good that public schools, teachers, and education support professionals deliver.
VEA defends and protects members from unfair regulations, working conditions and professional liabilities.
This group does not advocate for the children. It advocates for the teachers.
I get your meaning about the union as a whole advocating for the teachers. I am asking these questions as much to educate myself as anything else. I am going to school to be a teacher but, as you can imagine, very little if any of our education is about what to expect from the union, etc. It's mostly about methods and philosophies.
Rose, my point was that any school below the median would, in these scenarios, expect to lose students, therefore lose funding, and therefore do worse the following year. So the better schools keep getting better and the worse schools keep getting worse. And then, of course, the best teachers will want to go to the best schools, making those schools better, while the bad teachers will be stuck in the bad schools making them worse. I don't know what the answer to that should be, but I'm not necessarily convinced school choice is the answer either.
Scott: Are you saying that we should have a voucher system because it works, or we should have it because we feel like it. You seem to be making both arguments.
Scott: Are you saying that we should have a voucher system because it works, or we should have it because we feel like it. You seem to be making both arguments.
Both. It works better. But if it didn't I don't care. It is the choice that maximizes freedom.
Ed, teaching is a great profession. I frequently consider whether I might be better as a teacher than a lawyer. There is nothing more important than education, and I get very frustrated at the quality of even supposedly decent public schools. What you have just articulated is the basic teacher's union argument against vouchers. Unfortunately, it is intended to protect schools, not kids.
Let's say there are six public schools in one district, of 100 students each, and let's say that two are fairly good, two are just okay, and two are not good at all. If the two bad schools lose 50 students each to vouchers, eventually we will only need one "bad" school, which will not necessarily be worse than either of the two original "bad" schools. However, only half of the original number of kids are in a "bad" school. The teachers and principal from the worst school will need new jobs. The best of the two bad schools worth of teachers will be teaching in that one remaining "bad" school, which suddenly seems not so bad. (The kids, incidentally, may be the harder cases, but this is not a justification for watering them down with moderately better kids.)
The teachers in the other schools will be working like heck to keep the ones they have, but, in any event, there's no reason to expect or believe that the quality of the remaining public schools would drop; on average it should improve. Better yet, if you lose enough kids, you can spread the rest out in the decent public schools. "Losing the funding" doesn't matter if the KIDS are gone. If the kids are gone then the worst teachers go -- in fact it is the only way for this to happen.
However, this only works if you get rid of tenure and reward achievement. The teacher's unions don't like this concept; no doubt they feel like teachers work hard for relatively little money, so they are entitled to the age-old perk of bulletproof job security. That, too, benefits teachers, not kids. Experience only helps you in other lines of work if it means more knowledge, judgment and qualification.
The fact that the product is publicly funded is no excuse to subsidize a bad product. The significant effect of the home environment is no excuse either; if it is, then it simply doesn't matter what we do in the classroom.
Rose, what do you think of Obama's new announcement of policies favoring merit pay for teachers and charter schools?
This is a good side benefit:
School Choice Saves Taxpayers $180 Million Since 1994
By the way, for the Milwaukee studies the students were chosen randomly, meaning their should be no expected difference between the private vs public graduation rates I listed in the comment above.
"By the way, for the Milwaukee studies the students were chosen randomly, meaning their should be no expected difference between the private vs public graduation rates "
I would agree that there should be no expected difference in the graduation rates for students who were excepted into the program vs. students who applied for the program but were rejected. I would say, though, that students who did not apply to the program probably have a lower rate because they don't give a shit, bringing the public rate down, and the opposite being true would bring the private rate up. So, the question is, in the figures listed above, what exactly are the numbers saying? (By the way, I hate arguments based on statistics in general because statistics can say whatever you want them to.)
So, the question is, in the figures listed above, what exactly are the numbers saying? (By the way, I hate arguments based on statistics in general because statistics can say whatever you want them to.)
In many cases that is true. I think this is one of them. There is no need for statistics here. You take a kid out of a crappy situation that either he or his parents want out of, and move them to a better school, most kids will be likely to do better. It's as common as common sense can be.
Or just read Rose's latest comment a couple comments above. She's brilliant, yet it all sounds so commonsensical.
That's true. Sounds pretty common sense when you put it like that. I guess on the surface I don't have trouble with the voucher system, but I have heard stories about it being abused and the money being funneled to people as favors, under the table deals, etc. But I guess you are going to have that problem with any system.
My next question would be, what is the scope of these voucher systems? By that, I mean, how far away can a kid go? Can a kid from Milwaukee go to Racine? To Madison? To Rancho Cucamonga? (Ok I know that's ridiculous but who doesn't smile when they hear the words Rancho Cucamonga?) Who would be responsible for the transportation in situations like this? What's to stop a kid from transferring so he can start on the basketball team? Should a kid be stopped from transferring for the purpose of playing sports? Or playing violin? Should disabled kids be included? (They were not in the Milwaukee cases)
Thank you rose. We briefly touched on privatization of schools in one of my intro to teaching classes and the focus of the very limited text on the subject was an experiment in Baltimore, I believe, that went horribly wrong. Some company from Minneapolis took the tax money and ran the schools and the end result was that the profits were being funneled back to Minnesota and the schools were left to suffer. That was privatization of public schools, I should add. I can get specifics if you want them but I don't believe they are that important.
We also discussed Milwaukee's pilot voucher program, but we didn't really discuss whether or not it worked, just that it happened.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you that I am absolutely no-doubt-about-it a union guy and member of the UAW (for now). I have frequently disagreed with the local and state teachers unions on a variety of matters specifically because it put job issues over the kids, and that makes me sick. The specific instance I'm thinking of is during a contract dispute when teachers "work the contract," that is, only arrive 15 minutes early, leave at 20 minutes after the last bell, don't do work at home, etc., and that only hurts the kids, particularly the marginal kids who need that push. I do know a good number of teachers who toe the union line and quietly bend that rule during disputes, though, so I know that teachers in general are advocates for the kids.
Those are all really good questions, Ed. Or, put another way, good reasons to let a lot of states and cities and counties try this to see what works the best. I know that in Northern Virginia there are specialized magnet schools, all public, where kids do go for certain reasons. For example, TJ, which is actually "Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology", is a public high school, but students come from several surrounding counties as well as Arlington, and admission is competitive. So I don't see why going to private school for some targeted reason shouldn't be workable. In fact, a lot of private high schools and boarding schools have a decent sized scholarship student population totally aside from vouchers, so it's not impossible to do in principle. It's just less common at younger grade levels. And plenty of athletes go to private high school on scholarship now; no vouchers required.
I'm in favor of trying everything and anything that can kick an antiquated system in the pants and that helps the kids. Charter schools, magnet schools, vouchers, two-track tenure systems, distance or tech-enabled learning, even credit-based systems, even making future government benefits contingent on graduating from HS (now, if Obama really wanted to be progressive, there's a shot). I feel, unfortunately, that the teacher's unions are about maintaining the status quo, and the fight for too long has been about "class size" (read: money), which doesn't necessarily corellate to better learning (oddly enough). Or the fight is about "losing students and losing funding" -- which always reminds me of people arguing that they can't afford to give up custody of the kids because they need the child support checks. Is the USPS any worse because of the advent of Federal Express? It has a smaller market share but arguably it performs better and has been spurred to innovation by the competition. Would the USPS have thought of overnight delivery for a previously unheard-of upcharge on its own? Why would it have bothered?
Scott, I think your original construct was the really smashing brilliant thing -- actually. It's a key conceptual disconnect in the liberal pantheon.
Now, if anybody has an opinion on single-gender classrooms, I have an 1800 word research paper due in a couple of months, lol. I think between Scott and Rose I ought to have enough words for a paper.
Scott, I think your original construct was the really smashing brilliant thing -- actually. It's a key conceptual disconnect in the liberal pantheon.
Thanks, Rose.
And thanks for helping out Ed on this - he's a very good friend of mine from Wisconsin, who I've known since 5th grade.
I haven't studied or even thought about the topic of single-gender classrooms, Ed. But between Bill, Clyde, Robert and even occasionally myself, plus our great readers like Rose, I think you could easily get an excellent 1800-word paper on pretty much any topic under the sun. Stop by again.
I had never thought of it either, but they are doing it at Marshall now (a middle school in me and Scott's home town) and I am doing me observation there. My gut reaction is, can you imagine the uproar if they said blacks have math in the morning and whites have math class in the afternoon? That would be a backward step by about 60 years or so. But somehow it's seen as a good thing if it's boys and girls. Ok, I know I'm off topic here, but it's kinda related.
Having never thought deeply about the subject, I am inclined to agree with you. Now obviously I have no problems with boys and girls private schools, or really any private school. But in a mixed school, I would think classes should at least not separated. I mean, if only boys want to take home-ec and only girls want to take shop (gratuitous inside joke aimed at Ed) then that is fine. But mandated segregation on any lines is not something I would tend to be in favor of.
Hey, now, I'm not the one that took Foods for Life in high school!
Cooking is a very manly activity. Most of the world's finest chefs are men. Or have you never watched who wins all the competitions on the Food Network?
Alright, this thread is has officially deteriorated. That tends to happen when we threaten to have more comments than individual viewers. It's amazing it lasted so well this long.
You declared this thread dead, so I might as well pile on. I never said cooking was not manly. I do most of the cooking myself. I will, however, debate the manliness of knowing who wins a Food Network competition, and I will defend myself against unwarranted attacks by those who imply that I took home ec when it is in fact the attacker, not the attackee, who was in the particular aforementioned class.
I was mostly talking about you allowing the shop class teacher to reduce you to a bawling, weeping mess.
But touche'.
In my defense, he spanked me....and his hands were huge!
Everything is up for debate, but this is a fact. International comparisons with socialized healthcare systems are very clear that the socialized systems achieve better average outcomes.
Are the healthcare workers in those systems more polite and immediately responsive to patient needs? Generally, no. Are the hospitals equipped with the latest things, like flatscreen TVs with gently sloshing waterfalls and a harpist every Tuesday (seen in the Stanford Cancer Center)? No. But they keep people in those countries on average more healthy than our system does. The data are very clear on that point.
This is why, as we pursue healthcare reform, it would be very unwise to forbid the government from competing with private insurers by expanding Medicare services to other age cohorts. If private provision is really better, then no-one will take up the government option. If it's really worse, then we should not for the sake of principle prevent people from getting better care.
Everything is up for debate, but this is a fact. International comparisons with socialized healthcare systems are very clear that the socialized systems achieve better average outcomes.
How about this for a fact. Obama's down payment on health care is going to cost every American $2,000 and that is just a down payment! I personally pay less than 10% of that and my employer pays less than half of that, and yet that is supposed to be better? Now of course we all know that really only the top 10-20% will be paying for this health care so if you take 20% that works out to some $10,500.
And you want a bureaucrat to tell you how and what care you can receive? Like Michelle Obama did?
I'm glad I went to bed when I did.
So what's the point of the single-sex classroom -- the benefits of a single sex school and the socializing benefits of a co-ed school? It's not a bad idea in principle. I don't think there is any real parallel to race, guys. Do the studies bear out that girls are more confident and less distracted in a single sex classroom? Can you mix that with having non-classroom time co-ed? This is sort of like the old brother school/sister school model but in one building.
Alex, I have too much to say to that before I head off to work, but I'm not sure why the comment on healthcare here. I do wonder if there's a post hoc fallacy in there somewhere...what's the "healthy" baseline? And how can you compare systems when we have millions of people here that are eligible that don't get coverage from choice? Isn't that a compliance issue that you can't lump together with performance? And to be fair, I don't think it's about harpists and waterfalls; it's about cutting-edge technology, technique and pharma research, all of which happen here and all of which become tomorrow's standard protocol world-wide. Sure; in Italy they have a lot of funding for the arts, because we subsidize the protection of their sovereignty. You can't ignore the fact that the US is the loss leader economically in this as in many industries.
On education, my wife and I both went to single-sex schools. The research suggests that girls benefit from it greatly, whereas outcomes are no different for boys. We have two girls, and if single-sex public education existed, we would go for it like a shot; but as it doesn't, we will have to use coeducational public schools.
On healthcare, it would simply not make sense for the people doing the comparisons of different healthcare systems across the world to analyze average health outcomes in the population except in the United States. To exclude those people would be to assume a priori that whether they're healthy or sick doesn't matter. It would be like measuring a literacy rate by counting only the people who really love to read. No country does, or should do that.
I know it's not all about harpists and waterfalls; but they are symbolic of a deeper point. Private provision does not always invest efficiently in the things that would improve average healthcare outcomes for the population. For example, the most devastating illness to the world economy is hands down malaria, but it is mostly suffered by people who have very little ability to pay for drugs. Irregular urinary flow among older men, on the other hand, does not have a major impact on the world economy, but I can't turn on my TV without seeing tasteless ads for expensive drugs manufactured and overprescribed to treat a lifestyle problem.
Compliance is, believe it or not, also an issue when healthcare is free at the point of use. Setting up a socialized system doesn't compel people who are unwilling to be treated to receive care; it simply makes sure that cost will not be a barrier to them receiving it. So, even growing up under socialized medicine, my brother and I both carry the negative consequences of my parents' unwillingness to have necessary surgical procedures performed on us when we were little. Noncompliant people are not unique to the United States, and statistics on healthcare outcomes should be collected the same way in every country.
Malaria? It's an entirely preventable disease, and if someone had had the good sense to whack Rachel Carson with a clue-by-4 when she wrote her silly diatribe we wouldn't have to be worrying about it now.
But if we really want to discuss health care issues we should ask Bill to open a thread for that specific purpose.
Just curious, Rose, how is there no parallel to race? What about the argument that separate but equal is inherently unequal and not allowed?
On the other side, how does girls math class differ from girls gym class?
Girls' bathroom and boys' bathroom are separate, but equal....explain? Boys' and girls' sports teams? I think it's done for the purpose of taking pre-teen silliness out of the classroom. It's like a quiet dorm or study bus in that sense, and I would think that it's a choice, not a mandate, where it's offered. Is that the case in your school?
Boys' and girls' sports teams are most definitely NOT equal...which is the whole crux if Title IX if I recall it correctly. However, by the same token, blacks' and whites' sports teams would be a completely unacceptable dichotomy. Why is this different? I have no idea. I think it goes back to the idea that women want equality, except for in those cases where it benefits them not to have equality, in which case they are more than happy for me to pick up the bill for dinner. But, I digress.
I've only worked in my school for a day so far, and I didn't think to ask at the time whether the single gender classes were voluntary. I thought of that about an hour after school. I'll be back there again on friday.
Someday, the Democrats' dirty secret that the advocacy/adversary media covers up will be exposed for what it is: They are the party of death. They hate children, unborn or born. To them everything and everyone is politically expendable.
What's really perverse is that the Democrats move against inner-city kids in D.C., the children of the very people to whom Obama has tried for sol ong to identify racially.
And the ones that propelled him into office with that statistically impossible percentage of votes.
And who worship him.
What they didn't know or forgot is that everything -- EVERYTHING -- Obama says and the Democrats say has an expiration date.
Everything.
Have an opinion?
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Publius' Newsstand
-
From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain...
Not buying it, Senator McCain.McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.
Views: 8 Comments: 0
-
Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program
I thought Obama was going to talk these things over with his boy Mahmoud and smooth everything out. Instead, Ahmadinejad remains "defiant." How's that hope-y change-y working out for us?Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."
Views: 18 Comments: 0
-
Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"
Looks like there's been some compromise here, as the GOP gets an extension of tax cuts that expired last year. I don't know if this is a good thing - I don't see much incentive for the GOP to do anything but obstruct the Dems at every possible point between now and November.I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.
Views: 53 Comments: 0
-
Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...
Didn't realize the implications of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.
Views: 121 Comments: 1
-
Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...
A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.
Views: 78 Comments: 3
-
Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...
Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Views: 78 Comments: 2
-
Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 mon...
The Dow sinks below a major psychological threshold.The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.Views: 57 Comments: 2
-
Poll: Special interests more influential under ...
Voters are now categorically rejecting every claim or promise made by this guy.... including democrats:Contrary to President Obama's promises, voters say special interests have more influence on the political process now than they did a year ago, according to a new poll. The poll, paid for by groups looking to curb the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling, found that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say special interests have increased their influence since the president took office, and they say Mr. Obama has not done enough to fight back.
Views: 59 Comments: 1
-
GOP leaders: Don't use current health bills for...
Boehner and Cantor say the Pubs aren't going to be a part of any Presidential photo-op/dog-and-pony show:If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” the pair explained in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They also said President Barack Obama should remove reconciliation from the table. Using budget reconciliation rules to move healthcare reform in the Senate would mean Democrats would only need 51 votes on procedural measures instead of 60... On Sunday afternoon however, Obama refused to say he would start from scratch.
Views: 65 Comments: 2
-
Jack Murtha (D-PA) Dead at Age 77
Sad news. Prayers and well wishes to his family and loved ones.An announcement from his office said Murtha died at 1:18 p.m. at the Virginia Hospital Center, where he had been admitted last week after having his gallbladder removed at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Views: 166 Comments: 6
Get Your PR Button!
More Articles By Scott Martin
- From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain
on 2010-02-09 with 8 views - Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program
on 2010-02-09 with 18 views - Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"
on 2010-02-09 with 53 views - Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of passing ObamaCare in House
on 2010-02-08 with 121 views - Republicans and the Populist Temptation could Tank the Market
on 2010-02-08 with 78 views - GOP Leadership's Response to Health Care Summit Invite
on 2010-02-08 with 335 views - Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GOP
on 2010-02-08 with 78 views - Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 months
on 2010-02-08 with 57 views - Poll: Special interests more influential under Obama
on 2010-02-08 with 59 views - GOP leaders: Don't use current health bills for summit starting point
on 2010-02-08 with 65 views
Holy crap, I had to click over to the Post to see for my own eyes that that was an editorial and not a George Will op-ed. It is a classic example of full-throated anti-union, free-market Dem bashing.
I am stunned.
Well, I think that piece puts us squarely in the post-honeymoon phase of the Obama administration, at least as it pertains to the Post editors. If they are not careful, the Fairness Doctrine will be brought in to balance the coverage.