Kerry delivers.Follow

Hey! You took my wallet!

Sheesh. I do some actual work and a huge thread breaks out. Haven't read it all, but I'm going to comment on this:



Um. No. The south "turned Republican" because the Democratic party was the party of Jim Crowe and was actively trying to prevent blacks in the south from being able to vote or having any power at all. The Democrats only picked up the charge of racial equality in the 60s, and even then impose their own brand on "equality". The Republicans have been the party of true equality since the Civil War. The only difference is that we make a distinction between equality under the law and equality of result. Everyone should be affected by the law equally. Everyone should not be automatically given an equal level of life. The latter they have to earn.

Eh? It's easy to automatically apply skin labels to the groups. I see it more like this:

Prior to FDR, the Democrats were essentially the libertarian party. The Republicans came along with Lincoln with a moderate "give more power to the federal government to fix some major problems" platform. Those who really disagreed with a strong federal government flocked to the Democratic party. Those who wanted federal intervention at the state level became Republicans (most notably, those wanting to fight Jim Crowe).

FDR literally reversed the Democratic position 180 degrees. He took a page from the Republican handbook and used federal powers to fix major problems (in this case, the Depression). Since that time, the primary difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Republicans, while allowing for some level of federal intervention domestically when it's absolutely needed, tends to hold off as much as possible. The Dems have moved to a position of using federal power to fix *everything*, whether it might be fixed via more subtle economic initiatives or not. This change becomes most notably in the 60s with the Civil Rights movement, where the Republicans are hesitant to use federal powers to enforce changes on states, while the Democrats rush ahead. It's a bit murkier then that though, since during that time, you could find lots of Republicans who saw racial inequality as a major enough problem to require federal powers, and you could also find many Democrats who believed the opposite. The two parties just weren't that separate in position at that time.

Since the 60s, the Dems have really charged ahead with their agenda, using the popularity of the Civil Rights movement as their impetus. They've gone beyond just preventing inequality to advocating using federal powers to enforce "equality". This is the position Smash takes (and argues vehemently for). I happen to disagree. It's one thing to use federal powers to prevent illegal blockages to allow people the *opportunity* to succeed. It's another thing entirely to use federal powers to ensure that everyone succeeds.


This is my biggest problem with the platform of the Democratic party. They have nice ideals. No doubt about it. But there's a lot of unrealistic expectations there as well. At exactly what point do you decided that everyone is "equal"? We have rich and poor. Heck. A working economy virtually ensures that you *must* have both rich and poor. That means that some people's children will always have more of the right connections, and money to go to better schools, and the opportunity to get a start in their career from their family or a family friend. Exactly how far do we go to narrow that gap? Do we make it illegal to hire someone you know? Do we make it illegal to use your wealth to give your child a better education? The Dems would have you believe that somehow, magically, if we just try hard enough, we can give *everyone* the same education and employment opportunities. I don't think it's possible. Quantity and quality are almost always inversely related. Any level of education you provide "free" to everyone will never be as good as the education that a small group of people will be able to get by paying top dollar for it.


All you really do by pushing for "equal" education, is you raise the relative cost that the "wealthy" have to pay to get a better one. In relative terms, this hurts the middle class more then the ultra-rich. Right now, joe average guy making 60k a year can afford to send his children to a moderate private school. Raise the taxes on education, and work hard to make public education "better" (better generally meaning more money spent), and you wash out all but the most expensive and exclusive private schools. And guess what? Most of the reason private education sucks isn't because the teachers are bad, or the pay is bad (most public school teachers make more then private school teachers right now). It's because you've stuck the "masses" into a single institution that it sucks. Not every kid comes from a family with a focus on education. All you need to do is stick a handful of students who don't care about school into a classroom with 20 other kids, and the education of all of them suffers. In a private school, virtually every single kid there *wants* to learn. I've gone to both public and private schools. The difference is night and day, and it has nothing at all to do with the cost of the textbooks, or the number of computers in the classes, or the size of the classes, or the pay of the teachers.


So what do we do after the Dems have spent all this money on education and it still doesn't work? Will they then use federal powers to make students like school? How will they do that? Take kids from parents that are bad influences on them? Well, that's nice for freedom. Maybe they'll split schools into "good kids" and "bad kids"? Ok. So now you are federally mandating something that parents and kids can do already naturally, with no federal powers required (ie: choose where to send their kids to school). And when it turns out that the highest percentage of "bad kids" come from poor inner-city neighborhoods, exactly how have we made things better? We haven't. We've just wasted a whole hell of a lot of money and time.


And that's the difference. Republicans look down the line and try to see what the end result of a federal expense or power will be and only use it if the result will actually be positive and fixes a problem that really needs to be fixed. The Dems are doing the equivalent of tilting at windmills. Sure. It's a nice goal, but ultimately you face the reality that a percentage of people will simply not be succeessful. It's a statistical certainty. And no amount of "helping them" will prevent that. Those with talent and drive and determination can and do succeed no matter what neighborhood they are born in. Those who aren't, will end up in a "poor" neighborhood almost regardless of where they are born. I personally don't see how a system that bases your "status" in society based on the value of your contribution to society is flawed. Life is not always kind. But it is ultimately fair.

Given all that, and stipulating for the moment that it's somewhat representational of objective reality, how do you explain the much touted "no child left behind" program?

Um. A "compromise"? Education is still a major issue. But at least Bush's plan recognizes the key issues and progresses from the Republican approach to federal powers use.

Some relevant quotes from the Executive Summary for the program:

"Over the years Congress has created hundreds of programs intended to address problems in education without asking whether or not the programs produce results or knowing their impact on local needs. This "program for every problem" solution has begun to add up -- so much so that there are hundreds of education programs spread across 39 federal agencies at a cost of $120 billion a year. Yet, after spending billions of dollars on education, we have fallen short in meeting our goals for educational excellence."

"In reaction to these disappointing results, some have decided that there should be no federal involvement in education. Others suggest we merely add new programs into the old system. Surely, there must be another way a way that points to a more effective federal role. The priorities that follow are based on the fundamental notion that an enterprise works best when responsibility is placed closest to the most important activity of the enterprise, when those responsible are given greatest latitude and support, and when those responsible are held accountable for producing results."


The bolded section tells you that this is aimed at being a compromise. It's bi-partisan. That's not always a bad thing you know...


Same issue with the Medicare Bill (although in a slightly different direction). Folks like Smash don't understand it because to them, it's purely about money spent for immediate gain. To the Dems, Bush's bill is wasteful since it focuses on providing care, but with requirements that the medications be purchased from "name brand" sources instead of much cheaper generic brands. The argument is that this will just pad the pockets of the big medical companies, and actually provide less benefit to the people per dollar.

In some ways, they're right. However, the Republican position is that if we spend federal money and extend federal power, we should do it in a way that fixes a problem long term rather then short term. Giving vouchers to medicare patients and allowing them to spend them on generic brand drugs just treats the symptoms of a problem. By definition, generic drugs are those which some other company spent billions of dollars developing, but which is now public domain so that anyone can copy it and sell it at a much lower price. Where applicable, should we not be trying to make sure that our federal dollars go back to the companies that actually research *new* drugs and treatments rather then the medical equivalent of Chinese knockoff products? If we do nothing but provide the less expensive generic drugs to people for their medical problems, then no one will ever make new drugs (and we'll eternally be giving out drugs that are 5-10 years out of date). We can certainly provide HIV and AIDS treatments with those drugs, but we'll never have a cure if we don't put money into the research companies.


It's simply a matter of whether your focus is on treating the symptome (there's a sick person standing in front of me and I'll make him well enough to go home), or whether you want to cure the disease. Republican's want to spend money on cures, not treatments. Huge difference. And if that bill *also* is a compromise bill (we can get Dems behind it because it does provide more medical care), then it's all good. It's not nearly that anti-Republican as folks like Smash think. It's a compromise certainly, but it's got some aspects that Republicans want. Obviously, most Reps would rather the government not get into the healthcare business at all, but if we're going to have to do it due to public pressure, then lets make sure we're putting the money where it'll do the most good long term. That's pure Republican...

Ah my bad Gbaji doesnt understand any perspective but his own, how silly of me to think he might understand a Southern perspective.

My bad dwag <thumps chest>

You may return to your regularly scheduled 40 paragraphs that I and most others will ignore.

Huh? Look. You're right. I've never lived in a Southern State. My experiences are from the West coast primarily. Obviously, that's going to color my opinions on things. I don't even know why that's an issue. Guess what? If you're from the south, you don't understand the eastern seaboard point of view, or the midwest point of view, or the west coast point of view, or anything else either. That's kinda part of the point. We all have different viewpoints, and that's going to affect our opinions on things.


I was merely pointing out that the history of the democratic party extends farther back in the past then the 60s. Blanketly implying that all Republicans in the south are white racists is a bit simplistic is all. Extending that implication to the rest of the country is totally ridiculous.

It's across the board:

From the US Department of Labor





Obviously, the exact salary is going to vary from state to state and the level both at which you are teaching and of your own education. I bolded the last sentence for emphasis. There'e a myth that public school teachers are paid less then private school teachers. That is simply wrong. On average private school teacher are paid less nationwide.

Just pointing out the fallacy. Teachers are paid reasonably well (about par for their education level and hours put in to be honest). You've also got to rememember that teachers don't work 12 months out of the year. Technically, they work for 10 months out of 12. They can either take their pay for 10 months and rely on their savings for 2 months in the summer (assuming a traditional seasonal school, but the same number of days work applies in either case), or they can amortize their pay over 12 months. The point is that the numbers are "salaries". In other words, that's what they get paid per year. So the technical hourly rate when you account for a shorter total work year is higher then the salary would suggest.

If they work in a seasonal district, they can also work summerschool (or do rop, or adult classes, or anything else they want to for 2 months), and get *higher* pay (which isn't reflected in the salary figures).


Being a teacher isn't really that bad a career. Someone posted that the median salary nationwide is about 28k. Based on that, a teacher does pretty well. You wont get "rich" working as a teacher, but you will have a comfortable living. The whole "poor, underpaid teacher" bit really is a myth. It makes them seem like they're giving up that much more for their jobs. I'll be the first to say that teaching is a demanding job, but they do get paid well for it, and it's certainly better then making minimum wage digging a ditch or something.

[********** em. If they can't ask a question when they don't understand let them wallow in ignorance like pigs in ****. [/quote]

Great Point. Its so well put we should apply it to things other than ignorance, lets try welfare.

**** em. If they can't MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO EAT when they don't APPLY THEMSELVS TO EARN A LIVING let them wallow in POVERTY like pigs in ****.

Tell her to get a job holding up the "Slow" sign along roadway construction. Illinois State Prevailing Wage for highway work is about $38.50 an hour.

Hijack!

Edwards speech and one person's reaction to it:

"It's taken a day, but people are starting to admit that Edwards may not have knocked it out of the park yesterday, despite the fawning headlines from this morning. With some embarrassment, we begin to confess to one another that he just didn't do it for us. Last night, Edwards was like someone John Kerry had just rescued from Dawson's Creek. Gorgeous and eloquent and can segue from joy to pain in 60 seconds. But I simply didn't buy it last night, much as I wanted to."

RACK that. And RACK Slate. I couldn't have said it any better.


Considering you didn't see or read the speech you couldn't have said fuc[b][/b]king anything about it, you ignorant hack.

I didn't think Edwards speech was great, actually, but that's not why he's on ticket.

Lol, he's on the ticket because he's pretty, bonehead. It makes up for what Lurch lacks in the look department. Nothing more, nothing less.


No. He's no the ticket because he contrasts greatly with Cheney. It's Cheney who lacks warmth, prescence, and physical attractiveness. Kerry does fine with women voters, and if your vote is dependent on how attractive you think he is, you should probably be voting for Kerry anyway so that you can marry Gbaji some warm summer day in Mission.