Abortion

[Gustaf]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

I thought you were in charge?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that simple.  Republican majorities are slim in both the Senate and House, and committed Democratic opposition makes it very difficult to pass it.  Not every Republican supports it, but Democratic opposition is vehement.

The one thing that would make it pass is if black voters, who disproportionately suffer from failing schools, made it clear to the Democrats that they would vote against them unless they end their opposition to vouchers.  Black voters favor vouchers, but once again place ethnic identification ahead of actual issues in determining their votes.  Black "leaders" are vociferiously opposed to vouchers, largely because they have money and have already chosen to put their own kids into private schools.  So the failing public schools are only for poor blacks, not those who are better off.

The US has much less of a party-based system than the typical European country, in any case.  Legislatures are elected independent of the executive branch, unlike the parliamentary system, and each legislative body has its own set of procedures for passing laws that can effectively prevent a small majority from having absolute control.

Yeah, I figured that would be the reason.

This is probably the only area where one could say that Sweden is to the right of the US!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Marvin is my hero...

[Gustaf]

Marvin is my hero...

Marvin who?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

the paranoid android

[7,052,770]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

That's really not true
I am very against school vouchers because it is the public education system that needs to be improved.  School vouchers are like giving up on the public education system.
In MS, all of the private schools were founded in the 1960's to avoid integration.  Vouchers for those schools would be horrible.
As a public school student, I can say that vouchers are NOT what is necessary.

[dazzleman]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

That's really not true
I am very against school vouchers because it is the public education system that needs to be improved.  School vouchers are like giving up on the public education system.
In MS, all of the private schools were founded in the 1960's to avoid integration.  Vouchers for those schools would be horrible.
As a public school student, I can say that vouchers are NOT what is necessary.

People have been talking about improving public schools for 40 years, and for liberals, that has meant two things:  forced integration, which would somehow magically solve the disparity between black and white education (it didn't) and more money into a system that is failing.

The central question is, with respect to inner city schools, can anything be worse than what we have right now?  In my opinion, the answer is no, and I'm therefore willing to try something outside the box, like vouchers.  Right now, we are consigning virtually ALL inner city people, except for the lucky few who win a lottery and get to go to a magnet or suburban school, to a violent and substandard education.  A way has to be found to separate the wheat from the chaff, because it is unconscionable to lump all inner city people togeter, and condemn them en masse, and that's what we're doing now.  If we could save 20, 30, 40, 50% of them, we could create some positive momentum in the urban culture with respect to the benefits of education, and change some attitudes, as welfare reform did.

But if we just say we're going to improve the public schools, well , that will never happen under the circumstances that exist in inner city communities.

[7,052,770]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

That's really not true
I am very against school vouchers because it is the public education system that needs to be improved.  School vouchers are like giving up on the public education system.
In MS, all of the private schools were founded in the 1960's to avoid integration.  Vouchers for those schools would be horrible.
As a public school student, I can say that vouchers are NOT what is necessary.

People have been talking about improving public schools for 40 years, and for liberals, that has meant two things:  forced integration, which would somehow magically solve the disparity between black and white education (it didn't) and more money into a system that is failing.

The central question is, with respect to inner city schools, can anything be worse than what we have right now?  In my opinion, the answer is no, and I'm therefore willing to try something outside the box, like vouchers.  Right now, we are consigning virtually ALL inner city people, except for the lucky few who win a lottery and get to go to a magnet or suburban school, to a violent and substandard education.  A way has to be found to separate the wheat from the chaff, because it is unconscionable to lump all inner city people togeter, and condemn them en masse, and that's what we're doing now.  If we could save 20, 30, 40, 50% of them, we could create some positive momentum in the urban culture with respect to the benefits of education, and change some attitudes, as welfare reform did.

But if we just say we're going to improve the public schools, well , that will never happen under the circumstances that exist in inner city communities.

We seem to have changed the topic completely, but that's OK.
Here's the deal in MS:
Many people at private schools are there because they don't want to be with black people.  Some aren't.  But that is the sole reason that a lot of people have at private schools.
Most inner city schools in Jackson aren't good at all.  However, vouchers will not solve the problem.  The private schools are nowhere near the inner city.  If a black person recieved a voucher to go to one, he would have to get his own transportation to get there.
JPS (Jackson Public Schools) has a policy that anyone can go to another schoool in the district.   If he could get that transportation to a private school, he could simply go to a higher quality JPS school (there are about 3) and go there.  He would receive the same quality education, and half the student body wouldn't hate him just because of his race.
Perhaps the situation is different in other regions of the country, but until I see some examples of them working well, I can say that I do not believe vouchers are the way to go,.

[Gustaf]

the paranoid android

Oh, you're back to Hitchhiker! I thought it had something to do with abortion, voucher schools, or the social fabric of society...

[Gustaf]

The Republican Party supports school vouchers in places with failing public schools (which means just about every US city).  The Democrats are implacably opposed, because the teacher's unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party, and they fear the competition from better private schools.

That's really not true
I am very against school vouchers because it is the public education system that needs to be improved.  School vouchers are like giving up on the public education system.
In MS, all of the private schools were founded in the 1960's to avoid integration.  Vouchers for those schools would be horrible.
As a public school student, I can say that vouchers are NOT what is necessary.

People have been talking about improving public schools for 40 years, and for liberals, that has meant two things:  forced integration, which would somehow magically solve the disparity between black and white education (it didn't) and more money into a system that is failing.

The central question is, with respect to inner city schools, can anything be worse than what we have right now?  In my opinion, the answer is no, and I'm therefore willing to try something outside the box, like vouchers.  Right now, we are consigning virtually ALL inner city people, except for the lucky few who win a lottery and get to go to a magnet or suburban school, to a violent and substandard education.  A way has to be found to separate the wheat from the chaff, because it is unconscionable to lump all inner city people togeter, and condemn them en masse, and that's what we're doing now.  If we could save 20, 30, 40, 50% of them, we could create some positive momentum in the urban culture with respect to the benefits of education, and change some attitudes, as welfare reform did.

But if we just say we're going to improve the public schools, well , that will never happen under the circumstances that exist in inner city communities.

We seem to have changed the topic completely, but that's OK.
Here's the deal in MS:
Many people at private schools are there because they don't want to be with black people.  Some aren't.  But that is the sole reason that a lot of people have at private schools.
Most inner city schools in Jackson aren't good at all.  However, vouchers will not solve the problem.  The private schools are nowhere near the inner city.  If a black person recieved a voucher to go to one, he would have to get his own transportation to get there.
JPS (Jackson Public Schools) has a policy that anyone can go to another schoool in the district.   If he could get that transportation to a private school, he could simply go to a higher quality JPS school (there are about 3) and go there.  He would receive the same quality education, and half the student body wouldn't hate him just because of his race.
Perhaps the situation is different in other regions of the country, but until I see some examples of them working well, I can say that I do not believe vouchers are the way to go,.

It works pretty well in Sweden.

[dazzleman]

We seem to have changed the topic completely, but that's OK.
Here's the deal in MS:
Many people at private schools are there because they don't want to be with black people.  Some aren't.  But that is the sole reason that a lot of people have at private schools.
Most inner city schools in Jackson aren't good at all.  However, vouchers will not solve the problem.  The private schools are nowhere near the inner city.  If a black person recieved a voucher to go to one, he would have to get his own transportation to get there.
JPS (Jackson Public Schools) has a policy that anyone can go to another schoool in the district.   If he could get that transportation to a private school, he could simply go to a higher quality JPS school (there are about 3) and go there.  He would receive the same quality education, and half the student body wouldn't hate him just because of his race.
Perhaps the situation is different in other regions of the country, but until I see some examples of them working well, I can say that I do not believe vouchers are the way to go,.

You raise some good points.  Clearly, race is central to the education issue, because disproportionately, those trapped in failing public schools are black.  We have a de facto policy in this country that you can get a good education as long as your parents have enough money to buy in a good community, or failing enough, can afford private school.

Integration was supposed to be the answer, but it failed.  It failed because it didn't address the right issue, which is, what is the best way to enhance a child's educational potential, and what are the variables that contribute to that?  Sitting a black kid next to a white kid does not automatically enhance educational potential; it is somewhat racist and condescending to think that it would.

Integration generally consisted of attempting to mix poor black kids with middle class white kids.  The middle class opted out through their financial means, leaving only poor white kids to integrate with poor black kids.  And let's be honest -- the middle class had good reason to opt out of such an ill-conceived plan.  The sad fact is that heavily black schools are prone toward violence, and deliver a very poor education, for a number of reasons that many people are not prepared to acknowledge or address.  BLACK parents who are interested in their childrens' education are desperate to get their kids out of those schools; why in the world would white parents submit to sending their kids there?  In addition, liberal court rulings have enshrined the "rights" of the most violent and disruptive students, and made it nearly impossible for the schools to deal with them effectively.  This policy also disproportionately harms schools with large black populations.

The real answer is to forget about integration for the time being, and focus on educational alternatives.  First and foremost, discipline must be restored.  Those who are not interested in education, and who are violent and disruptive, must be removed.  This is the only way to give the other kids any chance at education, since no learning can take place in the chaotic and violent environment that exists in urban public schools.  Integration will happen on its own when the social gap between blacks and whites is sufficiently narrowed, and education is a big part of this.  But forced integration, which was really an attempt to short-circuit a more organic assimilation process, will never work.

Vouchers would give parents with kids trapped in these failing schools other alternatives, which I think they deserve.  In addressing the Jackson situation, I think that alternative schools will develop in the areas needed if the demand is there for there, and the means exists to pay the tuition.  That is the free market, something we have shut out of education.  It won't be perfect; there will be lots of problems, but nothing could be worse than what we are doing to bright inner city children now.

I would also add that the situation in Mississippi is not unique; it's a national trend.  Maybe it's more severe there, maybe not, but I live in racially enlightened Connecticut, and the situation is the same.  The heavily black cities, with violent, failing public schools, are surrounded by lily white suburbs.  Whites who live in the cities send their kids to private schools.  Middle class whites were forced out of the cities by, among other things, forced integration in the 1970s.  So really, the situation is not so different.  The biggest difference is the availability of private schools.  There are many Catholic schools here, some operating below capacity, who could take in public school refugees if the parents had some help in paying the tuition.

I think this is one area where there could be a huge improvement over the current abysmal situation if we could defeat the narrow interests of the teachers' unions, and the false and destructive idealism and perfectionism of some liberals.  I heard a great saying that the enemy of the good is not the bad, but the perfect.  Striving for absolute perfection prevents a lot of good things from being done, and the attitude of liberals toward school vouchers is a perfect example of this in my opinion.

[7,052,770]

We seem to have changed the topic completely, but that's OK.
Here's the deal in MS:
Many people at private schools are there because they don't want to be with black people.  Some aren't.  But that is the sole reason that a lot of people have at private schools.
Most inner city schools in Jackson aren't good at all.  However, vouchers will not solve the problem.  The private schools are nowhere near the inner city.  If a black person recieved a voucher to go to one, he would have to get his own transportation to get there.
JPS (Jackson Public Schools) has a policy that anyone can go to another schoool in the district.   If he could get that transportation to a private school, he could simply go to a higher quality JPS school (there are about 3) and go there.  He would receive the same quality education, and half the student body wouldn't hate him just because of his race.
Perhaps the situation is different in other regions of the country, but until I see some examples of them working well, I can say that I do not believe vouchers are the way to go,.

You raise some good points.  Clearly, race is central to the education issue, because disproportionately, those trapped in failing public schools are black.  We have a de facto policy in this country that you can get a good education as long as your parents have enough money to buy in a good community, or failing enough, can afford private school.

Integration was supposed to be the answer, but it failed.  It failed because it didn't address the right issue, which is, what is the best way to enhance a child's educational potential, and what are the variables that contribute to that?  Sitting a black kid next to a white kid does not automatically enhance educational potential; it is somewhat racist and condescending to think that it would.

Integration generally consisted of attempting to mix poor black kids with middle class white kids.  The middle class opted out through their financial means, leaving only poor white kids to integrate with poor black kids.  And let's be honest -- the middle class had good reason to opt out of such an ill-conceived plan.  The sad fact is that heavily black schools are prone toward violence, and deliver a very poor education, for a number of reasons that many people are not prepared to acknowledge or address.  BLACK parents who are interested in their childrens' education are desperate to get their kids out of those schools; why in the world would white parents submit to sending their kids there?  In addition, liberal court rulings have enshrined the "rights" of the most violent and disruptive students, and made it nearly impossible for the schools to deal with them effectively.  This policy also disproportionately harms schools with large black populations.

The real answer is to forget about integration for the time being, and focus on educational alternatives.  First and foremost, discipline must be restored.  Those who are not interested in education, and who are violent and disruptive, must be removed.  This is the only way to give the other kids any chance at education, since no learning can take place in the chaotic and violent environment that exists in urban public schools.  Integration will happen on its own when the social gap between blacks and whites is sufficiently narrowed, and education is a big part of this.  But forced integration, which was really an attempt to short-circuit a more organic assimilation process, will never work.

Vouchers would give parents with kids trapped in these failing schools other alternatives, which I think they deserve.  In addressing the Jackson situation, I think that alternative schools will develop in the areas needed if the demand is there for there, and the means exists to pay the tuition.  That is the free market, something we have shut out of education.  It won't be perfect; there will be lots of problems, but nothing could be worse than what we are doing to bright inner city children now.

I would also add that the situation in Mississippi is not unique; it's a national trend.  Maybe it's more severe there, maybe not, but I live in racially enlightened Connecticut, and the situation is the same.  The heavily black cities, with violent, failing public schools, are surrounded by lily white suburbs.  Whites who live in the cities send their kids to private schools.  Middle class whites were forced out of the cities by, among other things, forced integration in the 1970s.  So really, the situation is not so different.  The biggest difference is the availability of private schools.  There are many Catholic schools here, some operating below capacity, who could take in public school refugees if the parents had some help in paying the tuition.

I think this is one area where there could be a huge improvement over the current abysmal situation if we could defeat the narrow interests of the teachers' unions, and the false and destructive idealism and perfectionism of some liberals.  I heard a great saying that the enemy of the good is not the bad, but the perfect.  Striving for absolute perfection prevents a lot of good things from being done, and the attitude of liberals toward school vouchers is a perfect example of this in my opinion.

Your point is well taken, but I have a big problem with the government helping private school tuition when rather than the schools it is supposed to support.

[Gustaf]

Some really long posts here...

Even Swedish social democrats are beginning to accept voucher schools. It actually works pretty well, and makes the public shools better out of necessity. They have to improve in order to compete. And just for the record; in the Swedish system you are not allowed to charge the pupils at all, IF you are to recieve public money. This means that private schools for the really rich is something different than the independently run, but publicly financed voucher schools.

[jravnsbo]

didn't see but can anyone explain how partial birth abortion is legal now anyway as it is at the end of the term and way past 3rd trimester mark.  Thanks.

[PD]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

I support it...to a certain degree. So I'm a murderer eh? Well what if the mother's life is in danger? And the doctor's determine in the early stages of pregnancy that she can not have this baby and live, thus ending HER life AND the baby’s life. So you're against saving both of them eh? Wouldn't that make you a DOUBLE murderer then?

I support abortion...under these terms....

The mother's life is in danger

Incest

Rape

If the baby is in the early stages, if it gets to far along, it should NEVER be aborted no matter what the reason of abortion is.

And I think another reason might be, if the baby will have severe problems when it is born, and the doctor can determine this early in the pregnancy (e.g. deformation, etc.) There is no reason to have the baby suffer from severe problems, and then when born the parents can't afford to give the child the medical help it needs. Which would result in the baby either DYING, or going up for abortion and spending the rest of it’s life in a hospital with no one to love it. Again, I am sort of ambivalent about this.

What I HATE about abortion, is when the mother uses abortion as a "birth control". Some stupid little bitch (excuse me for saying that) who has a midnight fling with some boy of her dreams, and has sex without protection resulting in her becoming pregnant. She doesn't wanna have the baby, the parents can afford to get rid of it, and view it as an ABOMINATION that she is going to have the child in the first place at a young age. This makes me sick. If you're old enough to have sex, you're hold enough to face the results of sex, and the responsibilities that come from it (i.e. a child).

Although I times I don't agree with abortion, I think the good out-weighs the bad, therefore, I would ultimately support it.

You’re post, PD, is kinda insulting to me, and I’m sure it is to others. I would normally haul off on your for something like that, but I feel too tired to do that today. But next time.......next time....

If I were you, I’d watch what you say....

Or what? I will only let abortion go if the woman is raped and her life is in danger. That's the only way. If she gets herself shacked up and her life is in danger, then so be it. She gets what she deserves. I guess I expected you to know this about me earlier. I should've said something. But others who support it in any other way, I do consider murderers.

[Gustaf]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

I support it...to a certain degree. So I'm a murderer eh? Well what if the mother's life is in danger? And the doctor's determine in the early stages of pregnancy that she can not have this baby and live, thus ending HER life AND the baby’s life. So you're against saving both of them eh? Wouldn't that make you a DOUBLE murderer then?

I support abortion...under these terms....

The mother's life is in danger

Incest

Rape

If the baby is in the early stages, if it gets to far along, it should NEVER be aborted no matter what the reason of abortion is.

And I think another reason might be, if the baby will have severe problems when it is born, and the doctor can determine this early in the pregnancy (e.g. deformation, etc.) There is no reason to have the baby suffer from severe problems, and then when born the parents can't afford to give the child the medical help it needs. Which would result in the baby either DYING, or going up for abortion and spending the rest of it’s life in a hospital with no one to love it. Again, I am sort of ambivalent about this.

What I HATE about abortion, is when the mother uses abortion as a "birth control". Some stupid little bitch (excuse me for saying that) who has a midnight fling with some boy of her dreams, and has sex without protection resulting in her becoming pregnant. She doesn't wanna have the baby, the parents can afford to get rid of it, and view it as an ABOMINATION that she is going to have the child in the first place at a young age. This makes me sick. If you're old enough to have sex, you're hold enough to face the results of sex, and the responsibilities that come from it (i.e. a child).

Although I times I don't agree with abortion, I think the good out-weighs the bad, therefore, I would ultimately support it.

You’re post, PD, is kinda insulting to me, and I’m sure it is to others. I would normally haul off on your for something like that, but I feel too tired to do that today. But next time.......next time....

If I were you, I’d watch what you say....

Or what? I will only let abortion go if the woman is raped and her life is in danger. That's the only way. If she gets herself shacked up and her life is in danger, then so be it. She gets what she deserves. I guess I expected you to know this about me earlier. I should've said something. But others who support it in any other way, I do consider murderers.

Do you think they should be executed, then? Since you support the death penalty, I mean?

[English]

I don't agree with that PD. I am against abortion, however if a woman's life or that of her child is threatened then a termination should be allowed. There are a few cases were abortion is justified. As you rightly say, in cases of rape etc. The thing I am completely against is people using it as a sick form of contraception. Women should not be allowed to abort just because 'they don't want it'. I'm sorry but they should have thought about that before having unprotected sex!

[Beet]

I believe that a life begins with human feeling, so I'm pro-choice for at least the 1st trimester.

[PD]

I don't agree with that PD. I am against abortion, however if a woman's life or that of her child is threatened then a termination should be allowed. There are a few cases were abortion is justified. As you rightly say, in cases of rape etc. The thing I am completely against is people using it as a sick form of contraception. Women should not be allowed to abort just because 'they don't want it'. I'm sorry but they should have thought about that before having unprotected sex!

YES! They should have thought about that before they went and had sex just because. I agree with you there. I can't believe I'm agreeing with a democrat.

[migrendel]

I could use more choice words, but I consider you a murderer of the human spirit, willing to crush the hopes of those in the most desparate straits. Let's face it, you're just not a nice person.

[PD]

I could use more choice words, but I consider you a murderer of the human spirit, willing to crush the hopes of those in the most desparate straits. Let's face it, you're just not a nice person.

Let's face it, you're weird and immoral.

[© tweed]

I could use more choice words, but I consider you a murderer of the human spirit, willing to crush the hopes of those in the most desparate straits. Let's face it, you're just not a nice person.

Let's face it, you're weird and immoral.

He's wierd!  Great comeback line, PD!

[migrendel]

Isn't he such a wit? I think we have a real Dorothy Parker on our hands.

[nclib]

My parents divorced when I was six and my father hardly raised me.  He didn't help with schoolwork, nothing.  which is much of the reason I didn't get an education past a high school diploma.

Really. I thought your login name indicated that you graduated from Miami U.

[nclib]

I don't agree.  Conceiving a child is a joint action, and so should raising the child be.  It should be joint decision making and joint responsibility.  Plenty of men support their kids, and I don't buy into this argument that only women raise kids.  I was raised by a father and a mother, with only my father providing financial support, since my mom didn't work.  If a woman gets pregnant with a man who's not interested in the child, that's one thing, but a woman should not be able to unilaterally override the wishes of the child's father in my opinion, provided that he has accepted his share of responsibility for the child.

I share your perspective that men and women should be jointly involved in child rearing. However, in the 9 months after pregnancy, it is obviously impossible for the man to be as involved as the woman. Given this, the woman's wishes should take precedence over the father's simply because she would be impacted more.

[© tweed]

My parents divorced when I was six and my father hardly raised me.  He didn't help with schoolwork, nothing.  which is much of the reason I didn't get an education past a high school diploma.

Really. I thought your login name indicated that you graduated from Miami U.

Miami was one of the major colleges to offer me a partial scholarship, which is the reason I support their athletic teams.