PDA

View Full Version : McCain missed out on "main stream" American Childhood!


DCTravelAgent
09-24-2008, 12:52 PM
John McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coco_Solo) in the Panama Canal Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone), Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama), to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Jr.) (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_McCain) (b. 1912).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-bio-ch1-1) At that time, the Panama Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal) was under American control.
McCain has Scots-Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots-Irish_Americans), Anglo-Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish) and English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people) ancestry.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-2) His father and his paternal grandfather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Sr.) both became four-star United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) admirals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_(United_States)).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-az-naval-3) His family, including his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-bio-ch1-1) followed his father to various naval postings in the United States aohn McCain was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coco_Solo) in the Panama Canal Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone), Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama), to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Jr.) (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberta_McCain) (b. 1912).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-bio-ch1-1) At that time, the Panama Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal) was under American control.
McCain has Scots-Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots-Irish_Americans), Anglo-Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish) and English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people) ancestry.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-2) His father and his paternal grandfather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Sr.) both became four-star United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) admirals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_(United_States)).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-az-naval-3) His family, including his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-bio-ch1-1) followed his father to various naval postings in the United States and the Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-4) Altogether, he attended about 20 schools.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-ap-wmd-5)
In 1951, his family settled in Northern Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia), and McCain attended Episcopal High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_High_School_(Alexandria)), a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Virginia).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-6) In high school, he excelled at wrestling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastic_wrestling) and graduated in 1954.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-7)
Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Academy) at Annapolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis). There, he was a friend and informal leader for many of his classmates,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-ns-ch1-8) and sometimes stood up for people who were being bullied.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-az-naval-3) He also became a lightweight boxer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-nw051407-9) McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) despite a strong intelligence.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-ns-ch1-8)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-10) He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-az-naval-3)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-11) McCain graduated in 1958.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-ns-ch1-8)nd the Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-4) Altogether, he attended about 20 schools.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-ap-wmd-5)
In 1951, his family settled in Northern Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia), and McCain attended Episcopal High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_High_School_(Alexandria)), a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Virginia).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-6) In high school, he excelled at wrestling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastic_wrestling) and graduated in 1954.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-7)
Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Academy) at Annapolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis). There, he was a friend and informal leader for many of his classmates,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-ns-ch1-8) and sometimes stood up for people who were being bullied.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-az-naval-3) He also became a lightweight boxer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-nw051407-9) McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) despite a strong intelligence.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-ns-ch1-8)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-10) He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-az-naval-3)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-11) McCain graduated in 1958.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-timberg-ns-ch1-8)


So John McCain was born outside the US into an elite military family and grew up all over the world - didn't really settle down in the US until he was 15......

Has a lot in common with who????

Eileen Sellers
09-24-2008, 02:21 PM
Oh wait! Don't tell me, I know --

Harry Truman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

DCTravelAgent
09-24-2008, 02:35 PM
Only in that as young men they both were not considered to be much or anything nor expected to amount to much.

Try again.

Ned
09-24-2008, 10:23 PM
I assume this is an attempt to be funny, but it's way under my scope and a non-sequitur to me.

Oh wait! Don't tell me, I know --

Harry Truman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Eileen Sellers
09-25-2008, 07:43 PM
I assume this is an attempt to be funny, but it's way under my scope and a non-sequitur to me.




Not funny? You've got to be kidding! It was hilarious...well, not for everyone. Any way, have a good weekend and on Monday I'll give you some good conversation on serious issues. In the meantime, I'll leave you with a quote from your favorite movie:

"There's never an egg-timer around when you need one."

Ned
09-26-2008, 06:00 AM
Now that's a quote!

"There's never an egg-timer around when you need one."

Arizona Road Warrior
09-28-2008, 05:45 PM
So John McCain was born outside the US into an elite military family and grew up all over the world - didn't really settle down in the US until he was 15......

Has a lot in common with who???? It seems to me that he is well traveled and experienced many cultures and etc...the making of a well rounded individual in light of the global world that we live in today.

The Democrats have the Kennedys and the last time that I checked that family wasn't on welfare. The fact is that Democrats (Senators and Representatives) are wealthier overall than their Republican counterparts...the richest members in both chambers were Democrats.

The Democrats are a bunch of elites who don't send their children to public schools but expect the general public to send their children to public schools and opposes school vouchers in order to get money and vote from the teacher unions, NEA and etc. Why should only the rich send their children to private schools? For example, there are public schools in Washington, DC that are spending $ 12,000 to $ 14,000 per student and the schools are failing financially and academically. The solution isn't to spend more money but to have market forces.

Ned
09-28-2008, 10:08 PM
ARW, you've got my dander up on this one. I sent my kids to private school. I oppose school vouchers too. I am generally ambivalent about teacher unions because I see as many things wrong with them as right with them. I do think that most teachers are underpaid however.

I completely dispute that the Democrats are a bunch of elitists (elites) as you stated, because that infers the Republicans are not. I also dispute why the Democrats have historically opposed school vouchers in light of your inference, while the Republicans have not.

Vouchers undermine public education, which is a cornerstone of our democracy. I oppose all public funding of private school tuition. Public schools need resources and support, and vouchers drain them of both. Our inner-city schools and our rural schools need better buildings, more textbooks, higher-paid teachers, the best principals and smaller classes.

In addition, every school voucher program I have ever seen proposed by the Republicans doesn't discriminate between secular and religious based private schools. It is my belief that the religious right core of the Republican party wants to destroy public education so it can be replaced with private religious (read that Christian) based education. The Republicans say that since the money will only be used for secular education (reading, math, science, language, gym, etc.) at religious schools there is no violation of separation of church and state. I say "hogwash" emphatically! The vouchers would free money now spent for secular subjects to be spent for religious subjects and to support an infrastructure that houses a religious based school.

We need to make our public schools, again, the best schools they can be.

That being said you deserve an explanation of why my children went to private schools. They went because the quality of the Philadelphia Public Schools at the time was horrible. While I paid for private school tuition (more than half the kids at the school were scholarship recipients so plenty of the working poor had kids there too), I also paid full school taxes, and expected my taxes to go public schools, not support private schools, including private religious schools including Jewish ones. Unfortunately, in Philadelphia like other poor locations (city and rural), it's not just a matter of money which makes the Public schools inferior. It's a lack of commitment from the students' families, I believe, due to a lack of understanding on the part of the parents of what an education can do for their children and what opportunities will be there for them if they have an education.

In PA we have "Charter Schools." They are essentially private, non-religious institution based schools funded with public funds for the majority of their total funding. I am against these too. For the most part they have been a dismal failure. We see in them malfeasance (several in Philadelphia have been shut down for this reason) and we see them wasting funds even worse than public schools here, to a significant extent. We see no higher grades, which I fully expected. In fact, in general, we see in them no improvements at all, and they are pulling away resources from the public schools making it harder for them to do well.

So what's the answer. I think family education is the part of the answer anyway. We have to raise the level of education of the entire family and help them understand that a good education for their children is their way out of the ghetto, not drugs, crime and sports.

It seems to me that he is well traveled and experienced many cultures and etc...the making of a well rounded individual in light of the global world that we live in today.

The Democrats have the Kennedys and the last time that I checked that family wasn't on welfare. The fact is that Democrats (Senators and Representatives) are wealthier overall than their Republican counterparts...the richest members in both chambers were Democrats.

The Democrats are a bunch of elites who don't send their children to public schools but expect the general public to send their children to public schools and opposes school vouchers in order to get money and vote from the teacher unions, NEA and etc. Why should only the rich send their children to private schools? For example, there are public schools in Washington, DC that are spending $ 12,000 to $ 14,000 per student and the schools are failing financially and academically. The solution isn't to spend more money but to have market forces.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-04-2008, 08:04 AM
ARW, you've got my dander up on this one.

I completely dispute that the Democrats are a bunch of elitists (elites) as you stated, because that infers the Republicans are not. I am not inferring that. The media (which 80+% are Democrats based upon who they voted for in the past six elections) always paint the Republicans as ‘fat cats’, ‘rich people’ and etc; whereas, the Democrats are the working poor, the working class and etc. For example, Bill & Hillary Clinton have made over $ 100 MM since Bill left office. The fact is that the Democrats are just as rich or richer (in the case of Senators and Representatives) as the Republicans. The reality is that you need to be rich and/or sell your soul to the special interest groups if you want to run for the US Senate or House.

Unlike many countries around the world where your future is based upon your family’s past\social standings\class\etc, I believe that education is the great equalizer in our country. If you were not born as a Kennedy, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller or etc., a good education can provide you with the opportunity to change your financial status among other things in life.

I agree with you that public education is a cornerstone of our democracy. Instead of having only young children of rich families which could have their own tutors, send their children to private schools and etc to receive an education, everyone could have an education. It was one thing made our country a great country. It served its purpose very well.

However, in the last 20 to 30 years, it has changed. It is not about education but it is about the money. It is about getting more children on the free lunch program so that they can receive more funding. I know families that are living in $ 500,000+ homes, have two SUVs, a family income of over $ 100,000+ and their children are listed on the school’s free lunch program. It is about having more pupils so that they can receive more funding. It is about having more pupils with learning disabilities so that they can receive more funding. I remembered a story on 60 Minutes where a public school was labeling their students with learning disabilities, putting them in special ed classes and etc. so that they could receive more money and these children had no learning disabilities.

The school district that I went to from 1st grade to 12th grade was the richest (in terms of revenues\funding) in the state. Our superintendent made more money than the governor of our state. Our school buildings were ‘brand’ new. We had two ‘Olympic’ size swimming pools...two basketball gymnasiums at the high school...a driving range for driver education with a control tower...a greenhouse...and etc. Our teachers were the lowest paid; therefore, most teachers taught for a few years to get experience and our school district on their resume then left for other schools to make more money.

When I was a student, in addition to the school superintendent, there was an assistant superintendent and administrative assistant for the both of them. Today, there are five assistant superintendents each with their own administrative assistant. There were two principals (each one covers two elementary schools...spent the morning at one and the afternoon at the other) for the four elementary schools with an assistant principal at each school. Today, there is a principal at each elementary school along with three assistant principals.

What happened at my school district is common across the United States...the number of administrators at public schools went up tremendously in the past 20 years. Was it based upon growth? I can’t speak for other school districts but the number of students in my old school district went down by 25%. In the private sector, most companies will add head count or eliminate head count based upon economic factors. I can’t tell you what we have to do at my company to add an employee to our department.

In addition to the money, public education now has a social/political agenda. It is not about the 3 R’s of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic when I was a student...it is now about Reuse, Recycle and Reduce. Can’t have competition because someone will lose. Rewriting history. It is political correctness.

Between 40 to 50% of the teachers with school-age children that teach at public schools send their children to private schools. Why...because they want the best education for their children....which was the same reason why you sent your children to a private school.

My point is why should private schools be for the rich or families? If you are not rich, why should you make sacrifices (i.e. working a second job, not purchasing a new car, having a bigger house, etc) to send your children to a private school given the enormous amount of money that is collected from the public and is spent on public education.

Vouchers undermine public education, which is a cornerstone of our democracy. What undermines our public education is when elected officials talks about the importance of public education but send their own children to private schools. Do you think that Obama will send his daughters to a public school in Washington DC if he gets elected? Chelsea Clinton went to a private school. I have give respect to Jimmy Carter since they sent Amy to a public school. One thing that I learned early on when I started in a management training program out of college, is to lead by example...don’t ask other to do something that you are not willing to do yourself. Don’t talk about public education but send your own children to a private school.

The public education system is failing and the solution isn’t the typical liberal solution of spending more money to solve the problem. There are school districts that are spending 2 or 3 times more per student than private schools. There need to be an overhaul. I am a firm believer of the free market and I think that the solution is competition. Competition works elsewhere. Even if I am wrong, what do we got to lose given the current results?

Also, please remember that it is our money that funds public education. Personally, I pay over $ 6,000 in local property taxes per year which funds public education. I don’t know how much of my federal taxes are spent on public education. Why can’t I get a voucher from the government so that I can select a public school, a private school or a religious school for the education of my children?

Some critics of the voucher system state that parents can’t make the best decision. I saw an interesting poll\survey on individuals that opposes vouchers and supports abortions. ~80% of individuals who oppose vouchers support abortions. A woman is smart enough to choose life or death for an unborn child but once she becomes a mother, she isn’t smart enough to select the best school for that child...only the government knows best for us.

In addition, every school voucher program I have ever seen proposed by the Republicans doesn't discriminate between secular and religious based private schools. It is my belief that the religious right core of the Republican party wants to destroy public education so it can be replaced with private religious (read that Christian) based education. The Republicans say that since the money will only be used for secular education (reading, math, science, language, gym, etc.) at religious schools there is no violation of separation of church and state. I say "hogwash" emphatically! My family came to the USA to escape religious persecution (be this religion or die) in Europe and I think that your thinking of a right-wing Christian takeover of the public education is “hogwash”. If I want to send my son to a Catholic school with a voucher, I don’t see where this is construed as the US government forcing its citizens to be Catholics. I don’t have a problem having vouchers for religious schools...Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and etc. I know several non-Catholics parents that send their children to Catholic schools. I know several non-church going\non-Christian parents that send their children to Christian schools. The reason is simple, they want the best education for their children and they believe that these schools are the best choices for their children. It is about getting the best education for your children.

bodega
10-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Whew.......

You will not get an argument from me that public schools are not run efficiently. There is a power stuggle in our educational system and it isn't on behalf of the students. However, that doesn't make me support school vouchers. Taking public money and placing it in private hands bothers me.

You just stated that parents send their children to private schools because they THINK they will get a better education. Parents who send their children to private schools usually find others of like mind which in turn validates their decision. Private schools have issues, too, and some students do well, others do not, just as in public school.

What is missing in education is acknowledging that each child learns differently from the next. To me that is the crux of the educational problem and why parents get concerned. We want results from the schools, but putting all shapes into that one hole isn't working. Institutionalized learning needs to be thrown out. No Child Let Behind needs to be thrown out.

vacationagent
10-04-2008, 05:14 PM
1. I know families that are living in $ 500,000+ homes, have two SUVs, a family income of over $ 100,000+ and their children are listed on the school’s free lunch program.


2. In addition to the money, public education now has a social/political agenda. It is not about the 3 R’s of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic when I was a student...it is now about Reuse, Recycle and Reduce. Can’t have competition because someone will lose. Rewriting history. It is political correctness.


3.The public education system is failing and the solution isn’t the typical liberal solution of spending more money to solve the problem. There are school districts that are spending 2 or 3 times more per student than private schools. There need to be an overhaul. I am a firm believer of the free market and I think that the solution is competition. Competition works elsewhere. Even if I am wrong, what do we got to lose given the current results?

It is about getting the best education for your children.

I support free public education. I do not support public funding in any form whatsoever for private education.

1. How is it possible that families with income of $100k annually would qualify for the free lunch program? Is this black market income?

2. Have you ever wondered why you never see litter in Switzerland? It's because the Swiss are taught from when they are the smallest children not to litter. Doesn't that make you wish we had always taught anti-littering here? "Reuse Recycle Reduce" doesn't supplant basic education, though. It is a supplement.

3. I agree that public education in cities is broken. But vouchers and tax credits are not the answer. I don't understand the point you are making about free public education and the free market.

Ned
10-04-2008, 05:28 PM
...What is missing in education is acknowledging that each child learns differently from the next. To me that is the crux of the educational problem and why parents get concerned. We want results from the schools, but putting all shapes into that one hole isn't working. Institutionalized learning needs to be thrown out. No Child Let Behind needs to be thrown out.

So very well said. Thank you.

Permit me to add what one big item which I believe makes a huge difference. Parents committed to their child's education makes a huge difference. If you read about the great educator Ron Clark, and read his books, one of the most important things he does for the kids he's taught is get their parents involved, and get them supporting their kids. What I see in our local Philadelphia School System is generally a huge lack of parental commitment to their children. I know many able teachers who are totally frustrated because of that lack of support, and what that means for the kids.

I believe the biggest difference between private schools and public schools in poor areas these days is that parental commitment. In the Philadelphia suburbs most of the public school systems are as good as most private schools. So there are great public schools showing the way.

I don't know about where others live, but in the Friends' private schools here in the Philadelphia area, at least half the students are on some level of scholarship, many many on full scholarship. At Friends Central School, where our kids went, the mix of kids was highly divergent. It was a wide mix of race, religion and economic well being. There were millionaire parents, and parents who could barely scratch two quarters together, and all the parents supported their kids getting the best education they could. Part of that is the "little things." For example, the school asked us way back in 4 year old kindergarten, the cut TV and read to the kids. The typical parent their did what we did. No TV from 6:00pm Sunday, until after dinner on Friday night, and before the kids were reading on their own, we read to them at least a half hour each night before bed. I believe as a result, both our kids are big readers. Both suggest new books for me to read all the time, and one of the best presents we all give to each other for various occasions throughout the year are books.

As to public funding of private schools, how about if we continue funding the public schools instead, and just run them well. Even in Philadelphia, we have some superb public elementary, middle school and high schools. Central High School and Masterman High School in Philadelphia are considered among the nation's finest academically. They are magnet schools pulling in the brightest of the City, kids for whom academics are important, and who have incredible parent groups supporting them. No wonder they are so good. It can be done, we have to demand it gets done. That's what we're trying to do in Philadelphia, and things are slowly improving, but we've got to get parents far more involved and supporting their kids in all the schools. Until that happens success will still be a dream.

bodega
10-04-2008, 07:14 PM
we've got to get parents far more involved and supporting their kids in all the schools. Until that happens success will still be a dream.
*******************************************
Yes, this is so important, yet so many parents forget their responsibility. This crisis, and it is one, crosses all racial and economic lines.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-05-2008, 08:54 AM
[/i]
1. How is it possible that families with income of $100k annually would qualify for the free lunch program? It is called fraud by the school adminstration...they were cooking the books to get more federal funds.

[/i] Is this black market income? No.

[/i] 2. Have you ever wondered why you never see litter in Switzerland? It's because the Swiss are taught from when they are the smallest children not to litter. Doesn't that make you wish we had always taught anti-littering here? "Reuse Recycle Reduce" doesn't supplant basic education, though. It is a supplement.
We do have anti-littering programs. When I was in school over 20 years ago, there were anti-littering campaigns teaching us not to litter and etc. Also, as a small child, I remember those commercials showing a tear drop coming from the face of a Native America over the trash. There are several American cities are clean due to their recycling programs.

More importantly, I am not talking about littering. I am talking about students being taught that the US is the cause of every environmental problem in the world and etc. The biggest polluters in the world are the “third-world’ countries such as China and India where they do not have regulations and etc. for their manufacturers. The argument from these extreme environmental groups is that it is okay for them to pollute because they are poor and they need to catch up economically before they should be hold accountable; whereas, the US manufacturers should be hold accountable.

The issue is the content and focus of the 'new' three Rs. Who cares if they can recite the propaganda from these extreme environmental groups if they can’t read or write or do math at their grade levels then that is a problem.


[/i]3. I agree that public education in cities is broken. But vouchers and tax credits are not the answer. I don't understand the point you are making about free public education and the free market. I believe that competition is healthy. Without competition, you get fat, lazy, complacent and etc. As long as public education has no competition, it will never change for the better. With competition, the public schools can get down to business instead of having more administrators than teachers; the teacher unions protecting teachers having sex with children; and etc.

In my opinion, a good analogy is the big three automobile manufacturers. They had ‘limited’ competition so management became bloated and complacent; bad decisions were made; the unions protected bad workers; when a union contract was finalized at one manufacturer it became the standard for the other two; the quality for the end product became shoddy and etc. Most (90%) consumers, you had only three options...buy a Ford, buy a GM or buy a Chrysler. When the Japanese car manufacturers entered the market then there were competition and the big 3 couldn’t compete. Last week, the federal government gave the big 3 a $ 25 billion bailout.

The same analogy can be made for the legacy airlines.

As long as public education has no competition there are no incentives for them to change.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-05-2008, 09:24 AM
we've got to get parents far more involved and supporting their kids in all the schools. Until that happens success will still be a dream.
*******************************************
Yes, this is so important, yet so many parents forget their responsibility. This crisis, and it is one, crosses all racial and economic lines.

I agree that parent involvement is important. Even if every parent became involved, there will be still issues such as 1) school funding (which is based upon numbers such as more children on the free lunch program, more funding the school receives); 2) the teacher unions; 3) the bloated bureaucracy – too many administrators and not enough teachers.

I don't want to make excuses for some parents but some parents can’t get involved due the tax burden put upon them by the government. Sometimes a parent has to work or both parents have to work to make ends meet. My position is to reduce the tax burden and you will get more parents involved. A co-worker’s father recently passed away and when cleaning out his attic, they found his old paycheck stubs, electric bills and etc. from the 50’s and 60’s. The total tax burden (federal, state, local, taxes on utilities, etc.) was under 10% and his father income was in the middle or upper middle class range.

Last week, I stayed at hotel were there five seperate taxes on the hotel bill and they added up to 25% of the total bill. In additon to federal and state taxes, most people forget about the taxes that they pay on their cell phone, gasoline, telephone, utitilies and etc.

Personally, I think that it is impossible to reduce the tax burden given the inefficiencies within government. Example: 75% of every welfare dollar is spent on administration. If you look at the government as a charitable organization, you should give money to it given the charitable donation guideline of 25% or less of the budget should be spent for administration costs.

bodega
10-05-2008, 11:40 AM
Do you have children?

To blame the tax burden on why parents do not get involved in the child's education is ludicrous. Have you seen the recent commericals to get families back to the dinner table for a meal together? The younger generation of parents are having to be taught how to parent. Who is to blame? My baby boomer generation for being so selfish and not leading by example! We have to have high expectations within a family and not expect everyone else to handle that for them.

Decades ago, there was a woman who started a private school in the poorest section of a major metropolitan city. Her belief, and I one I share, is that children will achieve if they are aware of the expectations and if the adults around them believe in their abilities. She proved this, as all her students exceled and got scholarships to colleges. She required parental involvement and got it, even from parents who worked 2 or 3 jobs. Set the bar low and kids will go to it. Set the bar high and the kids will go to it. What is your choice as a parent?

I don't know about where you live, but here in Sonoma County we have public schools competing for students. On the high school lever, one school has a highly regarded art program, a few others have extremely strong Ag programs, another a tech program, plus many with very good sports programs. Parents are allowed to send their child to any school in the county provided there is space for enrollment. We are seeing excellent results in test scores and improved drop out rates! The elementary and middle schools are also touting their own programs and methods of teaching.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-05-2008, 12:09 PM
Taking public money and placing it in private hands bothers me. Why? It is our money and can't a parent can choose what is the best for their children?

You just stated that parents send their children to private schools because they THINK they will get a better education. The students from private schools and students that are home schooled score higher on state exams, SAT/ACT and etc.

Private schools have issues, too, and some students do well, others do not, just as in public school. Nothing is perfect. If the only choice is public education (unless you want to pay more money above what you have already paid), it is hard to transfer your child to another school. When you have choices, you can transfer your child to a school that best fit their needs.


What is missing in education is acknowledging that each child learns differently from the next.I agreed.

From my research, most of the curriculums at the schools today are based upon the ‘lower achieving’ students. I had a public education and I wish I had other options because I was bored when I was in school because I wasn't challenged. I don't know if I was gifted or not but I was reading on a 12th grade level when I was in the second grade. There was only an advance math program at the middle school and high school and math class was the only class that I looked forward to every day.

Not all students are college materials or interested in college and etc. There should be vocational training because there is a shortage of trade individuals such as tool & die technicians, plumbers, electricians and etc. in this country.

bodega
10-05-2008, 12:52 PM
Before I respond to your questions, answer mine. Do you have children or are you arm chair critiquing?

Ned
10-05-2008, 04:30 PM
Any parent can choose to send their child to private school if they can get in. Plenty of money is available for parents who need help in affording the tuition, so what's the problem.

I know lots of people who have told me they can't afford private school, and asked how did Mrs. N and I managed to afford to send both of our kids to one of the most expensive non-boarding private schools in the nation, each for 14 years (K4-12). Without exception, each of those people assumed they couldn't get help, in the form of scholarships, to send their kids to private school, and most never even bothered to speak to any private school and ask about tuition and scholarships. They gave up without trying. Some talked only to one school and stopped looking when they were told there were no scholarships still available there for the current year, and never even looked for the following year.

Oh, and tax money isn't your money. It's the country's or state's or local area's money, and according to the Constitution that money is not to be used to further an activity which would in any way go toward the establishment of a religion. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) Financially supporting a religious institution would definitely in part work toward the establishment of the religion of that institution.

Why? It is our money and can't a parent can choose what is the best for their children?

The students from private schools and students that are home schooled score higher on state exams, SAT/ACT and etc.

Nothing is perfect. If the only choice is public education (unless you want to pay more money above what you have already paid), it is hard to transfer your child to another school. When you have choices, you can transfer your child to a school that best fit their needs.


I agreed.

From my research, most of the curriculums at the schools today are based upon the ‘lower achieving’ students. I had a public education and I wish I had other options because I was bored when I was in school because I wasn't challenged. I don't know if I was gifted or not but I was reading on a 12th grade level when I was in the second grade. There was only an advance math program at the middle school and high school and math class was the only class that I looked forward to every day.

Not all students are college materials or interested in college and etc. There should be vocational training because there is a shortage of trade individuals such as tool & die technicians, plumbers, electricians and etc. in this country.

Kairho
10-05-2008, 04:46 PM
...according to the Constitution that money is not to be used to further an activity which would in any way go toward the establishment of a religion. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) Financially supporting a religious institution would definitely in part work toward the establishment of the religion of that institution.
Close, and clarification needed. The Supreme Court has ruled that tax money cannot be used to further/support religious activities of a religious institution. However, non-religious activities may well be supported by taxes. This includes social and educational programs, among others.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-06-2008, 05:04 PM
In the Philadelphia suburbs most of the public school systems are as good as most private schools. So there are great public schools showing the way....Even in Philadelphia, we have some superb public elementary, middle school and high schools. Central High School and Masterman High School in Philadelphia are considered among the nation's finest academically. They are magnet schools pulling in the brightest of the City, kids for whom academics are important, and who have incredible parent groups supporting them. No wonder they are so good. It can be done, we have to demand it gets done. If the public schools are doing so well and the parents are satisifed with the results then there is no need for them to send their children to private schools; therefore, if there is a voucher system, the public schools will continue as is. I don't know why people are afraid of competition...competition is healthy...it makes you better.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-06-2008, 05:29 PM
Do you have children? Yes...my wife and I are very active in his development. We read to him at least an hour a day. We are researching the various state colleges\universities now (our son is only 2) and we will move to the state with the 'best' state schools so that he (and possible future siblings) can be an in-state student if he elects to attend a state school.

To blame the tax burden on why parents do not get involved in the child's education is ludicrous. First, I said some parents NOT all parents. When I went to grade school...the mothers of most of my friends were stand-at-home mothers or work part-time; therefore, they could get involved with the PTA, Cub Scouts, Brownies and etc. I believe that it is very important for at least one parent (does't mean the mother...it could be split between the father and mother) to be heavly involved during the formative years of a child. It is my opinion (based upon tax and economic facts provided by the government and independent research groups) that if the tax burden was less...one parent could stay home during the formative years.

Her belief, and I one I share, is that children will achieve if they are aware of the expectations and if the adults around them believe in their abilities.[quote] That is true with all aspects of life.

[quote=bodega;149078]Set the bar low and kids will go to it.[quote] I agree and I think that public education has lowering the bar in the past twenty years. I have been researching and advocating school vouchers since the 90's...long before I ever became a parent.

[quote=bodega;149078]I don't know about where you live, but here in Sonoma County we have public schools competing for students. On the high school lever, one school has a highly regarded art program, a few others have extremely strong Ag programs, another a tech program, plus many with very good sports programs. Parents are allowed to send their child to any school in the county provided there is space for enrollment. We are seeing excellent results in test scores and improved drop out rates! The elementary and middle schools are also touting their own programs and methods of teaching. If the public schools are doing so well and the parents are satisifed with the results then there is no need for them to send their children to private schools; therefore, if there is a voucher system, the public schools will continue as is and private schools will fail or won't gain a foothold. I don't know why people are afraid of competition...competition is healthy...it makes you better.

As a country, I think that we have lost some of our competitive spirit...every body wants a handout or bail out...the airlines, the car manufacturers, Wall Street (even after their bailout, the market has tanked) and etc.

Arizona Road Warrior
10-06-2008, 05:33 PM
Before I respond to your questions, answer mine. Do you have children or are you arm chair critiquing? Yes..I do have a child which my wife and I are very active in his social and educational development. I am not a 'Policy Wonk.'

Arizona Road Warrior
10-06-2008, 05:43 PM
[quote=Ned;149098Oh, and tax money isn't your money.[/quote] You can talk about all of the legalese\technicalities but it is our money. The money that I send to the Federal government which is spent for the benefits for me and my follow citizens is my money. That is the problem with politicians today...they have always view the tax revenue as the government money not as the money of their constituents which they are acting as a steward/trustee for. If they did then we won’t be in the mess that we are in today.

Ned
10-06-2008, 06:51 PM
I'm not talking legalese. I'm not talking technicalities. I'm talking law.

Once you pay your taxes, the money is no longer yours. Every citizen owns part of your money along with you, and in a representative government (which ours is) your governmental representatives get to decide where and how to spend that money. You don't. You only get to be part of the voting process which chooses your representatives.

Also notice I never said it was the governments' money. I said it's the citizens' money.

That being said, I agree with you about many of our politicians today. Many are lousy. In the last two elections for US Senator in our state, I voted against the incumbent. In one case my guy lost, in the other, he won. It's been 6 elections since I voted for my incumbent US Representative (He's a Democrat, by the way.) This year I won't be voting for the Republican challenger, because they were so chicken and didn't want to spend money that the Dem is running unopposed, so this year I just won't cast my vote for US Representative at all. He's a better golfer than a US Representative.

Finally, the mess we're in today has nothing to do with how the government has spent our money. The mess we're in today has to do with misplaced trust and stupid "get out of the way of business" policies. You know the old saying about "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Well starting in the Reagan years and speeding up tremendously in the Bush I and Bush II years, but certainly not stopped in the Carter or Clinton years, the government allowed the banking and finance industries to essentially regulate themselves without even any real oversight. The government gave them almost absolute power to govern themselves. You know the adage I'm going to quote now. They allowed the "fox to guard the hen house." It wasn't going to work, and it's that "bankrupt" Republican ideal of small government always getting out of the way of business, as the marketplace will ensure the right decisions are made. Hogwash. I repeat Hogwash. :rolleyes: I believe in the marketplace (it will control much of the economics of itself), just like I believe in the essential good of people, but I'm not ready to throw out all the laws nor fire the police, but in the case of the banking and finance industries, that's exactly what decades of mostly Republican Congresses, with the help of mostly Republican Presidents did. They got rid of most of the laws and regulations which kept the industry in tow, and fired the police who watched over them.

Ever since Bush I, I have been so wary of the finance and banking industries that I have switched banks many times, and switched brokerage houses many times, because of the way I saw them run. I shouldn't have had to do that. I also haven't invested in any banks or other financial institutions themselves since Reagan's 2nd term because I didn't trust them to run their companies well with the governmental gloves taken off and thrown away. I knew that sooner of later they were going to self destruct. It took longer than I thought it would, but it has certainly happened now. The housing boom delayed it for about a decade.

So if you want to throw the bums out, you can join me in doing that. But don't tell me that McCain/Palin have credibility that they can actually accomplish that task. Moreover, having had some awful personal experiences with the separation of church and state in my life, and my people having similar and in some cases worse experiences, I will never surrender my opposition to permitting one penny of tax dollars going to support a religious operation of any kind, even Jewish. In my opinion, we already do it, and it's wrong and unconstitutional, despite the Supreme Court ruling otherwise.

You can talk about all of the legalese\technicalities but it is our money. The money that I send to the Federal government which is spent for the benefits for me and my follow citizens is my money. That is the problem with politicians today...they have always view the tax revenue as the government money not as the money of their constituents which they are acting as a steward/trustee for. If they did then we won’t be in the mess that we are in today.

bodega
10-06-2008, 06:58 PM
Thanks for answering my question.

Public schools are regulated on what they can and can not teach or say. Private schools are not regulated and therefore taking MY tax dollars for this type of education isn't acceptable.

What angers me is that people outside of education tell educators how to run their business. Ask any public school teacher what needs to be done for children to have success in school.
-smaller classroom size
-a safe learning evironment
-strong parental involvement
-current learning material
-community support

I live in a small community and we have all but the first on the list. We had it, based on a voter approved CA ballot measure. When classroom size went down, test scores when up dramatically. What did our Governor do? He cut this out of the budget. What does it matter to him, he sends his kids to private schools:mad:

Where I live, we have tremendous community support and we raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure our small schools do the best job possible. The result are better than any large city school, but there is always room for improvement. Right now the competition between schools is actually a good thing with open enrollment. Each school has their strenghts and parents can choose based on what they want for their children. What this also does, is keep one school from being better than the other in the minds of parents and children, which private school attitudes feeds IMHO.

I can ***** with the best of any one on issues within public schools, but I have also worked to make changes on the improvements. Been there done that and I am so darn glad my kids are through with preschool-12 education. College is another whole can of worms!

Arizona Road Warrior
10-06-2008, 11:59 PM
Finally, the mess we're in today has nothing to do with how the government has spent our money. The mess we're in today has to do with misplaced trust and stupid "get out of the way of business" policies. The mess that I am referring to years of spending money, the bloated bureaucracy, the waste of money, the fraud and etc. I am not referring to the current ‘financial’ mess which is another post...a very long post.

Well starting in the Reagan years and speeding up tremendously in the Bush I and Bush II years, but certainly not stopped in the Carter or Clinton years, the government allowed the banking and finance industries to essentially regulate themselves without even any real oversight. I was a senior compliance officer in the investment industry for 12 years starting in the 80's. I can't speak for the banking industry but I can tell you that every year, there were more regulaitons, higher net captial regulations and etc. not less.

I believe in the marketplace (it will control much of the economics of itself), just like I believe in the essential good of people, but I'm not ready to throw out all the laws nor fire the police,..

...that's exactly what decades of mostly Republican Congresses, with the help of mostly Republican Presidents did. Decades??? The Republican gain control of the House of Representatives in 1994 and lost control in 2006...that is twelve years. Before 1994, the House was controlled by the Democrates for 34 years. Reagan didn't have a Republican controlled Congress nor did Bush 1.

By the way, Joe Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Bill Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

Bush II wanted new regulations back in 2001 for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but Barney Frank shut it down claiming that there are no problems and the Republicans were trying to prevent poor people from owning homes. The House Republicans tried a few more times and every time Barney Frank shut it down. I have seen the video clips on TV where Barney Frank is saying 'there are no problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie' (this is after both had to restate their earnings) and 'the Republicans want to prevent poor people from owning homes.'

So if you want to throw the bums out, you can join me in doing that. But don't tell me that McCain/Palin have credibility that they can actually accomplish that task. McCain/Palin is the lessor of two evils. It is my opinion that Obama and Biden will take our country further into socalism than McCain/Palin.

Ned
10-07-2008, 07:00 AM
So what your saying is you rather have a president who generally supported the most spendthrift, big government administration in the history of the country, and seems inclined to continue the policies of that administration in


Iraq
Afghanistan
Big Oil
Finance
Social Security/Medicare
Stem Cell Research
The erosion of the individual liberties of citizens
Do nothing about illegal immigration except build a fence
Sending American jobs out of the country
Abortion
Eroding the Separation of Church and State, and this country as a nation of laws, which, in my opinion, will be the unhappy ending of freedom of religion in this country.
Support of teaching Creationism supplanting Evolution Science in the Schools
The elimination of legitimate family planning methods for the poor
The continuation of using petroleum based fuels being the major energy source for the country
The continuation of building the largest deficit in the history of the country mortgaging our children's and grand children's future because of ever increasing governmental spending without raising comparable income through taxes or any other means
The continuation of financial policy which has and will continue to weaken the dollar?

Moreover in Palin we have an unqualified candidate who's an Antisemite, despite her protests to the contrary. Yes I know she says she loves Israel, but the two can and in this case are mutually exclusive. On the one hand she is a strong, avid supporter of Pat Buchanan, a well known Antisemite, and on the other hand, I personally believe she supports Israel only to continue to keep Christian religious sites out of the hands of Muslims.

I do think it's true that McCain/Palin wouldn't be tax and spend people. They would be debt and spend people who will continue the country toward bankruptcy. Continuing to increase spending like Bush has done, while lowering taxes makes absolutely no financial sense. If you want to decrease taxes, you've got to decrease spending, something Bush didn't do and something McCain/Palin has indicated they will continue.

Now that I've had my final say about this, I leave the final word to you, as I think this debate has found its logical end, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You've made some great arguments which haven't gone on deaf ears, but which don't take into account the non-financial positions of McCain/Palin, which are almost completely antithetical to virtually everything in which I believe. Those positions are every bit as important as the financial ones. I look forward to your continued posts.