Geez, where to start?
Ben Arown-Awile said:
Munk,
All of those issues could have positive benefits for some, but they all have negative aspects. School vouchers for example lead to Private Charter Schools which are out of the mainstream. Instead of teaching traditional history and the scientific method, they could, and do, teach the World According to Jesus. Religion is fine to practice at home, but the youth need an education that puts them on equal footing with the rest of the modern world..
So "choice" which is such a liberal tenet that it is enshrined in the Democrats permanent lexicon has no place when it comes to schools? Your statement sets up a convenient and invalid straw man and then knocks it down. There are many, many charter schools that are not religious in any way, and many voucher programs that do not "lead" to charter schools in any case but are far more successful than our institutionalized teacher union driven form of mass "education."
Religion and religious organizations have no place in the government. Our history is replete with their "good deeds" using federal monies. Reservation mission schools to Christianize the heathen savages comes easily to mind, as does the concept and result of "Manifest Destiny" which was ordained by "God" and paid for by the taxpayers.
Again, untrue. The First Amendment forbids the establishment of a national religion only; not religion per se. Our country was founded by people with a deep religious belief, and the Constitution was a "divinely inspired" document. A hundred changes would have to take place to make this statement true, from removing the words "In God We Trust" from our currency to eliminating the Senate Chaplains office. Don't believe, fine, but don't decree the rest of us cannot.
Tort reform usually means that some corporate entity becomes immune to court action and can be less accountable for it's products and actions.
So better to allow lawyer's to sue without restraint and drive up the cost of almost every single consumer product made? That hasn't worked for us so far.
Accountability in schools and standard testing is something I see close up every day. There is so much accountability and filling out of bureaucratic forms that the teachers have a lot less time for actually teaching. The implementation of systems of accountability has required the diversion of large expenditures for administrators and other non-teaching personnel. This is money that was formerly used in the actual education process to benefit the students.
My company is in the business of creating the standardized tests for most students in the country, and they do more than measure student progress, they also measure teacher knowledge (or usually lack of same) as well as track all sorts of demographic information that is extrememly useful to the states. The alternative is to revert to the past situations of zero accountability for teacher's unions that demanded more and more of the community resources but were not willing to demonstrate in any way that they were doing their jobs.
Standard testing, has pretty much destroyed out local school district, as well as many others around the country. In an attempt to conform and reach the mandated standards, the curriculum has been reduced to just what is on "The Test". The grade schools only teach reading and math. No more history, science, music, art, or P.E. We are no longer producing well rounded, educated, citizens. We are producing robots who can pass a specific test.
Better than the robots we produced in the past who couldn't pass any kind of test at all.
Privatizing SS and allowing workers to invest their own money sounds great. But, who will pick up the tab when they lose their invested retirement savings because of market crashes, stock manipulations, or corporate bankruptcies?
The same folks who will pick up the tab when the Federal Government eventually (and inevitably) defaults on its obligations to pay me back the money they owe me for a lifetime of SS payroll contributions. No one. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Only hard core cradle to grave nanny-state liberals believe that the Government has an "obligation" to save people from themselves. I will gladly trade the lousy 2% return the incompetent FedGov is giving me on my SS money in exchange for all the money now, and I will be responsible for myself and the investment of the $ from here on out. I could make better investment decisions standing on my head, and would have to be an idiot to not be able to do better than 2%. If I blow it, that's my responsibility and problem to deal with. It's my money; give it back to me. Of course, that will limits Governments ability to make my decisions for me and will undermine the nanny state mentality, but that's just too bad.
By the way, I also don't call 911 immediately if someone is trying to break into my home, have my own state-of-the-art sprinkler system that means I probably will not have to call the fire department, and am off the electric grid as much as possible using solar. It's called individual responsibility. Other than paying taxes for national defense and to keep the streets clean and paved, and the exorbitant amount I pay in school taxes for a half-assed job, the combined Local, State and Federal Governments should be paying _me_.
I don't think The Second Amendment is really the issue. If we had a society that produced content, secure, confident citizens instead of insecure, paranoid, neurotics, we probably wouldn't feel such an overwhelming need to arm ourselves against our perceived threats.
"Perceived" threats? What about real threats? So because I have had to defend my life with a firearm on at least two occassions, and have done so successfully, that is because I am discontented, insecure, and unconfident, and am insecure, paranoid and neurotic? Question: am I allowed to arm myself againts real threats? Oh, that's right, liberals say I should just call the cops. You know, "dial 911 and die".
I see a real pattern running through this mail, and it is in direct odds to just about everything I believe. I think the concept of _individual_ liberty is anathema to you, and actually scares you.
Here's an idea for you: I think the Government should pass legislation outlawing the sale of "killer khukuri knives", whose only purpose is to kill and maim. Obviously the Government knows best about this kind of thing and is helping us out by deciding for us. Will you support this legislation? After all, it's for "the chirren", and if it saves just one life...!! (?) Don't want to appear insecure, paranoid and neurotic by having a "KHUK death weapon" in the house, do you? What's the matter with you anyway? Society has obviously failed you.
N.
