". . . When there's a black community struggling with lousy public schools, the GOP needs to help them fight for school vouchers."

Name me a Democrat that isn't currently fighting against vouchers? Everytime it is even brought up they start "screaming"....why? Because they don't want to lose their "teacher's union" votes...screw what is in the best interest of the children and thus the country....got to stay in power!

"I agree that the police should be responsive to crime anywhere. But, there is a long history of police either ignoring crime in black neighborhoods, or worse, harassing the residents to the extent they come to be resented."

This is a tough one, in order to clean up crime ridden neighborhoods, the police need to take a 0% tolerance attitude. Start writing tickets for everything, start arresting for everything... Lots of patrols, lots of questioning and checking up on people...that is what drives crime out of a neighborhood. When this occurs then the residents call it "harassment" and demand it stop... So it never gets done...I'm not sure that people understand how to drive out crime. Yes, average citizens do get "caught in the crossfire" and they do end up getting questioned, they do get tickets, etc., but this is what it takes to drive out crime. After a while you would start to notice that people start to become a neighborhood again, they start hanging out together, kids can play in the front yard again, and people start to take "pride" in their neighborhood and the people that live in it. Police officers don't go to ESP school, they don't know who has "evil thoughts" in their head, who is looking for a place to break into at 3:00am and who is an insomniac and is taking a walk.

"The Republicans? They oppose affirmative action."

They oppose any type of discrimination...a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

I'm not familiar with the Southern Strategy so I can't comment on them. I've listened to Zell Miller and he sounds like a reasonable person to me.

"To attract more black, Hispanic, Asian and Jewish voters, the Republican Party would have to change its positions on the issues. Education. Healthcare. Affirmative action. Taxation. "

Lets see... Education - for vouchers (that is the only way that inner city kids will have a chance to get a decent education...when they go to a school that won't tolerate violent kids, won't allow someone to pass even though they cannot do the work at that grade level)
People in general, won't be responsible unless you hold them responsible....

Healthcare is being addressed, I don't want it to be 100% government because if it is you'll really learn the definition of the word "quagmire". There should be a mixture of the private sector involved also.

Affirmative Action is discrimination, and that shouldn't be tolerated in any form. You can't honestly say that you are against discrimination and still want affirmative action. All you are doing is changing who is being discriminated against. The only thing that should be weighed in any hiring process is the ability of the person to do the job regardless of his/her gender, religion, or ethnic background.
In my opinion, any company that practiced discrimination in their hiring practices wouldn't stay solvent for very long. There is too much talent in the world to limit yourself to a small population, and with the global economy you just wouldn't be able to compete. But when you legislate affirmative action all you do is create resentment, and this in turn feeds racism.

Taxation - the only ones that want to ever cut taxes are Republicans...I don't even know where to start on this one. It is the Republicans that scream for the small business owners everytime taxes are raised, why because we know that most of the country is employed by small business owners.

IMHO, I think that your friend John is right about welfare, it does trap people in poverty, it encourages bad decision making and (I'm sure that you've noticed this in your life too) people in general are lazy if they are allowed to be. We all tend to take the shortest route, the least inconvienent way. We tend to drive 2 blocks to pick up a newspaper and a gallon of milk...instead of riding a bicycle or walking. We look for the easiest way to do everything.

I'm not sure what John was referring to when he said that Republicans don't want black votes. If you have the same values and beliefs as Republicans why would you vote against yourself? Why vote Democrat if they are going to perpetuate welfare, refuse school vouchers, raise taxes, and make excuses for crime and handcuff the police efforts to reduce it?

They oppose any type of discrimination...a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

when republicans come out and state that legacy admissions to college should be eliminated then maybe i'll believe that statement.

mark, why not actually aim for the appearance of fearness and demand that the democrats do likewise? this fantasy of yours that democrats dont have any elitism is pretty silly. i realize your "republicans and legacies" talking point, which you seem very fond of, appears to be a good way to silence opposition, but it rests on a foundation of BS.

you think the kennedy/gore/jackson kids ever have to worry? bitterness about people who are better connected is fine and well, but this idea that it is a republican plot is totally ridiculous.

you are also trivializing racial discrimination by suggesting that a form of discrimination based on an exisiting relationship is no more pernicious than one based solely on race. legacies are different because they provide a non-racial basis (personal relationship) for discrimination. perhaps that is wrong, too, but it is different.

you lose support for an otherwise fair-minded idea by needlessly presenting it in falsely partisan terms.

i lost out at one time or another to less qualified affirmative action candidates and less qualified legacy candidates, so i understand your feelings.

i'm not presenting it in falsely partisan terms.

republicans are the ones who scream most loudly about affirmative action, and about how only the most qualified should make it in.

and i'd certainly be happy if democrats came out against legacy admissions as well.

as far as me being fond of this as a 'talking point'...fine, since very often nobody ever responds to it.

for the reasons i stated earlier, the analogy is false--racial discrimination is worse than discrimination on the basis of existing relationships. that doesnt make it right, but it is less odious and more understandable.

that said, your position boils down to this: the use of race-based discrimination is okay and not a fit issue for debate if there is relationship-based discrimination also occuring--which is the dubiously sensical result of your underlying hatred of republicans more than anything else.

people probably ignore the talking point because it is little more than an avoidance tactic. there are much stronger arguments for affirmative action than this sort of obfuscation.

more importantly: vouchers, and to lesser extents social security reform, national security, and some social issues, are what will allow conservatives to make modest gains among blacks, which should be enough to keep the GOP just barely in the ascendancy. with the way w. is spending, though, will anyone know the difference?

that said, your position boils down to this...

wrong! you do NOT get to put words in my mouth.

what i am saying is that i think it's bogus for somebody to say "admissions by merit only" and then look the other way for things like legacy admissions (and heck, sports scholarships while we're at it.

that's IT.

and i don't have an underlying hatred of republicans...just people who twist words.

My support for affirmative action is premised on the fact that it is the only thing that has worked to change the racist and sexist status quo. Racist and sexist status quo? Yes. More than 300 years of invidious discrimination (which continues, BTW) can't be erased by doing nothing. Instead, as in the case of a sprinter who is racing with an unheeled knee or ankle injury, as the contest continues, he is going to fall farther and farther behind. The female, black, Asian and Hispanic middle-classes have grown partly because of affirmative-action. Take it away, and we're back to the ways of [most] white folks, which are discriminatory ways. I would be happy as David Duke at a Klan meeting if [most] white people suddenly became trusthworthy in regard to fair treatment of women and nonwhites, but that has not occurred and will not in my life time. The only way to stop employers and educational institutions from engaging in invidious discrimination is to enforce anti-discrimination laws -- and that only works to an extent.

As I said elsewhere, I'm a political independent. Furthermore, the worst dust up I'm had in the blogosphere occurred when I called some liberals out for being bigoted. (Their response was to seek out racist conservatives to join them in attacking me. Talking about bigoted white folks sticking together. . . . ) This is not about being partisan.

In regard to Mark's point about legacies, I think it captures the reality of life in America better than most examples. It is the doctrine of the elect embedded into public policy -- i.e., people born into the racial, gender and economic elite deserve to get the spoils of society all the time. A member of that elite can even go AWOL from the National Guard for a year during the Vietnam War and not be punished. Amazing!

There was once a researcher who interviewed white subjects individually. Among the questions he asked them was how much money they would charge to volunteer to become black. Most would not settle for less than a million dollars. At heart, I believe most white Americans know they are benefitting merely by being white. So, anti-affirmative action arguments strike me as hypocrisy.

Mac,

You are delusional. You think it's the Republicans holding minorities back? Bush nominated Miguel Estrada and Carol Mosley Brown, both minorities. They were denied a vote because the DEMOCRATS don't want them to get ahead because they are afraid that if minorities see other minorities getting ahead without big brother doing it for them they willl jump ship to the Republican party

Ted Kennedy even called these two nominees "Neanderthals"

It is the far liberal left who tell minorities that they can't get ahead without the government to do that to them. That is enslavement. Pure and simple.

In college I had a college roomate who's family came to this country from Vietnam during the height of the communist takeover. The spoke no english, were not citizens, and did not no a single person. Did they cry victim? No!

They worked hard, 18 hour days. Saved enough to buy a small filling station. They then sold the filling station for a lot of money, and are retired at 60, wealthy American Citizens.

Instead of supporting racist quotas and affirmative action policies which tell people they can't get ahead unless someone does it for them, why don't we promote hard work, responsibility and dedication to get ahead.

Delusional? I think not.

Miguel Estrada is not qualified to be a federal judge. He lacks the experience and aptitude. The fact he is a foreign-born person of Hispanic descent in no way negates the fact he is not someone who would even be considered for elevation normally. The fact he is a Right Wing ideologue makes him even less acceptable as a candidate. Good judges are flexible people.


Last I heard Carol Mosley Braun was a former (rather mediocre) Congresswoman who is now running for President. I don't believe my take on her is a delusion.

Here is the bio of Estrada. The suggestion that "he lacks the experience and aptitude" does not survive reasoned scrutiny.

"Born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Miguel A. Estrada immigrated to the United States with his family as a teenager. He is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he is a member of the firm's Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group and the Business Crimes and Investigations Practice Group.

Mr. Estrada graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor’s degree from Columbia College, New York in 1983. He received a juris doctor degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Honorable Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then clerked for the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.

From 1990 until 1992, Mr. Estrada served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. In 1992, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. In those capacities, Mr. Estrada represented the government in numerous jury trials and in many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Estrada practiced law in New York with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz."

Source: Department of Justice Website.

Just like I said. Estrada has no judicial experience. If he wants to be a judge, let him start out at an appropriate level and move up. Nor has Estrada shown any aptitude for anything other than echoing conservative cant, an equally disqualifying characteristic. Someone might be impressed that he has placed his shoes under a desk at a law firm or two and carried water for Theodore Olsen. That's not enough. He is not qualified for a federal judgeship.

Am I impressed by Estrada's 'immigrant up by his bootstraps' story? No. Not even a little bit. It is too phony. Estrada comes from an upper-class family in Honduras, the sort of people who support extreme Right murder squads there. He has made it a point to distance himself from American Hispanics except for one thing -- using being Hispanic as a sob story when his nomination was blocked. There are qualified people of color whose families have lived and worked in this country for years without being allowed opportunities who would like to be federal judges. Why should a reactionary upstart like Estrada be preferred to them?

first of all, you said he lacked aptitude--he has much better credentials than you could ever hope to have, and obviously has sufficient "aptitude." in ten years he went from immigrant to HLR editor. second, sitting on the bench is not the only acceptable route to that judgeship. he has a varied backgorund at the highest levels. just as more non-lawyers should enter politics, qualified people from different backgrounds should enter the federal judiciary. but those are your pretense arguments.

your real objection, as is evident in your post, is that he is a conservative and you hate conservatives. you also hate immigrants, be they asian or hispanic. do you also hate africans?

please cite your source for alleging that he supports death squads. and what qualifies you to act as final arbiter of the honduran conflict?

for someone who claims to be a lawyer, you argue with a puzzling sloppiness and recklessness. stop just making stuff up.

your anti-immigrant hysteria, while consistent with your hatred of conservatives, would seem at odds with your radical leftist worldview. i know, i know, you only hate immigrants who disagree with you, which is a another brand of racism.

now that you have allowed your hostility to civil debate to soil yet another discussion, go ahead, accuse me of buying my wife.

First of all, love to the Diva.

However, let me offer an answer to one part of your objections to conservative thought:

Vouchers? $250 isn't even a dent in private school tuition.

Why only $250? Average per pupil public school spending is in the thousands of dollars per year. Government sure as hell doesn't do ANYTHING cheaper than the private sector.

How about we offer, say, $5,000 per year? That would be plenty enough to be effective. Any takers would get their money out of the public school budget- which would represent not much more than half of what is being spent in some school districts.

This would not hurt the public schools' ability to educate students. Every parent who opts out is taking the responsibility for educating a child off the system, but only taking part of the money allocated for doing so. Indeed, if enough parents opted out, a local school board might find themselves with a $10 million budget and only maybe a few dozen students to actually have to teach.

Even union teachers could probably handle that.

Barger, I said $250 because that is the amount that is usually agreed on when vouchers are discussed among politicians. Anything that would come close to paying for private school tuition isn't going to be agreed on. That would mean giving, say $5000, to a poor person -- an idea that would rankle many middle-class Americans who can't afford private schools for their children. That is one reason why I don't think vouchers are a feasible idea. Another is that public schools developed as an alternative to a large part of the population going completely uneducated because parents could not afford to pay tuition. (One sees the same thing in Second and Third World countries today.) I think we will be going backward to undermine even a very imperfect national system of public schools.

Mac,

Where are you getting your figure of $250 from? Everything I have heard and read says $2500 or $3000.

I haven't been reading blogcritics very long and I don't know you personally...but you really do come off as being a hateful bigot.

What are the qualifications needed to be a judge? They need to be a licensed attorney, they need to know the "law" and follow it even if they don't "agree" with it. How is he unqualified? Is there a case in his background that shows bias? I don't know a lot about him but everything that I have heard or read shows him to be well respected by his peers. (I know, when it comes to lawyers that doesn't neccessarily impress me either)

A couple of the other names that have been nominated are Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, Bill Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown.

Are they all "neanderthals" in your eyes? If so, why? What is in their background that makes you want to prevent them from being judges? What decisions have they made in the past that you consider "reprehensible"? Reading the offical biography of these people makes them sound qualified for the position. There isn't any "hidden scandel" that I'm not aware of, is there? In what case did they prove to you that they were incapable of following the law, irregardless of their personal beliefs?

"There are qualified people of color whose families have lived and worked in this country for years without being allowed opportunities who would like to be federal judges."

Yes there are, they are being blocked too! But hey, since Teddy has enlightened everybody by explaining that they are "neanderthals" I'm sure thats not an issue for you. I guess you can only be a "minority" if you are a democrat that believes in legislating from the bench?

Re: vouchers, the concern of many is that the government should not be giving money to religious schools for any reason. What the money should go to is improving public schools and making sure teachers are qualified and given the tools they need to help poor urban and rural kids be able to compete with their richer peers.

Don't religious schools teach academic subjects? Of course they do.

Do academic schools teach "things that I consider immoral" to my kids, of course they do!

Is there any difference....no not really!

As long as the government doesn't require that students attend a religious school then I don't see the problem!!!!! The parents have the choice of which school to apply the voucher to.... This is more just more "crap" that is being spoonfed to people by people that are willing to let the "next generation" languish in crappy schools so they can stay in power with the "union" vote.

Indeed, Catholic schools in particular have a reputation for giving a significantly better than average actual academic education. You don't spend 12 years in a Catholic school and come out not able to read and write. And they do it far cheaper than government schools.

The "religious schools" argument is utter nonsense. Parents don't have to pick a religious school if they don't want to. Also, if everyone gets the chance at vouchers, many more non-religious options will open up.

one thing to consider here is that a voucher received does not automatically translate into "can go to a private school". if a child is doing poorly (for whatever reason) in a public school, they may not be able to get into a nearby private school because very often there are admission requirements.

i'm not really sure how i feel about vouchers as a whole...just pointing out that it's not quite that easy.

the "we need to fund public schools" argument is nonsense as well. we have been pouring $$$ into the government school monopoly for decades (increases are consistently greater (by like 50%) than the inflation rate over time).

until the teachers unions either disappear or start caring about students, government schools will be ineffective no matter how much money we waste. as the former national teachers union head once said, "stop talking about letting kids escape."

helping kids (especially poor and minority and urban) to get a decent education NOW is all that counts. give hard working people with victimsstudents stuck in those schools a CHOICE. and keep working on it until the voucher program works and/or the government schools get their shite together (at which point it wouldn't matter).

what is most telling to me is that most of the arguments in favor of maintaining the destructive government school monopoly are NEGATIVE and have nothing to do with IMPROVING anyone's education.

voucher $ should be religiously neutral, not discriminating FOR or AGAINST.

i am always amazed by people who are content to continue to pour money down the drain, deluding themselves that teachers unions would ever allow the reforms that we need.

I don't recall saying anything about teachers' unions. I talked about making sure teachers were qualified. I also think way too much money is tied up in administration, and doesn't even trickle down to the classroom. (Spousal unit is a teacher; I have seen a lot of this firsthand.) My only concern re: improving public schools is improving the education kids receive. Also important -- keeping government money out of religious schools.

the issue of our children's education is far more complex than the public/private funding debate (and this doesn't mean i don't think anything should be done there).

our entire society, while giving lip service to the value of a 'good education', spends a lot of time on activities that have nothing to do with learning:

-hours of video games,
-hours of television,
-sports
-hours and hours of television
-instant messaging
-websurfing

in theory, since everything is online now, kids have access to so much more information than in that past (which is true). but do they take advantage of it?

hardly anyone reads a newspaper anymore.

even less people pick up a book.

what do we do about it.

i dunno, that's the hard part.

Mark-
I'm assuming you mean watching sports as opposed to participating in sports.

My personal feeling is that I approve of vouchers in theory, but when I see parents that don't possess the good judgement to put their child in a car seat I wonder how they're ever going to manage to make higher level decisions.

I'm assuming you mean watching sports as opposed to participating in sports

ya, that's right.

Barger, I agree that Catholic schools have generally done a better job of graduating literate students, including when the kids are poor and/or minority. But, as Mark and Nat have pointed out, private schools are private, they are not bound to take them (the kids) as they are. They can refuse a child for any reason. That means children with emotional problems, less than normal intelligence, legal problems, whatever, can be excluded from the get-go or expelled. Doing that can produce a much better academic profile for any school or school system.

I draw the line at anything that looks like establishment of religion. If the religious Right is really concerned about poor and minority students getting religious school educations then more of it should help foot the bill.

Deb, call me a bigot if you like. That does not make it so. Though you may find my opinions about judicial qualifications not to your liking as a hidebound conservative, they are sound. Nor are they only the Diva's. The consensus in the legal community is that the Right Wing ideologues Shrub is appointing are awful. BTW, a 'qualified' rating from the ABA is low. (A lawyer's wink, you could say.)

it's sad when an anti-religious bias takes precedence over educating children. it's also sad when an anti-religious bias takes precedence over letting families make informed educational choices for their children. and that's what it is, an anti-religious bias. vouchers should not discriminate against or in favor of religious schools.

continuing that bias is a good example of the left hurting the less affluent--poor people need vocuhers the most, and they might send their kids, eg, to catholic schools--even if their kids arent catholic (and even without vouchers) because, as someone mentioned, catholic high schools actually educate students.

i didnt meant to imply that anyone else had mentioned the unions, but they are relevant in my view--in general, and in the money context--so i introduced them. meet the unions, in case you're joining us late.

mark, fair points in my view. but people have to make those choices for themselves.

and good point on sports--football was the most educational course i took in high school, and it was a good high school. next on my list is getting that GED.

Is that consensus in the legal community published anywhere? We're not talkin' the paralegal community are we (he said with a lawyer's wink)?

we should bear in mind that the ABA is extremely politicized and leans sharply to the left.

it's funny how our resident paralegal advocates having right-wingers take charge of the education of the poor and disadvantaged rather than create a system that would allow the poor and disadvantaged the means to do it themselves.

the "private schools dont have to take everyone" is another NEGATIVE argument. even if it's true, let's get as many disadvantaged people as possible better educations asap and work from there. if vouchers dont get those special needs folks, etc into private schools, lets worry about that then, and use some of the savings from vouchers to address that.

see, the anti-voucher people will seize on the fact that vouchers might not bring instant nirvana (as opposed to a continuing and profound improvement) to try to scuttle the whole enterprise--kids be damned.

the "private schools dont have to take everyone" is another NEGATIVE argument. even if it's true

negative argument? label it any way you'd like (you seem to just love labeling things).

it is the absolute truth? how do i know? my wife is a school teacher, having worked at several private schools over the past decade.

every student is interviewed, kinda like a job.

"it's sad when an anti-religious bias takes precedence over educating children. it's also sad when an anti-religious bias takes precedence over letting families make informed educational choices for their children. and that's what it is, an anti-religious bias. vouchers should not discriminate against or in favor of religious schools."

Chris, I am not anti-religious. I was educated in religious schools. Same with my kids. My parents paid for my schooling. Spousal Unit and I pay for our kids' schooling. NOT the government. I am not anti-religious. I support the strict separation of church from state and oppose anti-government money going to religious schools. BIG difference.

Diva, You certainly express a legitimate concern in comment 26 about the possibility of private schools not providing well for the learning disabled.

However, how good are the current government schools doing for them? Also, should all the students be screwed by government schools because there are some who would be left behind?

Further, private enterprise isn't perfect, being as it is conducted by humans. However, compared to the practical alternative (ie current government schools in this case) rather than some utopian perfect education for everyone, private enterprise looks good.

Give private schools even half the money for schooling a special ed student that would be spent in the government school, and I bet they'd do significantly better than the government competition.

Mac,

"I draw the line at anything that looks like establishment of religion. If the religious Right is really concerned about poor and minority students getting religious school educations then more of it should help foot the bill."

Nobody is forcing anybody to send their child to a religious school. How is this "establishment of religion"?

Private schools usually base their "rejection" of a student on his current and past behavior - I don't see anything wrong with this. As a matter of fact I encourage it. This sets the student up to have to be responsible for him/herself. Every decision you make has a consequence, it depends on the decision made whether it will be a positive or negative consequence. It's is way beyond time to stop making excuses for bad behavior. It is time to stop defending students that commit violence in schools, that disrupt education in the classroom with vulgar behavior. Toss these people out of the school system, or force them to go to a school within the juvenile court system until they can show that they are capable of handling responsibility for themselves.

I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't say that you were a hateful bigot, only that you come off as sounding like one. Sometimes you tend to make your arguments into a personal attack and that really detracts from any points that you are trying to make.

Natalie,

I might agree with you if they were going to force parents to send their children to a "religious" school. But they aren't, the parents get to make that choice themselves. Notice the words there....get to make that choice themselves. Well, I for one, am glad that you are able to provide a private school for your kids. What is wrong with giving poor parents the same option? Why force them to leave their kids in failing schools that are costing us twice the amount it would to pay for a private school.

But, as somebody pointed out earlier, there will never be a "perfect" solution for everybody because not everybody wants to be helped. Why not help the kids that can be helped? At least it is better than leaving them behind too.

As for the kids that would be left behind, there are too many schools that take "average kids". I don't believe that they would discriminate based on disabilities...they would not, however, put up with bad behavior...they don't have to. I don't want them to. If the students want an education then they need to act like it.

Natalie,

One more small comment --- it's not government's money, it is our money.

Nobody is forcing anybody to send their child to a religious school. How is this "establishment of religion"?

my tax dollars are being sent, via the vouchers, to a religious organization.

no thank you.

discriminating against people who send their kids to catholic or other parochial schools is BS and it goes against the idea of optimizing educational benefit. the first amendment goes both ways.

"negative argument" is a relatively simple rhetorical concept. a positive argument would be "government schools are better."

gee, i labeled something (accurately), i guess my position must be invalid.

"One more small comment --- it's not government's money, it is our money."

Yeah, well it's supposed to be our government.

i guess there's an inherent conflict in allowing people to use tax dollars to send their kids to a religious school vs. the establishment of religion clause.

i just don't happen to see this as discrimination.

"I might agree with you if they were going to force parents to send their children to a "religious" school. But they aren't, the parents get to make that choice themselves."

Yeah, with my money. No.

"I for one, am glad that you are able to provide a private school for your kids. What is wrong with giving poor parents the same option?"

Excuse me, we are poor parents. We just funnel nearly every penny we have into education because it is so important to us. I haven't had health coverage in years. It's one thing for me to spend my money for my kids on the religious school of my choice. It's another matter entirely for the gummint to spend my money at a religious school I do not support. It's bad enough the gummint uses my money against my will to finance violence; I don't want my money paying for a poor family in Lynchburg, VA, to send their kids to Jerry Falwell's preschool.

the religion clause has 2 parts, to the dismay of some--you can't single religion out for special consideration, positive OR negative. all you're doing is freeing people from being compelled to piss money down the government school drain.

and this "our government argument" is not compelling. "our government" takes huge quantities of resources and produces a really crappy product (poor government school education) which ruins young lives--a product that people could better if allowed to make their own choices.

what we have here is people who would rather have people get a crappy education than actually get something of value for their tax/voucher money, especially if parochial education might help the disadvantaged.

nat, your decisions are admirable, but i don't think we should be forcing people to choose between good educations and poverty, which is what the anti-voucher position does to too many people. given the options of empowering people or adopting a "be like natalie" posture, i'd prefer to put power in the hands of the people (although a "more natalies" experiment might be worth pursuing in a different forum). nat could be a charter person.

in the short term, we'll get more poor and disadvantaged people getting educations, and in the long term, even moreso, through private schools and competitive government schools.

the status quo is a failure for those who need it most. pouring money on the pile hasn't really helped. so we should be looking for any way to liberate any kids, not searching for excuses to maintain the status quo.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

not sending my tax dollars off to a private religious school is NOT prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

people are free to send their children there, just not with my money.

Absolutely, Mark. Couldn't agree more. And neither could the Constitution.

"we should be looking for any way to liberate any kids"

I can agree that something must be done, but any way? Not if it violates what is right. And using goernment money -- which is the collection of individual taxpayers' money -- to fund religious schools is not right. That will never be right.

IOW (hit send too soon), if the choice is between poverty and having the government violate my principles using my money, I gladly choose poverty.

Wow, that's conviction, Natalie! The minute money enters the picture most people reshuffle their morals.

Then they never really had those morals to begin with. It would be swell to have more money and creature comforts and medical insurance, but is it worth the cost of my soul, integrity, and self-respect? Nope. Ends often do not justify means.

Then I guess they will always stay at the bottom of the heap, because they are never going change government schools to be competitive with private schools.

But if that's ok with you I guess it shouldn't bother me either, my kids go to a good school.

I still don't see an issue, the government is not "establishing any religion" they are giving parents a choice on where they want their kids to go to school.

There's lots of things the government does with my money that I don't like either...hhhmmm, maybe we should just revolt and not pay taxes at all any more, then we could do what we want with our money. Yeah, that's the ticket....

Actually, if I didn't have kids, I would do that.

My kids go to a good school too, Debbie. We sacrifice mightily to make it happen -- without you paying one damn dime for it. You're welcome.

And we may be on the bottom of the financial heap, Debbie, but we're aiming for the top of a more important one.

Schools are one of, if not THE top consideration in where people with children choose to live. Property values are considerably higher in districts with "good schools," and it is something of a self-perpetuating cycle, which goes back to the original impetus behind desegregation via busing, etc. It's a tremendously difficult issue.

all of you will contort yourselves fifty different ways to avoid a solution that diverges from leftist orthodoxy, in this case subservbience to the teachers union and government school cabals. hooray for you, your status quo destroys kids!

and mark, you are wrong on the first amendment. neutral aid is not establishment--it is the only way to slip in between establishment and free exercise.

it is funny that peoples fears of money going to schools that educate, like parochial schools, is more important to people than helping underprivileged kids escape. hence the devotion to a (mistaken) view of the consitution from people who will tell you that equal protection = racial discrimination.

and if it's class hatred, here's a flash, rich people can afford to get their kids good educations regardless--they are not the beneficiaries.

people who are self-righteous with other peoples' money, kids, and lives are misguided, not admirable. leftists are always generous with other peoples money, but perish the thought that people get the free choice of getting their kids an education. everyday we posture more people suffer educational deprivation that we could be alleviating but for these sort of perverse anti-student ideologues.

mark, the "my money argument" is nice and all, but the government expropriates money from people to waste on government schools--vouchers would simply let people use their money on better alternatives. if you believe that government money appears out of thin air and doesnt originate with taxpayers, i guess you'd be right.

i'd be the first to admit that vouchers are progressive--poorer people would proportionately benefit a lot more. and i say, great!

and mark, given your fondness for government, ever thought of moving south one state?

And you refuse to read what I wrote. I already stated that teachers' unions are of no concern to me in terms of the voucher situation. Morality and principle are my concern and they, IMO, trump everything.

mr. arabia just loves to put words in other people's mouths. one of his favorite activities.

...and i don't have a 'fondness for the government' either.

you sir, are just full of shite.

I don't want my tax money going to send anyone's kids to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other religious schools. I deliberately moved to a very fine school district before my kids were born, and before I could truly afford it, so the then-unborn children would have the opportunity to attend the finest schools the system had to offer. It has worked out well.

My interpretation is that the government can't use any tax-based voucher program to send any children to any school with any formal religious foundation. Apparently that is not the interpretation of the current administration, and that's a shame.

"everyday we posture more people suffer educational deprivation that we could be alleviating but for these sort of perverse anti-student ideologues." (comment 50)

WTF? Wanna say it in English?

Kudos to most of the BC crew. Y'all would get As if I were teaching Constitutional Law. Nat, Mark, Tal, etc., realize that it is not just favoring a given religion that is not allowed under the Establishment Cause but favoring religion over non-religion, period. The only way a religious school would be entitled to government funds would be if it had nothing to do with religion, which would make it not a religious school.


I would be remiss if I did not say the magic words 'Trojan Horse' in regard to the voucher movement. Most of the foundations funding the movement are extreme Right -- Olin, Pioneer, etc. They have also funded eugenics enthusiasts and have, until now, shown no benign interest in the minority poor. Some people who have studied the issue believe that these people are using 'save the poor colored kids' as a pretext. If vouchers were actually approved, the beneficiaries would turn out to be white and middle-class, not minority and poor. An interesting thought. . . .

You've got the issue just exactly backwards here, Diva.

The only way a religious school would be entitled to government funds would be if it had nothing to do with religion, which would make it not a religious school.

That is YOU insisting on favoring non-religion over religion. The neutral stance is to say that parents can choose totally secular schools, or schools with any kind of religious training that suits them.

The key point is that it is PARENTS choosing amongst any religious or non-religious school, not the government.

Q: But who would be paying for the vouchers?

A: The government would. That is why vouchers for religious schools would be government support regardlessly. As I said before, the only out is to 'unreligious' the religious schools which renders the point moot.

Right, MD. The government would. Meaning we would, including citizens, nonreligious and religious, who believe in the separation of church from state. The use of vouchers for anything that could promote any individuals is wrong and anti-American, through and through.

You have a legitimate issue there, but it is not separation of church and state, since it's not the state doing the picking, but the individual.

No, the quite legitimate issue here is that YOU don't want to be forced to pay for stuff that you don't approve of.

I personally don't like paying for the government to teach sex ed to children- that's definitely a parent's job. I certainly don't wish to pay for swimming pools and other extravagant athletic programs.

Some Christians object to having THEIR money taken to have their children forcibly taught evolution.

Actually, there is a viable solution: get the government out of the school business altogether. Leave parents and families with the responsibility of paying for the education of their own children. You would certainly have no objection against the religious training in schools then.

Of course, taxes would be MUCH lower all around, which would help a great deal.

Also, childless people would not be robbed to subsidize other people's children- though they might choose to donate to scholarship funds and such.

Yes, this would solve a great many problems, and open up many more avenues for innovation.

On the other hand, you might object that some children would be left behind, that their parents wouldn't be able to afford ANY kind of school. That's probably overstating it considerably, but it is a legitimate concern.

However, I would challenge the presumption that someone else's need constitutes a moral license to extract the money from others at gunpoint ie taxes.