"Bleeding-Heart Liberal" is a Misnomer

[chequita guevara]

No, I'm lazy.

[Jaguar]

A little from column A, a little from column B

[RGBVideo]

do you even believe your own propaganda?

For example, if it cost $10,000 to attend Le Snooty School for Rich Boys and Girls, and every family gets a $10,000 voucher, then Le Snooty will raise its rates to $20,000. The parents are still paying the same $10,000 out of pocket they were before, and the school has doubled its revenue. There is a reason these schools are exclusive in the first place.

Yes, because naturally businessowners will decide the price of their service based on how much evil their actions will cause, instead of how much profit they'll make (100 middle-classed pupils times $10 000 versus 5 rich pupils times $20 000, which creates more gross income?)

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Arrian
They pushed me far enough to switch my registration from Independent to Democrat, though I will most likely switch back. I don't like the Dems much either.

Now why would you trade your primary voting power away -- does the membership cost too much? Just because you're registered as a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean that you should defend either of them.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Yes we've estalbished that. In fact his new platform is indentured servitude is good for character building.

And I'm with VJ. I live in a very solid blue state so I'm a registered Democrat. Though I consider myself an independent and not at all a Democrat. But it allows me to vote in the primaries and I'm usually a voting junkie, so its the way to go.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

the South Carolina primary, in particular, will look like a GOP-produced snuff film.

Man, that sets a number of funny images galloping through my brain.

Dick Cheney. Camo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Anyone who cares about the quality of education opposes vouchers.

Cracker to reporter, "Anyone who cares about the quality of education opposes bussin'."

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


....Your faulty assumption is that private schools won't raise their rates by exactly the amount the amount of the voucher, thus still preventing the unwanted classes from attending their schools.

For example, if it cost $10,000 to attend Le Snooty School for Rich Boys and Girls, and every family gets a $10,000 voucher, then Le Snooty will raise its rates to $20,000. The parents are still paying the same $10,000 out of pocket they were before, and the school has doubled its revenue. There is a reason these schools are exclusive in the first place. They aren't about to allow the unwashed masses to attend just because of a windfall in voucher monies.

Meanwhile, the public school has lost all of the money that is now going to the private school in the form of vouchers. How this helps anyone but the owners of the private school is beyond me.

There is some truth in this which requires some thought.

BTW, I think the "money" will be given per child, not per family.

[Ned]

In India, the goverment requires The Snooty School Upper Class Snobs to reserve 20% of their capacity for kids from the lower castes. We could do essentially the same thing. For example, if the snooty school is located in an urban area having 20% minorities, that school would have to reserve 20% of its capacity for minorities if it was to use any government money at all.

This certainly would put the upperclass liberals like Clinton in a quandary if they want to send their daughter to an all-white school. They would have to explain why they chose the all-white private school rather than the snooty school down the block with 20% minorities. Simply explaining that they were seeking quality education would not be enough.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've argued this before, but here it is again:

The function of American schools is twofold. One is to educate. The other is to socialize kids into a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-faith democratic society. Public schools have been, for 150 years, our chief vehicle for promoting citizenship and a sense of what American civil society is.

The real problem with vouchers is that they will gut this noble purpose and function to further stratify society. The problem will not be losing middle-class kids to Le Snooty Rich School. The problem will be all the evangelical kids going to evangelical school, all the racist families sending their kids to White Power schools (they already exist, btw), all the tofu-chomping hippy families sending their kids to quasi-Waldorf schools where grades are seen as a form of oppression, etc -- all facilitated by the State.

You think politics is partisan and ugly now? Wait until a generation of kids who have never spent any time around anyone unlike themselves, and who have never encountered any challenge to their received wisdom, inherit the society.

Vouchers
Citizenship

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've argued this before, but here it is again:

The function of American schools is twofold. One is to educate. The other is to socialize kids into a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-faith democratic society. Public schools have been, for 150 years, our chief vehicle for promoting citizenship and a sense of what American civil society is.

The real problem with vouchers is that they will gut this noble purpose and function to further stratify society. The problem will not be losing middle-class kids to Le Snooty Rich School. The problem will be all the evangelical kids going to evangelical school, all the racist families sending their kids to White Power schools (they already exist, btw), all the tofu-chomping hippy families sending their kids to quasi-Waldorf schools where grades are seen as a form of oppression, etc -- all facilitated by the State.

You think politics is partisan and ugly now? Wait until a generation of kids who have never spent any time around anyone unlike themselves, and who have never encountered any challenge to their received wisdom, inherit the society.

Vouchers
Citizenship

You ignore the facts on the ground, Herr Rufus. Our public school system remains segregated, beyond the levels we found in the days before Brown v. White flight is to the suburbs and/or to private schools. Urban black kids generally attend virtually all-black schools that provide abysmal education in substandard facilities.

Some of the greatest supporters of vouchers are blacks who actually live in such neighborhoods and want to see their children both properly educated and socialized by being around white kids.

In contrast, the greatest opponents of vouchers are rich white liberals who can send their kids to all white private schools. Their (mock) "idealism" masks their racism.

[Jon Miller]

Best argument I have ever heard against Vouchers.

The argument in favor of vouchers, which I haven't really heard argued against, is that ins some places public schools just don't work. And I know, we should fix the public schools.

But should we doom the kids in those communities who have parents who care?

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
In contrast, the greatest opponents of vouchers are rich white liberals who can send their kids to all white private schools. Their (mock) "idealism" masks their racism.

This is patent horsesh!t. The greatest opposition to vouchers actually comes from parents who have kids in the public schools, who believe in public education, and who understand that vouchers will destroy both the funding and the citizenship function of the publich schools. My daughter attended an integrated, urban public school until we left the country, and had we stayed she'd still be in that system -- and my wife and I would have fought voucher schemes tooth and nail -- not because we're rich (we're not), nor because we're liberal (though we are), but because we truly believe in public schooling and the democracy it enhances.

In fact, Ned, I know wealthy liberals -- my lawyer is one of them -- who sent their kids through teh urban public school system in spite of their ability to afford expensive private schools, just because they didn't want their kids to grow up elitist.

Vouchering is an inherently reactionary scheme designed to allow parents to shield their kids from "them" -- whoever "they" are. The same kind of people who roared their approval at the 1992 GOP convention, when Phil Gramm bellowed to the overwhelmingly white, upper-middle-class, conservative delegation, "WE are America; those other people are not America" -- those are the people roaring their approval of vouchers.

[Ned]

Jon, the Liberal is not truly concerned about fascist schools or whatever. That again is mock concern, coming from the likes of Hillary Clinton who made sure her daughter did not attend any black-dominated school while she was growing up.

Schwarzennegger ran into Liberal racism when he tried to do something about the black schools in LA. After settling a civil rights lawsuit concerning these schools, Arnold tried to fix things in any number of ways. He was blocked by the legislature. He brought the matter to the people directly. He was rejected. His main opposition to bringing help to the black schools came not from the blacks themselves or from Republicans, but from Liberal Democrats.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


This is patent horsesh!t. The greatest opposition to vouchers actually comes from parents who have kids in the public schools, who believe in public education, and who understand that vouchers will destroy both the funding and the citizenship function of the publich schools. My daughter attended an integrated, urban public school until we left the country, and had we stayed she'd still be in that system -- and my wife and I would have fought voucher schemes tooth and nail -- not because we're rich (we're not), nor because we're liberal (though we are), but because we truly believe in public schooling and the democracy it enhances.

In fact, Ned, I know wealthy liberals -- my lawyer is one of them -- who sent their kids through teh urban public school system in spite of their ability to afford expensive private schools, just because they didn't want their kids to grow up elitist.

Vouchering is an inherently reactionary scheme designed to allow parents to shield their kids from "them" -- whoever "they" are. The same kind of people who roared their approval at the 1992 GOP convention, when Phil Gramm bellowed to the overwhelmingly white, upper-middle-class, conservative delegation, "WE are America; those other people are not America" -- those are the people roaring their approval of vouchers.

Rufus, for your information, I sent my daughter to public schools as well. Here in Kalifornia, at least where I live, the schools are dominated by illegal immigrants.

I am not say that all white Liberals avoid the public school systems. But many, if not most, do. Hillary Clinton is my primary example of liberal hypocrisy on this issue.