So, you really think China is our enemy? I can see that in a kill or be killed kind of way, and there is no doubt they are a growing threat the stronger they become, but I wouldn't call them an enemy. More a challenge. And it really seems to me we have our hands full domestically. China's influence in Africa is growing because of capitalism. China is investing lots of money in Africa and quite a few Chinese are setting up shop (and succeeding) on a continent that's been in turmoil long after western intervention. China is taking a page from our playbook and besting us there. I thought it was a relevant response that maybe could have been explained better. Demanding conditions means we will never sit down at the table with them. I'd like to see the new president sit down at the table before demanding conditions. "I am who you'll be dealing with now and this is what I expect." It doesn't hurt to hear their concerns even if they are full o' crap. Can you explain to me what's wrong with my line of thought, because obviously you agree with Hillary on this and I don't get it. Does Obama believe the Palestinians are in the right and Israel is in the wrong? It seems if he believed these things he'd have been skewered by the media already. I have to profess ignorance on this entire subject, though I've been interested in the story behind the Israeli/Palestinian situation for a while. Wouldn't this hold true for any of the current candidates? So because many Muslim countries link religion and state, we shouldn't talk with them? I hope you can excuse my density if I'm missing your point. Well, I kinda like Obama for the things he hasn't done. He hasn't really seemed to pander like Clinton and Edwards. He doesn't seem to change his message radically depending on the winds. He seems principled and genuine and I feel like with Clinton we are getting perhaps a smarter, stronger Bush with a Democratic bent. She won't be open, she'll be determined to show she can be as tough as any man, and frankly, she'll say what we want to hear and try to put the absolutely best spin possible on any and every situation. She'll continue the foreign policy of, "We are the US, step in line or get out the way." She really seems to be the candidate of BS. Even if that BS is aged and experienced, it's still stinky, maybe even more so. :hihi: Why aren't you skeptical of Hillary, young lady? I didn't know we were both whipper snappers! I'm probably a bandwagoner, though I try to inform myself and learn something from those I disagree with. Sometimes I don't disagree with the folks I thought I disagreed with once I find out how the cows eat the cabbage. :hihi:
Would you feel better if it was funded? Did you not support this legislation in '01? If you didn't, you were in the minority. I find it interesting that most people attacking this legislation today supported it in '01, like Hillary. Only 12 Dems and 41 Reps in Congress voted against it. 418 voted for it. It was widely viewed as good bipartisan legislation. But it failed, like most big gov't programs eventually do. I'd like to think we would learn to stop pushing big gov't programs. But then again, we are staring down the barrel of universal healthcare.
If you are going to force schools to do something without giving them the money to do it, then resources come away from the kids, worsening the problem. I did not. I supported the idea of making schools and teachers more accountable, but I did not like the idea about focusing the bulk of the effort on the most problematic students. It forced the entire system to cater to the lowest denominator. Frankly, I think some kids, who do not want to learn, should be left behind, in order that the ones that want to achieve are not held back. It surely happens in other highly educated countries. In Japan they winnow out the under-performers several times during the education process and only the best and brightest can move on to the higher levels. The whole system is geared toward producing high achievers who can move up. "No child" focuses on improving dropouts to mediocre students to the extent of also forcing mediocrity on their achievers. Then smart people must recognize and admit that failure and change the bloody program. This "Forward, into the fog!" mentality of the Bush administration, it's refusal to ever admit failure, and it's juvenile notion that steadfast resolve is the solution to every problem inhibits change.
Let me ask you this about Hillary, who is still a candidate you are considering. This NCLB is an issue where she agreed with Bush, just like the Iraq war. This is no longer about Bush, it's about finding the next President. Why does Hillary continue to get a pass from so many Americans for agreeing with Bush on these failed policies? Admitting it was wrong after the fact won't help us. Getting it right in the first place is more important. She gets it wrong quite a bit.
Teddy Kennedy and Bush wrote the education bill. I didn't act as if I knew what the bill would do before it was done but with Kennedy attached to it, I knew it couldn't be good. The first thing you do to fix public education is to do away with College's of Education at universities. In order to teach school, teachers have to have a degree in their course subject. A math teacher has to have a degree in math. An english teacher has to have a degree in english etc. Too many teaching subjects they aren't qualified to teach. Then in areas where schools are failing, those schools get privatized or parents get vouchers. The kids in those failing schools are sacrificed while polticians attempt to fix a system they helped to create. The unions and polticians have had long enough.....time to empower the parents to leave these systems and get their kids educated for a change.
Because it wasn't her legislation or her drive to war. It was Bush's. Period. He got most of Congress to go along and many did. Hillary and other have paid a political price for it, too. It gets mentioned all the time. McCain supported the president, too, over his better judgement. Indeed, And our leader got it wrong. Those who supported him got burned and the rest of us along with them. Now, we have senators who realized the error, changed their position, and are working to fix it. Then we also have those that refuse to recognize the error and stubbornly continue it, digging us deeper into trouble. A good executive must be flexible enough to respond to changing conditions and to make right what goes wrong. Steadfastness in the face of disaster is a poor quality in a leader.
First, let me say my comments were specific to Barak and in no way suggesting that Hillary was a better choice. She deserves her own thread in that way. :hihi: China is more than just a competitor. Setting up storefronts is a facade for what's going on behind the scenes, funding certain groups with cheap arms so indeed they have taken a page out of the US book but not necessarily a good one. To even discuss what they are doing in Africa without first dealing with the American credit they hold and the clear advantage in the trade deficit is naive and useless IMO. As for demanding conditions, one need only look at Hugo Chavez and his ranting lunacy on the world stage to realize that he is not someone to just "sit down with" and expect anything of value to materialize. As the 4th largest supplier of US oil, he is posing Venezuela into a position to pursue nuclear technology, move the UN to his country, and pursues a position which would result in Israel's ability to defend herself against hostile action. I would hope that ANY President would require certain conditions before holding talks with this comedian. I do believe that Obama sides with the Palestinians. The fact that he has said so little about it tells me quite a lot. My point about Muslim countries is that none of the candidates and least of all our sitting President have never understood the fact that the US can NOT turn their governments into democracies. We claim freedom of religion, their entire system is based on religious principles. Sure we should talk but they are immovable on the concept of Western values as anything to write home about. Barak panders like all the candidates. A good example is his focus on women when discussing affirmative action. Let's face it, affirmative action was initially designed and still primarily benefits people based on race, not so much gender. But he knows that Hillary holds the cards with many female voters so he made a play to win some over. I'm not a fan of affirmative action period, so it didn't do much for me. He will also pander to unions because in his own words, "The leaders of service workers unions broke ranks & chose to endorse me over [my opponent], support that proved critical to my campaign. It was a risky move on their part; had I lost, they might have paid a price in access, in support, in credibility. So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I do not consider this corrupting in any way; I do not mind feeling obligated toward home health-care workers or toward teachers. I got into politics to fight for those folks, and I am glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles." On immigration, Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal immigrants because he thinks they came here to work, not drive. Well then, he doesn't know diddly about how much they drive when they do get here. California interstates are chock full of illegals who have no idea what they are doing behind the wheel especially when it's 18 wheels. Just last year not 5 miles from my house, an illegal with 3 prior tickets drove his big rig into the back of a mini van killing all 3 of the family's children, all under age 5, two girls and a boy. Those things tend to stick in your mind. On a miraculous sidenote, the couple stayed together and she announced late last year that she is pregnant again, with triplets, two girls and a boy. He's all about overhauling public education but his kids go to private school. :lol: He's all about universal health care but I'm darn sure that if his family needed it, he'd be at the Mayo clinic or any other health care institution that offered the best medical care that America provides. Obama has done plenty, take a look at his voting record and then decide. I'm not necessarily a whipper snapper right out of college but I am also skeptical of Hillary and anyone else who aspires to hold such an important job.
That's fine....pile on but you'll be wrong. My father has an education degree and he agrees that College's of Education should be done away with. Because he's honest with himself. I'll always argue that a chemistry teacher needs a degree in chemistry. To teach the subject matter properly one should be schooled in the subject. But in education today, it seems like that's too much to ask. It's like Exxon having a chemical engineer who has a degree in child psych. He's not qualified and neither are most teachers.
In order to make this feasible anyone who wants to teach would need a degree in the subject matter as well as a degree in education. There are many people who are the absolute best at what they do, but can't teach others how to do it to worth a damn. Just because you are well schooled doesn't mean you can school well.
