Go Texas

Wow, so it's been a long time since I posted. In no small part due to the fact I have a major paper I'm working, and work has been crushing. Be that as it may...

There aren't too many areas where I'm overly sympathetic to the conservatives, but gun control is one. I was driving up 95 through Philly yesterday and there was a billboard that announced something like "We're tired of the violence guns bring to our communities, no more guns!"

Yeah, I've seen them too. Those little machines that are running around killing people. They hop around, filling themselves with bullets and wait for people to come home so they can shoot your children. How do guns bring violence to your community? First of all, guns are a symptom of a couple of things 1) could just be that people like to hunt or target practice (animal rights and the questionable practice of "sportsmanship" aside) 2) could be that someone did their homework and found that governments are not always trustworthy and if they come after you, they'll have guns... guess you're screwed if you don't 3) and finally, someone wants to hurt someone else.

The first two I'm ok with; the last one I'm not. Keeping something out of peoples hands that they really want is impossible eg war on drugs, prohibition, etc. Whether gun ownership is a right or not, we've been under the impression it is for so long that it is impossible to take them all back.

As a last point, I support what the guy in Texas did. If someone broke into my house, I'm not taking names or asking them why they're there, I will kill them as quickly as possible. The offence of these men was not against society, it was against an individual. The idea that people are "taking the law into their own hands" is assinine. The law is in your hands for your personal protection- you may have hired out the job to the police, but they come in after the fact. I'm tired of good people waiting for "the law" to show up. These are the same kinds of people who are waiting for FEMA to show up. Get off you ass and do something to help yourself. If that means killing thieves to prevent theft, crime, rape, murder, and who knows what else... then OK.

Obama, Hillary, and Braveheart

Remember the scene in Braveheart where the guy (can't remember his name) wants to follow and support William Wallace but his father keeps undermining him by dirty backdoor deals? He grabs his dad by the shirt and says "Die! I want you to die!"

Well Hillary, I want you to die... not a physical death, just a political one. In the movie the father is working hard to secure - at the expense of what is right - more land, more wealth, and more power. Sound like anyone we know? If it hasn't already, it should have become obvious last night that Hillary will take the whole ship down if she can't be queen.

Vice President? The very idea of it offends me. I so oppose this person that if she gets the VP nomination, I'll be voting (again) for a 3rd party candidate. I just can't do it. I can't vote FOR a ticket with her name on it. At the risk of giving the nomination to McCain (not that my one vote would do so) I'd still vote for someone else if she's attached to the Presidency.

Conservatives beat us on Education

I have a brother and sister-in-law who focus heavily on education in their home. Their oldest daughter is barely 7 years old and has tested out of the 2nd grade already. They worked so hard to get the school to allow them to advance her to the 3rd grade (essentially skipping two grades ahead) and the school wouldn't allow it. Several of the teachers showed up to vouch for my niece, both in terms of her academic abilities and her social skills; no dice. The principal refused to allow her to move forward even one year, much less two because she didn't want to set a precedent.

The irony is that when it comes to holding a child back a year the parents have the last say, at least in New York state. However, if your child is doing well then they aren't interested in helping them move forward. After fighting for her child and losing, she pulled all of her kids (all bright) from the school and began homeschooling.

Now, I'm about to cross the line here in several ways

#1 I'm a liberal who's DISGUSTED by the ownership teachers unions have over the democratic party.
#2 I have a bias against the homeschoolers because I suspect many of them are religious fundamentalists who are trying to limit their kids opportunities, not expand them
#3 I generally support public education... or do I?

Here is the problem as I see it: Schools that stink have no incentive to move exceptional kids forward because they bring up the test scores for the kids whose parents are not involved or who seemingly lack capacity and genuinely need special attention (funding for which is limited).
Teachers unions work to protect even crappy teachers and lousy parents demand more money so they don't have to get involved.

Here is the solution as I see it: Publicly fund and regulate education but privately run it. I do support public education, but we can have public education without having the hegemonic limitations imposed on us. Give each parent a voucher for their child's education of whatever we are currently spending on education, plus what we need to do it the right way, and then give parents the ability to hold their school DIRECTLY accountable for its success or failure.

Sometimes it's not even about "success" or "failure" so much as it is that some schools may be better suited for some students than others. Under our current system, however, the students without a lot of money are stuck. Wealthy parents will privately school their kids anyway and so it is the middle-class and poor who are screwed by the current educational practices; the very people Democrats claim to help most.

Hey Democrats, if you really care about the poor and middle-class then how about fixing the schools... not too difficult to do if you care to try. On this issue I must side with conservatives. It may be the only time I do, but it is so frustrating to have a party that sells out it's constituents for the proverbial special interest groups!

It's not dead yet

“At the end of the day, we have to figure out who is the stronger candidate because that is what matters most.” -Hillary

Oh, I thought what matters most is that at the end of the day we stand for something besides our own narcissistic career ambitions. This is why Hillary should never be elected President, because she thinks politics are the ends for her and not a means for us.

Damn the torpedos!

One of the problems that I have with President Bush is that if he gets it into his head that he wants to do something, not even his closest advisors, political allies, or friends can convince him otherwise. Sound familiar?

Last night Hillary lost by almost 15 points in NC and barely, barely squeeked by in Indiana; a state by the way, which will allow anyone to request a Democratic ballot. A state which has voted Republican in every election for many, many years. A state in which, presumably, "operation chaos" is in full swing. But Hillary will take her 2 point lead and declare "on to the White House!"

Obama has the popular vote, the delegate vote, and Hillary has the possibility (not probability though) of getting the super-delegates to go for her. The very idea of having super-delegates is offensive to me and I find to be exceptionally undemocratic as it is part of a machinery that works against voters.

In short, the only shot Hillary has is to overturn the will of the voters.