Don't get me started on No Child Left Behind :)
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:58:45 -0500
Subject: RE: DNC
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Point of clarification on No Child Left Behind -- Chicago Tribune reported
today that test scores for underprivileged are up and No Child Left Behind
program gets much of the credit.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: DNC
No, I don't think it's particularly aimed at me. Kerry seems to
overshoot and Bush seems to miss the mark entirely.
On Kerry's side I hear him saying he's "all grow the military" and
"pass everything in the 9/11 recommendations"*. That seems aimed at
the right more than the center. His stuff about health care for
everyone is firmly left**.
With Bush, I hear that Kerry is a waffler. And their persuasive
argument is that Kerry did vote for the war. (And yes, Kerry's vote
bothers me.) The problem with that as a persuasive argument for the
independents though is that Bush was the one pushing Kerry and
everyone else to vote for the war, so it's a bit of the tea, kettle,
black situation. And since we do know that the intel was wrong, it
seems appropriate for people who backed it to be upset about being
mislead. So much for the waffle.
Kerry seems to be bracketing the middle with wide, wide brackets, and
Bush just seems to the right. Of course, Bush in the past has made
promises to the left. Things like buckets of cash for AIDS prevention
in Africa, and No Child Left Behind. But they either fell through or
were poorly implemented. We won't know if Kerry's promises to the
right are just as empty or not unless he's elected.
-Kevin
* I need to read up more on the 9/11 recommendations, but I have some
grave concerns about some of what I've read and heard about them. For
instance, the idea of reducing the wall between the CIA and the FBI
and promoting more sharing of information. Because the CIA with its
international, outward view, isn't bound by the Constitution like the
domestic policing FBI is, sharing that information can easily lead to
significant problems. Prior to 9/11 there were already cases of the
FBI getting intel from the CIA and using it to bypass due process of
law in domestic cases.
** I thought it peculiar in Kerry's speech that he supported anyone
being able to legally buy not only affordable meds, but specifically
meds from other countries like Canada. (I'm sure he killed some
support by the pharmaceutical megaconglomerates with that.) And I
wondered why he didn't seem to want to push for forcing the drug
companies to sell their product at similarly cheap prices domestically
rather than having sales go to Canada. But the more I think about it,
the better his approach is since it actually reduces government
regulations on the citizens and sidesteps imposing a government
control on a US industry, instead promoting a free market economy
approach. If people take their money elsewhere, the drug companies
will have to adjust their prices, if people don't then drug companies
are free to charge whatever they wish.
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:28:08 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ditto here Kevin.
>
> As an intelligent independent, do you feel much of the rhetoric being
shoveled out on either side is directed at you? When you can dismiss most of
it in the first 5 seconds as either skewed, baseless, one-sided, or blatantly
false? Seems to me it's aimed at a non-thinker, a reacter, someone who would
say "its on TV, it must be true".
>
> I just can't help but feel they'd rather trick the unsuspecting than
persuade the unblinking....________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
