"I wish they would only take me as I am" - Vincent Van Gogh               "How Can I believe in God when just last week I got my tounge caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" - Woody Allen              "Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake" - Henry David Thoreau              "I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It involves Russia" - Woody Allen            "When promulgating esoteric cogitations, eschew platitudinous ponderosities" - Mark Rowan, my father            "Up, sluggard, and waste not life, for in the grave there will be sleep enough" - Benjamin Franklin             "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." - Albert Einstein            "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence" - Ronald Reagan            "It's odd that you can get so anesthetized by your own pain or your own problem that you don't quite fully share the hell of someone close to you." - Lady Bird Johnson              "I still want to be the candidate for guys with confederate flags in their pickup truck" - Howard Dean

e-mail me

My Photo
Name:
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Graduate of the University of Oregon, Married for 4-1/2 years to my High School sweetheart. I am currently residing in Cleveland while I attend med school.

  • John McCain
    • Read what I feed

    Powered by Blogger

    Sunday, February 26, 2006

    Hillary Clinton and Vouchers: a Study of Politcal Speaking


    On Tuesday Hillary was espousing the dangers of school vouchers. I first heard about her comments from Malkin. It's not much of a surprise to see Hillary lobby against such a reform. Despite sending Chelsea to a private academy in DC, Clinton (Both Bill and Hillary) receive a great deal of support from teachers unions. Her speech was as follows:
    CLINTON: Suppose that you were meeting today to decide who got the vouchers. First parent comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher. Next parent who comes says, 'I want to send, you know, my child to the Jewish Day School. Great here's your voucher! Next parent who comes says, "I want to send my child to the private school that I've already dreamed of sending my child to.' Fine. Here's your voucher.

    Next parent who comes says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist.' You say, 'Wait a minute. You can't send...we're not giving a voucher for that.' And the parent says, 'Well, the way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. And therefore, you gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, gave it to a secular private parent. Under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'

    Suppose the next parent comes and says 'I want to send my child to the School of...the Jihad.' Wait a minute! We're not going to send a child with taxpayers dollars to the School of Jihad. 'Well, you gave it to the Catholics, gave it to the Jews, gave it to the private secular people. You're gonna tell me I can't? I'm a taxpayer. Under the Constitution.'

    Now, tell me how we're going to make those choices.
    Despite disagreeing with Hillary on the issue in general, these statements were particularly idiotic, in my opinion. To me, it illustrates the importance of understanding what politicians say. I disagree with most of Hillary's issues (though I applaude the fact that she continues to be one of few senate democrats that show any support for President Bush in Iraq), but I recognize that she is an intelligent woman. She is shrewd, and very politically minded. She may have rode in on her husband's coattails, but that doesn't mean she doesn't know how to be a politician. So, I decided to analyze her comments for you, my reader.

    First, White Supremacy Schools. Well, Hillary, you may have forgotten about a little thing called Brown v. Board of Education. That decision said that a school cannot discriminate based on race. Thus, such a school would be illegal, and could not opperate legally.

    Secondly, a jihad school? Such a horrible thought, but Hillary does raise a good point. As long as the school did not discriminate, how could we prevent it from developing? It's a frightening thought. How could we prevent it from opening? By doing absolutely nothing. That's right, nothing. There is currently no law preventing such a school from being opened today, yet none has developed. It certainly isn't for lack of funding, considering Al Qaeda's deep pockets. Rather, it is likely due to such strong public opposition.

    Clinton's slippery slope example is ridiculous. Looking at these possibilities for even a moment makes that clear. Yet, Clinton's statements serve to do something else, that is not so easy to see. While her comparisons are absolutely ridiculous, Hillary has related vouchers to racism and Islamofascism. She is playing to our emotions. Her statements somehow make school vouchers related to racism and terrorism. There is absolutely no reason why a voucher system would favor the creation of a racist or terrorist school anymore than the current system, yet her statement would seem to indicate otherwise. This is where her political savvy really shows through. Even though anyone with a few brain cells can tell that the comparison is ridiculous, it still serves to equate vouchers to such emotionally repugnant concepts as racism and terrorism.
    For some great posts on Hillary's statements, check out the following:
  • Eugene Rant
  • Marooned in Marin
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Watch the Video
  • 1 Comments:

    Anonymous Matt S said...

    Good analysis. Hillary's problem is that the logical conclusions to her objections are probably not to her own liking.

    It sounds like she objects to the government funding religious schools. Fair enough.

    Is she suggesting that government choose between acceptable religion and unacceptable religion? Sounds like a problem of church and state to me.

    Another solution to her criticism is that government gets out of the education business. I suspect she is not suggesting that.

    The third possiblity is that the government will only fund schools with no religious affiliation. In this case, she comes off as anti-religion, not a good political position considering 60%+ of the population identifies itself as religious.

    Of course, she is arguing none of these. She is arguing for statism as usual. Individuals (parents and students) should not be making their own decisions, because some might, hypothetically, make bad ones. In other words, government knows best!

    12:54 AM  

    Post a Comment

    Trackbacks

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home