Hillary Clinton sent Chelsea to an exclusive private school.
So, what's her real beef with allowing ordinary parents, who aren't as rich as the Clintons, to get the same kind of education for their children?
Could it be that like many prominent Democrats, she's heavily reliant on the teachers' unions for money and manpower so she has to slavishly adhere to their positions on the issues even if the children suffer for it?
Bingo, that's exactly what her opposition to vouchers is really all about: protecting members of the teachers' unions from competition.
"Could it be that like many prominent Democrats, she's heavily reliant on the teachers' unions for money and manpower so she has to slavishly adhere to their positions on the issues even if the children suffer for it?"
Of course. But let's not forget that there are other economic interests that benefit from the existing educational system other than just the teacher's unions. Such as the people who build the schools, those who maintain the schools, provide the curriculum, sell the textbooks, etc.
"Bingo, that's exactly what her opposition to vouchers is really all about: protecting members of the teachers' unions from competition."
That's part of it. But here is where I rapidly stray off the reservation. I don't like vouchers and I get tired of "conservative" politicians pointing to them as a panacea. They're not a panacea, and are a political red herring as far as I'm concerned.
The underlying idea of voucher's, i.e. educational choice, is of course a good idea. The problem is that the courts have slapped them down every time they've gotten ahold of them. We aren't going to see them actually implemented anytime soon, if ever. "Conservative" politicians already know this, yet they continue to chant the voucher mantra. Frankly, vouchers are a code word for continuing with the status quo. Any "conservative" politician can support them and even attempt to implement a voucher program, very secure in the knowledge that it will never actually happen.
I also have something of a philosophical problem with vouchers. Ultimately, these are your and my tax dollars. Why should any parent have to get a "voucher" to use their own money to educate their children in the first place? I'd prefer that there simply be a very generous tax credit/deduction for children giving parents the financial wherewithal to make their own educational choices for their children.
Lastly, we should remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Any voucher program is going to come with strings attached. Be it curriculum, or purchasing of certain textbooks, or what have you.
Pacifists versus Peace By Thomas Sowell
One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.
"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.
Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/pacifists_versus_peace.html