The "Private Option" for Schools

[we vs us]

Ruf, you ignorant slut.

/obvious?

[nathanm]

One thing to keep in mind about the graduation rate and test scores of public schools versus private schools is that public schools have a larger variety of kids. Some are idiots. Some are geniuses. Some will never graduate, some will graduate early. This mix necessarily makes their numbers look worse. It's simple arithmetic. (Even my public school education taught me about how fractions work)

Public schools have to take everyone, including those with learning disabilities and physical handicaps that make them less likely to succeed in school. Private schools have the luxury of cherry picking their students, basically dumping the rest on public schools.

Moreover, private school attendance has a pretty solid correlation with active parents. Parents that don't care won't spend the money on the private school, after all. Once again, this serves to make public schools look like cesspools of failure, when in fact it is just a small subset of those who attend that are in such truly bad shape.

[guido911]

One thing to keep in mind about the graduation rate and test scores of public schools versus private schools is that public schools have a larger variety of kids. Some are idiots.

You went to public school, didn't you?

Ruf, I really wasn't trying to trap anyone. Only that the arguments for the public option in health care are equally applicable to other areas. Heck, even Obama compared the cost reduction/competition argument in the context of the U.S. post office vs. FedEx/UPS.

[Red Arrow]

Sorry RA, but your posts in this thread reflect the views of Republicans who don't tow the evangelically-correct party line on private school vouchers, which makes you a RINO... smile, you've been caught in the crossfire of a partisan tit-for-tat pi$$ing match.

RUF,

I was a Republican before the evangelicals hi-jacked the party.  I was Republican oriented probably before you were born. Call me a RINO if you want.  I remain a registered Republican because I cannot buy into the professed methods of the Democratic party.  Often the goals are noble but the methods to get there are frequently totally unacceptable to me.  In a two party system, I can at least vote in the primary elections to exert at least a one vote influence on who runs in the main election.

I wouldn't say I was caught in the cross-fire.  I occasionally like to join a pi$$ing match.  Hey, I answer you sometimes.

RA

[Conan71]

RUF,

I was a Republican before the evangelicals hi-jacked the party.  I was Republican oriented probably before you were born. Call me a RINO if you want.  I remain a registered Republican because I cannot buy into the professed methods of the Democratic party.  Often the goals are noble but the methods to get there are frequently totally unacceptable to me.  In a two party system, I can at least vote in the primary elections to exert at least a one vote influence on who runs in the main election.

I wouldn't say I was caught in the cross-fire.  I occasionally like to join a pi$$ing match.  Hey, I answer you sometimes.

RA

+1

I would gladly change my registration to "unafilliated" if it weren't for having to waive the opportunity to vote in primaries.  Since we are decidedly "red" in NE OK, it seems more important to me to have a vote in a GOP primary.

[nathanm]

You went to public school, didn't you?

I've been to both, although the vast majority of my schooling was in public school.

[Hoss]

+1

I would gladly change my registration to "unafilliated" if it weren't for having to waive the opportunity to vote in primaries.  Since we are decidedly "red" in NE OK, it seems more important to me to have a vote in a GOP primary.

I'd be curious to know how many states in the Union have open primaries.  Because, while I'm a registered democrat (due to the above stated policy of Oklahoma's closed primaries), I'm more like a Libertarian (social liberal, fiscal conservative)...I'd love to be able to file as Independent and still be able to vote in primaries.

[Red Arrow]

I'd be curious to know how many states in the Union have open primaries.  Because, while I'm a registered democrat (due to the above stated policy of Oklahoma's closed primaries), I'm more like a Libertarian (social liberal, fiscal conservative)...I'd love to be able to file as Independent and still be able to vote in primaries.

Hoss, this is not directed at you since as you have stated, you belong to the D party. You know how to play the game, even if you don't care for it.

Why should anyone not a member of a group be able to be a voting member of that group?  If you don't own stock in a company are you invited to vote at stock holder meetings?  If you are not a member of a sewing circle, can you vote for officers of the sewing circle?  If you want a say in who is a candidate for a political party, join the party closest to your beliefs.  If that's not possible, join a party to nominate the least objectionable candidate, otherwise you will just have to put up with whoever the parties nominate.  We have open general elections.  The primaries are for the various groups to pick their nominee.  Maybe one solution to the "problem" would be for the parties to just have secret meetings to come up with a nominee.  Then there would be no question of not being able to vote in an election.

[we vs us]

Red Arrow, I disagree with you on most things but respect you enormously for your willingness to discuss openly.  Proud to call you my countryman.

Hoss makes an interesting point.  In our system, primaries have become proxies for a multiparty system.  That's where the most variety is, and also the most specificity. When we get to the generals, each candidate has to carry the expectations of so many well-heeled interest groups that there's a lot of not knowing quite exactly what you're getting.  So it's not surprising that self-described independents would want their voices heard in the arena where they'd have the best chance of getting the most of what they want.

[Red Arrow]

Red Arrow, I disagree with you on most things but respect you enormously for your willingness to discuss openly.  Proud to call you my countryman.

Hoss makes an interesting point.  In our system, primaries have become proxies for a multiparty system.  That's where the most variety is, and also the most specificity. When we get to the generals, each candidate has to carry the expectations of so many well-heeled interest groups that there's a lot of not knowing quite exactly what you're getting.  So it's not surprising that self-described independents would want their voices heard in the arena where they'd have the best chance of getting the most of what they want.

I obviously disagree with a lot of opinions here but am always willing to listen to a well presented position.  I may still disagree but I will listen.  Thanks.

I understand independents desire to vote in the primaries but respectfully disagree with their right to do so.  It's one of the costs of not being able to make a choice.   I agree the two choices have become dismal.

[Hoss]

I obviously disagree with a lot of opinions here but am always willing to listen to a well presented position.  I may still disagree but I will listen.  Thanks.

I understand independents desire to vote in the primaries but respectfully disagree with their right to do so.  It's one of the costs of not being able to make a choice.   I agree the two choices have become dismal.

How is not wanting to align with the Republicans or Democrats called 'not being able to make a choice'?  I'm sure those people that align themselves with the Libertarian party would tell you they made a choice.  Those that aligned with the Green party.  Hell, even those that aligned themselves as Independent said they made a choice.  It's just not in the majority.

I still think the two-party closed primary voting scheme is exclusionary.  Let EVERYONE vote in the primaries if they want to.  I always wondered why most states don't, but looking at this page... http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 .... I see that alot do, but with provisions.

[Red Arrow]

How is not wanting to align with the Republicans or Democrats called 'not being able to make a choice'?  I'm sure those people that align themselves with the Libertarian party would tell you they made a choice.  Those that aligned with the Green party.  Hell, even those that aligned themselves as Independent said they made a choice.  It's just not in the majority.

I still think the two-party closed primary voting scheme is exclusionary.  Let EVERYONE vote in the primaries if they want to.  I always wondered why most states don't, but looking at this page... http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 .... I see that alot do, but with provisions.

Yep, it's exclusionary.  It was designed that way and I think it should stay that way.  Maybe I should be allowed to vote in Tulsa city elections even though I actually live in Bixby.  What happens in Tulsa affects me personally more that most things that happen in Bixby since I live near 111th and Memorial.  I believe that primary elections were not always used to choose candidates.  The party big-wigs chose the candidates.  Would you like to return to that method?

It's not being able to choose between the two parties that regularly have primary elections to choose their nominee.  If you want to help choose the R or D nominee, join that party.  What would it take for Libertarians to have a primary besides more than one candidate?  Same for other parties.  Independent is a case on its own since that is a choice of no party affiliation.  If you as a non-D or non-R get to vote in a primary why should I as an R not be able to vote in the D primary (giving  up my vote in the R primary for that day) to vote for the D least likely to win.  Ds would do the same for the Rs.  If you think we have some bad choices now, just try that scenario.

I believe it was Bill Cosby that had a routine about never challenging "worse".  Just as soon as you declare that things could not possibly get worse, they do.

[USRufnex]

RUF,

I was a Republican before the evangelicals hi-jacked the party.  I was Republican oriented probably before you were born. Call me a RINO if you want.  I remain a registered Republican because I cannot buy into the professed methods of the Democratic party.  Often the goals are noble but the methods to get there are frequently totally unacceptable to me.  In a two party system, I can at least vote in the primary elections to exert at least a one vote influence on who runs in the main election.

I wouldn't say I was caught in the cross-fire.  I occasionally like to join a pi$$ing match.  Hey, I answer you sometimes.

RA

The "RINO" quip was meant to be snarky, btw.   
These days, being a pro-choice Republican = RINO.... Urban Republicans who support sensible gun-control measures = RINO....

I vaguely remember a time when the only position that would get you expelled from the GOP was if you disavowed limited government and restraint of federal spending... yet Dick Cheney's Republican credentials aren't questioned despite famously telling us that "deficits don't matter."

Oh well.

Time to break out the hotwings and beer to watch the Oklahoma STATE-RUN Cowboys play the Georgia STRONG-PUBLIC-OPTION Bulldogs.

And tonight I'll be rooting for the Oklahoma GOVERNMENT-TAKEOVER-OF-EDUCATION Sooners to beat the BYU PRIVATE-MORMON-OPTION Cougars...

/snark

[Red Arrow]

The "RINO" quip was meant to be snarky, btw.   
These days, being a pro-choice Republican = RINO.... Urban Republicans who support sensible gun-control measures = RINO....

I vaguely remember a time when the only position that would get you expelled from the GOP was if you disavowed limited government and restraint of federal spending... yet Dick Cheney's Republican credentials aren't questioned despite famously telling us that "deficits don't matter."

Oh well.

From you, I take nothing as a compliment. 

FWIW I don't think abortion should be used as a casual substitute for birth control but it should remain legal. 

Describe sensible gun control.  Prohibit convicted felons, probably.  (It would provide another charge if they screw up again.  Remember that Al Capone went to prison on tax charges, not for the violence he caused.)  Many others, probably not.  I expect you could cite some examples I would support.  Generally outlawing them, no.   I think Iraq is living proof that we don't want overly restrictive gun (or ammo) control.  If none of them had guns, we would'a been outa there with a conclusive win long ago.  I hope that if anyone were to attempt a take over of the USA that we could do as well as the Iraqis have done against us.

[nathanm]

FWIW I don't think abortion should be used as a casual substitute for birth control but it should remain legal. 

Congratulations, you agree with the vast majority of pro-life activists. (It must be snark week, sorry)