Today's vote
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
I'm curious on who voted today and who voted for what... if you don't mind putting down your reason for voting the way you did, that'd be great!
Personally, I was a fan of Ref. 1 when I first heard about it -- I only changed my decision (and voted against it) b/c of the seeming unconstitutionality (state) of it. I believe in the way that part of our constitution was written and support the principle it seems to define. (obviously this is based on the way I read the constitution, which may or may not be correct).
Personally, I was a fan of Ref. 1 when I first heard about it -- I only changed my decision (and voted against it) b/c of the seeming unconstitutionality (state) of it. I believe in the way that part of our constitution was written and support the principle it seems to define. (obviously this is based on the way I read the constitution, which may or may not be correct).
I voted against prop 1. Normally, I am quite conservative and against the government running anything. Other than the military and perhaps one or two other things, I don't believe the government should be running anything.
However, public schools is the one place I make an exception for. Yes, it is socialistic. Yes, it has all kinds of problems. The reason I still go for public schools is because *kids* are involved. Think about the kids from "loser" parents. My wife goes to the public school once a week to read with kids whose parents don't do it. Our neighbors do the same. Right now our public elementary school has a great mix of rich and poor, involved and uninvolved parents, and so forth. Generally, my neighborhood goes to the public elementary.
If our neighbors start going to private or charter schools, it will leave only the "loser" parents' kids in the public system. That will force me to take my kids to charter schools as well because I will always do what is in their best interest.
What does that leave in the public schools? The kids whose parents don't care. I'm generalizing here, of course, but I believe it is a step towards a two-tier system. Public school, with all of its faults, allows kids of loser parents to get a decent education, go to college, and make something of themselves. That's the American dream.
In all other areas, I'm for freedom, privatization, and choice. This is an exception. I will not support castes/classes in our society, and a private/public system is exactly that.
If we went entirely private with education I'd probably vote for it. But not this half and half version.
Best to all. BTW, I carried as I voted and was proud of the opportunity to do both.
However, public schools is the one place I make an exception for. Yes, it is socialistic. Yes, it has all kinds of problems. The reason I still go for public schools is because *kids* are involved. Think about the kids from "loser" parents. My wife goes to the public school once a week to read with kids whose parents don't do it. Our neighbors do the same. Right now our public elementary school has a great mix of rich and poor, involved and uninvolved parents, and so forth. Generally, my neighborhood goes to the public elementary.
If our neighbors start going to private or charter schools, it will leave only the "loser" parents' kids in the public system. That will force me to take my kids to charter schools as well because I will always do what is in their best interest.
What does that leave in the public schools? The kids whose parents don't care. I'm generalizing here, of course, but I believe it is a step towards a two-tier system. Public school, with all of its faults, allows kids of loser parents to get a decent education, go to college, and make something of themselves. That's the American dream.
In all other areas, I'm for freedom, privatization, and choice. This is an exception. I will not support castes/classes in our society, and a private/public system is exactly that.
If we went entirely private with education I'd probably vote for it. But not this half and half version.
Best to all. BTW, I carried as I voted and was proud of the opportunity to do both.
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
Docnix, I think I voted For 1 for all the reasons you voted against it. I believe the government should mind its own business and stick to defending the country. I refuse to send my kids to public school. They are (in general) corrupt, socialistic, and only cater to the loudest 2%. Much of my education was left solely to me due to the lousy public school system.
One example being when I was a junior in High school a kid in my class refused to do an assignment or even write his name on a single paper all year. For the final he wrote his name at the top and doodled on the page. He received an A in the class because he showed 100% improvement.
While not all schools are this bad many are and the others have similar deficiencies. I was motivated enough to make it through this system, but way too many are not. I should be able to apply at least a portion of my tax dollars to the education I feel my kids deserve.
There will be many parents who care about their kids who will still choose public schools. They do work for many people, however to remove a choice is wrong in my opinion. There are many problems with #1, but I still feel it is a step in the right direction. Even if it doesn’t pass I will still be pursuing other options for my kids even if it means me working more or even getting a 2nd or 3rd job. There is already a large amount of kids in private schools… so much so that most have multiyear waiting lists. This system is already in place in many cities around the country and has yet to create a 2 tier system. Public education was originally made so everyone would have a chance to gain an education, not meant to replace the private system already in place as it is currently trying to do.
Again this is just my .02 cents. Happy voting
One example being when I was a junior in High school a kid in my class refused to do an assignment or even write his name on a single paper all year. For the final he wrote his name at the top and doodled on the page. He received an A in the class because he showed 100% improvement.
While not all schools are this bad many are and the others have similar deficiencies. I was motivated enough to make it through this system, but way too many are not. I should be able to apply at least a portion of my tax dollars to the education I feel my kids deserve.
There will be many parents who care about their kids who will still choose public schools. They do work for many people, however to remove a choice is wrong in my opinion. There are many problems with #1, but I still feel it is a step in the right direction. Even if it doesn’t pass I will still be pursuing other options for my kids even if it means me working more or even getting a 2nd or 3rd job. There is already a large amount of kids in private schools… so much so that most have multiyear waiting lists. This system is already in place in many cities around the country and has yet to create a 2 tier system. Public education was originally made so everyone would have a chance to gain an education, not meant to replace the private system already in place as it is currently trying to do.
Again this is just my .02 cents. Happy voting
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
I voted against the proposition as well. I read through things very carefully, and though I have no children as yet, I felt that in its original uncorrupted form it was good. I believe that what the UEA and others of their ilk have done is appalling. This bill is like night and day from its original form to what it is now.
I was quite torn up as to which way to vote. I really believe that choice is the great benefactor of us all however I felt that the watered down & destroyed version we are getting to vote on only benefits some, rather than allowing for greater opportunity for all, which is what it was supposed to do.
I heard it explained like this: It's like eating at McDonalds everyday as opposed to choosing Sizzler today and Burger King tomorrow. without choice we are very limited in our selection, our choices and our curriculum. We need choice to bring a greater balance to all.
A parent too lazy to ensure the education of their children should not be a reason to deny our children a good education. Yes they (our children) may get opportunities to teach others of their peers, but will they learn or be bored in the process? What I am saying is that our children need good stimulating education and if they aren't getting it they will suffer.
Any school which accepts federal funding, regardless of whether it is 1$ or 20 million $'s is required to have specific classes, and time has told us, or shown us, how inappropriate and wrong this is. A private education does not have a system which forces cow-towing to ludicrous classes, or structures of education which corrupt the young as they are too young to often interpret things with the maturity of an adult.
As I said, I voted no on the proposition because it had been tainted and corrupted. I wish I had voted for it as some opportunity for choice gives us more opportunity for future development with the program, therefore helping to create a stronger education system and better educated youth.
I was quite torn up as to which way to vote. I really believe that choice is the great benefactor of us all however I felt that the watered down & destroyed version we are getting to vote on only benefits some, rather than allowing for greater opportunity for all, which is what it was supposed to do.
I heard it explained like this: It's like eating at McDonalds everyday as opposed to choosing Sizzler today and Burger King tomorrow. without choice we are very limited in our selection, our choices and our curriculum. We need choice to bring a greater balance to all.
A parent too lazy to ensure the education of their children should not be a reason to deny our children a good education. Yes they (our children) may get opportunities to teach others of their peers, but will they learn or be bored in the process? What I am saying is that our children need good stimulating education and if they aren't getting it they will suffer.
Any school which accepts federal funding, regardless of whether it is 1$ or 20 million $'s is required to have specific classes, and time has told us, or shown us, how inappropriate and wrong this is. A private education does not have a system which forces cow-towing to ludicrous classes, or structures of education which corrupt the young as they are too young to often interpret things with the maturity of an adult.
As I said, I voted no on the proposition because it had been tainted and corrupted. I wish I had voted for it as some opportunity for choice gives us more opportunity for future development with the program, therefore helping to create a stronger education system and better educated youth.
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
No, I am not flip-flopping, I am not Rocky Anderson--King of Flip - Floppers.
All I am saying, Bane, is I have always been for the voucher program--as originally voted into law. Unfortunately it has been tainted and corrupted from its original structure to such an extent it is hardly recognizable, and only helps a very small minority of children. I voted absentee over two weeks ago and have thought long and hard on it, as well as discussed it with others and come to the conclusion I probably voted under the auspice of emotion over the issue, rather than from a more educated and positive attitude and position. I am just saying it would be better to vote yes and have some choice, or say in our children's education, than to leave things as they are and deny our children. Improvements will come along.
All I am saying, Bane, is I have always been for the voucher program--as originally voted into law. Unfortunately it has been tainted and corrupted from its original structure to such an extent it is hardly recognizable, and only helps a very small minority of children. I voted absentee over two weeks ago and have thought long and hard on it, as well as discussed it with others and come to the conclusion I probably voted under the auspice of emotion over the issue, rather than from a more educated and positive attitude and position. I am just saying it would be better to vote yes and have some choice, or say in our children's education, than to leave things as they are and deny our children. Improvements will come along.
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Cinhill,
I'm sorry if my last post came across wrong -- I was just jesting, I really didn't mean it to be an actual "jab".
I respect your ability to re-assess your position and change your mind -- it's every one's right and responsibility to do so, as long as their "flip" was based on education and not poll numbers or some special-interest catering, etc. If you read some of my other posts you'll see that I've "flipped" on some major life-changing issues over the course of my life (which is still pretty young, and I'm sure I'll do plenty more flipping in the years to come!)
Again, my apologies.
I'm sorry if my last post came across wrong -- I was just jesting, I really didn't mean it to be an actual "jab".
I respect your ability to re-assess your position and change your mind -- it's every one's right and responsibility to do so, as long as their "flip" was based on education and not poll numbers or some special-interest catering, etc. If you read some of my other posts you'll see that I've "flipped" on some major life-changing issues over the course of my life (which is still pretty young, and I'm sure I'll do plenty more flipping in the years to come!)
Again, my apologies.
Joined
·
238 Posts
I voted for Ref 1 even though I think it is only a bandaid for the current system. It would actually benefit public schools by giving them money for each student who choses to go to a private school instead. (The voucher money that is given doesn't come from public school funds.) The part of Ref 1 that I didn't agree with is that it redistributes wealth--poor people get more money back than rich people. Although the current public school system is "socialistic," at least everyone contributes an equal percentage based on property tax (like a flat tax). What I think we really need to add to this referendum is to give reimbursements to parents who homeschool their children. Parents who homeschool are helping out public school students by reducing the classroom size.
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Ok, now that the polls are closed, I'd like to chime in by adding my feelings on the issue (BTW, THANK YOU to all who voted, regardless of your position!)
By my reading of the State Constitution, Prop. 1 is unconstitutional. This prop. will take PUBLIC money and distribute it to students going to PRIVATE schools even if those private schools are RELIGIOUS schools (or worse, ANTI-religious schools... none of which currently exist in Utah, that I'm aware of, but the possibility should be considered). Why don't I like this??? For several reasons:
1) For those who support/use a local religious/private school, funneling PUBLIC money into that school opens a potential can-of-worms for allowing the gov't to come in and start dictating at an ever-greater control what can and cannot be taught in that school (and rightly so, given the source of funds) -- this has been well pointed out already here, and as noted, the dangers are real.
2) For those who do not support/use a local religious/private school... consider this. This is YOUR tax money being used. Private religious schools do not, usually, teach a simple standard curriculum... most have mandatory religious classes. If you are LDS, do you really want to PAY MONEY OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET to foster the religious teachings of, say, the Catholic Church??? I am in NO WAY saying that a religious Church shouldn't have the right to teach what they want... what I am saying is that I shouldn't have to PAY for someone to be taught a doctrine I may not agree with.
The Constitutionality of this Ref. is pretty simple to me. It comes down to mixing State money with Religion money... do we really want to integrate religion and the state??? As far as I am aware, any time things like this are done, either religion in general loses or one religion gains favor over the other religions.
State-sponsorship of religion is never a good thing; and this is exactly one of the results that will come of this Ref. If we want to keep our religious values free of government intervention, we should not vote something in that will begin to breach that separation.
The education of our children is important, but the means are at least as important as the ends.
By my reading of the State Constitution, Prop. 1 is unconstitutional. This prop. will take PUBLIC money and distribute it to students going to PRIVATE schools even if those private schools are RELIGIOUS schools (or worse, ANTI-religious schools... none of which currently exist in Utah, that I'm aware of, but the possibility should be considered). Why don't I like this??? For several reasons:
1) For those who support/use a local religious/private school, funneling PUBLIC money into that school opens a potential can-of-worms for allowing the gov't to come in and start dictating at an ever-greater control what can and cannot be taught in that school (and rightly so, given the source of funds) -- this has been well pointed out already here, and as noted, the dangers are real.
2) For those who do not support/use a local religious/private school... consider this. This is YOUR tax money being used. Private religious schools do not, usually, teach a simple standard curriculum... most have mandatory religious classes. If you are LDS, do you really want to PAY MONEY OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET to foster the religious teachings of, say, the Catholic Church??? I am in NO WAY saying that a religious Church shouldn't have the right to teach what they want... what I am saying is that I shouldn't have to PAY for someone to be taught a doctrine I may not agree with.
The Constitutionality of this Ref. is pretty simple to me. It comes down to mixing State money with Religion money... do we really want to integrate religion and the state??? As far as I am aware, any time things like this are done, either religion in general loses or one religion gains favor over the other religions.
State-sponsorship of religion is never a good thing; and this is exactly one of the results that will come of this Ref. If we want to keep our religious values free of government intervention, we should not vote something in that will begin to breach that separation.
The education of our children is important, but the means are at least as important as the ends.
Joined
·
238 Posts
I also think Prop 1 was unconstitutional, but for a different reason--it takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Prop 1 isn't giving public money to private schools, it is giving back to the parents some of the money that is rightfully theirs to begin with. And it comes nowhere close to "state sponsorship of religion." The government isn't sponsoring religion, it is giving the money back to the parents and then they can decide if they want to "sponsor religion."
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Hamm,
You are absolutely right about your first point -- I only didn't go that far b/c in the mixed economy we have adopted in this country, that argument doesn't often get far with most people and in order to fix that problem we have to first fix a whole ton of other problems (the whole system!). But, you I am 100% with you -- it's sad that our original system based on capitalism and individual Rights has been largely abandoned.
But I have to disagree with your 2nd point (that is, unless I misunderstand the mechanics of the resolution). My understanding of it is that the money didn't go directly to the parents unconditionally but that it had to be used at a "participating" school. That fact means that it isn't entirely up to the parents to do with it as they wish, since they can't actually apply to any school they choose (otherwise homeschoolers would be able to collect) and since a school has to meet certain "qualifications", the door is opened for gov. interference of the school and thus the religious values taught there.
Additionally, though your 2nd point is correct given your 1st, your 2nd point depends on your 1st which depends on an incorrect assumption (that our society is based on a system of capitalism and individual Rights). Since your first premise is actually no longer true (and hasn't been since the early 1900's), your 2nd doesn't hold, even though both you and I wish it did. And here's an example of why: Family "A" is relatively well-off and pay AT LEAST their portion of the $7000 a year, via taxes, that it is said to school their 1 child. Absolutely, any amount "refunded" back to them under this proposal would be warranted as THEIR money; no doubt about it. However, family "B" barely scrapes by and has 5 kids -- they pay no where near the $35,000 their 5 kids consume via schooling. To "refund" them *ANY* amount of money is to take away from family "A" and give to family "B" (just exactly as you said in your post). This is where the proposal DOES sponsor religion -- b/c family "B" gets the "public" money paid into the system by family "A" and family "A" ends up supporting family "B"'s religious values. It's nothing short of government-forced Church tithing/donating.
In my example, my wife and I earn well-above the state average. Though we don't live like it, we are pretty well off (not rich, but nowhere near strapped). We also have no kids, as of yet. But, b/c we own a home, we pay into the school system the same as everyone else. Therefore,under this proposition, I am also paying for family "B"s religious values whether I like it or not.
This is why your 2nd point is invalid. In the case of the well-off family "A", no state-sponsoring of religion is necessarily occurring b/c family "A" paid that amount into the system anyways... it was their money to begin with. However, in the case of family "B", there absolutely is a state-sponsoring of religion occurring when money from family "A" and my family is taken from us, given to family "B", and then family "B" is permitted to use that money at a religious school.
In closing:
Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 4:
You are absolutely right about your first point -- I only didn't go that far b/c in the mixed economy we have adopted in this country, that argument doesn't often get far with most people and in order to fix that problem we have to first fix a whole ton of other problems (the whole system!). But, you I am 100% with you -- it's sad that our original system based on capitalism and individual Rights has been largely abandoned.
But I have to disagree with your 2nd point (that is, unless I misunderstand the mechanics of the resolution). My understanding of it is that the money didn't go directly to the parents unconditionally but that it had to be used at a "participating" school. That fact means that it isn't entirely up to the parents to do with it as they wish, since they can't actually apply to any school they choose (otherwise homeschoolers would be able to collect) and since a school has to meet certain "qualifications", the door is opened for gov. interference of the school and thus the religious values taught there.
Additionally, though your 2nd point is correct given your 1st, your 2nd point depends on your 1st which depends on an incorrect assumption (that our society is based on a system of capitalism and individual Rights). Since your first premise is actually no longer true (and hasn't been since the early 1900's), your 2nd doesn't hold, even though both you and I wish it did. And here's an example of why: Family "A" is relatively well-off and pay AT LEAST their portion of the $7000 a year, via taxes, that it is said to school their 1 child. Absolutely, any amount "refunded" back to them under this proposal would be warranted as THEIR money; no doubt about it. However, family "B" barely scrapes by and has 5 kids -- they pay no where near the $35,000 their 5 kids consume via schooling. To "refund" them *ANY* amount of money is to take away from family "A" and give to family "B" (just exactly as you said in your post). This is where the proposal DOES sponsor religion -- b/c family "B" gets the "public" money paid into the system by family "A" and family "A" ends up supporting family "B"'s religious values. It's nothing short of government-forced Church tithing/donating.
In my example, my wife and I earn well-above the state average. Though we don't live like it, we are pretty well off (not rich, but nowhere near strapped). We also have no kids, as of yet. But, b/c we own a home, we pay into the school system the same as everyone else. Therefore,under this proposition, I am also paying for family "B"s religious values whether I like it or not.
This is why your 2nd point is invalid. In the case of the well-off family "A", no state-sponsoring of religion is necessarily occurring b/c family "A" paid that amount into the system anyways... it was their money to begin with. However, in the case of family "B", there absolutely is a state-sponsoring of religion occurring when money from family "A" and my family is taken from us, given to family "B", and then family "B" is permitted to use that money at a religious school.
In closing:
Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 4:
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
I don't like Unions or any cause espoused by Unions.
Tarzan
Tarzan
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
BINGO!tapehoser said:
Give that man a bubble-gum cigar.
Unions are alive and well in Utah.
My Father was a Union Man most of his life.
My Brother also.
I have a sister and a brother-in-law who are UEA members.
They all live or have lived in Utah.
I, being the enlightened one in the family, know better.
Tarzan
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
OK, I thought he might have been talking about the UEA, but I didn't realize they were actually considered a union; huh.
I, personally, have mixed opinions about unions and thus am not sure where I really stand on them. In a non-forced union, such as the UEA apparently, it seems like a good idea (even if one doesn't agree with the union's positions and thus chooses to not be a member of one). If it is one's choice to join, isn't it a good thing that you have the option of joining with more like-minded individuals to fight for your cause???
However, forced unions I am completely at odds with -- and for all of the typical reasons given.
However, when I was in CA I found out that grocery stores are run by unions (at least, in San Diego they are). And I have to say, from my experience with those unions (which I do believe were "forced" unions), the level of service at an average grocery store there far superseded the level of service at an average grocery store here in Utah. The typical experiences don't even compare. Here the typical clerk is a young kid or a part-time mom or an elderly person -- now, I'm not saying these people don't have a right to work, and that many don't provide great service. However, it is common to find these people either less attentive or they try really hard but lack the knowledge and experience being that they haven't bee lifetime and full-time employees in that industry. In CA, however, the average employee WAS a full-time and life-time employee who really did treat his/her job as a PROFESSION. So, in that one instance, unions get a +1 from me.
However, the underlying principles of "forced" unions are still faulty, IMO.
Anyway, am I missing something about "voluntary" unions and why they are not good??? (not just the UEA, I'm aware of some of their many misplaced policies).
I, personally, have mixed opinions about unions and thus am not sure where I really stand on them. In a non-forced union, such as the UEA apparently, it seems like a good idea (even if one doesn't agree with the union's positions and thus chooses to not be a member of one). If it is one's choice to join, isn't it a good thing that you have the option of joining with more like-minded individuals to fight for your cause???
However, forced unions I am completely at odds with -- and for all of the typical reasons given.
However, when I was in CA I found out that grocery stores are run by unions (at least, in San Diego they are). And I have to say, from my experience with those unions (which I do believe were "forced" unions), the level of service at an average grocery store there far superseded the level of service at an average grocery store here in Utah. The typical experiences don't even compare. Here the typical clerk is a young kid or a part-time mom or an elderly person -- now, I'm not saying these people don't have a right to work, and that many don't provide great service. However, it is common to find these people either less attentive or they try really hard but lack the knowledge and experience being that they haven't bee lifetime and full-time employees in that industry. In CA, however, the average employee WAS a full-time and life-time employee who really did treat his/her job as a PROFESSION. So, in that one instance, unions get a +1 from me.
However, the underlying principles of "forced" unions are still faulty, IMO.
Anyway, am I missing something about "voluntary" unions and why they are not good??? (not just the UEA, I'm aware of some of their many misplaced policies).
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
Unions = Monopoly = Cartel = Mob = Gang = Bunch of criminals
And this is just using synonyms from the dictionary
And this is just using synonyms from the dictionary
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
That's an interesting relationship... however, I cannot seem to replicate it... what source did you use to find that relationship? I tried it with www.synonym.com and http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search (the second one is headed by some French guys, though, so it might not be too reliable! j/k) and was unsuccessful. I couldn't find a connection from Unions-->Monopoly.xmirage2kx said:
What I *DID* find is Unions--> Brotherhood -- but, given the extreme popularity of brotherhoods here in Utah, I doubt many of us would look on one unkindly.
I guess the other question is how does a VOLUNTEER union equate to a monopoly??? (it might, I'm just not seeing the connection).
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
The good ol'fashioned hardback version from 1987 it looks like. I will see if I can get it using more modern sources and post when I do.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
