Meme thingie

[woodface]

So I saw this politics meme that's out there and tried it for fun.

You Are a New School Democrat

You like partying and politics - and are likely to be young and affluent. You're less religious, traditional, and uptight than most Democrats. Smoking pot, homosexuality, and gambling are all okay in your book. You prefer that the government help people take care of themselves.

What political persuasion are you?

Sex between consenting adults should be:
Legal and left alone
Regulated by community standards

You mean sex? The entire bloody thing? I'm dead set against restricting anything between genders but now you mean the whole bloody thing? What are they gonna do? Make you request to have sex a month beforehand so they can send an observer to your bedroom and make sure no body part is going where it should not go? Talk about sexual frustration.

Marijuana should be: legal etc

You know, I don't like drugs and I am pretty much against it except for medical reasons. My country has legalised the possession for personal usage though.

Replacing government welfare with church and private charities

*blinks* Isn't welfare something the government HAS to provide? Is it not their responsibility to take care of their citizens? But you know, I really am too little informed to understand exactly how the whole thing works in Belgium.

Who would you trust the most?

A politican you voted for
A CEO of a company you like
Your minister / pastor / priest

Trust with what? I trust a politican (well not trust trust) to take care of politics, I trust a minister to take care of the spiritual health (if you chose to let them anyway) and I'm not sure what the company is doing in there. When it comes to saving my life? I'll trust a doctor. Dude, what kind of question is this?

Abortion is:
Wrong
A woman's choice

*sighs* Who are we to chose for anyone else? If someone is raped, I believe it is their right to end the pregnancy. If someone can not carry a baby because it would harm her, they have a right to end it. If someone knows they do not have the means to care for their child (be it whatever reason) they have a right. Whether or not I agree with their reasons does not matter here. That is for every woman to decide for herself.

Are you for or against school vouchers?
Against, they make things worse for underprivlidged students
For, because every parent should be allowed to chose a religious school instead of public schools
Not sure... you like the idea of competition - but not goverment paying for private or religious schools.

I'm not entirely sure what school vouchers are. Someone? I do know that Belgium had a crisis around religious and public schools. We have a division now. I have gone to catholic schools all my life, our government does not support these schools (or they do but not as much as the public schools). I believe that religious schools have a right to not teach moral classes besides religion classes. I believe that if you send your child to such a school, you have to follow the school's guidelines and you have no right to whine. Besides that, I believe that public schools should not have any involvement with religion. If they want to give religious classes and moral classes, then they should make classes available for all religions.

But above all, I think our government should strive for the best education possible. I don't believe in dumbing things down. If catholic schools in Belgium provide a better education than public schools, it should be the public schools who should heighten their standards. It should not mean that catholic schools have to be pushed to give moral classes so some rich people who don't want to have anything to do with religion can have their way.

Comments

[splash-the-cat.livejournal.com]

In the US, religious or parochial schools are private, which means they are not funded by the government, and are supported by tuition paid by attendees.

Public school funding is based, in part, on a per student monetary figure This is very simplified, as that figure depends on many factors). Vouchers are part of a program that says if a parent wants to send their student to a private institution (religious or not) the government should give the student that individual dollar figure that it would have paid a public school for that student.

The arguments against this are that a) this takes money away from public schools, and b) that this is against the first amendment, because it means that the government is thus funding a specific religious belief.

Arguments for this are that parents should have the flexibility of choice in where their students are educated, and that it should be funded, and that this competition between public and private schools will force educational institutions to improve to meet demands.

[woodface]

Aaaaah! Thanks. It's a bit like it is here. Elementary public schools are free. For high school there are minimal charges (for renting your books and activities outside of school).

The government must offer its citizens free or as cheap as possible educations. I don't think it's their task to get involved in any religion at all so if you want your child to go to another school, you should pay for it.

Our universities have always been very democratic too. No matter what school you went to, what your grades are or what direction you followed, you can go to university. Although this costs more money, there are scholarships for children coming from a family that gains below a certain amount of money. (This system isn't perfect but it does work) Sadly enough the restructering of our universities (in the image of English and American uni's) will be a set back. It will make education more expensive and it will be a step back instead of forward.

[angelfinn.livejournal.com]

Just a comment on your icon. I think it needs a second screen. One with a shot of Jack's ass. Surely there's one on a DVD somewhere that would work. ;) *snicker*

[woodface]

Jack's ass? You mean like this one? ;o)

[angelfinn.livejournal.com]

Very, very nice. ;)

[woodface]

*giggles* Damn, I should have a Sam's ass icon too.

[angelfinn.livejournal.com]

*hehe* Ass of Sam, ass of Jack. It's all a matter of preference? :D

[woodface]

I must admit that my love for Sam's ass is higher than for Jack's ass at the moment. The woman is so damn hot, she should be illegal. *drools*

[angelfinn.livejournal.com]

This is true. I've thought that myself while watching the show. She's got such beautiful expressive eyes, and she's so smart! Gah! It's a turn on. :)

[woodface]

And she gets hotter every season. I thought S7 would be my undoing but she's even hotter in S8.

Hee hee! Welcome to the Sam!love!

[angelfinn.livejournal.com]

Gotta start watching that show again on Mondays. ;)

[woodface]

Yes! *g*

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

*blinks* Isn't welfare something the government HAS to provide?

Short answer: nope. In fact, the welfare system as such didn't even EXIST in this country until, IIRC, the 1930s. It was sink or swim, or depend on private agencies. There are plenty of Americans, not necessarily in the lunatic fringe, who still think this is the way it should be.

(For the record, I think their position is appalling, but that's neither here nor there in relation to answering your question.)

This is an excellent demonstration of Little Red's on-the-money definition of "moderate" yesterday: it "seems to make me liberal by US standards and conservative in the rest of the world." *wry g*

[woodface]

The sad part is that there is real poverty in the US, and even more so in those exact states that voted for Bush. Or am I having a wrong image here?

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

Your image isn't wrong. But it's the urban poor -- those who are more likely to vote Democratic, and not incidentally to be ethnic minorities -- who are perceived as the burden on public assistance.

Rural poverty tends to be in "depressed areas," where the cost of living is much lower and it's easier to get by without losing your home, sending your children to bed hungry, etc.

Plus -- in the South especially -- they're more likely to be members of strong church communities that will help a family over the roughest patches. Which reinforces the idea that churches and private charities, not the government, not only should but can shoulder that resposibility.

They're also more likely to believe that if you can't make it on your own, the fault is in yourself, so there's a strong stigma attached to accepting public assistance. In poor urban neighborhoods, the perception is that there is no opportunity and no choice -- nobody has a good job, everybody has to be on welfare to make ends meet, and the shame factor is much lower.

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

In the Chicago Public Schools where I teach, 85% of the students (and 67% in my school) are considered "low income". This means that the students are in foster care, the families receive public aid/welfare, or the students qualify for free or reduced cost school lunches.

I was HORRIFIED by this my first year there, wondering how they managed...and then found out that my family would have qualified for free/reduced cost lunch had we applied when I was growing up--but my father would never have let us apply because he was too proud to accept welfare.

But the idea that you should be able to make it on your own--"pull yourself up by your bootstraps"--is rather integral to the entire psyche of Americans, especially here in the midwest where it's all about independence and surviving alone on the frontier (which, honestly, is now rather west of us, but was here at one time).

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

You're SO right. *drool*

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

on the frontier (which, honestly, is now rather west of us, but was here at one time).

Speaking as someone whose parents live at 9000 feet... It's really not anywhere any more. It kinda died with cars. :-)

You can feel differently if you throw an axle in the middle of eastern Colorado. But even then we weren't alone, just worried we'd be late for the next show date.

You're right about the "make it on your own" thing being generally American. But it does get overridden by the belief in certain neighborhoods that it isn't possible