![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 21st, 2004
(no subject)
Jan. 21st, 2004 01:32 amOK, here's the part of the speech that surprised me:
At the same time, we must ensure that older students and adults can gain the skills they need to find work now. Many of the fastest-growing occupations require strong math and science preparation, and training beyond the high school level. So tonight I propose a series of measures called Jobs for the 21st Century. This program will provide extra help to middle- and high school students who fall behind in reading and math, expand advanced placement programs in low-income schools, and invite math and science professionals from the private sector to teach part-time in our high schools. I propose larger Pell grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school. I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, I do so so they can train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs. By all these actions, we'll help more and more Americans to join in the growing prosperity of our country.
will someone explain to me what the catch is on that? because i'm listening to it, going, hey that sounds good! expanding AP programs in lower income schools -- good! (well, we could debate the efficacy of AP exams, but they DO count a lot in college admissions). extra help to kids who fall behind? good! larger pell grants? good!
ok, so what's the catch.
is it just going to be one of those things that he passes then refuses to fund, but since he passed it he'll be able to trot it out on the campaign trail, like that funding for NYC after 9/11 or the AIDS funding to africa? or is there actually something intrinsically sinister about it that i don't see on first glance?
At the same time, we must ensure that older students and adults can gain the skills they need to find work now. Many of the fastest-growing occupations require strong math and science preparation, and training beyond the high school level. So tonight I propose a series of measures called Jobs for the 21st Century. This program will provide extra help to middle- and high school students who fall behind in reading and math, expand advanced placement programs in low-income schools, and invite math and science professionals from the private sector to teach part-time in our high schools. I propose larger Pell grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school. I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, I do so so they can train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs. By all these actions, we'll help more and more Americans to join in the growing prosperity of our country.
will someone explain to me what the catch is on that? because i'm listening to it, going, hey that sounds good! expanding AP programs in lower income schools -- good! (well, we could debate the efficacy of AP exams, but they DO count a lot in college admissions). extra help to kids who fall behind? good! larger pell grants? good!
ok, so what's the catch.
is it just going to be one of those things that he passes then refuses to fund, but since he passed it he'll be able to trot it out on the campaign trail, like that funding for NYC after 9/11 or the AIDS funding to africa? or is there actually something intrinsically sinister about it that i don't see on first glance?
(no subject)
Jan. 21st, 2004 02:17 ami think right now i'm actually more repulsed by bill frist total disingenuousness on hardball after the state of the union than by bush's actual speech. chris matthews asked him about the funding for AIDS in africa and after a lot of burbling about how the president is so brave and provides solutions to problems, blah blah blah, he says that the democrats in the senate are holding the funding up. which is true. but he doesn't say why. why, is because the funding is tied to bush's "mexico city" policy, which means no funds will be provided to organizations that provide abortion, EVEN IF the funding would be kept strictly separate from any parts of the organization that have anything to do with abortion. tieing one health/morals issue to another in such a way that they conflict -- brilliant!
then frist had the unmitigatted gall to talk about the horrible disease of AIDS that snowballed starting in 1983. what were the republicans doing about AIDS in 1983? 1984? the entire 1980s? they ignored it because it was a "gay disease." president reagan refused to publically speak the words. all the research done in the '80s on AIDS was done on a shoestring budget because labs couldn't get any government funding. don't tell me about how your party is so concerned about AIDS, education, health care, mr. frist. you are a prime example of a politician that feed issues to the public in such a way that no complexity is ever mentioned. you say the words "we've funded education!" and middle america cheers. they don't know how the money is spent or how the plans are implemented. "seniors get prescriptions!" yes, but how much coverage do they get? how do the pharmaceutical companies benefit at taxpayer expense to balance out this plan? people just eat up simple declarative phrases, and it sickens me. why does america accept being talked down to like this? why don't we demand the whole truth from our elected officials, and the people they appoint to government office?
then frist had the unmitigatted gall to talk about the horrible disease of AIDS that snowballed starting in 1983. what were the republicans doing about AIDS in 1983? 1984? the entire 1980s? they ignored it because it was a "gay disease." president reagan refused to publically speak the words. all the research done in the '80s on AIDS was done on a shoestring budget because labs couldn't get any government funding. don't tell me about how your party is so concerned about AIDS, education, health care, mr. frist. you are a prime example of a politician that feed issues to the public in such a way that no complexity is ever mentioned. you say the words "we've funded education!" and middle america cheers. they don't know how the money is spent or how the plans are implemented. "seniors get prescriptions!" yes, but how much coverage do they get? how do the pharmaceutical companies benefit at taxpayer expense to balance out this plan? people just eat up simple declarative phrases, and it sickens me. why does america accept being talked down to like this? why don't we demand the whole truth from our elected officials, and the people they appoint to government office?
