it has nothing to do with "this day and age". it has to do with the way that God designed us.


Wow. I can't believe someone in the 21st century in America wrote that. Well, I'm glad your God is nowhere in my life because that is plain ridiculous. Margaret Thatcher led England just fine. So did Queen Victoria. Women have ruled throughout history, and you know what they say about who is behind every great man - the woman.

Overall, I like Hillary and I think she'd make a great president. However, I think she is far to polarizing a candidate to get the nomination. I've said this for years. People who hate her REALLY hate her. They hated her simply for being married to Bill Clinton when he won. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction to her. And they hate her for every little thing. Millions of women stay with cheating spouses. It happens every day. I think it's arrogant for people to criticize her for staying in her marriage. No one knows the truth about other people's marriages, the how's or the why's. She had a daughter to consider. They may not be a perfect family unit (who is?) but they are who they are and only they are privy to whatever agreements they make within a marriage.

For me, I do not think this is the right time for a woman president only because so much of our foreign relations issues at the moment are with the middle east. Since I am myself arabic, I am comfortable saying that those countries are not very progressive when it comes to women's rights, and I do not believe that they would respect a woman in that position. They would deal not with her, but with people below her, if at all, because they would not respect someone below her who "worked for a woman." This is from my own observances here in the Detroit area, home of the 2nd largest mideaster population in the world, and from my own travels in an arab country.

Hey calimari, great insight into the potential difficulties in foreign policy if a woman were president. I appreciate that perspective. At the same time, though, I have to say that this kind of thing is where my cultural tolerance breaks down. (this is so off topic...) I teach at an international school and there are a couple of these ultra-male-dominated families at our school. In a few of them, the fathers won't discuss issues with female teachers. I had one mother request that I send messages about her (older) daughter through her (younger) son because he was the male and therefore trustworthy. I know I am supposed to be open and accepting of cultural differences, but this is one where I find I CANNOT deal with it. I can't support that kind of sexism and I don't in practice.

So, bringing it back to the discussion at hand, I couldn't choose to keep a woman out of office just so we could deal better with Middle Eastern countries. it may be shooting myself in the foot, but I have to stick up for my principles somewhere!

As for Hillary, I don't know. She's got loads of experience (certainly more than GWB had when he started and he's somehow managed for 8 years*), she is smart (again, more so than GWB...*), and she will want to succeed and make a positive impact if she is the first woman in office. I think that might make for a good president. I suppose I trust her just as much as any other politician (i.e. not at all). Perhaps she has been too media hungry over the years, but that's really all I can say against her. I'm not familiar with all of her policies, although i'm happy that she has them and they are clear and detailed (again, compared to GWB...*)

Perhaps the biggest problem with Hillary is that she would divide the country just as much as it is divided now. It would be really nice to have a president who could bring people together rather than parting them like the red sea. ETA: This may be innappropriate - if so, I apologize - but the division would probably spark a similar map to the one published after the last election: Jesusland vs. United States of Canada - Political Cartoons

(* clearly I'm not a big fan of GWB. But I am neither democrat nor republican. more socially liberal and economically conservative.)

__________________
~ mama abroad

"Be the change that you want to see in the world." -Ghandi

check out my culture shock blog: A View from the Outside

I was going to PM you, but in case there are others out there who misunderstand this part of the goal: Having the higher achievers in the class DOES help others to achieve more, but what if the child has issues that make that impossible with conventional teaching? Those children will be LEFT BEHIND. My child is one like that. He is highly intelligent, but needs accommodations in taking tests, he's slower in completing his work (he gets anxious and is a perfectionist, and it takes a bit longer to process certain things). One child's bare minimum is another child's stretch. My son could tell you every period of history, everything about dinosaurs, Pokemon, Bionicles, bugs, etc., but can't tell you how he arrived at the CORRECT math answer, but can tell you he didn't arrive there if the way you did. He thinks differently.

So take into account that those children are not always "behavior" issues, and even the ones who are need the help this act is supposed to offer. There are good things that have come from this act (which is Bush's and has nothing to do with Hilary), but it's not being watched closely enough and revised for successes. It creates stress in areas it shouldn't - it should educate parents like you who wonder why that child is in YOUR child's class. What benefit is there to your child? Parents of typical kids shouldn't be left with that question hovering (you are not the only one who has questioned it, believe me!).

But bottom line, is children like my son benefit from a mainstream class. If he were in a traditional Special Education class, it would bring HIM down. It's tough, but he is doing very well with the NEEDED accommodations. If this kid were born in the sixties, he would be one of those lost souls. If some of our autistic children we have here today were raised in the sixties, they would be institutionalized, just as they used to institutionalize the deaf. What a loss to society and families that would be.

__________________
Make someone's heart smile today.

Mama-abroad - I get what you're saying. I personally would hate to not vote for someone because of the standards of the middle east. However, I think it's worth noting and considering. If one of your key issues is peace in the middle east, and then a woman is elected and can't seem to effect any progress, I'd hate to see people bashing our female president when the issue is not so much what she is or is not doing to garner peace, but the attitudes of the other foreign leaders. So, it's a consideration is all. I remember my father & uncles all laughing about Margaret Thatcher having meetings in the middle east "as if they would listen to anything a woman would have to say."

She is the devil. jk.

I don't think she's a very good person. She's been involved in her fair share of scandals. She's done interviews where she mostly, came across as cold and phony. I can't look to her and say "there is somebody who I think could speak for me". I just don't get that from her.

It's interesting that you bring this up. A book came out recently about Hillary Clinton. It's not slanted one way or the other. It was written by a couple of respected investigative reporters from The New York Post. It's called Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am really looking forward to reading it. It's all about her life and what she's like. I was listening to one of the authors on the radio talking about it the other day and he said some very interesting things, among them:

-Hillary is very secretive, as much so as Bush is
-Before she and Bill got married, they made a vow to reform the Democratic Party and then each serve two terms as president.
-Some of the scandals she was involved in weren't really that bad, but because of how secretive she is, it gave the impression that much more had gone on.
-She is viewed to have gotten off to a bad start with the American people because the first interview she did was with Bill in the middle of the Gennifer Flowers thing. This was the "Stand By Your Man" interview.
-She is said to have the same problem that Al Gore had, in that the two of them, apparently are good people in person, but when they get in front of a camera or a lot of people, they tense up and seem very phony and rehearsed.

Most of her problem is an image problem. That's why she's trying so hard with the whole "pick my theme song" thing, and the Soprano's spoof (which, though I don't like her, I found hillarious and very clever). Of course, if she mends her image, she will still have to account for her voting record. Remember, she not only voted for the war in Iraq, but said it was absolutely vital. Later, she tried to go back on this. It is said that the senate had a report right in front of them that disputed everything she said at the time, and that she didn't bother to read it. With that being one of the key issues in this race, there will probably be quite a bit made of it. Also, we're going to have to contend with all of the "scandals" coming to light.

I actually feel very bad for Hillary. I get the sense from her that her life is actually very empty. I think maybe she started out wanting to do something she believed in, but I just don't think she loves much of anything anymore. It's clear that she and Bill have a sham marriage. They hardly even see each other. I've never seen her in any kind of warm and fuzzy role around any children, and it just seems to me that there is no real passion.

Oh, and by the way, I can handle her in interviews, but when she makes a speech, I feel the need to gouge my ears out with a stick.

__________________
Christine's Corner



Mom to Matt, 3 years and Catie, 7 months!

Desertmom, I appreciate your situation...I can't empathize, but I certainly see your point of view.

My problem isn't with mainstreaming if the funding and teachers, aids, etc. are available for it. The sad fact of the matter though, is that in many schools the money and properly trained manpower to pull it off simply don't exist. My previous comment was aimed more at the testing aspect of NCLB, not the parent's choice of schools and mainstreaming aspect. It seems to me that schools are so worried about bringing the low test scores up that the other students don't really seem to be learning anything useful...except maybe how to take a test. Kids health suffers because recess and P.E. are cut out to prepare for testing. Only focusing on math and reading scores seems to detract from other curriculum. Why bother teaching it if it isn't going to be on the standardized test?

On a side note, I volunteered for years in Atlanta schools and I can tell you first hand that if a student is mainstreamed and there isn't someone trained to accomodate them then EVERY student in the class suffers...including that student. The fact is that No Child was a decent idea that never quite came to fruition.

I did realize that this was a Bush bungle. In the Hillary post I meant to say she was a supporter of the program. I also got sidetracked with the other post and didn't include it in my "beefs with Bush".