philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation

Ann Corkery, who directs philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation, introduced Governor Romney as he received the Canterbury Award from the Becket Fund.
"As it turned out, the governor's speech of December 6th last year was the high point of the entire primary season. It was one of those moments when a serious thought managed to break through the noise. What left an impression was not just the power of the words, but also the qualities of the man, and of the wife beside him.
"One quality of note is surely their forbearance, at that moment and throughout the campaign. If you wonder exactly what it was like for Catholics, in other places and other times, Mitt and Ann could share some details from their own experience. At every turn, they had to explain their faith — to defend the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church. They were constantly called to account, even by people not usually interested in spiritual matters … and by others with creeds and churches of their own, but a lot less to show for it than Mitt and Ann Romney.
"The reality is that when we meet people of their quality, the most relevant questions are the ones we ask ourselves — about our own beliefs … and whether we reflect nearly as well on our churches as they do on theirs. Yet somehow the governor always remained calm and patient. And this was not just a political instinct. It was the humility of the man, a trait that has somehow survived all his success. Listening to his remarks in College Station, Texas, it wasn't hard to picture the young missionary who years before has gone door to door in Paris, explaining his beliefs and offering the hope of a better way."

Religion and Freedom

As prepared by Mitt Romney for delivery to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Dinner

May 8, 2008

Thank you.

It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.

Your mission – and my topic this evening – involve the intertwining of religion and government. It's not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king's soldiers in his own cathedral.

Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.

The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.

As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest – unheard and unheeded. It also gave me the chance to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off – after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers – why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert the following: non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief – to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience – it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment – and controversy – was this: "[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?

History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people – from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction. It can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.

The more controversial assertion, however, was that freedom requires religion.

One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But I was not speaking about Europe's recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive – over centuries – if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don't believe so.

This is hardly a novel view.

It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were recognized as having been gifted by God, not by kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure," Jefferson once asked, "when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?"

John Adams offers an added perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man's nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: "Human passions unbridled by morality and religion" he said "…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

Nor can we overlook the fact that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

"We and God have business with each other," William James once observed. "In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled." When a people's "deepest destiny" can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation." Calling those words "prophetic," he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington's Farewell Address, that "religion and morality represent 'indispensable supports' of political prosperity." And then he added his own conviction: "Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation."

I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: "Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."

I don't mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that "national morality" as Hamilton put it, "require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion." Or as Washington put it, morality cannot prevail "in exclusion of religious principle." I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label "evil good, and good evil;" in the words of Isaiah and "put darkness for light, and light for darkness."

I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.

There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.

One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, I asked my Dad to give me a dollar bill so I could look at something more interesting. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What's that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – "God has favored our undertakings."

This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation's founding: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."

As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: "we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy." And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.

God blesses America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!

Obama says, “Yes we can”… Yes we can what?

Yes We Can, Bob the Builder?

Images are from : http://markcronan.livejournal.com/

From HotAir:

Beware the cult of personality in all its forms.

From Wikipedia:

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.

Background

Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

The resurgence of ancient Greek democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was with these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose.

Purpose

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, however, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not encouraged officially, although images, posters, and billboards of Che Guevara abound. Even in the totalitarian regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen, though in the latter's case this was merely to perpetuate the image of a faceless, invisible, omnipresent state leadership.^{[citation needed]}

Examples from totalitarian regimes

The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il. During the peak of their reigns, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, and artists and poets were instructed legally to produce only works that glorified the leader and their political movements. Other undemocratic leaders with such cults include leaders such as Eva Peron of Argentina and her husband Juan. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual" - expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:

From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.

Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:

Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.^[1].

This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.

We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.

Former President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.^[4]^[5]^[6] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of 'reform,' while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text.^[7]^[8] During Niyazov's rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and "major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities."^[9] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was placed on the screen of all television broadcasts^[10] and statues and pictures of him were 'erected everywhere.'^[11]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov's personality cult…had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion."^[12].

University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen's book, "Ambiguities of Domination" documents the cult of personality which surrounded late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the "leader" put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia Syria.

References

^ The Cult of the Individual. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
^ ^a ^b ^c Bradley K. Martin. Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. ISBN 0-312-32322-0
^ Thank You Father Kim-Il-Sung. Retrieved on 2007-12-09.
^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/
^ Shikhmuradov, Boris. May 2002. Security and Conflict in Central Asia and the Caspian Region. International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/
^ Soucek, Svat. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
^ Eurasianet. 2007. The Personality Cult Lives On, Residents Take It In Stride. Available on-line at http://www.eurasianet.org/
^ BBC. December 2006. Obituary: Saparmurat Niyazov.Available on-line at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6199021.stm
^ United States Commission on International Freedom. 2007. Turkmenistan: Ending the Personality Cult. Available on-line at http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2007/january/20070103Turkmenistan.html

References

^ The Cult of the Individual. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.

^ ^a ^b ^c Bradley K. Martin. Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. ISBN 0-312-32322-0

^ Thank You Father Kim-Il-Sung. Retrieved on 2007-12-09.

^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/

^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/

^ Shikhmuradov, Boris. May 2002. Security and Conflict in Central Asia and the Caspian Region. International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/

^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/

^ Soucek, Svat. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/

^ Eurasianet. 2007. The Personality Cult Lives On, Residents Take It In Stride. Available on-line at http://www.eurasianet.org/

^ BBC. December 2006. Obituary: Saparmurat Niyazov.Available on-line at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6199021.stm

^ United States Commission on International Freedom. 2007. Turkmenistan: Ending the Personality Cult. Available on-line at http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2007/january/20070103Turkmenistan.html

We must ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement efforts are able to address threats before they reach our shores.

Reasons to agree:

Addressing threats means learning about them, studying them, and working with other governments in stopping them.

Reasons to disagree:

Blow-back. If we don't "address threats" in a smart way, it might create resentment.

Webpages that agree

4% of GDP on the military?

Issues / Keeping Americans Safe

Romney has said that, we should spend at lest 4 percent of GDB on defense.

Reasons to agree

This kind of investment will make up for critical gaps in the modernization of our equipment, personnel and health care efforts.
We have typically spent about 4% of GDP on defense.
4% is a good amount, given our challenges.
Most countries spend about 4% of their GDP. Sometimes people try to make a big deal about how we spend more than other countries, but that is just because our economy is so much bigger than most other countries. Indonesia spends a higher percent of GDP, so does China. Saudi Arabia spend about twice as much as we do. We have a lot of land. Our people are spread out over a large distance. Everyone wants to take out the big dog. We are the protectors of the free world from despotic, tyrannical countries that want to rule the world, and are willing to kill others to be in charge... We would like it if other democracies carried their portion of the responsibilities, but because they won't, we have to protect them.

Interest of those who agree

Protecting democracy, freedom of the press, rule of law, and those ideals that would fall to fascism, if America was not protecting this planet.

Interest of those who disagree

Trying to get all countries to spend less on defense, and more on education, farming, and stuff.

Books that agree
#

Web pages that agree
#

Web pages that disagree
#

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Governor Mitt Romney and Drugs

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

2003

12-21-2005; Healey kicks off student drug testing program in New Bedford
02-21-2003a; Governor Mitt Romney fights for prescription drug coverage for seniors

2005

12-20-2005; HEALEY EXPANDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR WOMEN
07-28-2005; HEALEY ENDORSES MANDATORY OVERDOSE REPORTING BILL

2006

06-30-2006; ROMNEY VETOES NEEDLES BILL; Says legislation will worsen heroin crisis by loosening drug paraphernalia laws
12-21-2005; HEALEY KICKS OFF STUDENT DRUG TESTING PROGRAM IN NEW BEDFORD

Also see Gangs

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Reasons to agree

I have to pass a drug test to work. I hate work. I wish I could get money for doing nothing. If I have to pass a drug test, to have the honor of working, people should have to pass a drug test, if they want free money.
Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check????? Please pass this along if you agree or simply Delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country and soon!!!!! "

Gangs

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has been a victim of gang activity. I think gangs are a big threat to our country. From Norco-terrorist, to the good old fashioned street gangs. I think Mitt Romney has good executive experience working with the police in Massachusetts to stand up to Crime.

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

"Gang violence destroys the fabric of our communities and offers nothing but a dead end street to young people drawn in by false hope," said Romney. "This program will encourage communities to develop and pursue promising new strategies that stop the mayhem and bloodshed that gangs inflict."

Governor Mitt Romney, 12-22-2005 Press Release

"Our criminal justice and public safety professionals now have a real tool to protect those who join with us to take a stand against crime and violence in our communities," Romney said during the ceremony at St. Peter's School, which specializes in youth programs that have shown great success in keeping students out of gangs and connecting them to their community. "Witnesses who have the courage to come forward and testify should not have to live in fear for cooperating with prosecutors to keep their communities safe."

Governor Mitt Romney

"Nothing troubles me more than watching a child's future shatter in a blast of violence. Our call for action will give law enforcement officials additional resources to protect the lives of our children and their families."

Governor Mitt Romney, 10-01-2004 Press Release

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

2004

08-26-2004, LT. GOV HEALEY SIGNS BILL CRACKING DOWN ON SOMERVILLE GANGS
10-01-2004, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $1.5 MILLION TO COMBAT GANG ACTIVITY

2005

12-15-2005, HEALEY PUSHES TO GIVE PROSECUTORS TOOLS TO PROTECT CRUCIAL WITNESSES IN GANG CRIMES
12-22-2005, ROMNEY APPROVES $11 MILLION PLAN TO TARGET GANG VIOLENCE

2006

03-06-2006, HEALEY PUSHES FOR PASSAGE OF ANTI-GANG VIOLENCE BILL
03-30-2006, ROMNEY SIGNS BILL TO CRACK DOWN ON GANG VIOLENCE
05-17-2006, HEALEY AND MENINO ANNOUNCE $3 MILLION GANG-FIGHTING GRANT FOR BOSTON
05-18-2006, HEALEY AWARDS GANG-FIGHTING GRANTS TO 15 COMMUNITES

Raising the Bar on Education

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Governor Mitt Romney said everyone benefits when parents and kids can choose their schools.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree; until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives.
Choice is good.
School choice is good.
Parental Rights and Practicality: While school choice might not be feasible for every family, it honors parents' rights to choose the best educational path for their children, whether Catholic, public, or any other type of school.
Informed Decisions: With the freedom to choose, media outlets could offer evaluations and comparisons of schools, fostering a culture where education is a priority, akin to everyday consumer choices. This increased scrutiny and interest could lead to better-informed decisions about children’s education.
Choice and Access: Just as bookstores and libraries coexist, providing choice doesn't necessarily harm public schools. The focus should be on ensuring access to education through public, private, or homeschooling options.
Use of Tax Money: Questioning the use of tax money for private or homeschooling overlooks the fundamental right of parents to decide the best educational setting for their children.
Educational Outcomes: Evidence suggests Catholic and other non-public schools often outperform public schools, hinting at the benefits of competitive educational environments.
Competition Drives Quality: Introducing competition among schools, including charter and homeschooling options, raises the quality of public education and aligns with the broader American value of competition improving services.
Economic Incentives: While many teachers are motivated by altruism, economic incentives in a competitive educational system could drive improvements across all schools.
Government Efficiency: Drawing a parallel with government services like the DMV, the argument posits that government-controlled entities often lack the motivation to excel and improve, a situation that school choice aims to remedy.
Critique of Opposition Arguments:

Affordability and Equity: Critics argue school choice might not be universally accessible, but this perspective overlooks the direct and indirect benefits to the majority, as well as the potential for a more dynamic educational environment.
Historical Misuse of Private Schools: While some argue private schools contributed to segregation in the past, today's school choice mechanisms, like vouchers, aim to democratize access to quality education, potentially reducing educational inequality.
Community Impact: Though some believe school choice might erode community cohesion, supporters argue that educational quality and parental empowerment should take precedence, with the belief that better education contributes to stronger communities in the long run.

What are the best objective criteria for measuring the strength of this belief?

1. Academic Outcomes

Improvement in Student Performance: Measure the academic progress of students who switch to schools of choice compared to those who remain in failing schools. Metrics can include standardized test scores, graduation rates, and college admission rates.

2. Equity and Accessibility

Demographic Representation: Analyze whether school choice options are equally accessible to students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and abilities. This includes assessing the distribution of resources and opportunities.
Impact on Segregation: Study the effect of school choice on racial and socioeconomic segregation within and across schools.

3. Systemic Effects

Impact on Public Schools: Evaluate how the introduction of school choice affects the funding, resources, and student body composition of remaining public schools.
Overall System Performance: Compare the performance and health of the educational system as a whole in regions with robust school choice options versus those without.

4. Parental and Student Satisfaction

Satisfaction Surveys: Collect data on satisfaction levels from parents and students involved in school choice programs to gauge perceived benefits or drawbacks.
Enrollment Trends: Track enrollment patterns over time as an indirect measure of satisfaction and demand for school choice options.

5. Economic Efficiency

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assess the financial efficiency of school choice programs by comparing the costs of these programs to their academic and social outcomes.
Resource Allocation: Examine how resources are allocated among public schools and schools of choice, including per-pupil spending and investment in infrastructure.

6. Long-term Outcomes

Post-Secondary Success: Monitor the long-term success of students participating in school choice, including higher education attainment and career outcomes.
Social Mobility: Investigate the impact of school choice on students' social mobility, especially for those from historically underserved communities.

Reasons to agree

When parents and kids are free to choose their school everyone benefits. +17
School choice is good. +13
Choice is good. +8
It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives. +3
Its not fair that poor kids have no option but to go to failing schools.
Its not good for our future to have segments of our population stuck in failing schools.
Kids should have access to the resources and opportunities they need to succeed.

Score: +7 (reasons to agree), + 41/2 [20] (reasons to agree with reasons to agree) = 27

Movies that agree:

Waiting for "Superman" (2010): This documentary critiques the American public education system by following several students as they attempt to be accepted into a charter school.

Movies that disagree:

The Public (2018): Though not directly about school choice, this movie highlights the broader societal issues contributing to the failure of public institutions, suggesting the need for systemic reform rather than alternatives like school choice.

Interest of those who agree

Parents and Students seeking better educational opportunities.
Advocates for Market-Based Solutions who believe competition can improve school quality.
Charter and Private School Administrators who stand to gain enrollment and funding.

Interest of those who disagree

Public School Advocates and Educators concerned about the diversion of funds from public schools.
Critics of Segregation and Inequality who argue that school choice can exacerbate educational disparities.
Supporters of Community-Based Solutions who favor improving schools through increased funding and community involvement rather than offering alternatives that might only benefit a few.

Books that agree

The School Choice Roadmap: 7 Steps to Finding the Right School for Your Child" by Andrew Campanella: Offers a practical guide for parents navigating school choice.
"Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools--And Why It Isn't So" by Jay P. Greene: Debunks common misconceptions about public education and argues for the benefits of school choice.

Books that agree

"Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools" by Diane Ravitch: Critiques the movement toward privatizing public education, including arguments against school choice.
"Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to Privatization and the Fight to Save America's Public Schools" by Diane Ravitch: Focuses on the efforts to resist educational privatization and supports public education reform.

Web pages that agree

Organizations like The Heritage Foundation or The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice often publish articles and policy papers in favor of school choice, presenting it as a solution to failing schools.

Web pages that disagree

The National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) frequently outline the downsides of school choice on their platforms, focusing on its impact on public education funding and equity.

Background

Purpose

Examples from totalitarian regimes

References

See also

Background

Purpose

Examples from totalitarian regimes

References

See also

We must ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement efforts are able to address threats before they reach our shores.

Romney has said that, we should spend at lest 4 percent of GDB on defense.

Governor Mitt Romney and Drugs

2003

2005

2006

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Gangs

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

2004

2005

2006

Governor Mitt Romney said everyone benefits when parents and kids can choose their schools.

What are the best objective criteria for measuring the strength of this belief?

1. Academic Outcomes

2. Equity and Accessibility

3. Systemic Effects

4. Parental and Student Satisfaction

5. Economic Efficiency

6. Long-term Outcomes

Reasons to agree

Movies that agree:

Interest of those who agree

Interest of those who disagree

Books that agree

Books that agree

Web pages that agree

Web pages that disagree