--against the "No Child Left Behind" policy

A question, then an observation. Why are you against NCLB?

As for the rest, you are definitely right of center. Based upon your answer, I would say maybe even a Libertarian.

But since both Republicans and Democrats have kind of distorted their original purpose, it is often hard to tell. But I would say you are definitely a Goldwater Republican at the least.

I know, but I'm not saying

For a brief time I was an early childhood education major before I decided this was not the field for me. My mother has a degree in this field and is a Head Start center supervisor/teacher. Education has always been a big issue in my family. When I look at the NCLB, I see that even though it is an attempt to clean up failing public schools, it is really just a bandaid soulution. I'll elaborate:

--I was actually in high school to take one of the assesment tests. Not only was the test a joke (pathetically easy), but it was passed out to me with a printed label on it. You know all of those optional quesitons at the beginning of an Iowa or similar test? Questions like what race you identify with, and so forth? Mine was already filled out. It listed me as a white, gifted student from a low-income family. This way, if I did well on the test, the school could claim that they were doing a good job of reaching out to "at-risk" students, and get credit they didn't necessarily deserve. If I did poorly on the test, the school could claim that they needed more money to "reach out to at-risk students". Either way, my test could be used by, say, people working up stats on students of different races, income levels, or "special needs" (aka "gifted" and "slow") students. These are all uses of my test results that I object to, and have a right to not be included in. And further more, I was one of only a small group to have my test profile filled out for me. Everyone else got to choose their own answers.

--Teachers are threatened with loss of their jobs if all the students can't pass these tests. As a result, panicked teachers have been adapting their curriculums to teach to the tests, or even worse, putting extreme pressure on students to pass. In rare cases, there have even been teachers who read test answers to students during the test! This is absurd--it teaches our children that all that matters is passing the test, not learning for its own sake.

--How exactly will taking away money from struggling schools and giving more money to schools that are doing well fix anything? I see this as a failed attempt to apply capitalist philosophy to a situation that frankly is not free-market. For example, many believe that our health system is great because if you don't like a doctor, you can leave that doctor, who will eventually loose business/money. People who live in the real world realize you can only pick docotors from a limited list anyhow (whatever your insurance allows) and all you know about these doctors is a name and an address. If you don't like the doctor from your area, you can drive an hour away or you can deal. Similarly, parents who cannot afford to send their children to a specially chosen private school have the public school in their area as their only recourse. If they don't like the school, they can uproot their lives and move--or they can deal. The school system is *not* free market, and pretending it is (NCLB or vouchers) will not solve the problem. Public schools need our support and involvement, especially on a local level, to improve. People need to look for solutions, not blame.

--The tests really *are* a joke, and not an accurate assesment of how a school is doing. For example, I did well on the test, and I was a "gifted" student. I did not necessarily do well on the test because my school did well by me. I did well on the test because I always do well on tests--my talents include strong language skills, and I never have anything to fear from a written test (bwa-haha!) But that's my own talent, bolstered by my reading addiction--something my school never did anything to foster.

--I don't believe in grades anyhow. In my ideal world, children would be constantly immersed in hands-on learning environments where instead of having factoids crammed down their throats and then vomiting them onto a page for points, they would learn through exploration and experimentation whenever possible. They'd then be assessed through oral exams, essays, and demonstration of skills/completion of projects. Anyone can BS their way through a multiple-guess test or yank words from a wordbank. We would still need some paper/pencil tests, but their nature would be changed and their number greatly reduced. Then it wouldn't matter what precentage points a child got after cramming facts into her head to be promptly forgotten. It would only matter what she actually learned and how well she could apply it.

Hope that helps clarify my position--thanks for your comment! I am not surprised to hear you call me a potential Libertarian, but I had a dear friend who was registered Libertarian, and our political opinions were not just night/day, they were from different planets! A "Goldwater" Republican? I know I've heard the term, but I can't recall its meaning. Refresh my memory? Thanks! --LL

LL, Fascinating reading.  I like you dont like NCLB, and I have worked in education (as a Network administrator and technology manager - not as a teacher) for over 10 years.  While I see most of your reasons and agree with many of them, my objection is the lack of control at the local level.  I worked in state and local education, and I can tell you horror stories of these so called educationists.  Suffice it to say that the further away from a classroom an administrator is, the more completely lost they are in regards to what is really happening with the students.

So even if the guvmint would fix some of the problems with education, I would still be against NCLB.  If you are going to fund education, drop the strings and send the money (altho why does money have to be sent to DC and then back home?).

As for a Goldwater republican, it is really the truest form of a Republican.  He was very much against the government going into anyone's bedroom or Abortion clinic (so that means he was socially Liberal by todays standards).  But very conservative when it came to fiscal and foreign policies.  You did not really mention anything about Foreign policy, but the rest seemed to be conservative fiscally, and liberal socially.  i.e. A Goldwater Rrepublican. Motto: "The best form of government is the one that governs least"

BTW:  I totally agree with you about the federal vs state and local governments.  As I work in state government now, I know how bad it is.  I can imagine the inertia of the federal bureaucracy.

Foreign policy-wise, I am definitely against the idea that it is our perrogative to police the world. I'm not saying we should be totally isolationist, but it is not up to us to decide what governments are in power in other countries or what other countries should be allowed to do. I also balk at anything which resembles one-world government (anything from the WTO to the UN taking more power to the US policing other nations.) I believe a one-world government could only be the most horrible type of dictatorship. Even if it were a "one-world democracy", there are two big problems: 1) What is one vote in 6 billion? 2) The military becomes our police force. So I was very much against the war in Iraq, and prior to it, I believe that what the terrorists did on September 11th should have been pursued as a terrible crime--but not a war. "War on Terror" is a dangerous concept, because terrorists can be defined as whoever the government would like them to be. And even if present-day administrations do not define "anyone who disagrees with them" as a terrorist, who is to say that future administrations will be so agreeable?

I am surprised to hear you say I am any kind of Republican, simply because I am so often called a hippy-tree-hugger and so forth. However, I made this post because I have been so many times called both conservative and liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc, that I would really like to know which I fit with best.

Thank you, thank you!
--LL

I would say you're a libertarian. Your positions don't match up well with the current American politics definitions of liberal or conservative.

Hmph,

Well I guess I must be a libertarian too, as I agree one hundred percent (well 99%) with Llamalamp. Too bad I don't know what a libertarian is, well beleives in, or do they believe the same things that I do, then I know (damn im getting a headache!).

Very interesting post I might add.

I always knew that I couldn't be pigeon holed in with Dems or Republicans, I just always considered myself american.

Yes you are more libertarian than Dem or Repub. Non-intervention is a pretty strong desire in the Libertarian party.
Too bad the candidate badnarik was WAY The HECK OUT IN THE WOODS in the few interviews I saw him in. HAsn't paid taxes since 91, except what he figured were the correct amount.
No clue on current events, and kind of misinformed on Iraq. I like the overall platform of the party though.

You Decide--an Interactive LlamaLog Entry! By: LlamaLamp Posted: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 on The LlamaLog Message Board: Politics I'm not entirely sure what makes a person one or the other. You can be conservative and hate Bush. You can be liberal and in favor of the war on Iraq. You could be either one and be pro-life or pro-choice. Has anyone ever written anything on what makes you definitively conservative or liberal? Because both espouse change, just change in different directions. Arnold had his speech saying "you might be a Republican if..." with many points I agreed with--and many I didn't. Plenty of times I've been called a liberal, and then astounded the people who gave me this label. So before I leap into all these great discussions, I'd like some feedback. You decide--am I a liberal or a conservative? I am: --registered independent --in favor of our right to bear arms

This right here says you are NO liberal. That said, there are sections in here that aren't what they call strictly conservative values either. I would tend to say you are more middle of the road. Of course that's just my opinion.

I have to agree that you have strong Libertarian tendancies, but I wonder why we're (and I do this too) so anxious to confine ourselves to these silly labels. Shouldn't we try to expand ourselves, or at least have the freedom to expand ourselves by embracing different beliefs without being boxed - or boxing ourselves into specific categories?

By the way, I'm a registered Democrat, but a Libertarian in my heart.

Llamalamp:

I would say that you shouldn't confine yourself to any label. What is the point? I get e-mail from both parties and do as much research on all topics as possible. Depending on a given issue, I "lean" but don't adopt anyone's posture. I also don't get caught up in the "personality" mischief as no one can truly know a candidate simply by labels. So, I have friends and enemies across the political, economic, and social spectrum. I refuse to treat either group as stereotypes. I try to get along with everyone.

--registered independent

I live in the state of Indiana, you don't register for party, instead it is just registering to vote, and the major parties pick out their people when they come out to vote in the primary.
Though I am registered with the Libertarian National Party as is required to help with the direct functioning of the soon to be Official Libertarian Party of Allen County.
Though my past experience was Anarchist until around 18, I went Republican, until 23 when I became a Libertarian with a little phase in-between of megalomaniac dreams of world domination, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

--in favor of our right to bear arms

Same here, all the way!!

--pro-choice

I am pro-choice but I would prefer to cut Federal Funding from Abortion.

--pro separation of church and state as a means to protect both institutions

Seeing as Christianity or any mainstay religion injected into the state affects me more directly than others because myself being a unashamed proud Occultist it would cause quite some conflicts and might end up with yours truly on a stake that is likely to catch fire, though not all Christians are bad, just like not all Occultists are good, but the tolerance is what needed though to ask a person to separate their beliefs from them self is awful and inhuman.

--a deeply spiritual person who values my freedom of religion

See answer above

--a believer in stronger local and state governments with a less powerful federal government. The feds should handle military, minting coins/bills, foreign policy, and other matters that can't be handled by the states, as their first and strongest priority.

If we got back to a Constitutional sized Government the debt would mysteriously disappear and I wonder why...

--a believer in the ideal of self sufficiency: people should do more for themselves and each other rather than asking the government or corporations to do it for them

Personal Rights with personal responsibility, make each person responsible for his/her actions but give the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others (murder)

--against the "No Child Left Behind" policy

I just plain loathe any Federal Government action in a Local/State affair such as schools and a lot of people want the Federal Government to control schools, but I must say it is a Local/State issue that Big Brother needs to get out of.

--in favor of stronger third parties to give competition to the Dem/Repub parties

Working on it, we have some plans but it we will have to wait and see if the plans can come to fruition and provide a bountiful harvest.

--a strong believer in personal privacy: no one has the right to videotape you or monitor your purchases or search your household without a warrant, etc

Though Corporations have been doing it for years and the NSA has been doing it also, though there is a fine line between security and invasion, the Patriot Act seems to make it more noticeable despite the fact that NSA has been doing it for at least 50 years now.

--pro marriage, for everyone who wants it, period. And if the government can't settle on that, perhaps the government should not be involved. It could be left up to churches, etc. Or perhaps decided by the states. But it's not my right (or yours) to tell someone who they can or can't wed. But then, a flat tax rate would fix all this trouble (see below).

The government should have been left out of it in the first place and take away the rights for marriage than getting out the business, equality for everyone means equality for everyone no special treatment for people other than those who are disabled and want the help.

--in favor of a flat tax rate (percentage) to eliminate loopholes for all who exploit them, and to eliminate debate on who should get breaks (married couples, corporations, whatever) --in favor of a campaign finance reform policy that involves flat tax rates for corporations, and thus no direct financial incentives for them to support a candidate

Flat tax period makes the tax system equal for everybody, everywhere plus it puts the IRS and accountants out of a job.
I think each legitimate political party should get equal finances and air time plus end all campaign contributions over a certain amount, though I am not too knowledgeable in this subject so from here I abstain.

--against the move to give official legal status to the immigrants who are here illegally (we then devalue the efforts made by the people who came here legally and worked hard for their citizenship while honoring our laws.)

Though aren't we all illegal immigrants? I mean even the Native American immigrated to this land as did our ancestors, right?
I have no problem with illegal immigration as long as we can deport legal migrants (?).
As long as the individual is a hard-worker and willing to work plus not advocate the initiation of force for political change than by all means come on in, for this land is grand and I want to share it with you.

Grimerty X
Life, Grimerty, and the Pursuit of Cheerios

I would say you're definetly constitutional party

In my opinion your an independent with conservative leanings, you should be proud of the fact that you are registered that way.

The only reason I could see you registering for either of the parties, is so you my help get someone with a view closer to yours reach the General election.

Just don't register for a party because you feel you must find yourself a label.

That's My Two Cents

PS: Pick a party and your also just asking to receive propaganda/junk mail asking for donations clogging your mail box.

PS: Pick a party and your also just asking to receive propaganda/junk mail asking for donations clogging your mail box.

Very true! Stay independant.