One lays out a small case in support of asking what Congressman Miller's speech would result in re merit raises to teachers based upon adherence to goals of sound-byted phrase "model standards", one then posits their query to officials and private partisans supporting the theory as a mere piece of campaign rhetoric, and one receives no reply from officials while supporters offer the jewler's eye cleaving of an answer: "well, it shouldn't matter what the TEACHER'S educational level is, but lawyers yada yadda (and elected officials re own pay) have a high base pay to at least attract good workers one assumes know arcane nuances occulted to the public as proprietary information".

Maybe my mind's eye is severly cataracted, but such lofty and often sesquipedalian, multifariously vocabularied, and perhaps inter-disciplined written replies, to me, don't seem to contain one whit of revelation as to why enumerated standards can't be made part of job announcements as an inducement to attract teachers willing to do all towards excellence, as a way to weed out unlikely staffs in first place, THEN let pay rise even further based on such adherence to specific goals.

After all, those who just assume this would work without telling people what's expected of them overlook such philosophy already has resulted in a campaign-year need to revisit the now decades-old chestnut of ranting over educational diminution that doesn't change with or without big cash thrown at it.

I continue to suspect enumerating standards, such as "we want to increase critical thinking" or "we want our kids to think the USA eventually living as a subsistance culture, laws written and lobbied by foreigners, will get them off drugs and alcohol", would be necessary so that Congress could use the power of the purse to not yet again just whip money blindly in the sacred cause of "the children!!!!!!", but make sure those children WILL be taught coping skills by good people who only get better...we wouldn't let a mere real estate salesperson get a license, then say "whoo-hhoo! I'm in, jackpot! With this license I need no more training or regulation!", now would we, and doctors and other professionals as well, so why MUST teachers not be required to stipulate and aspire to specific standards before even more cash is slammed at them?

Congressman Miller makes a noble point re model standards for teachers; Congress has a noble opportunity to ensure standards are codified, made public, and in the childrens' best interests before once again just assuming great teachers will not be kept out of the system. 
 

Last week, I found a new link from MoveOn which takes me to a video of Dick Cheney...IN 1994...opining that had George H.W. Bush tried to involve or even ask the U.N. anything against Hussein...IN 1991...or removed Hussein ourselves BACK THEN and such, we'd have been alone; like most Leftward folks, it would seem those relying on the Cheney '94 piece forget U.N. calls against Iraq SINCE then, and which are recited at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html .
 
Well, let's see...nope, the guy Kofi Annan replaced is gone, as if Kofi himself; Senator Durbin literally made it sound as if ANY reason were good enough prior to 2001; today's U.N. IS interested in Bush ideas for its involvement; maybe I have a fragile intellect, but to me it seems there's no comparison of 1994 BACKWARDS Earth and recent times.
 
This is why I respectfully submit Democrats and other non-Conservatives are rudderless economy and foreign affair-wise, and only want to use psychology and cut-and-run (or heck, don't provoke Binster even by just ignoring him) as campaign tools to simply take over the reigns, say anything anybody's confused about or not satisfied by is all Bush/GOP fault but at least they're administering things now without GOP oversight, and so forth. Worse, some such of those folks make you think they wouldn't even urged Hussein's removal if they'd have known al-Qaedans wouldn't like it. 
 
Such new MoveOn tactic also occurs amid Daily Kos types now suggesting, likely to newest citizens, neither Qaeda nor planes were involved in 911, while PBS stations have been airing replays of the 1960's student terrorists complaining about police knocking them out while students rioted, burned, threatened lives of bystanders, et al, and trumpeting about how even though Nixon afterward was re-elected by a massive landslide, at least Democrats like Kennedy listened to them and brought us the economic and national security that never lapses since 1975.
 
In closing, even Lou Dobbs has made a case that most lobbyists in Congress recently have been States and Cities; rather than do more than laugh at composite "McGovern 1972" embraced by non-Conservatives, I would submit that perhaps...just perhaps...before say the Democrat Governors Association slams Bush over fast-track trade deals Dems and non-Conservatives by applied trade approve on "what can we do?" malarkey, such Association could put forth a bold plan of investment into this country other than the one Bush is already doing on their consent and implied insistance.
 
As the political landscape evolved to suggest since November 2006, I therefore support President Bush in the discharge of his duties and will support Conservatives for the 2008 election cycle. If Democrats wish to campaign with retreat, fear, Freudian doctrine of determination, or Gray Davis negative tactics and hazy at best substance, that is their perogative in re 2008 General Election. 
 

I retain faith in the overall character of Bill Frist.

Yes, we do need to care for veterans, children, and as many people as can be helped.

But not everyone needs CONSTANT care, not everyone needs only this or that care, and there's thus a gamut of needs from cradle to grave...who'd be content to just pick the "lucky winners" for just one campaign cycle?

As Dr. Frist appears to be approaching this, I don't see the Communist or Socialist element in his styling; the only "collectivism" (unlike some who think the Fed should borrow all and disperse, then blame Presidents who give to States as 'borrow and spend' bad guys) at this juncture seems a sharing of responsibilties by more world governments to work toward as optimum coverage of needs without personal financial drains as possible, yet in a way competitive capitalism would be necessary without say just the USA alone providing all Earth's care (or, in fact, without mega-drains to any particular nations).  I think Frist is right in referring to his initiative as a plan to mint the Currency Of Peace.

Kudos to William H. Frist M.D. for at least being cogently pro-active in researching and proffering for discussion and improvements ways to improve something, rather than just being content to use healthcare as just another negative plate to spin...ala some so enamored with status quo they're so busy slinging mud they don't notice they're rudderless and NSF at the First National Bank Of Caring Enough To Even Have Ideas.