This applies to both parties on the issue of immigration. Intuitively, Dems want to be inclusive and, of course, hammer the Right on perceived and actual bias (see Pat Buchanan). OTOH, Dems are supported in huge ways by unions whose members are fighting tooth and nail with both outsourced labor and immigrant labor.

The GOP has mostly been consistent on immigration, with the exception of Bush and McCain. They don't want them in our country and exploit every fear in the process. McCain tried to mimic Bush by developing a guest worker bill and got killed among his own voters. After trashing his own bill during the primary, he is now in the unenviable position of having to curry favor with a constituency he desperately needs.

I have a feeling that latinos, particularly those who care deeply about immigration reform, won't be buying what McCain is selling. Perhaps not Obama either but they know they have more real "friends" mon our side thatn in the GOP.

It isn't whining when you've lost your job, can't afford the mortgage or must choose between gas and groceries. That's called a problem, a big one. It would be nice if Gramm could shift perspective for even a few moments to see what it might be like for so many Americans who are suffering.

This is an underlying truth that very few entities, be they unions or education reform groups, want to adress. Children come into the school system as a product of their home and community. Is there any surprise then that in the United States, a nation where poverty can be equated with a myriad of other social ills, achievement (read: success on standardized tests) is most strongly correlated to socioeconomic status?

In order for schools to raise achievement for our poorest students, we have to essentially create BETTER learning conditions for these students. What is better?

1. Smaller classes, smaller even than those in suburban schools, especially for the youngest grades.

2. teachers trained to work with students with emotional/behavioral disorders and learning differences

3. Additional school-based staff to provide counseling services

4. Principals who can communicate & work effectively with parents and other community stakeholders

One example of a politician who gets that real conditions must change is Gov. Ed Rendell. He has just signed an order mandating that Philadelphia school children start school by age 6. For those not aware, the starting age in PA is 8, a throwback from its farming past. It would be even better if Philadelphia provided free preschool to all starting at age 4. The younger we start poor children in schools, the better.

Another good idea is to provide merit pay for teachers. Basing pay solely on achievement scores would be a mistake though. Teachers should also get additional pay for working at hard-to-staff schools. This would serve to ameliorate much of the teacher turnover we see at some schools.

I agree that there's often too much well-paid bureaucracy. We just got a new CEO of schools in Philadelphia, Arlene Ackerman. Last week she lopped more than 200 jobs off the top of the budget. These were "teacher-coaches". All told, the salaries were about $5 million, not a great deal in a multi-bilion dollar system but an interesting first step. Ackerman's rationale was that these positions didn't have clear job descriptions with student outcomes attached. Instead, she wants to focus resources in classrooms. I already like her.

Let the older child keep the home (and room) he has known and then make a big change when he can make a decision to leave.

Both women and men parent, so benefits should be shared by both. Instead of maternity or paternity leave, just call it family leave and drop the whole question.

As a side note, I find it appalling that here in the U.S., the country that touts "family values", we have little leave for child care of any kind. Go figure.

My brother-in-law is Swedish and I've visited there a few times. You're absolutely correct about how their system works. However, there's one aspect that you might not see as well. Swedes don't face the problem of placing their infants or young babies with total strangers for extended periods of the day. The stressors on families, especially single parent familes is nothing like that in the U.S.. Now compare outcomes for children in the U.S. with those in Sweden.

Generous leave may come at a high cost monetarily to Sweden as a nation, but then Americans also pay a tremendous cost in terms of the individual costs to families, to young children and to our society (I think) as a whole. When you place families and children at the bottom of the list of priorities, the results are never good.

God only knows why Bernie Mac thought it would be a good idea to tell this joke at a presidential candidate's affair, but I admit I laughed. I saw him years ago in the Kings of Comedy and his equally inappropriate monologue about his druggie sister's brood of demonic crack-head kids had me howling. Mac isn't for everyone but he is a funny guy. I love him and I think he's brilliant.