I look at my friends (not acquaintances) and see: a teacher, a housewife, a retired postal worker a doctor, lawyers, a secretary, a doctoral student, a tv repair man, a farmer....and realize I don't care about them because of what they are, but who. The "what" is extraneous because it is essentially superficial. I like them because they are honest, moral, ethical....and about half of them disagree with most of my political views.

I wasn't (I hope) proposing absolute equality in the sense you outline There is no need to hold them back. My concern/issue is that it be done carefully. I see our primary job as a society and parents is to help our children become responsible, reasonably happy, secure adults. Training them to be engineers, teachers and all the rest is the rest is icing on the cake. We need to address the differences in ability (the real ones, not the ones created to satisfy one agenda or another). We need to do it in a way that minimizes the "different is bad" attitude. And the schools need to reenforce, not subvert, those values. >We all cannot be sports stars, movie stars, brain surgeons, accountants, scientists, teachers, politicians, electricians, and so on.............<

I miss the logical leap where I proposed that. Without all those different abilities we might as well not bother to be. A movie star is and will be far richer, more famous, more talented than I am. Does that make them worth more as a person? Do they deserve special rights. Not money or fame or the other monetary perks of their position, but do they deserve preferential treatment under the law, or as people? Is it okay for them to abuse their children because of those abilities? Use drugs? Treat other people like scum? I don't think you propose that but then, you don't address that element either. Whether you believe in god, the earth mother or space ghost, do we have innate factors, shared by all of us that require respect. As a moral/ethical principal. Each child should be encouraged (within practical limits) to develop whatever potential they have. Because child "a" has the potential to become a neurosurgeon, what are our duties to child "b" who has the potential to be a ditch digger? And vice versa. We can't hold "a" one back because of "b", but then we can't ignore "b" because all he'll ever be is a ditch digger. I miss the logic of why you think we can't have both. Basic respect has to do with the kind of person (moral and ethical) you are. Being a doctor, lawyer or Indian chief is a second tier issue. Which is worth more to society? The honest, moral ditch digger, or the sports star who abuses drugs, beats up their spouse, lies and cheats.....which has more value to society. Which ability should society nurture first? Which do we nurture and validate?

>Children who grow up with a sense of entitlement beyond their abilities are going to suffer great disappointments. This may offend some of you, but it is the truth. God, mother Nature, Mother Earth, or whatever deity you believe in has made it so. Just help the child do the best they can - INCLUDING THE MORE ABLE CHILD. <

We shouldn't hold back either the able or less able. Schools institute a program that, in striving for equality (of the absolute kind), ends up (all too often) frustrating the able, and patronizing the rest. Right now, backed by what seems to be specious cognitive and psychosocial theories, we do hold back the able. Are the two mutually exclusive? And which ability is more critical.? What should work for FIRST. To use buzz words, to we try for a "good person" or a good doctor?

Regards John