BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!

Subject: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 06:52 PM

Continuation of this thread: blicky

Keep it up, lads and lasses! The good work, that is!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:25 PM

GWB has clearly decided that schools need to be run more like a business, since business made America Great. A little quality control is all you need. After all, how much difference can their be between teaching and making cars.? Just a few good management tools.

Like Lincoln Savings and Loan. Maybe Neil can bring to education the superlative business expertise he demonstrated during the Savings and Loan Fiasco. Oops, sorry. He was just a Director and as outraged by management's actions as the depositors who lost everything. Not that he lost anything. Or offered to return any of the money he'd made thanks to those managers.

Chrysler is laying off 26,000 workers. A portent of things to come? Staff costs are a big component of a corporation overhead. So do we end up cutting teachers because the market (in the form of standardized tests) isn't performing according to managements goals?

Bush wants tax money given back to (some) of the people in the form of tax cuts. (Mostly to the very rich as, clearly, us bottom feeders would waste the money on things like food and such). Unless you own a major league team, them tax money should be used to build your team a stadium.

Government can certainly be run more business-like. To claim it can or should be run like a business demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of business and of government.

When do I get to start saying I told you so???

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: SeanM
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:29 PM

OK... just pulled this one off of yahoo... Bush unveils plan to fund faith-based charities.

This goes back to the earlier discussion about church/state separation and all that. The synopsis is that Bush is introducing a plan that would allow federal funds to go to religious groups providing a range of social services, and would also create "a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives - with counterpart offices in five Cabinet-level departments" to 'assist' faith based groups to get in on the bidding process.

Before handing the floor over to someone new, this makes me queasy... I don't see how there can be any way to provide for his statement "We will not fund the religious activities of any group, but when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them" without creating direct governmental oversite of religious activities. I'm really hoping to see the full text of these orders as well, for where is there a line drawn? Do "outreach services" aimed at addicts fall within governmental funding boundries? They ARE aimed at helping start rehabilitation, but they also are sermons espousing particular religous views...

*sigh*... another can of worms...

M

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:33 PM

I suppose you have all seen what he decided to do today....going to give the Religious Institutions Federal money to help support their "Social Programs".....

It will be interesting to see how many non-Christian groups get any money. Synagogues, Mosques, and let's especially pay attention and see if any of the Covens get $$ to fund "social" programs.

It will also be interesting to see just how long the "social programs" limitation is in effect, if the Supremes even allow him to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Surfer -
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:37 PM

Gee I broke a E string while laughing at this thread! Wonder if any Folkie is noticing the new America is becomming so Puritan, no laughing, dancing, fiddling, similing, eating, living, sex, praying except at the Church of the Reformed Church of Cocaine and Blood and Hang em all 2nd Congress. Is 'the' New American an AngloLadino with serious leanings towards ancient Mayan ceremonies like chopping off heads on Pyramids and other Red things - while high on 'White Stuff'. BTW Is that why they call 1600 Pen... The White House.. Perhaps El Dubyaino misunderstood the Job Description, should he sue the Texas Employmnent Agency for over taxing his attention span?

Now that the local Coke Cola franciseee is a contributor to the Lott hidden rewards program, ( B.J.s in Florida ??) will we be paying a higher price for the Nectar of hot summer? Will we be paying the extra 10 cents on Gasoline for all of 2001 to repay the Bush campaign or will it be paid off before the end of the year. BTW How long does it take to pay off 80 million dollars 10 cents at a time?

Now that Florida has returned to the Race culture of the past can we soon expect to see Segregated Public Utilities?

Since El Presidente is sooo long on Narcotics will we also be allowed to Snort in the Public Parks as well as in the Public Bathrooms?

During the era of the great Bubba the Dealers were hiding in the corners of Apartment Complexes up and Down the USA and they now are come out upon the streets to sell their product direct, does this mean there will be a big discount?

:0)

Snort, gulp, glug, ....

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:42 PM

SeanM...sounds like a "Holy War" to me, and I am not joking. It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it? Good points, Sorcha. This makes me more than quaesy to think of...it is all part of that "Culture of Life" bullshit he is wanting to bring about to make abortion a rare thing.

THIS IS NOT MEANT TOWARDS ANY MUDCATTERS, but this bumpersticker is fast becoming one of my favourites: "God save me from your followers."

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:47 PM

You know, if a school is doing poorly, that is, the kids are not really learning what they ought, then the parents of those kids can go to the school board meetings and raise holy hell. This is accountability, it already exists, and it just needs to be used.

Creating "accountability" (read: federal programs to determine school performance, on the national taxpayer's nickel) at the Federal level seems like a funny thing for a conservative to do. Don't they usually want to move control AWAY from the top and down to the bottom of the food chain? Or say they do, anyway?

Just some thoughts.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:54 PM

Now that the local Coke Cola franciseee is a contributor to the Lott hidden rewards program, ( B.J.s in Florida ??) will we be paying a higher price for the Nectar of hot summer?

Maybe they'll be brionging back the old-time original Coca Cola recipe, which included real coke...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:54 PM

Nothing Prince George has done in the last two weeks should come as a surprise to anyone; its clear from his record and his associates these things wqere part of his agenda and he said outright he WOULD do most of them.

What makes ME really queasy is the feeble, almost non-existant protest to what he's doing. Are the Dems really going to knuckle under in the name of phony bi-partisanship? Get WITH IT, gang!

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:55 PM

Now that the local Coke Cola franciseee is a contributor to the Lott hidden rewards program, ( B.J.s in Florida ??) will we be paying a higher price for the Nectar of hot summer?

Maybe they'll be bringing back the old-time original Coca Cola recipe, which included real coke...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 07:57 PM

We can but hope, Kevin-

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Jan 01 - 10:46 PM

Greg,

The Faith based social program thing was an Executive Order. There's not much that can be done. Plus he's got his people compiling a list of all the existing regulations that might interfere with the plan so they can be changed.

Its more a problem for the Court than Congress (although they can refuse to fund it)

He set up the same type of program in Texas. Hopefully the press will follow-up on the 'success' of that progam. (if any).

The ACLU has already issued a statement, They aren't happy campers. We shouldn't be either.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 11:48 AM

The Handmaid's Tale

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 11:54 AM

Penny:

--Shudder--

Alex.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 11:58 AM

Or Heinlein's "Coventry"

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 12:08 PM

No kidding, Penny! Do you 'spose GWB goes to bed at night watching that? Scary...but I have to believe we can do something to prevent it from going that far.

My dad, who will be 84 in May and has been a Democrat all of his life, as well as a well-spoken watcher of world politics, is sure that Bush will not get much done in the next two eyars and that we will see a landslide vistory for Dems in two years, plus in four and for many years after that.

Some of the tings we can do, if we don't already, is support ALCU and other orgs. which will watchguard and, hopefully, be in the forefront fighting him every step of the way.

InOBU, don't worry about the Skeptic and the Troll. They may sound like junkyard dawgs, but they'd readily share the toilet bowl, if that was the only source of water.*BG*

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 12:51 PM

One thing you can count on is a constant stream of doom and gloom as liberals/socialists/communists (LSC) find that people are becoming educated about their true agenda. Al Gore should have won the election hands-down. It was handed to him on a silver platter. It should not have been close enough for recounts! The only problem is that Americans are increasingly disgusted with the government. They wanted to go a different direction than proposed by democrats. So don't pretend Bush "stole" the election. The fact that enough people voted for him to make it close is bad news for the LSC. It has been happening at state and local levels for some time.

After years of socialized schools, with funding going through the roof, students perform poorly. Instead of opening their minds to new methods (and some old ones that worked very well), the LSC wants more of the same. Only more money, wasted, satisfies them. That was always the problem with the Soviet Union - all they needed was more money to make communism work. Meanwhile the elite class got rich and the workers had to subsist on whatever rations were available. A real "workers paradise". Then there's Cuba...

Of course, there is France. Just enough capitalism to make the socialism/communism bearable - if you import your own money. Plenty of poor people to populate the service industries, but enough "elite" LSC to make other LSC comfortable. From what I hear on this list, I think many of you would be happy there (for about a week!)

Down with communism, socialism, and liberalism!

Up with America!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 12:56 PM

Liberalism *is* America. Read the Declaration of Independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Troll
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 01:39 PM

Will someone please show me where "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution?
I've looked all over and I can't find it.
Oh, and no "penumbra" or "this means" please.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 01:52 PM

If GUESTs don't have a name to add on, they don't exist, and are better ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 01:56 PM

You imply that liberal/socialist/communist are inseparable. This demonstrates a rather profound lack of understanding of any of them.

Your statement that Gore had the election handed to him on a silver platter is odd since pollsters and pundits alike claimed that Gore had an uphill battle from the get go. A Supreme Court decision that elevated sophistry, cynicism and lack of character to new levels had a little to do with it. However, if you believe that we are a Nation of the Law, that's the way it is.

If people are becoming educated about the "true agenda" of the LSC then the interesting fact that the single most valid predictor from the presidential election was religious affiliation would seem to show all us LSC's that the true agenda of whatever the opposite of LSC. (I'll let others decide what that might be) is religiously motivated.

Those you characterize as LSC share the blame for what's wrong in this Country. Just as they can accept praise for their part in what's right

The manifest agenda of the "other side" is heavily laced with religion. Strange that the Constitution was designed to limit the involvement of Church and State and the Bible admonishes use to render unto caesar that which is caesar's, yet the answer to everything is to entangle religion with government. I predict that even if it happens, the long term losers will be religion. Once tax-payer's dollars start flowing into religious organizations, tax payers of all flavors are going to start demanding accountability. When the church becomes accountable to Caesar, you end up with a church stripped of all those elements that make it important. Just another arm of the secular bureaucracy. Belief in God being optional.

I have a number of friends who teach. I'm sure they would like to know where all the money went. Not into text books. Or computers. Or buildings. Or salaries. Or supplies. The Florida Legislature did a one time appropriation of $756 million two years ago to fund text-book purchases. The goal was to ensure that every student had their own text-book. They reached about 80% of that goal. The next year the appropriations for text-books were cut from the budget since they'd given them so much the year before. This, btw was a conservative legislature.

Money, however, was never the answer. Parental involvement was and is. For a group who champions family values, you seem very quick to blame everything except the fact that most parents aren't involved. In public schools in my area, about 45 % of the parents show up for scheduled parent/teacher conferences. Less than30% come to open house. Less than 5% volunteer to help out at school.

I have a friend who runs a private school that requires that parents help out as aides on a regular basis as part of the tuition "cost". About 15% offer to pay more so they wont have to show up. About 10 % of the 15% have valid reasons why they can't show up. The rest are "just too busy. And that's what we're paying you for". This is an LSC school, btw.

My sister, on the other hand, sends her children to a private school run by their church. They have the same requirement and the same problem. Their percentages of "I just can't" runs at about 25%, with 5% having legitimate excuses.

Another fact. In public schools that require parental involvement (usually magnet schools), performance skyrockets. Unfortunately, those kind of programs cost money.

All anecdotal. But factual. More than can be said for the opinions your shared.

Your comments about Russia are curious as their major problem was that productivity was extremely low and they didn't have the money to throw at their many problems. And they had massive corruption and a rich, sheltered, elite and the system collapsed. And they weren't communistic anyway. Neither is Cuba, come to that.

Want to talk about poverty and hunger? We have it here in the richest country in the world. With all those LSC programs gobbling up tax dollars. Or to you believe that the only reason people are hungry is becasue they're to lazy. Or being punished by God. (Strange. I don't remember that part of the Bible.)

We have more millionaires than anyone in the world. The President has proposed a tax cut that would give $36 billion dollars in tax cuts to 1% of the people. $804 million would benifit 1200 people. Talk about a rich sheltered elite. With 4% of the worlds population, the US uses 40% of the resources. This allows us to take the moral high-ground?

And finally, as evil, corrupt and selfish as most of us LSCers are here on mudcat, at least we have the integrity to register and post and defend, if needed, our beliefs and ideas, rather than hide behind an anonymous login. Should I presume that this sort of thing is also a characteristic of the non LSCers?

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 02:15 PM

troll,

The separation of church and state is Thomas Jefferson's prescription. The Constitution states that Congress shall make no "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Penumbra is usually used to argue things like the right to privacy. Btw

It also says that "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

Madison interpreted that to include ruling whether laws are constitutional and what the intent of the words mean. It is one of the ground rules.

Given that, the Court has interpreted that to mean that there is and should be, a clear separation of church and state. Its another of the rules. You may or may like them, or agree with them, but if you believe in America as a Nation of Law, you play by the rules.

The Supreme Court can reverse itself, the constitution can be amended. Until then, the separation is part of our law.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 02:31 PM

Bush is headed just about where I expected..God help us all...uhh...wait..no...I mean....*pulling blanket over head*

*uncovering head with startling revelation*....it suddenly hit me..that old phrase, "God helps them who help themselves" has MUCH deeper levels of meaning than I had realized!.......

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kendall
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 02:39 PM

What can I do? I can write my senators and representatives telling them how I feel about this morons choice of cabinet people. In fact, I did just that, and, if they vote to confirm Ashcroft or Norton, I will do everything in my power to help defeat them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 03:01 PM

Is it just me, or is it obvious to all that the Prez didn't have any specific plans about how to proceed with the California energy crisis, and then somewhere along the line realized it could be used as an excuse to open up federal lands for rape er, exploring for oil and natural gas?

His sudden turnaround from "it's California's problem and there's no federal question" to "I'm appointing Cheney as Energy Tsar to look into this immediately" must have SOME explanation, and I suggest mine is as likely as any...

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 03:23 PM

First, let me apologise for failing to log in with a guest name. It was purely a matter of hitting the "submit message" button before Thinking of it. I am aware that some people must know who is speaking before they know what position to take on an issue!

Now:

>You imply that liberal/socialist/communist are >inseparable. This demonstrates a rather profound lack of >understanding of any of them.

They may be seperable, but generally LSCs differ only in degree. That is the way it is - not as it should be.

>Your statement that Gore had the election handed to him >on a silver platter is odd since pollsters and pundits >alike claimed that Gore had an uphill battle from the >get go.

Another tendency of LSCs is to put inordinate faith in pollsters and pundits (who represent their views), regardless of evidence.

>A Supreme Court decision that elevated sophistry, >cynicism and lack of character to new levels had a >little to do with it. However, if you believe that we >are a Nation of the Law, that's the way it is.

No idea what this is about, unless it is concerning the election decision. Bush won the election in accordance with the law. What the Gore people and democrats wanted was to change the law - after the election outcome! Please don't attempt to tell me that the democrats would have championed that if Gore had won the count and the recount!

>If people are becoming educated about the "true agenda" >of the LSC then the interesting fact that the single >most valid predictor from the presidential election was >religious affiliation would seem to show all us LSC's >that the true agenda of whatever the opposite of LSC. >(I'll let others decide what that might be) is >religiously motivated.

Again, not clear about your meaning. The religious right voted as they always have. Differences in this election were that religious people from the left, along with more union members, women and non-black minorities went Republican.

>Those you characterize as LSC share the blame for what's >wrong in this Country. Just as they can accept praise >for their part in what's right

This lofty statement sounds good, but is refuted by the facts. They do not accept blame. They blame others. Look at the Clintons, as a case in point. They fielded teams of lawyers to assign blame to innocent people. - The travel office staff - Numerous women - A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Congress - Rednecks - Prosecuters - And on and on...

>The manifest agenda of the "other side" is heavily laced >with religion. Strange that the Constitution was >designed to limit the involvement of Church and State...

This ignores over 200 years of precedent, as well as being factually incorrect. The limit is to prevent the government from establishing a compulsary, state-approved religion. It states that there shall be freedom of religion - not freedom from religion. It's all there for the reading.

>Once tax-payer's dollars start flowing into religious >organizations, tax payers of all flavors are going to >start demanding accountability. When the church becomes >accountable to Caesar, you end up with a church stripped >of all those elements that make it important. Just >another arm of the secular bureaucracy. Belief in God >being optional.

This is a mischaracterization of Bush's proposals. I won't waste the bandwidth to go through it, but you really should study the issue a little closer. In short, Bush does not propose to give taxpayer dollars to religious organizations.

>and the Bible admonishes use to render unto caesar that >which is caesar's, yet the answer to everything is to >entangle religion with government. I predict that even >if it happens, the long term losers will be religion. I >have a number of friends who teach. I'm sure they would >like to know where all the money went. Not into text >books. Or computers. Or buildings. Or salaries. Or >supplies. The Florida Legislature did a one time >appropriation of $756 million two years ago to fund text->book purchases. The goal was to ensure that every >student had their own text-book. They reached about 80% >of that goal. The next year the appropriations for text->books were cut from the budget since they'd given them >so much the year before. This, btw was a conservative >legislature.

I wont argue your predictions or your opinions. However, I am from Florida and the text book allegation is also mischaracterized. All students have text books. What was stopped was was the purchase of materials inapropriate for school children. These kids are too young to be burdened with gay rights, activest women's issues, how to mount a condom, anti-American culture, and all the other LSC agenda.

>Money, however, was never the answer. Parental >involvement was and is. For a group who champions family >values, you seem very quick to blame everything except >the fact that most parents aren't involved. In public >schools in my area, about 45 % of the parents show up >for scheduled parent/teacher conferences. Less than30% >come to open house. Less than 5% volunteer to help out >at school.

We do agree on the money issue. Parentel involvment is another issue we agree upon. Parents must be responsible for their children - not the government. If both spouses must work to pay the incredible tax burden we suffer (please don't tell me about the tax rates in some European country - I don't want America to go that way!) or for some other good reason, they still must not shirk their responsibility. Their child should be their first responsibility.

>I have a friend who runs a private school that requires >that parents help out as aides on a regular basis as >part of the tuition "cost". About 15% offer to pay more >so they wont have to show up. About 10 % of the 15% have >valid reasons why they can't show up. The rest are "just >too busy. And that's what we're paying you for". This is >an LSC school, btw.

I can believe this!

>My sister, on the other hand, sends her children to a >private school run by their church. They have the same >requirement and the same problem. Their percentages >of "I just can't" runs at about 25%, with 5% having >legitimate excuses.

Most wealthy LSCs send their children to private school. They would be fools not to - if they can indeed afford it. But I agree that there is a lack of responsibility by many parents, and it is facilitated by modern culture.

>Another fact. In public schools that require parental >involvement (usually magnet schools), performance >skyrockets. Unfortunately, those kind of programs cost >money.

Private schools can provide this kind of performance for much less money than public schools. Here in Florida, it cost, on average, between $7,000 - $9,000 per student, per year. This is the whole enchilada - transportation, extracurricular activities, etc. A local church school charges $1,800 per year for each student. The parents must provide transportation, books, and some classroom materials. Other church schools charge up to $3,500 but provide busing, after-school sports, and other activities. Guess which students perform better? Now, I know many parents can't afford private school and can't provide transportation, books, etc. But they might if vouchers gave them choice.

>All anecdotal. But factual. More than can be said for >the opinions your shared.

Hmmm?

>Your comments about Russia are curious as their major >problem was that productivity was extremely low and they >didn't have the money to throw at their many problems. >And they had massive corruption and a rich, sheltered, >elite and the system collapsed. And they weren't >communistic anyway. Neither is Cuba, come to that.

Call it what you will, communistic or other, but the government controlled all activities. Capitalism was shunned. Poor productivity was the result of no incentive to produce. Workers were allocate as much money as the government thought they needed. Essentially, you have reinforced my point.

>Want to talk about poverty and hunger? We have it here >in the richest country in the world. With all those LSC >programs gobbling up tax dollars. Or to you believe that >the only reason people are hungry is becasue they're to >lazy. Or being punished by God. (Strange. I don't >remember that part of the Bible.)

There will always be poor, lazy, hungry people - no matter what your form of government. But you must admit, America is a helluva better place to be poor (long-term) than any other country! It will improve under President George W. Bush.

>We have more millionaires than anyone in the world. The >President has proposed a tax cut that would give $36 >billion dollars in tax cuts to 1% of the people. $804 >million would benifit 1200 people. Talk about a rich >sheltered elite. With 4% of the worlds population, the >US uses 40% of the resources. This allows us to take the >moral high-ground?

You keep making my case! The most millionaires? Oh, how horrible! Tax cuts don't give anything to anybody. They simply let people keep more of what they earn. Poor people don't pay taxes, so they are not hurt either way. What will suffer is pork-barrel spending by corrupt politicians, like the Clintons (to name a current case, you can add some Republicans if you wish - there are some of those too). As far as America using the most resources, that's because we produce more of the world's good and services. We protect most of the world from each other, so we use some resources on their behalf. Anyway, so what? Who wants to live like third-world people?

>And finally, as evil, corrupt and selfish as most of us ?>LSCers are here on mudcat, at least we have the >integrity to register and post and defend, if needed, >our beliefs and ideas, rather than hide behind an >anonymous login. Should I presume that this sort of >thing is also a characteristic of the non LSCers?

See first statement above. If you have a problem with registering/not registering, take it up with Mudcat. Not my show. Besides, registering on Mudcat does not make you right by default.

I don't expect to convert you to being a conservative - but I will try to keep you honest!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 03:30 PM

Private schools can provide this kind of performance for much less money than public schools. Here in Florida, it cost, on average, between $7,000 - $9,000 per student, per year. This is the whole enchilada - transportation, extracurricular activities, etc. A local church school charges $1,800 per year for each student. The parents must provide transportation, books, and some classroom materials. Other church schools charge up to $3,500 but provide busing, after-school sports, and other activities. Guess which students perform better?

Not that there's any selection bias at all here. Or that the private schools are forced by law to deal with things that the public schools are. In other words, sure, if you skim off the brightest and most motivated kids and put them in a different school, hey presto! they'll perform better than the ones left behind. This proves NOTHING about either public or private schools. Hell, it hardly even SHOWS anything, let alone prove.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 03:58 PM

>In other words, sure, if you skim off the brightest and most motivated kids and put them in a different school, hey presto! they'll perform better than the ones left behind. This proves NOTHING about either public or private schools. Hell, it hardly even SHOWS anything, let alone prove.

Most kids can suffer the same fate if schools concentrated on teaching and motivation. Who says there is any organized skimming anyway? The fact is that private schools (religious or not) do a much better job of educating than do public schools, for many reasons. The conspiracy is on the part of parents who want better for their child. Why not make this choice available to those who cannot afford it? Why reward failure in the government schools? Competition for the government schools is good medicine!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Troll
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 04:35 PM

Sorry, Liberal, but I live in Florida too.Not all students have textbooks.
My wife is a teacher in Levy county. Her students do not have an American history book. She teaches using notes that she got from a teacher at our sons school.
BTW, she is teaching gifted children.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 04:36 PM

Who said anything about ORGANIZED skimming? It's not organized, and I never said it was. I said, "selection bias." People who send their kids to private schools tend to be people who are from a higher socioeconomic stratum (which corresponds positively with good schooling outcome), and further people who care about their kids schooling (which I would have to imagine also corresponds the same way). Take kids who fall into this bracket. Even in the public schools they are going to test out near or at the top. Put them into a private school, all together, with nobody from the poorer socioeconomic strata, with few or no special needs kids to suck money away from the mainstream curriculum. Boy howdy, they do better. Big surprise.

I never said anything about a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies; it's you right-wingers that have THAT stick up your patoots, not us lefties.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 04:38 PM

My God that "liberal" is a long-winded bugger, even by my standards!

The point about coming in as GUEST without even a pseudonym is that it really screws up the possibility of a coherent discussion, because one GUEST may be the same as the next GUEST, or a completely different person.

That makes it very clumsy replying - you'd have to say GUEST + date + time of the post in question; and you couldn't point out discrepencies between what they said in one post and another, because you can't be sure its the same person. (Well you can't anyway with a GUEST, because anyone can use the same pseudonym - but in practice that rarely happens, and if it does it'll get drawn to our attention pretty sharpish.) It turns posting into a form of graffiti, and who wants to argue with a wall?

"generally LSCs differ only in degree" So do most things, when you get down to it. Democrats and Republicans are a prime example - most of them would fit neatly inside the British Conservative Party, at least so far as policies are concerned.

The fact that they appear to loathe each other just confirms that. You have to be fairly close to someone to really loathe them. Most violence happens within families.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 04:38 PM

Guest, you have displayed terrific ability for presenting perfectly logical arguments. Unfortunately, I can't help but think that you begin with the conclusion and work your way backward toward the premises that fit. Working in that fashion it is easy to present a beautiful picture, all rationally fleshed out, that doesn't mean a damn thing.

An example? The Bush tax cuts. "They simply let people keep more of what they earn". But the bulk of the tax cuts are not aimed at wage earners, they are aimed at those whose income comes from investment. Bush wants to return money to the people whose money is making them money. This money will, in turn, be re-invested in making more money for the same people. The rich will continue to get richer.

And I don't want to hear any of that trickle-down horseshit; not as long as layoffs are an acceptable cost-cutting measure and jobs are being shipped to under-developed countries that do not respect the rights and needs of workers.

"Who wants to live like third-world people?" I love that. Try considering the fact that for the Rockefellers to live like Rockefellers a whole lot of wage earners had to live (and still live) like third-world people. Your myopia, venality and lack of caring makes me ill.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 04:42 PM

The FACT is that there has never been a private school which had the same cross-section of students as the public schools in our inner cities. Never. Ever. Period. Not the same number of kids who don't speak English well. Not the same number of kids whose parents are drug addicts. Not the same number of kids who have physical handicaps and learning disabilities. Not the same number of kids who spend part of every month in jail. Comparing outcome between these very selective private schools and the public system is apples and oranges. Hell, it's apples and crankshafts. Nobody KNOWS if the private schools are doing better than the public schools because they're doing something DIFFERENT than what the public schools are doing. So the comparison is MEANINGLESS.

Get it?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Curious
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 04:53 PM

Yo, Guest-Lib,

Have you ever worked in a school, been a teacher, or even attended a school or are you just blowing this out your a## like most who hold these sorts of opinions about education?

Those who can, Teach; Those who can't, bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,liberal
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 05:12 PM

To Curious Guest: Yo, dude!

Yes, yes, yes, no.

There is a difference between bitching and trying to improve a bad system. Even good teachers bitch occasionally!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Curiouser
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 05:33 PM

OK. Guess you just didn't learn much from the experience, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 07:51 PM

McGrath, And I'm even more long winded.

Guest Liberal (and others) Its along one.

>First, let me apologize for failing to log in with a guest name. It was purely a matter of hitting the "submit message" button before Thinking of it. I am aware that some people must know who is speaking before they know what position to take on an issue<

Not so much who as, being a confirmed cynic, in not knowing, I suspect ulterior motives. I appreciate your clarification >They may be separable, but generally LSCs differ only in degree. That is the way it is - not as it should be. < But then the difference between a puddle and the pacific can be said to be a matter of degree. The implication is that the degree is minor, that LSC is just different words for the same thing. I don't think that's supportable. The argument seems to be in the "either -or" form. (And I responded in kind. Sorry.) Rather than a line graph, I think the issue is more three-dimensional. Should I argue that conservative-capitalistic-religious are the same thing? If I remember, the logical fallacy is of composition. >Another tendency of LSCs is to put inordinate faith in pollsters and pundits (who represent their views), regardless of evidence.< The evidence was that the polls showed a close race and it was. Putting faith in pollsters or pundits is a cross spectrum phenomena, not limited to LCS. My faith in polls is always in with hindsight. >No idea what this is about, unless it is concerning the election decision. Bush won the election in accordance with the law. What the Gore people and democrats wanted was to change the law - after the election outcome! Please don't attempt to tell me that the democrats would have championed that if Gore had won the count and the recount! < I won't. IMO, the Supreme Court majority blew it. Rather than a firm yes or no, they responded with an responding ....maybe sometimes. Remember that the majority agreed that the recount had merit, there just wasn't time. Whether Bush or Gore would have won in a recount is a non-falsifiable claim. Neither of us can prove our respective contention. We argue opinion. You have mine. >Again, not clear about your meaning. The religious right voted as they always have. Differences in this election were that religious people from the left, along with more union members, women and non-black minorities went Republican. < In past elections, other factors (age, sex, race, income) were better predictors of how someone would vote. This time it was religion. I wasn't talking about the Religious Right, anyway. They didn't make religion a core issue in the campaign. Bush did. I have no problem with that, just the implication of purity on one side, deviousness on the other. All politics is about agendas. One side may appeal to you, the other not. Neither have the answer, just their own set of assumption. >This lofty statement sounds good, but is refuted by the facts. They do not accept blame. They blame others. Look at the Clintons, as a case in point. They fielded teams of lawyers to assign blame to innocent people. - The travel office staff - Numerous women - A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Congress - Rednecks - Prosecuters - And on and on...< Clinton and his cadre are not "they". And they done wrong. Nixon blamed the hippies and effete snobs. Eisenhower blamed the Military-Industrial Complex. "They' would need to include the slightly over 50% who voted for Gore, and probably those who voted for Nader. We could get into Iran/Contra, or Watergate. Or the Teapot Dome Scandal. Clinton and his group are LSC. They did bad things. Therefore all LSCers are bad, doesn't make logical sense and certainly assults common sense. Put another way, Reverend Garcia (of SC fame), is a Christian. Rev X is guilty of molesting childrem. Therefore........ >This ignores over 200 years of precedent, as well as being factually incorrect. The limit is to prevent the government from establishing a compulsory, state-approved religion. It states that there shall be freedom of religion - not freedom from religion. It's all there for the reading.<

It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Your interpretation is just that, yours. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled otherwise. You or I may not like the call., but the Court's the referee. They can change their minds, We can amend the constitution. Until them, we live by their interpretation. What the founding fathers may or may not have meant isn't relevant. The Court has been remiss too, in not defining religion. Rather, they tend to deal with issues on a case by case basis. Is Judaism a religion? How about Wicca. Or Voodoo? In some parts of the world they are. >This is a mischaracterization of Bush's proposals. I won't waste the bandwidth to go through it, but you really should study the issue a little closer. In short, Bush does not propose to give taxpayer dollars to religious organizations.<

Strange. That's how the Executive Order reads. And how it's worked in States, including Texas. Along with the order is the directive that various cabinet officers compile a list of rules and regulations that might interfere with faith based grants so they can be amended to get read of any obstacles. I don't claim that as Bush's intent. I claim that is where it could lead, intended or not.

>I wont argue your predictions or your opinions. However, I am from Florida and the text book allegation is also mischaracterized. All students have text books. What was stopped was, was the purchase of materials inappropriate for school children. These kids are too young to be burdened with gay rights, activist women's issues, how to mount a condom, anti-American culture, and all the other LSC agenda.<

The appropriation was limited to purchase of text books approved by the State Board of Education. And if "everyone has textbooks" I need to call at least a dozen teachers I know (in three different school districts and seven schools), to tell them that, somewhere, the books exist and they really don't need to share books with three different classes.

With bond debt and maintenance of facilities, it currently costs about $10,000 a year per student in Florida. Historically (this is both flavors of politicians) Florida has underfunded schools by between $700 million and $1 billion a year. (By underestimating or not accepting estimates). Money is diverted from textbooks to teachers, Supplies and maintenance costs. The schools (this is hearsay from friends who are teachers) who buy the sort of books you talk about are the ones who have money because the district is wealthy. What about the poor counties who have one set of history books for six periods? There's no money for all the "LSC ageneda" books you decry. Or for history books either. And the decision is a local one, not mandated from the State. Made by elected Boards. In the finest tradition of representative democracy. Florida is a home rule state (so far). The State can't stop the purchase of whatever the local Board directs (well, within reason).

Likewise, the kids should also not be burdened with being told that all Jews are damned because the murdered Christ, that gays are an abomination and should be castrated.... shall we swap horror stories? Want to get into the censorship of books? My favorite was 'Little Red Riding Hood' because it promotes alcoholism. Do I think students should be forced to read books like "I have Two Daddies", if their parents don't approve. No. What if their parents do approve? What if their parents don't know? Then why are they parents?

>We do agree on the money issue. Parental involvement is another issue we agree upon. Parents must be responsible for their children - not the government. If both spouses must work to pay the incredible tax burden we suffer (please don't tell me about the tax rates in some European country - I don't want America to go that way!) or for some other good reason, they still must not shirk their responsibility. Their child should be their first responsibility.<

Yes. I'll go further. The child should be every ones priority. What's tragic is the people who want to be involved, but are afraid to take time off from work because of (usually valid) fears of repercussions. As a society, we need to make children important again.

>I can believe this! <

Which part? It's a small school and I know the headmaster.

>Most wealthy LSCs send their children to private school. They would be fools not to - if they can indeed afford it. But I agree that there is a lack of responsibility by many parents, and it is facilitated by modern culture. <

My sister is by no means LSC or wealthy. Fools not to? The other side of the coin is that private schools can be, in effect, hot-houses that don't prepare kids for the real world. I do think that kids who are chronic discipline problems need to be pulled out of the regular class and school. In pilot programs (public schools), teachers claim that without the chronic discipline problems, they cover material about 20% faster with no decline in measured performance. >Private schools can provide this kind of performance for much less money than public schools. Here in Florida, it cost, on average, between $7,000 - $9,000 per student, per year. This is the whole enchilada - transportation, extracurricular activities, etc. A local church school charges $1,800 per year for each student. The parents must provide transportation, books, and some classroom materials. Other church schools charge up to $3,500 but provide busing, after-school sports, and other activities. Guess which students perform better? Now, I know many parents can't afford private school and can't provide transportation, books, etc. But they might if vouchers gave them choice. <

Sadly, private schools pick and choose. The public system has to provide mandated levels of education for the discipline problems, kids with learning disabilities and so on. Private Schools don't. And shouldn't. Its why they are private.

Church school shift cost and double use facilities. And have smaller classes. And pay far less tahn public schools. (In general).

>Call it what you will, communistic or other, but the government controlled all activities. Capitalism was shunned. Poor productivity was the result of no incentive to produce. Workers were allocate as much money as the government thought they needed. Essentially, you have reinforced my point. <

I call it a dictatorship, which has very little to do with the agenda of either side ofthe question. They also had universal health care and a pretty good education system. But lets not forget the underside of our system; The '29 crash. Company towns and the Pinkertons, sweat shops and forced child labor. Love Canal. The destruction of the Everglades...... Just the price we pay for all the rest? It was what you call the LSC types who fought to fix the flaws. And were fought tooth and nail (and guns and clubs) by the factory owners. One of my favorite songs that tied the Churches into it was "Pie in the Sky".

>There will always be poor, lazy, hungry people - no matter what your form of government. But you must admit, America is a helluva better place to be poor (long-term) than any other country! It will improve under President George W. Bush.<

Relatively speaking, their will always be people who are poor, yes. Lazy, definitely. Hunger is the one we can fix. It's the one the government shouldn't have to fix because we ought to be doing it. Through our churches and private charities, through our businesses. However we can. Not because of the LSC agenda, but because, like any charity, it's the right thing to do. "There will be poor always" wasn't meant to justify the condition. Or absolve anyone of responsibility to deal with it. >You keep making my case! The most millionaires? Oh, how horrible! Tax cuts don't give anything to anybody. They simply let people keep more of what they earn. Poor people don't pay taxes, so they are not hurt either way. What will suffer is pork-barrel spending by corrupt politicians, like the Clintons (to name a current case, you can add some Republicans if you wish - there are some of those too). As far as America using the most resources, that's because we produce more of the world's good and services. We protect most of the world from each other, so we use some resources on their behalf. Anyway, so what? Who wants to live like third-world people? <

In order. No its not horrible. Just an example of resource concentration. Take a look at the statistics. Wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the middle class is actually shrinking, the number of poor growing. Add a strong, state supported church and you get real close to a third world nation.

Taxes run necessary services. I'm not sure that derivaytives or indexing should qualify as making money. And, yes, the poor pay taxes. Not always income tax, but pay they do.

Lay pork barrel spending where it belongs. The people (that's you and me) who demand all those projects. Few politicians of any flavor are innocent. Mentioning the stadium built for GWB's team with taxpayers money woul dbe a cheap shot. But I take 'em where I can get em.

First, the protection we provide isn't all that resource intensive. And while we produce more goods and services, we do so(mostly) for our own use. Look at the trade deficit.

Who wants to live like a third world people? Noone, including them. Given the concentration of wealth trend inthis country, a whole lot of people had better get used to it.

>See first statement above. If you have a problem with registering/not registering, take it up with Mudcat. Not my show. Besides, registering on Mudcat does not make you right by default.<

And as said, I don't care if you register, I just like to know who's doing the posting.

>I don't expect to convert you to being a conservative - but I will try to keep you honest! <

And vice versa.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 09:10 PM

Ok Kiddies,

Prepare to have tantrums.

"The FACT is that there has never been a private school which had the same cross-section of students as the public schools in our inner cities. Never. Ever. Period."

That's because they have standards.

"Not the same number of kids who don't speak English well. Not the same number of kids whose parents are drug addicts. Not the same number of kids who have physical handicaps and learning disabilities. Not the same number of kids who spend part of every month in jail."

None of these kids belong in a healthy "normal" learning environment. One size does NOT fit all and each category you named would be better served in an appropriate specialized private school.

"Comparing outcome between these very selective private schools and the public system is apples and oranges. Hell, it's apples and crankshafts"

I liked that last comment.

"Nobody KNOWS if the private schools are doing better than the public schools because they're doing something DIFFERENT than what the public schools are doing"

Which is the whole point.

"So the comparison is MEANINGLESS"

No it isn't, it proves that having codes of conduct and providing a safe, positive and efficient learning environment gives better results.

The public schools could do this too if they were able to promote gifted kids to higher grades and send non-performing students to "special-ed" and "boot camp" schools.

Of course, one of the main reasons for the retreat from public schooling is the forcing down the throats of so many, the religion and belief system of the elitist LSCs, secular humanism.

Many parents in America resent having promiscuity, homosexuality, junk science and political correctness foisted on their children. seeing the irresponsible and deliberate neglect of meaningful thought training and the failure to teach the basics be the rule rather than the exception.

Signed,

The moronic, sub-human non-LSC.....mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 09:53 PM

mav,

Nice of you to check in. Please explain what a physical handicap has to do with learning ability?

One of my best friends father was a serious alcoholic. His mother floating around in a Valium induced haze. He is a full professor and working on his second or third Ph'd. He was also valedictorian of my high school. Does the fact that alcohol is a legal drug and the valium was by prescription really change anything?

Which learning disabilities? I have a friend of mine with two dyslexic, ADS children. They've done quite well up through ninth grade without dragging the rest of the class into the mud. Granted they've only managed a 3.8 average. Need I add that none of the private schools would even consider them.

Strange that all these problems have existed for a long time, yet public schools (with all those undesirables mixed with the select), managed to invent, discover and build the modern world.

You start with the absolute fact that the public school system is bad, wrong and a failure and work backward, picking and choosing facts that support your original assertion. Much more convenient that way,.

I will agree that chronic discipline problems need to be pulled out of the mainstream. Do that and add class sizes comparable to that of most private schools and I think that even with all those undesirables, you'd be amazed at what public schools can do. As they have demonstarted in the Palm Beach District.

I miss how schools teach promiscuity.That's a moral value and the duty of the parents. Their failure isn't the schools fault. Homosexuality seems to be at least partially genetic. It can't be "taught".(What would you call the call the class?) Given that over 60% of the adults in this country believe in some form of junk science (and less than 40% have any confidence in science) I think you need to look else where for blame. And if those statistics can be laid at the door of the public schools, why would we let people like that make important decisions about their children?

Your comment on political correctness is valid. It is contrary to the supposed value of education and learning and no one seems willing to stop it. Quite the contrary, they institutionalize it, It has and will come back to haunt us.

I also agree that we have given up trying to teach children how to think. I lay that at the door of some parents.(the ones who are politically active on both ends of the political spectrum). Teaching children how to think means they start asking questions, questioning assumptions and challenging the accepted. Neither the PC nor the RR crowd want their orthodoxy questioned. Their solutions are two-fold. Intimidate the public schools. And start private schools that support their particular mind-set. Another problem to be solved.

Regards,

John

PS: (and in partial jest) Maybe, rather than special schools for the less than ideal, we can just deport them. Saves tons of money and helps clean up the gene pool. Sorry, but you were edging real close to the edge there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 10:44 PM

First just let me state that you are the most polite liberal I've ever encountered and I appreciate that.

"Please explain what a physical handicap has to do with learning ability?"

Well, deafness and blindness could pose a little learning barrier. Accesibility and special medical needs require all schools to be specially equipped where only specialized schools otherwise would be.

"One of my best friends father was a serious alcoholic. His mother floating around in a Valium induced haze. He is a full professor and working on his second or third Ph'd. He was also valedictorian of my high school. Does the fact that alcohol is a legal drug and the valium was by prescription really change anything?"

No, and I'll bet he was not an impediment to the learning of others.

"Which learning disabilities? I have a friend of mine with two dyslexic, ADS children. They've done quite well up through ninth grade without dragging the rest of the class into the mud. Granted they've only managed a 3.8 average."

The schools have been "dumbed down" so much by this point that a 4.0 AIN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE!

"Need I add that none of the private schools would even consider them."

There should be private schools that cater to every type of individual need better than the government "equality" school.

"Strange that all these problems have existed for a long time, yet public schools (with all those undesirables mixed with the select), managed to invent, discover and build the modern world"

Actually we've been importing engineering, scientific, medical and math professional for decades. Our colleges are complaining of poorly equipped American high school graduates, in dire need of remedial reading and math training.

"You start with the absolute fact that the public school system is bad, wrong and a failure "

It is, why else would we be so low when compared to students (K-12) from other countries of the world.

"I will agree that chronic discipline problems need to be pulled out of the mainstream. Do that and add class sizes comparable to that of most private schools and I think that even with all those undesirables, you'd be amazed at what public schools can do. As they have demonstarted in the Palm Beach District"

Isn't that where they found all those people who screwed up their ballots because of illiteracy? (see today's news)

"I miss how schools teach promiscuity. That's a moral value and the duty of the parents. Their failure isn't the schools fault."

Putting a condom on a banana, instruction on anal sex, not informing parents before aiding a female student in obtaining an abortion etc.

"Homosexuality seems to be at least partially genetic"

Bu77$hi+! In that case so does axe murderer!

"It can't be "taught".(What would you call the call the class?)"

I would call the textbooks, "Heather has two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate"

"Given that over 60% of the adults in this country believe in some form of junk science (and less than 40% have any confidence in science)

60% of the adults may have learned that at public school. I'm talking global warming here.

"I think you need to look else where for blame. And if those statistics can be laid at the door of the public schools, why would we let people like that make important decisions about their children?"

Well, in your terms, 40% don't (believe in junk science) and should be able to make that choice. The aformentioned 60% can leave their kids in the government indoctrination centers and take their chances.

"Your comment on political correctness is valid. It is contrary to the supposed value of education and learning and no one seems willing to stop it. Quite the contrary, they institutionalize it, It has and will come back to haunt us."

Thank you, this is the bulk of my point. PC violates free speech (and thinking)

"I also agree that we have given up trying to teach children how to think. I lay that at the door of some parents.(the ones who are politically active on both ends of the political spectrum). Teaching children how to think means they start asking questions, questioning assumptions and challenging the accepted. Neither the PC nor the RR crowd want their orthodoxy questioned. Their solutions are two-fold. Intimidate the public schools. And start private schools that support their particular mind-set. Another problem to be solved."

Hell, I'll bet face to face over a cup of coffee, we wouldn't disagree at all.

The public schools need a little intimidating. The arrogant LSC union thug educrats who advocate solely for themselves can go ^&%@$^&**%$!

Those parents who do give a damn shouldn't be forced to place their kids in a learning environment contrary to their belief system.

"PS: (and in partial jest) Maybe, rather than special schools for the less than ideal, we can just deport them. Saves tons of money and helps clean up the gene pool. Sorry, but you were edging real close to the edge there."

Oh give me a break, many slow learners, handicapped and disruptive students would be able to benefit greatly from specialized schools and be able to re-enter the mainstream student community, many may be gifted students.

Now you have to admit, this is a departure from the status quo. We only protect the education monoply if we deny competition.

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 11:15 PM

Oh, by the way,

THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED BY 3/4 OF THE STATES.

MORE INFO @ http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html.

For those of you "from away" that means the income tax amendment was never approved by the states (3/4 required).

mav out

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Jan 01 - 11:24 PM

There should be private schools that cater to every type of individual need better than the government "equality" school.

SHOULD be? What are you going to do, mandate the running of schools to cater to ever "need"? If not, the public schools will be left to take up the slack because it takes a lot more MONEY to provide education to special needs kids, money which the "voucher" system will not provide, and the parents cannot. Thus, no private schools will arise to fill this need, and it will fall back on the public schools.

But it will be public schools with all of the best and easiest-to-educate kids skimmed off. These are the kids who cost less to educate, and thus the "extra" money having them in the mix would bring will be gone. These kids will fall through the cracks, then, and not get educated at all, or if at all, it will be in spite of the falling-apart, grossly underfunded schools you seem happy to let them suffer with.

No, MAV, I am forced to conclude that your wide-eyed elitism isn't the answer, and will only make a bad situation much, much worse.

So far you have yet to convince me otherwise.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 12:46 AM

Alex and John, I'm over here cheering loudly. You guys are eloquent and insightful. I might add that it seems to be us liberal relics of those oh-so-dysfunctional publics schools who can spell and write a coherent sentence.

My friends send their oldest girl to a public school. They say they do this for quality of education... but they never even gave their local elementary school a chance. They are really just trying to make sure that the poor kid never has to suffer the torment of learning FOREIGN IDEAS! My God, she might meet an atheist at public school, or a kid who speaks Spanish! Horrors! I saw her first grade class picture once. Every single one of those kids was blond and blue-eyed. Kind of blew me away.

Guest, no matter how you slice it: today's private schools (especially the evangelical church-related schools) are *not* full of kids with ADHD and handicaps. Such schools don't accept kids like that. The Catholic schools do a little better; I've got a number of ADHD patients in Catholic school. But surprise! The kids seem to have just as much trouble as they do in public school, because the private schools just don't have the infrastructure to deal with abnormal kids.

Have you ever considered the idea that private schools are just a teeny little bit racist? After integration in the South, whites protested desgregation by removing their kids from the newly integrated public schools and sending them to private religious schools instead. The public schools were left for the blacks. Being religious in nature, the private schools are of course tax-exempt. And what minority would ever apply to get in?

If public schools were allowed by law to pick and choose amongst the pool of available students, then they would have a student profile similar to that of private schools. I thank God they cannot do this. I grew up dirt poor, going to a public school, playing on the playground with children who were foster kids and borderline retarded... who had ADHD, seizure disorders, you name it. I was always a sucker for the downtrodden, and I enjoyed helping those kids out with their schoolwork. I taught myself to read by age four, was valedictorian of my high school (and I don't appreciate the little comment about grade inflation) and received a full scholarship to a good college. Today I'm a pediatrician, perhaps echoing that elementary-school interest in handicapped kids. I say this not to brag but to point out that a bright kid will not be worse off in public school.

Those of you who send your kids off to private schools, think hard about what beneficial experiences they might be missing. My mother grew up going to an inner-city high school that was racially diverse; she credits that experience with teaching her tolerance. She didn't go any further in her education but has great common sense and generosity.

This debate isn't going to end. But I am of the opinion that the so-called performance differences in public and private schools have little to do with the presence or lack of government involvement, and more to do with the student population and the motivation level of the parents. I won't believe otherwise unless I see a large study, with good numbers, that shows better learning in a private school setting with a comparable student body. I challenge anyone to show me such a study in a competent, peer-reviewed journal.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 12:53 AM

Hey Alex... the problem with living on the West Coast is that everyone has gone to bed just as you are gettin' your arguments warmed up!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 08:31 AM

mav, kimmers and alex,

More school bs to follow. Off to work.

mav,

The 16th amendment thing was put to bed by the Supreme Court. Can't remember if it was a direct ruling, or they refused to reverse a lower court and have no time to research but they dealt with the issue.

People may not agree with the ruling but that's the Law according to the Supreme Court.

Just like GWB is President because of their order. (You knew that was coming)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 08:42 AM

None of these kids belong in a healthy "normal" learning environment Meaning any kid with a disability.

Up yours MAV. I value discussions with people with a whole range of opinions. I am very much against debates turning into personal abuse. But you've stepped over the line here.

There are a number of people on the Cat who share a lot of your political and economic positions, and I respect them. But I don't respect anyone who can say thuaty kiond of garbage, and I suspect that most decent conservatives would feel the same. I hope that Uncle Jacques, whom I'd put in that category, will maybe feel a bit sorry about having introduced you to this company on the first place.

And I have to send this as an open post rather than as a Personal Message, which I'd sooner have done, because you're signed in as a GUEST rather than a member. Not a welcome GUEST any more so far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Sticklee
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 09:49 AM

As noted above:
MAV = GOBSHITE
Always was;always will be.
By all means, continue to encourage him. Perhaps we can attract the National Front, the Aryan Nations, the KKK, the Church of the Creator, & etc to post here regularly, and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,SUV
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 10:00 AM

"Hey! First thing we do, lets kill all the RETARDS!"

Morons
and
Assholes
Venue

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 11:43 AM

Kimmers, well said, and thanks for the support.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 12:02 PM

Hi Kimmers: Re. your statements/questions:

"Have you ever considered the idea that private schools are just a teeny little bit racist? After integration in the South, whites protested desgregation by removing their kids from the newly integrated public schools and sending them to private religious schools instead. The public schools were left for the blacks. Being religious in nature, the private schools are of course tax-exempt. And what minority would ever apply to get in?"

Having grown up in south Alabama, I can attest that this is incorrect. After desegregation, blacks and whites mingled just fine in the public schools (which I attended). The only private schools I can remember were Catholic schools, and they were considered wierd because we didn't understand what they were doing in there. Also, there was the private "academy". They were perceived to be for kids with behavior problems because they were predominently military prep schools in nature. We always felt sorry for those poor souls who were consigned there.

The "modern" style private school (which included fundamental changes in the church schools) evolved, starting big-time in the 1970s -long after desegregation- when education began to take a back seat to cultural issues, political correctness, and government-mandated programs.

As far as blatant racism goes, I experienced much more of it in my travels within the northeastern states. The racism there was positively vicious!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 01:09 PM

McGrath,

We all have beliefs that others on mudcat find reprehensible. Abortion comes to mind as probably the "hot" topic. I suspect that most decent people (and even some of us cynics) would find Mav's apparent assumptions deeply disturbing. His ideas about the segregation kids strikes me as crypto-fascistic. I don't know if that's what he is because he may be coming at it from another perspective.

As has been often quoted on mudcat and elsewhere, why attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I share your disgust with a lot of his solutions. I don't wish he and his ideas would go away. They won't. Ignoring the extremist of any type is dangerous. The thing I'm afraid of, having seen it happen, is an extension of what you propose. Ignore them, they'll go away. Been there, done that. Spent five years moving our school board back to the center because all of us figured those RR nuts would go away.

Is ostracism of the uncomfortable, the wrong, however you classify it, the way to go? Do we really gain anything but complacency? I fight the battle where I can, when I can. Letting the enemy retreat may be good tactics. It strikes me as poor strategy.

My take anyway.

Mav, Suv, Sticklea and others

One of my core values is that people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. ( I would probably make an exception for the true sociopath or psychopath as they lack totally certain parts of what makes people people.) This is one of my back against the wall issues, btw. They deserve to be treated fairly, as equally as possible and with dignity. You don't have to like, love or even want to be around them. You can think their ideas are foolish, shortsighted or plain stupid. You don't have to suffer fools lightly, roll over an play dead to avoid offending someone or become a hermit.

You may believe in the same thing, but what you have said indicates that learning/education is a higher order value for you. Dividing people institutionally, making it a value of society, is a denial of their humanity. (That isn't to say there aren't groups I choose not to associate with. A matter of personal preference, not a judgement of their value).

The thrust of your solutions seem to run counter to this idea. Or you may not see what looks like thinly disguised bigotry as such. The "separate but equal" argument doesn't work in society, practically, logically or ethically. (It can work in one on one relationships). Everyone ranks and rates people based on a lot of different values. When innate respect for our fellow man isn't a core value (both personal and cultural) , when we start to classify people as different in the sense of different being a bad thing, and want to institutionalize that, make it a cultural value, we destroy something valuable in ourselves, let alone others.

Yes, we can list the problems in education, agree that this, that or the other is bad or needs to be fixed. The implications are frightening. Under your proposal, how do I teach my son to respect other people if I segregate certain groups based on a fairly sophisticated theoretical frame work. How do I answer the question "Well you get to go this private school, but your brother can't because he's ADS, in a wheelchair or whatever." If I tried, how do I look myself in the mirror the next day? What value do I teach my son. If he had a handicap, how do I instill self-respect when he's separated from his fellow human beings.

And what happens when kids grow up. Does the societal separation continue? Do we end up with a caste system. I'd find that a bad thing.

I've tried (and occasionally failed) to respond only to the ideas you put out. Whether I like them, find them comfortable or right or extreme, you share them with a lot of people. That seems to upset a lot of people.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 01:11 PM

If MAV and his ilk have their way, here is what we might soon see:

"Dear Mr. and Mrs. Soon-to-be-Parent:

"The ultrasound of your baby boy shows a serious congenital defect, known as spina bifida. This is accompanied by another serious defect known as hydrocephalus. If born, your child will not walk independently. He will not be able to control his bladder or bowels. He will have urinary tract infections that could destroy his kidneys. He will suffer from infected pressure sores because he will not receive the nerve signals from his feet that are supposed to tell him his feet are rotting off. He might have severe brain damage from the hydrocephalus, or he might merely be learning-disabled. He will need at least two major surgeries within a few days of birth, and perhaps many more.

"Back in the 1990's, many parents chose the option of therapeutic abortion rather that put themselves and the child through this suffering. You don't have that option anymore. Instead, the Republicans who demand that your baby be allowed to be born will then abandon you afterwards. Because of so-call educational reforms, he will not be allowed to attend regular public school. You can, if you can afford it, pay to send him to a specialized private school, or you can have him institutionalized for the rest of his life in a "special school" where he can stare at the walls and drool. After all, his presence in a regular school might be a detriment to the learning of the other kids who are there to get a real education."

Don't you see the irony here? The right wing claims to respect the sanctity of life, yet here we have a representative of the right wing claiming that these handicapped kids must be educated apart from their 'normal' fellows. I guess it's okay to respect the sanctity of life when a cute little baby is at stake, but not okay to respect the right to education when a drooling, smelly, incontinent kid with cerebral palsy is the topic of discussion.

So, you might say... we should go back to the Good Old Days. One-room schoolhouses a la Little House on the Prairie, with local control by the village trustees and local Board of Education. Cute little girls with pigtails suitable for dropping into inkwells; boys with frogs in their pockets, a stern but loving schoolma'am guiding the little tykes through the three R's.

But what else is in this picture? Corporal punishment, for one. Kids were whacked with rulers and beaten with sticks or straps. Students who failed to learn their lessons were made to wear a dunce cap or made to stand up front as a sign of humiliation. A child might repeat the first grade ad infinitum, never learning to read, until he simply dropped out and went home to work on the farm.

And kids really did walk miles in the snow or rain or heat to get to school. If you happened to live too far away, tough. You had to board with a family in town or just forget it and learn your lessons at home. Kids who were handicapped or retarded or mentally ill? FOrget it; they stayed home or were sent off to "asylums". And the troublemakers? They weren't a problem, because they simply left school and ended up who knows where.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 02:12 PM

John said: "The thrust of your solutions seem to run counter to this idea. Or you may not see what looks like thinly disguised bigotry as such. The "separate but equal" argument doesn't work in society, practically, logically or ethically. (It can work in one on one relationships). Everyone ranks and rates people based on a lot of different values. When innate respect for our fellow man isn't a core value (both personal and cultural) , when we start to classify people as different in the sense of different being a bad thing, and want to institutionalize that, make it a cultural value, we destroy something valuable in ourselves, let alone others."

I see it differently. People are equal under the law, but they are not equal in abilities (physical, mental, emotional, etc.) Holding back a child because he/she has more ability than others is exactly the wrong thing to do.

We all cannot be sports stars, movie stars, brain surgeons, accountants, scientists, teachers, politicians, electricians, and so on. That is because we have different abilities, desires, capacities for the life experiences. If a child excels in academics, why penalize growth and advancement - just to satisfy some notion of social equality? Why deny a child the opportunity to excel in sports - just because others can't compete at the same level?

If a child is a detriment to the learning and advancement of other children, whose rights are really being infringed? It is always sad to see children fail, but that is life. We help them all we can, but we don't harm others is the process.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 02:39 PM

The government is proposing a new law that we must buy one of each music CD on the market, before we buy from the same artist twice.

Seems as though the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of musicians/singers who aren't doing well. The ACLU says it is discriminatory for us to be selective about what we buy!

Stay tuned for further developments!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 02:49 PM

GuestLib, if I had been allowed to progress through school solely on the basis of my measured abilities, I would have gone to college at age 14. And I would have been an arrogant, emotionally immature and insecure little bitch. Instead, I moved up with my age-mates and spent the extra time reading and observing... thanks to perceptive teachers who had the sense to step back and let me educate myself through books.

Despite your scorn towards 'secular humanism' and the pop psych teaching of the 70's, some of us needed a little humanizing. And I still think that being educated in a diverse setting was paramount in my transition to becoming a human being. When you encounter those who have not, whether the commodity is food, family, money, an able body, or brains... you learn to be fervently grateful for what you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 02:53 PM

Guest, if you think there is any kind of parallel between your desired picture of fascist schooling and your limp attempt at humor, you are a certified idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 03:26 PM

Kimmers: You are generalizing about general issues. How about the specific issues I raised? By the way, others have gone ahead early without becoming an "arrogant, emotionally immature and insecure little bitch" Why are you different?

moustheif: Personal attacks from LSCs. Nothing new here. Debating the issues is challenging to some.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 03:28 PM

Before we get more rants from offended, registered, Mudcatters:

The 03:26 PM post from Guest was me! Again, I hit the button too quick!

Maybe it was the public schooling?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 03:35 PM

Actually, I thought I was being rather specific. You see, I belief it is more honest to cite examples that I am familiar with rather than to make broad, sweeping generalizations. I can't speak for the experiences of others, so therefore I am cautious in bringing them up.

The question is not: should gifted kids be allowed to skip grades? Well, it depends on the kid. Each case is individual and different. The oppposite is true as well: each disabled child is individual and different. Some kids with an IQ of 68 who are well socialized are going to contribute an awful lot to a classroom milieu. Other kids with an IQ of 102 might decide to set fire to the teacher's pantyhose; you never know.

Tests just don't say it all. At some point, human judgement must be used, and the whole child must be considered. The six-year-old with Down's syndrome may never learn long division, but she will be able to crow joyfully that she's "going to SCHOOL!" each time the yellow bus approaches. Who are we to deprive her of that joy, and who are we to deprive the 'normal' students of the experience of knowing her?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 04:00 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 04:30 PM

Kimmers,

Re: Your sample letter.

Do not be concerned. The human genome will be mapped. In the name of efficiency we will engineer all undesirable traits out of man. It's like raising race horses, just select for the desired traits, calculate societal needs and produce the needed skills.

As political orientation, religion and ethics are counterproductive and inherently inefficient, the capacity for same will likewise be eliminated. We will become drones. We will be happy, because that, too, will be engineered in.

We will ignore the evidence that indicates that, in fact, it isn't all nature, that nurture plays a roll or that a viable ecology tends to diversity, not similarity.

We will mean no harm. We will find that, son of a gun, the road to hell really is paved with good intentions. And we will pass. And none will mourn because it was all done so efficiently.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 04:44 PM

Guest, Liberal - I know nothing of your personal history, but your posts indicate to me that you have never loved anyone who was labeled as "having less ability". No one who who has ever had a child with a disability would ever suggest that he or she be left behind. And don't fool yourself - that is what you are suggesting we do. Get on with our glorious society and leave those who can't keep up - to do what? Stay out of the way, I guess.

I can only hope that you are as young and inexperienced in human interaction as your posts indicate. You read like someone who's "personal philosophy" has yet to be put to the test; not the tests of the intellect, but those of the heart. If I'm wrong (and lord knows I'm wrong a lot) than I'm really sad for you, just as I am for all those out there who think like you. Your president, Mr. Bush, calls himself a "compassionate conservative" (whatever the hell that is). But until he, and you, develop EMPATHY that compassion just feels like noblesse oblige.

I don't mean to disrespect you as a person. You have a right to your opinion. I can follow your reasoning and you write well. But I couldn't disagree with you more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 31 Jan 01 - 07:13 PM

Bartholomew,

Yes and almost.

Yes. I think that Guest,Liberal does come across that way. But I know lots of people who have had the types of experiences you talk about and still don't get it. Of course, they know that they really get it and we're the ones who're f**ked up.

How long did it take you to realize and accept that you really didn't have all the answers. And that having answers isn't what its all about anyway? Just curious.

Almost. Bush Sr had noblesse oblige. Bush II doesn't. Or hasn't demonstrated it yet. More the "Do you know who my Daddy is" type.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 10:49 AM

Life can be quite humbling; the longer you try to keep your seat on some intellectual high-horse, the harder it hurts you when you fall. Somewhere along the line I began to believe that the universe was trying to teach me something, and that if I didn't pay attention I was going to end up repeating the lesson over and over until I got it. Maybe when I do "get it" I won't ever have to go through the rough stuff again. One can only hope.

I think you're right about Bush Jr. There is not enough "noblesse" there. Personally, I think that is what hereditary wealth brings; a gradual erosion of the more admirable qualities in people. I was giving both Guest and George W. the benefit of the doubt on the sincerity of the "compassion". It sounds more like an ad jingle than a statement of personal conviction.

Enjoy your day
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 12:19 PM

Bart,

I'm still too cynical to be that charitable. I think the "compassion" has some implied modifiers: so long as you agree with his political philosophy, are fairly well off and religious in a mainstream sort of way. (Just not too religious. No need to let all those moral dictums and restraints interfere with making money).

It is humbling. The realization that I'd been going from conclusions (I know the answers) to finding things in support of the answers I already had, caused some deep soul searching. And I still slip back into old habits.

Of course, I'm lucky in that if I ever really need to know the answer to life, the universe and everything, I can ask troll for illumination. :-)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 01:18 PM

You are all cordially invited to visit
>THIS THREAD
for a related discussion.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 02:59 PM

Bart, You said:

"No one who who has ever had a child with a disability would ever suggest that he or she be left behind. And don't fool yourself - that is what you are suggesting we do." And some other less than flattering things. Even though you admit knowing nothing about me.

Please go back and re-read what I said. I do not advocate leaving anyone behind. I advocate letting those that can go ahead, and not be held back. There is a huge difference.

Forcing children to remain in a failed school system DOES hold kids back - disability or no - so consider this: We all want the best education for the children, right? If government schools are failing, how do we fix it? We can throw more and more money at it, and hope for the best. We can write reams of new laws and regulations, and patiently wait while they are implemented, and hope for the best. This is the failed approach we have been taking for 30 years. This is why the government schools are in the condition we now find them.

OR, we can force improvement with competition from private schools. Competition will force the government schools to compete for students by fixing the things that are wrong. If they did that, there would be no need for people to look to private schools to educate their children. All of us would be happy with government schools if they were getting the job done - but they are not, in many cases.

There is more than one way to skin a cat (with apologies to PETA), and the way we have tried to fix the school system for so long has failed, and is holding children back.

If your concept of private schools is based on the assumption that they are all racist and anti-handicapped, then you are badly mistaken. That is the idea pushed by the big-government elite. I have sent my children to both public and private school, and the difference in quality of education was shocking - the private school was far and away the better choice.

You also said: "I think you're right about Bush Jr. There is not enough "noblesse" there"

Perhaps you don't know anything about Bush Jr. either - except what you get from the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 03:15 PM

"except what you get from the media"

as opposed to WHAT? That's all we have!

My problem with your point, Lib, is that I believe this "competition" will not force the gov't schools to get better to compete for students. It will just make a bad situation worse.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 03:37 PM

I can't see any process by which competition between private schools for people who can afford to send their children their and publicly funded schools for children whose parents cannot is by itself going to ensure that the standard of provision for disabled children is going to be improved, and that the right of all children to attend schools which are not segregated (by disability, race, wealth etc) is going to be preserved.>P>

And I'm not talking just about the right of excluded children to attend the schools - I'm talking every bit as much about the right of all children not to be educated in a segregationist system.

Children only have one life, and I know that parents can find themselves forced to withdraw children from schools that have gone bad (mostly in my experience from schools that have gone bad largely because of cuts that have forced them to get rid of experienced teachers, because it's cheaper to employ inexperienced ones). This means either private education, or education at home.

But it's one thing to make a choice for your own child, and quite another to imagine that the net effect of all these individual choices is going to be that the school system becomes better through the magic hand of competition. Competition raise standards? Look at the muisic industry. Look at the devastated city centres.

Making things better depends on people working together, and supporting each other, and sharing the burden, and being willing to pay the taxes and put in the effort to ensure that the taxes are spent in the right way. Compassionate,l yes. Even in a sense "conservative" - what we need is something that in many ways might look very old-fashioned. In the way that the music we love is old-fashioned. But it's a million miles away from this brash vulgar monstrosity that uses the label to justify privilege and repression.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 03:40 PM

Well mousethief, If the government schools won't get better from competition, and won't get better from more money, what's left? I don't know what you belief is based on, but the facts are that money has not been the answer.

If I had a scool-age child, why would I want to wait several years to see if another billion dollars helped? Several years is a long time for a school-age child. And what if it did help - but still didn't bring them up to the quality available from private schools?

Why not spend the money on the better choice? Who ever said the government schools were to be the only alternative for the rest of all time -to infinity? I think government schools can improve, but not without competition. Give vouchers to the parents. Let parents choose for their child.

Why can a woman choose to abort a child, but not choose a school for her living child? Whose ox is being gored if government schools are forced to compete?

Your question: ""except what you get from the media" as opposed to WHAT? That's all we have!"

My point exactly. Incomplete information for an informed opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 03:42 PM

That was me again at 3:40. Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 03:45 PM

But where else are we to get information? It's either the media, or meet the man personally, and frankly it seems extremely unlikely I'll get to do the latter.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 04:07 PM

Sadly, you are correct. We can form opinions based on his actions, as time goes by. But I don't think it is wise to espouse an opinion about his character when all we have is what's in the media. I know that most of the negative stuff is politically based, and I understand that to be a fact of political life. Time will tell for Bush, just as it did for Clinton.

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 04:11 PM

If you met the man personally, it'd just be another medium. Polticians are good at conning the people they meet personally. Agreeing about that should be something we can all do, regardless of our actual politics, even when we might disagree about which politicians are the best at doing it.

Remember all that stuff about how "likeable" Baby Bush" us - beats me how that can possibly be true, but tastes differ, and it does seems to be what "likeable" means in America today... And Clinton seesm to have magic charms when it comes to pressing the flesh, even if the flesh he chooses to press might sometimes have been chosen more cautiously. And over my side of the Atlantic, I am seriously told by people (different people) that Tony Blair and William Hague have real personal charm.

And none of that has anything to do with how trustworthy they are, or how competant. It's as if people gave people driving licences because they could play the ukelele well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 04:50 PM

All we will have AFTER HE PERFORMS ACTIONS will be what the media says. All we EVER have is what the media says.

Lib, yo'ure just not getting this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 05:07 PM

I guess I am not getting it moushtief...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 05:09 PM

Everything I know about Bush Jr. I learned from the media. There is nothing I learned from actual experience, or from talking to people who know him personally. It all came through the media. Every last bit.

So when you say "you're just going on what the media tells you" my answer is a stupefied, "um, yeah, so?"

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Liberal
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 05:37 PM

I can believe that!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 05:55 PM

Can you have a serious discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: SeanM
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 05:57 PM

In the latest news...

Ashcroft's confirmed, 58-42.

Oh well.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Bert
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 06:03 PM

If you're going to give vouchers to spend on education then you should give them to all taxpayers. There are many people who cannot afford an education for themselves but are paying taxes to educate other peoples kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 06:04 PM

Shit. Well, there's 8 Democrats to vote out next time around!

Proves how 'middle of the road' this administration is gonna be, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 06:52 PM

What I know about Bush Jr. is based on what I have read about him. Granted. Based on what I read of his business dealings (the failed oil deals, the deals cut to get the stadium for the Rangers) and his actions as governor (matters of public record) I have a pretty good idea of how he will act as the Pres. I don't need to wait and see. I wasn't surpised when Clinton got caught cattin' around, either. You hope people will learn from their past, but you shouldn't be surprised if they don't.

About the schools: Private schools don't compete with public schools. Most private schools have an agenda which is different than that of public education. Like Alex said - oranges and crankshafts. I went to Catholic grade schools and did not learn the same history that the public school kids did. High school, which was at a public school, was spent filling in the blanks. We also didn't get much science, which became a serious problem for the diocese. I am certain I didn't hear a peep about evolution. I did read a lot about the lives of the saints, though, many of which were later stated by the Pope to have been most likely apocryphal stories. Just lovely fairy tales.

You cannot fix the schools by denying them funds and calling it "accountability". First and foremost you need to find some agreement about what public education is meant to do. Then you can create some kind of plan to achieve it. And then, when you have provided the tools to achieve whatever-it-is, you can go out and see if your schools are achieving it at an acceptable level for a significant number of students. You measure and remediate. And then you do it again and again until you get it right. You don't fix it by throwing money after the "education fad of the month". And you don't fix it by caving in to pressure groups who's personal belief system is not in sync with the norm (of course, this assumes that you have reached concensus on a norm). You don't teach junk science or junk religion or junk anything. And you make sure that the people who are entrusted with making the system work - administrators, teachers, counselors, facilities workers, et al - are compensated at a level commensurate with workers in other fields. You make sure they are competent in what they do (teachers are already tested and "in-serviced" very well, IMHO) and not political appointees or burned out civil service lifers and you let them do their job.

Mostly you put the children in as diverse and stimulating an environment as possible. Let the really smart ones help those who have a problem getting it. Let those who are gifted help those who need help. This doesn't hold them back. This humanizes them. There is plenty of time in the school day to learn how to rack up SAT scores that will get you a meaningless sheepskin from some high-status East Coast MBA Factory.

I'm going home to my kids. They are extremely bright and very down to earth. They hate school as much as anyone, but they do their homework without a lot of arguments and they achieve. They don't pick on anyone (but each other). They have fine senses of humor. They don't use bad language but they've heard all the words. They have not been raised to hate or demean women - or themselves. Or anyone else. They don't need private schooling.

Goodnight, all.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Troll
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 07:22 PM

Until parental involvment with kids in the school and in the home improves a great deal, we will have problems.Kids need their mom or dad to be there when they get home from school. They do NOT ned to be raised by day care workers because mommy is being fulfilled at her job.
What job in the world is more important than raising your children yourself? Dad, it's more important to be at that ballet recital than it is to work late on saturday.
That's what's expected, you say? Only because you have allowed it!
You both have to work to get by these days? Try a cheaper house and car. I mean do you really NEED a $35,000 SUV?
It's a real killer when you get an 85% turnout for a football game and 10 people show up for the PTA meeting and 3 of them are faculty.
People don't know what the schools are doing and most of the time don't care to know. They are not involved with their kids and with the learning process.I hear it all the time," It's the schools job. That's why I pay taxes."
It's the parents job and it's their most important job. If it isn't, they should not have children.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: sophocleese
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 08:14 PM

Umm Troll maybe you could reword that to say "Kids need their mom or dad to be there when they get home from school. They do NOT need to be raised by day care workers because daddy is being fulfilled at his job. What job in the world is more important than raising your children yourself?" Now where do single parent's fit into this picture?

Parental involvement can take different forms depending on ability. I do not like trying to flog overpriced candy bars to all my friends as a fund raiser but I am willing to go into the school and play music with the kids and help out with supervision on day trips. Other parents may not be able to help out during the day but have a wide range of friends with severe chocolate cravings.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 08:26 PM

Part the First

Guest Liberal,

How do all the special programs for kids with learning disabilities drag down the other kids? There are programs for gifted kids to. And special programs: Lyceum, Magnet Schools, International Baccalaureate. Their scores are at or better than those in private schools and in comparison to other countries. Sandia Labs did a study in the early 90's (1991 I think) looking at the "decline" in SAT scores. Once they did an "apples to apples" comparison (looking at 20 or 25 years of scores), the 'decline' wasn't. Strangely (or not) both the Federal Government (as in Congress) and the NEA held up release of the report for almost four years as it didn't fit the agenda.

The money thrown at (or away on) the current system is criminal. Lots of us share the blame. Those who demanded and get driver's ed, sports programs, before and after school programs, school breakfasts and school lunches (which are student ability neutral programs). Educators (as opposed to teachers) who foisted specious "learning programs" on schools all over the country. And because schools are about children, when teen pregnancy soared, or kids came to school hungry, battered, scared or talking about suicide, the schools developed programs to help.

Pulling "the able" out of the system, and reducing per student cost to tax payers seems logical. $8,000 to $10,000 a year per student versus $1500 - $4500. Of course, some of the bureaucracy will remain, to monitor standards and run the voucher program. And there will still have to be public schools for all those less able kids. Their programs are expensive. At least some of the infrastructure has to stay. And be paid for. Right now, the cost is averaged across the diverse population. I've seen estimates run as high as $25,000 a year/student for special ed programs.

And while I don't think private schools are the answer, they may offer some valid ideas on how to solve the problem. Smaller classes, controlling (or transferring out) discipline problems. Demanding that core subjects be fully funded. (Up- to-date facilities and text-books) before the extras are added in. Getting parents involved. Most of the stuff I've read show that class size and removing chronic discipline problems from the class materially affect student learning, without creating a stigmatized class of students. Surely we already have enough divisiveness in our society without actively finding ways to create more. And whether done for in the name of better education or not, institutionalizing labeling and following it up with mandatory segregation isn't a legitimate function of government. If you want to do it, that's between you and your conscience.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 08:53 PM

Part the B

troll,

I read about two years ago that while costs (in adjusted dollars) have risen in th epast 40 years, real wages have lagged by 35-50%. Of course no one needs an $35K SUV and if its done at the expense of time spent with your child, its even worse. Sadly, just to live often requires that both couples worth. Not a particularly glowing endorsement of our society. (I am not necessarily blaming capitalism, btw. Lots of blame to spread around. Capitalism shares the blame with a lot of other areas. Starting with the face staring back at each of us from the mirror)

The studies that show that day care is damaging are...sparse. The few studies properly done show that problems for kids "brought up" by daycare can be traced to the home. Of course, the studies that show otherwise, either that daycare works or doesn't work (plenty of both) are used to bolster one side or the other. Which doesn't say much for real compassion on either side.

On PTA, sports and the like, you're being to generous. The ones that show up at the sports games complain the loudest about all the "frills" tax dollars are spent on, unless its sports related. The ones who show up at the PTA usually have an agenda only distantly related to what's good or needed for the children. And lets not forget the "Educators who use a collage of sometimes contradictory theories to develop a new "learning methodology". When it fails (having wasted lots of money and time and held up students learning) it's the fault of the teachers for improper implementation.

Guest Lib,

I do not know George the Lessor personally. Or any of the dynasty come to that. I have fairly good friends in who do know them and like them a lot. Listening to their stories, I think Alex was being generous. The mistake is to claim he doesn't think he's sincere. Their stories (told to show what a "great guy" he is, lead me in the other way.

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 10:22 PM

Troll - you're right about kids needing their parents, but I've seen a lot of single parents do well by their children. My mom and dad both worked; my dad often held two jobs. But I never felt neglected or over looked. Neither mom nor dad need give up everything else that is important and postpone their lives for their children. In spite of the myths that serve as memory, those weren't always "the good old days" for the nuclear family. You just need to maintain some balance between your children's needs and your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Troll
Date: 01 Feb 01 - 11:19 PM

Balance is indeed the problem. With "do your own thing" and "grab the gusto" and no-fault divorce it's hard to do.
The problem for the single parent is juggling time and energy. If there is extended family to help take up the slack, that's one thing. Doing it on your own, either the job or the kid is going to get short-changed somewhere down the line.
If someone looks on raising children as putting their lives on hold, maybe they should consider not having kids. Then all their time and energy can go where their heart really is, into their career.
Skeptic, no one knows better than me how much it costs to live these days but there are a lot of people who opt for a simpler life-style so one of them can stay home, at least for the first 5 years. They then work part time. It isn't easy but people do it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:00 AM

Mousethief,

"SHOULD be? What are you going to do, mandate the running of schools to cater to ever "need"?"

I'm not going to do anything, they will be ALLOWED to spring up to fill the need.

"If not, the public schools will be left to take up the slack because it takes a lot more MONEY to provide education to special needs kids"

Why?

"money which the "voucher" system will not provide"

Why wouldn't it? It may become a tax credit. "Thus, no private schools will arise to fill this need, and it will fall back on the public schools"

Don't forget faith/community based organizations.

"But it will be public schools with all of the best and easiest-to-educate kids skimmed off"

Not necessarily.

"These are the kids who cost less to educate, and thus the "extra" money having them in the mix would bring will be gone"

Well, that seems to cure overcrowding, better than hiring more illiterate union teachers.

"These kids will fall through the cracks, then, and not get educated at all"

Oh, you mean like now. "it will be in spite of the falling-apart, grossly underfunded schools you seem happy to let them suffer with"

The thieving democrats have been in charge all this time, don't blame me.

"No, MAV, I am forced to conclude that your wide-eyed elitism isn't the answer, and will only make a bad situation much, much worse"

The elitists are the ones who won't allow parents to have "school choice" because they know the status quo is best (for themselves)

These are not my ideas folks, they are likely the future of education, but I sure am glad I was able to get you all to freak out

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:03 AM

troll,

While the rate of illegitimate births is increasing, most single parent households don't start that way.

And you beg the question. The costs of living has risen(in real dollar terms) faster than wages. Rent that cost $50 in the 60's and took 25 hours of work to pay for, now costs $500, and takes 50 hours. Real wages decline and all the sudden, if you want to enjoy a even a simpler life style, it takes more than one income.

The life style my father could afford in the 60's(on an army salary that was considered low in comparison to civilian salaries of the time) can't be reproduced today by an officer of similar rank. Although salaries are now closer to their civilian counterparts, what can be afforded isn't.

If the choice is between a $35,000 SUV and a child, that's one thing. When the choice is between being able to either pay rent and eat, its another.

Its one of the more dangerous flaws in our culture. Its one thing to opt for a simpler life style. Its another to be forced in to it.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:06 AM

Bert,

"If you're going to give vouchers to spend on education then you should give them to all taxpayers. There are many people who cannot afford an education for themselves but are paying taxes to educate other peoples kids"

I'll second that.

"Bleep" the establishment!

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:10 AM

Greg F

"Well, there's 8 Democrats to vote out next time around!"

So much for your demand for "bi-partisanship" (I hate that word)

They'll probably become GOP by then anyway.

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: DougR
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:13 AM

The sky is Falling! The sky is falling! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:15 AM

" Now where do single parent's fit into this picture?"

As a major part of the problem.

Vive la marriage.

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:21 AM

"Well, there's 8 Democrats to vote out next time around!"

That also means that 42 hung together. Enough to stop a vote of closure on a filibuster. I'd heard that Bush II and his band of retreads were hoping for more defections.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:24 AM

Skeptic,

"The 16th amendment thing was put to bed by the Supreme Court. Can't remember if it was a direct ruling, or they refused to reverse a lower court and have no time to research but they dealt with the issue....People may not agree with the ruling but that's the Law according to the Supreme Court."

The Supreme Court can't amend the Constitution.

"Just like GWB is President because of their order. (You knew that was coming)

W is president because the SCOTUS upheld the Constitution 7 to 2 (and also because Gore didn't win either Tennessee or Arkansas.) (You knew that was coming)

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:47 AM

McGrath,

"None of these kids belong in a healthy "normal" learning environment Meaning any kid with a disability"

Maybe you should go back and look at Skeptic's post, you took it out of context (typical spin)

"Up yours MAV. I value discussions with people with a whole range of opinions. I am very much against debates turning into personal abuse. But you've stepped over the line here"

Up mine? Looks like you're the one hurling personal abuse and stepping over the line. (are you drunk or something?)

"There are a number of people on the Cat who share a lot of your political and economic positions, and I respect them."

I doubt that.

"But I don't respect anyone who can say thuaty kiond of garbage"

What exactly is "thuaty kiond"? Looks Scandinavian.

"and I suspect that most decent conservatives would feel the same. I hope that Uncle Jacques, whom I'd put in that category, will maybe feel a bit sorry about having introduced you to this company on the first place"

I think I can speak fairly confidently on behalf of most other American conservatives when I tell you to "bite us"

And I have to send this as an open post rather than as a Personal Message, which I'd sooner have done, because you're signed in as a GUEST rather than a member. Not a welcome GUEST any more so far as I'm concerned.

As far as I can tell, this is an American format, I'm as American as it gets.

This country was not made great by a bunch of whiney socialist BASTARDS!

Go drive on the right side of the road.

mav

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST,Ribbit
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 02:35 AM

Geez mav, Everytime you are at odds with someone you accuse them of being drunk. Do you have personal problems with the bottle?
Where in the hell do you get off telling some one else to get out of here. People like you give the rest of us a bad name. Your world only has room for those that think and act exactly like you want them to. Get over it. Yeah, I know, it's pinkos like us that freed the slaves.
As near as I can figure with all the bile and other crap that spews out of your mouth, I figured you evolved in a cess pool from a family tree that had no branches or forks. As far as I'm concerned (I've never flamed anybody before even in the flaming thread),when the good Lord put teeth in your mouth he ruined a perfectly good asshole.
Ribbit (formerly Thom M.)
I would like to apologize to any other 'catter that I might have offended with this post

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 08:07 AM

That posting technique where little snippets get printed, and you have to check back to where it came from to understand what it's all about, and then there's a response, and then there's another little snippet, and a response – well, it can easily get very irritating.

But there's one thing in that last post of MAV that I have to respond to. He calls me a liar for saying that I respect most of the people on the Mudcat with which I find myself in disagreement with from time to time - people like Doug, or Troll or Uncle Jacques, and there are others I am sure.

The truth is, I do, and I think that my posts indicate that. Sharp disagreement about a lot of things don't rule out respect, and it can be away of working out areas where there is common ground, and I think there is a lot of common ground. A lot of the time we probably agree about important aspects of how we'd like the world to feel and look, it's just that I tend to think the kind of solutions they would want I think would make it worse, and you think the same about the sort of solutions I'd want.

I've just been reading a book called The Great Good Place by a sociologist in Florida called Ray Oldenburg. All about the way that pubs and their equivalent can play a vital roll in keeping a society happy and healthy. And about a lot of other stuff too. Well worth reading, a lot of it is very relevant to the Mudcat, and I could quote it at length.

But I won't, because this isn't the place or time to do it. But the reason I bring it up here is because it's a prime example of what I was saying in the paragraph before last. People can disagree widely and even acrimoniously on the labels and on what needs to be done, but still have common ground when it comes to what they would like to see existing around them.

I think many Ray Oldenburg's of ideas might not fit neatly into the kind of political spectrum a lot of people seem to put their trust in. But I think a lot of us who think we disagree with each other would find ourselves muttering agreement with him on page after page, even when some of us might then find ourselves shaking our heads in sharp disagreement. (What I mean I tend to agree with him on the very points where many of my friends from both sides of the argument would disagree with him

So when I say I respect people I disagree with, it isn't just a rhetorical flourish. MAV is the exception, fortunately. Maybe even that's a misunderstanding, but a look back at what I quoted from him about disabled kids not belonging in a healthy "normal" learning environment seems to confirm my understanding of his position, and extreme distaste for it.

And I apologise to everyone about my lousy proofreading. I check and I check, and there's always something that slips through just as I push the submit button. I'll try extra hard this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 08:09 AM

mav,

The SC didn't amend anything. They ruled that ratification was legal. Or rather the courts have refused to rule that it wasn't legal. (so far as I've been able to find).

Accepting the W ruling as valid would tend to indicate that you accept the validity of the Court. Accepting the rulings you like and not the ones you don't like, lead to chaos. America may not have been made great by socialists. (and that statement is far too broad and not entirely accurate) It wasn't made so by anarchists, either.

Your ideas come across as crypto-fascists. (which doesn't require taht you to be a conservative - see below) That may not be your intention. When you propose institutionalization of segregation in the name of something as fuzzy and pie-in-the-skyish as educational quality, on the grounds of physical disabilities, you run the risk being labeled such. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, don't get mad when people think it's a duck. A negative outcome done for all the right reasons, is still a negative outcome.

Our society can survive our kids not meeting some arbitrary standard of learning far better than we can institutionalizing bigotry, which is a very logical consequence of some of your ideas. (And 'bigotry' is meant in the most negative sense, btw).

On the other hand, and in partial response to Ribbet, I suggest he (and you and others)read a book called "Shadow University" by Alan Kors. Under the banner of those you call the LSC, the type of segregation mav proposes was carried out, based on race, sex, sexual orientation. Replete with separate facilities and separate treatment, at a number of our supposed centers of academic freedom. From which, I suppose, I could conclude that mav isn't a crypto-fascist, but a ultra left wing PC fanatic.

Ribbet, as food for thought and IMO, I'm sorry you decided to break your winning streak by flaming. I'll admit I was offended. How is deliberately offending people (in addition to the flamee) made all better by an apology? If mav apologies for offending, does that make it all better?

McGrath,

Hoping the mav's of the world go away strikes me as a little short-sighted. Look at what happen when sensible men and women ignored that funny little paper hanger.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 09:05 AM

Hoping the mav's of the world go away strikes me as a little short-sighted. Look at what happen when sensible men and women ignored that funny little paper hanger.

I doubt he (has to be a "he" I think) is quite in that category. But I don't think arguing with Adolf would have been that useful. Maybe buying his paintings when he was on the breadline in Vienna might have helped, who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 10:51 AM

McGrath,

An elegant statement of what used to be called civility should be all about. In my (admittedly limited) experience on mudcat, your comments, response and general attitude have been admirable. (Even when you didn't agree with me). Especially when you irritate troll, but that's the cherry of the cake.

You're probably right. Lots of "what ifs" in history. I agree that talking to Hitler wouldn't have done much good. And don't see mav as that way by intent, but maybe as an unwitting (or witting) fellow-traveler of sorts. (can we please avoid "half" jokes here. Surely there's more creativity than that out there?)

But as I recall my history, one element of his rise to power was that the "mainstream" decided he was on the lunatic fringe and would go away. Rather than challenge the nonsense he was feeding people, they ignored him, figuring peole would see through him. At the same time, they didn't seem to be doing a lot to address the problems. Hitler was and people gravitated to his 'solutions'. I've found that a lot of people look at failure or refusal to challenge an idea as proof that the idea has merit. The refusal of most scientists to investigate or comment on alien abductions is offered as "proof" that something's there

And while I don't think us good guys can convince the mavs of the world they are wrong, maybe we can stop, or slow down, their recruiting drive.

A friend here recommended the Oldenburg book. Our library doesn't carry it. Strange as this is Florida. Hope to find it in one of the local book stores.

Regards

I

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 11:56 AM

The most dangerous type of nonsense is that which is presented behind a facade of logic.

Guest MAV tends to do a very good job of over-simplifying situations, building conclusions on a base of questionable suppositions, stepping over and around counter arguments which undercut his dubious premises and (when none of the other tactics work) moving to personal invective. MAV, even the valid points that you have made are cheapened by the glib context of your ideological bias.

You do not seem to want to address real issues in a manner, or with the intent, that would lead to workable solutions. As long as that is the case you can be dismissed as any flamer would be. Unfortunately, unlike flamers, you cannot and should not be ignored; there are too many people who are so desperate to find easy, painless (to them) solutions to difficult questions - like that of school reform - that your skillfully crafted, but essentially pointless and counter-productive arguments will have some appeal and could become public policy. This would be disastrous.

I can understand why you would drive otherwise reasonable 'catters to flaming. I have no solution for people who think like you. You are immune to logic and insufferable in your arrogance.

Have a nice day
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: kimmers
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 12:41 PM

Ah, the old discussion about working parents and lifestyles...

To work or not as a parent is a pretty personal choice, and it depends on the situation, the parent, the kids, and the childcare options. Generalizing about this is pretty unfair. Frankly, I see far fewer messed-up kids from two-income homes than I see from one- (or none-) income homes. Many kids thrive on having a variety of adults interact with them. My mother worked after her divorce, and I never felt deprived. I spent afternoons with Grandma until I was old enough to be on my own after school. I learned to cook at an early age, and typically came home and made dinner for the family. I knew what I could and could not do and who to call if there was a problem. I think that responsibility, for the right kids, breeds responsibility... just as overprotectiveness and authoritarianism can breed dependence and an inability to make the right choices when choices become inevitable.

I'm no fan of casual divorce, but moms can be caught between a rock and hard place. Stay married and be battered (and risk the kids' safety as well) or leave and live in poverty. Which is worse? And wouldn't most of us rather see these single moms work and support their families than be on welfare?

No, people shouldn't have kids if they are not prepared to put their heart and soul into parenting. That's why I don't have any. (But there are an awful lot of things that people do that they shouldn't be doing!) I still get snide comments and funny looks from evangelical right-wing friends when I explain that we have no children, by choice, after almost ten years of marraige. They wonder how I can feel fulfilled without children, without the whole motherhood experience. Underneath, there is this implication that as a Christian and a wife that I should be at home, barefoot and pregnant while my husband works. Sometimes a woman can't win in the "you should be doing (blank)" game...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Troll
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 01:09 PM

Kimmers, you had extended family and one-on-one after school care. This is vastly different from the baby farms with one or two staff for a whole yardful of children.
Of course no one should have to stay in an abusive relationship but I believe that a lot of this is due to the fact that there is so much selfishness and meism going on. Men are unable to put their wants aside for the good of their families. They don't accept that they can't have all their wifes time or that they can't go out and party with the gang every night.
The women have never learned how to divide their time so that husband and baby get a share and neither side wants to give up the old lifestyle and really be parents.
So you get abuse.
Thanks for the support on don't do it if you don't mean it.
I know I have not expressed myself well on the subject of abuse and I'll get some flack for it. But I do feel that a large part of the problem with families and schools today stems from selfishness on the part of parents who have unrealistic expectations of just how much work it takes to parent a child.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 01:37 PM

troll,

How are schools at fault for parent's selfishness and unrealistic expectations?

The selfishness and meism (and abuse) have been around for a long time. In the 'good old days', when two parents were the norm and only Daddy worked, the wife was left making sure the kids got the attention they needed. That was her expected roll. And she did it, often aided and abetted by "mother's little helper".

Having stated the problem, discussed causes, what can be realistically done. (It would be tactless to remind you of your earlier posts lecturing people who just rehash problems and offer no solution. Tactless yes, irresistible, no).

Regards,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 01:47 PM

Essentially I suspect that what I think about this isn't that far from Troll, when it comes to how I'd like to see things happen, though I'm sure I might have a very different set of ways of getting there, and a different set of explanations for how we got where we are.

But though people putting themselves first is a part of it,it's a lot more complicated than just that. There are reasons why some people act that way and others don't, and why more people act that way in some places and times than in other places and times. Understanding those is more important than just condemning - or praising for that matter.

The unlamented John Major, when he was Prime Minister, came up with a soundbite about it being necessary to "understand less and to condemn more" (or was it to "condemn more and understand less" - same difference).

That struck me at the time as one of the most stupid thing any politician had ever said. Fortunately I wasn't alone in seeing it that way.

As for MAV, I don't want to harp on about it. But there's a saying that in any conflict or disagreement you find there is someone on your own side whom you really wish was on the other side. Well, I get a feeling that, in this case, it's the other way round.

I really think that the last thing I would like to see is someone win MAV around to the kind of ideas I might have. He's doing a great job where he is in convincing people that there are certain ways of thinking that are not good ways of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 02:19 PM

And continued here if interested (and blue clicky works)

Click here

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 01 - 11:13 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 01 - 12:47 AM

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is REALLY falling! :>)

DougR