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!