BS: Bushwacked -- THREE!

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.