Why Bush's White Wife is so Ugly???
stan...@my-deja.com
US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BK
stan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in the
> US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
> Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
yes, she seems like a robot.....but the problem is that the sheeple are
casting votes for this weak governor of Texas.....he is a joke......
--
"All originality is borrowed"
---Alan Watts
BK
http://www.geocities.com/beornheard/
ICQ # 4557591
mya...@my-deja.com
have no emotions and they don't know how to cook and clean their very
small apartments (and they're drunk every night hanging around with
their co-workers and macho bosses). Even wonder why so many Japanese
women visited the U.S. Because you're a scary man.
Governor Bush has management experiences. Vice President Gore is so
stiff even when he get a Lewinsky from Tipper, a woman who don't know
the difference between mental illness and mentally challenged.
Susan Cohen
mya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Then how come she married an American White man? Because Japanese men
> have no emotions and they don't know how to cook and clean their very
> small apartments (and they're drunk every night hanging around with
> their co-workers and macho bosses). Even wonder why so many Japanese
> women visited the U.S. Because you're a scary man.
> Governor Bush has management experiences. Vice President Gore is so
> stiff even when he get a Lewinsky from Tipper, a woman who don't know
> the difference between mental illness and mentally challenged.
Maybe she's read too many of your posts?
Laissez-faire
--
".In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget
how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need
some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common
bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide
would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this
world. And yet I ask you, is not an alien threat already among us?"
-Ronald Reagan
BK <bjk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:38C61610...@earthlink.net...
> greetings---
Jimmie Walker
stan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in
> the US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians!
> LOL! Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
Hmm...you claim to have a twelve-year-old white stepson. Which would
mean, that is, if you had any credibility whatsoever and could be
believed, that you yourself have a white wife. Which begs the question:
Since she would marry you, how ugly is YOUR white wife?
LOL!
Steve Sundberg
<fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>vote libertarian, if you've got the guts to be different.
>
>www.lp.org
Almost as pompous as Pat Buchanan, and almost as narrow-minded.
;)
_.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,._
It's been Oolong time, my Darjeeling Jasmine, dee...@mm.com
since we've had some Tea together. webm...@straitscafe.com
_.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^ http://www.sundberg.tc
Affordable Website Design & Maintenance | http://www.eggsco.com
Laissez-faire
Steve Sundberg <dee...@mm.com> wrote in message news:38c721e1...@news1.mm.com...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:02:16 GMT, "Laissez-faire"
> <fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >vote libertarian, if you've got the guts to be different.
> >
> >www.lp.org
>
> Almost as pompous as Pat Buchanan, and almost as narrow-minded.
>
> ;)
Pompous I can live with. Narrow-minded, libertarians are definitely not.
Progressive comes to mind.
Scott Reynolds
> Pompous I can live with. Narrow-minded, libertarians are definitely not.
> Progressive comes to mind.
Progressives are pretty much the opposite end of the political spectrum
from the libertarians. I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary,
lad.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Laissez-faire
Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38C73BF8...@gol.com...
> Laissez-faire wrote:
>
> > Pompous I can live with. Narrow-minded, libertarians are definitely not.
> > Progressive comes to mind.
>
> Progressives are pretty much the opposite end of the political spectrum
> from the libertarians. I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary,
> lad.
I don't think so. Progressive can mean different things. I was using it as it is
defined below in the first couple sentences from websters. I was _not_ referring
to political progressives, which constitutes another part of the definition.
I think you need to look up the word "oxymoron".
Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1612
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of,
relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure,
and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING
4 a : increasing in extent or severity <a progressive disease> b : increasing in rate as the base increases <a progressive tax>
5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken
of
- pro·gres·sive·ly adverb
- pro·gres·sive·ness noun
> _______________________________________________________________
> Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
> > from the libertarians. I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary,
> > lad.
>
> I don't think so. Progressive can mean different things. I was using it as it is
> defined below in the first couple sentences from websters. I was _not_ referring
> to political progressives, which constitutes another part of the definition.
Hmm, you were talking about political philosophies, and yet you were
using the word progressive in a sense other than the political one? Like
Humpty Dumpty, you seem to believe that words mean whatever you want
them to mean. ;-)
In any case, libertarians are not progressive in any sense of the word.
"Of, relating to, or characterized by progress"? You can't be serious.
"Of, relating to, or characterized by selfishness and an unwillingness
to shoulder civic responsibilities" or "even worse than the Repugnicans"
would be closer to the mark.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Laissez-faire
Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38C747D2...@gol.com...
> Laissez-faire wrote:
> >
> > Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38C73BF8...@gol.com...
> > > Progressives are pretty much the opposite end of the political spectrum
> > > from the libertarians. I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary,
> > > lad.
> >
> > I don't think so. Progressive can mean different things. I was using it as it is
> > defined below in the first couple sentences from websters. I was _not_ referring
> > to political progressives, which constitutes another part of the definition.
>
> Hmm, you were talking about political philosophies, and yet you were
> using the word progressive in a sense other than the political one?
Telling somebody to vote Libertarian is hardly what I'd call getting into
a deep philosophical discussion on political philosophies.
>Like
> Humpty Dumpty, you seem to believe that words mean whatever you want
> them to mean. ;-)
No, I gave you the definition of "progressive" from the dictionary. This definition
gives more than just the meaning "political progressives". I suggest you go back
and read the definition again.
>
> In any case, libertarians are not progressive in any sense of the word.
> "Of, relating to, or characterized by progress"? You can't be serious.
Yes, I am. What's "progress" to you? Taxing the hell out of people?
Socialism? Communism? You think that's progress? Do tell...
> "Of, relating to, or characterized by selfishness and an unwillingness
> to shoulder civic responsibilities" or "even worse than the Repugnicans"
> would be closer to the mark.
Selfishness? LOL Selfishness is a human trait which is found in people regardless
of political affiliation. I've met selfish republicans, democrats, hell, I've met
selfish socialists!
It sounds like you're a very bitter liberal. I'm guessing it's either because Bradley
lost, or because you know Gore will. Which is it?
> _______________________________________________________________
> Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Me
>I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in the
>US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
>Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
Who cares?? Besides, the First Lady usually has no influence in
international policies, and Bush is definitely NO Clinton! Hillary is
power-hungry, and she can't hide her ambitions thus the NY senate race...
How many former First Lady's have been like her?? Your post is stupid, and
once again, reflects your racist and moronic views of the world! If you're
so tough a Japanese, how come you haven't committed seppuku with your
beloved Mishima, or gone back to Kyoto yet??
<Banda no sakura ka kin no iro,
Hana wa kichya ni kaze fuku,
YAMATO otoko to umarenaba,
sanheisen no hana to chire...>
Recognize that tune?
Scott Reynolds
> It sounds like you're a very bitter liberal. I'm guessing it's either because Bradley
> lost, or because you know Gore will. Which is it?
Bitter? Hardly. I have nothing to be bitter about.
You, OTOH, have the thrilling choice of voting for George W. or the
Libertarian candidate, and knowing that either way your man will lose.
Have fun, bucko!
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Steve Sundberg
<fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>Steve Sundberg <dee...@mm.com> wrote in message news:38c721e1...@news1.mm.com...
>> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:02:16 GMT, "Laissez-faire"
>> <fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>
>> >vote libertarian, if you've got the guts to be different.
>> >
>> >www.lp.org
>>
>> Almost as pompous as Pat Buchanan, and almost as narrow-minded.
>>
>> ;)
>
>Pompous I can live with. Narrow-minded, libertarians are definitely not.
>Progressive comes to mind.
Not the ones I know. They're attitude seems to be "my way, or the
highway." They leave little or no room for negotiating their agenda.
Steve Sundberg
<fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>I don't think so. Progressive can mean different things. I was using it as it is
>defined below in the first couple sentences from websters. I was _not_ referring
>to political progressives, which constitutes another part of the definition.
How can you *not* include the political defintion when talking of a
political entity?
Pompous, indeed.
Steve Sundberg
<fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>Telling somebody to vote Libertarian is hardly what I'd call getting into
>a deep philosophical discussion on political philosophies.
Then just what the heck do people do around election time? What's all
this fuss about as we head toward November, or, in the case of
parlimentary governsment, whenever the government wants to call an
election?
Or are you taking a fascist tact (more evidence, perhaps, of your
"progressive" Libertarian politics?), and expect people to meekly do
as you say without question?
Steve Sundberg
<fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>It sounds like you're a very bitter liberal. I'm guessing it's either because Bradley
>lost, or because you know Gore will. Which is it?
Neither, in my case. I've never voted "party" since the first time I
could vote in 1976.
You, on the other hand, must be bitter knowing there's zero chance of
a Libertarian living in the White House anytime soon. Ventura has a
better chance ... and he's not even running (so he says).
Louis XIV
I am amazed with him. Mr Obuchi is so ugly.
Agent Smith
do you love (*:B cats?
t8
Laissez-faire
Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38C75E63...@gol.com...
> Laissez-faire wrote:
>
> > It sounds like you're a very bitter liberal. I'm guessing it's either because Bradley
> > lost, or because you know Gore will. Which is it?
>
So, why don't you answer the question: what political philosophy would you call "progressive"?
I have a feeling I already know the answer...
Laissez-faire
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 06:59:53 GMT, "Laissez-faire"
>
> >
> >It sounds like you're a very bitter liberal. I'm guessing it's either because Bradley
> >lost, or because you know Gore will. Which is it?
>
> could vote in 1976.
>
> You, on the other hand, must be bitter knowing there's zero chance of
> a Libertarian living in the White House anytime soon. Ventura has a
> better chance ... and he's not even running (so he says).
true, but I'm not the one who sounds like a bitter liberal...
Susan Cohen
Scott Reynolds wrote:
> Laissez-faire wrote:
>
> > Pompous I can live with. Narrow-minded, libertarians are definitely not.
> > Progressive comes to mind.
>
> Progressives are pretty much the opposite end of the political spectrum
> from the libertarians. I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary,
> lad.
Any group can be narrow-minded. I've met narrow-minded
libertarians. Just as scary as any other narrow-minded
sectarian.
Susan
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>
>Any group can be narrow-minded. I've met narrow-minded
>libertarians. Just as scary as any other narrow-minded
>sectarian.
The worst are narrow-minded Librarians. They have something like only
six books on the shelves and all the dirty words have been blacked
out.
;)
juju bee
dee...@mm.com wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 06:59:53 GMT, "Laissez-faire"
> <fus...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >
into
> >a deep philosophical discussion on political philosophies.
>
> Then just what the heck do people do around election time?
Watch "who wants to be millionaire"?
> What's all
> this fuss about as we head toward November, or, in the case of
> parlimentary governsment, whenever the government wants to call an
> election?
The fuss is media driven. Most people don't know the issues or the
political stands the candidates are taking, beyond the obvious tired
old issues, "no new taxes", "free choice bad", etc....
>
> Or are you taking a fascist tact (more evidence, perhaps, of your
> "progressive" Libertarian politics?), and expect people to meekly do
> as you say without question?
>
Yeah dude, that's it...
> _.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,._
> It's been Oolong time, my Darjeeling Jasmine,
dee...@mm.com
> since we've had some Tea together.
webm...@straitscafe.com
> _.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^
http://www.sundberg.tc
>
> Affordable Website Design & Maintenance | http://www.eggsco.com
>
--
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Monica Lewinsky"
-William Jefferson Clinton.
Walter Lee
>
> I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in the
> US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
> Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
>
> Before you buy.
If a lady be very scary
Did happen before she marry?
Was she fair ages ago?
Or Was she a scary from head to toe?
When we select our president,
the wife be first lady by coincident.
Significant other hast doest flames,
International ignorance thy complains!
But one wonders why the fuss??
when ladies don't satisfy thy own dear lust??
But even if she was a smarty,
Aren't you voting for that other party?
(9_9)
Walter Lee
dd...@mpi.net
>
> In article <8a5337$5l1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> stan...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in
> > the US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians!
> > LOL! Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
>
> mean, that is, if you had any credibility whatsoever and could be
> believed, that you yourself have a white wife. Which begs the question:
>
> Since she would marry you, how ugly is YOUR white wife?
>
> LOL!
>
> Before you buy.
how is it your business?
Xiccarph
libertarians are the choice.
Xiccarph
to the US "media"...any place with a photo on the web?
stan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in the
> US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
> Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
>
Louis XIV
>
> hey, did you also ask why a certain lady is ugly?
no, I am making fun of the person who did
> do you love (*:B cats?
>
yes I love cats
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>zero comparison. For true liberty and the least gov't intrusion,
>libertarians are the choice.
Like I said ... pompous, and narrow-minded.
takeuchi
stan...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8a5337$5l1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in the
>US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
>Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
I don't know what is happening in the US.
Some people in india looks like blacks.
Some Japanese also looks like so.
I saw Mr bush on TV several times.
A good American, lots of heritage from his family,
oposit of Starlin, Mou.
No one hates him.
I have not yet seen his wife.
I asume she is smart as much as someone hates.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>Some people in india looks like blacks.
The human species is not divided into races. There isn't any white
race. There isn't any black race. There are any races at all.
Anyone who would post a subject line like the above has a ugliness
deep in their soul.
Love, Jim
"But the evidence is in line with the well-established,
if little publicised, finding that democracies have far
lower levels of internal violence than non-democracies
This is not really surprising. The non-violent management
of conflict is the very essence of democracy." Kofi Annan
takeuchi
Louis XIV wrote in message <38C76FBD...@newsguy.com>...
>
>I am amazed with him. Mr Obuchi is so ugly.
>
Yes he looks like ugly.
He is just an ordinal politician.
But his political behavior is not welcomed by most
Japanese.His political life will be vanish soon.
His face reflects everything that he did.
"Obuchi" is similar of "Obutsu";UGLY itself.
.
We may say Mr. "obutsu":The prime minister of Japan.
Scott Reynolds
> So, why don't you answer the question: what political philosophy would you call "progressive"?
> I have a feeling I already know the answer...
Progressives are the people you would call "liberals," "commie pinko
preeverts," etc., etc. You know, the ones who think that the government
should do something to help the poor and downtrodden, to protect the
environment, etc., rather than just letting the rich get richer and the
poor poorer without lifting a finger to promote social justice.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
mdryoon
>
> Hmm, you were talking about political philosophies, and yet you were
> Humpty Dumpty, you seem to believe that words mean whatever you want
> them to mean. ;-)
Left-wingers co-opted a generally good word to describe themselves as
something that they aren't, at least not in the U.S. The so-called
"progressives" too often advocate the perpetuation of bureaucracies
that are unnecessary and don't perform their stated jobs well. For
example, notice how "progressives" complained bitterly over the
passage of welfare reform? Some "progressives" speak out against
privatization of Social Security, which will reduce the elderly's
dependence on big government, increase the future viability of Social
Security, and be less of a fiscal burden. And "progressives" want to
protect ineffective public schools by going against school vouchers
that can be spent on private schools.
In the U.S., true progressives are those who want a smaller Federal
Government, not only in terms of spending, but also in terms of
scope, and less taxes.
> In any case, libertarians are not progressive in any sense of the word.
> "Of, relating to, or characterized by progress"? You can't be serious.
You think reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government isn't
progressive? Why should the Fed Government: spend $10s of billions
on corporate welfare; subsidize artists through the NEA, and national
TV and radio networks through the CPB; provide taxpayer subsidized
health insurance for rich and middle class elderly; rob me of my own
retirement money to fund current retirement funds, including funds
for rich and middle class retirees; and continue to subsidize Amtrak?
> "Of, relating to, or characterized by selfishness and an unwillingness
> to shoulder civic responsibilities" or "even worse than the Repugnicans"
> would be closer to the mark.
Tell me why big government is less selfish than any individual or
corporate entity. Why so much big government resistance to reform
broken big government systems like public education, Social Security
and Medicare?
Richard Yoon (for e-mail replies, spell "nooyrdm" backwards.)
mdryoon
>
> Hmm. You know, I have never seen Bush's wife...havn't paid much attention
> to the US "media"...any place with a photo on the web?
http://www.georgewbush.com/images/site/george&laura/g&lsection.gif
George W. Bush and Al Gore. These guys make George Herbert Walker
Bush and Michael Dukakis look like geniuses.
Laissez-faire
Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38C8A245...@gol.com...
> Laissez-faire wrote:
>
> > So, why don't you answer the question: what political philosophy would you call "progressive"?
> > I have a feeling I already know the answer...
>
> Progressives are the people you would call "liberals," "commie pinko
> preeverts," etc., etc. You know, the ones who think that the government
> should do something to help the poor and downtrodden, to protect the
> environment, etc., rather than just letting the rich get richer and the
> poor poorer without lifting a finger to promote social justice.
Wanting to help the poor and downtrodden is a form of humanitarianism for some,
religious doctrine for others. One does not have to subscribe to your definition of
"progressive" politics in order to lift a finger to help people. That's one of the problems
with our society, we let other people and labels define what are actions should be.
There's absolutely nothing in libertarian philosophy that would run counter to your
explanation above. The problem is that "liberals" have no faith in human compasion
and charity, and therefore have to mandate what should be taken from people and
given to others. Sort of a big brother meets Robin Hood style of government.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
>
>
Laissez-faire
Well said Richard. I should have pointed this out before.
It's the old liberal inefficient government = progressive concept.
Talk about your definitions!
Agent Smith
Agent Smith
Xiccarph
Xiccarph
that's where the similarity ends.
Mike
Xiccarph
mdryoon wrote:
Xiccarph wrote:
>
> Hmm. You know, I have never seen Bush's wife...havn't paid much attention
> to the US "media"...any place with a photo on the web?
http://www.georgewbush.com/images/site/george&laura/g&lsection.gif
George W. Bush and Al Gore. These guys make George Herbert Walker
Bush and Michael Dukakis look like geniuses.
Richard Yoon (for e-mail replies, spell "nooyrdm" backwards.)
Don Kirkman
<38C8A245...@gol.com>:
>Laissez-faire wrote:
>> So, why don't you answer the question: what political philosophy would you call "progressive"?
>> I have a feeling I already know the answer...
>Progressives are the people you would call "liberals," "commie pinko
>preeverts," etc., etc. You know, the ones who think that the government
>should do something to help the poor and downtrodden, to protect the
>environment, etc., rather than just letting the rich get richer and the
>poor poorer without lifting a finger to promote social justice.
Are you saying the government should take actions and operate programs
that promote the general welfare? Gee, maybe we should write that into
the Constitution or something. :-)
--
Don
The Internet proves that a million monkeys at a million keyboards couldn't
reproduce the works of Shakespeare.
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>I think you are confusing libertarians with liberals...they both begin with liber... but
>that's where the similarity ends.
There's no confusion. Minnesota has a very active Libertarian party,
and its politics are quite distinct from any "liberal" I know -- and
Minnesota is known for its liberals, you betcha.
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>Spoken like a true far-left extremist socialist
Pray tell how you were able to infer such status upon me? For all you
know I might support a monarchy ... with me as king. I'd be a really
good king, too. Libertarians wouldn't have to pay any taxes into my
treasury, and I promise never to work on your behalf.
Of course, that'd mean Libertarians would have to build their own
roads (after buying the land from the Crown), build their own
Libertarian schools and their own Libertarian teachers colleges,
defend their Libertarian selves without any assistance from the Crown,
figure out how to subsidize their own interstate/international
transport (I'm assuming that every Libertarian isn't wealthy enough to
own their own plane), solve your own crimes, etc.
;)
John W.
In article <8a5337$5l1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
stan...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in
the
> US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians!
LOL!
> Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
'Pyle, you have been reborn, reborn hard' Full Metal Jacket
I'll bet you're the kinda guy that would
f*** a person in the ass and not even have the
GD common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
"God has a hard-on for Marines. Because
we kill everything we see" -- Full Metal Jacket
The world is as large or small as our minds -- me
"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'" Josey Wales
Scott Reynolds
> Wanting to help the poor and downtrodden is a form of humanitarianism for some,
> religious doctrine for others. One does not have to subscribe to your definition of
> "progressive" politics in order to lift a finger to help people. That's one of the problems
> with our society, we let other people and labels define what are actions should be.
> There's absolutely nothing in libertarian philosophy that would run counter to your
> explanation above.
Except that progressives think that government has a useful, indeed an
indispensable, role to play in the above, and libertarians don't.
> The problem is that "liberals" have no faith in human compasion
> and charity, and therefore have to mandate what should be taken from people and
> given to others.
Another way of putting this is to say that they are realists.
> Sort of a big brother meets Robin Hood style of government.
And yet one finds this style of government in every advanced,
industrialized country, to a greater or lesser extent.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Scott Reynolds
> Left-wingers co-opted a generally good word to describe themselves as
> something that they aren't, at least not in the U.S. The so-called
> "progressives" too often advocate the perpetuation of bureaucracies
> that are unnecessary and don't perform their stated jobs well.
So progressives are against reforms that will make those bureaucracies
more efficient and help them to "perform their stated jobs well"? That's
news to me.
No, what progressives (as well as most of the rest of the political
spectrum with the exception of the lunatic fringe right, like the
libertarians) advocate is not throwing the baby out with the bath water
by simply junking all government services and then hoping, based on a
rigidly held but completely unrealistic ideology, that "the market" will
somehow sort things out.
> For
> example, notice how "progressives" complained bitterly over the
> passage of welfare reform?
Yes, they were worried that it would hurt the most defenseless and
vulnerable people in our society: poor children. But of course to Ayn
Rand fans like you this is not important. "Better that they starve and
reduce the surplus population," as Scrooge would say.
> Some "progressives" speak out against
> privatization of Social Security, which will reduce the elderly's
> dependence on big government, increase the future viability of Social
> Security, and be less of a fiscal burden.
Maybe. But we'd better examine the details before we as voters sign off
on it, don't you think? Fact is, most people are not stupid enough to
actually believe that privatizing something will automatically make it
work better and more efficiently. How exactly is this privatization to
be carried out? What guidelines will it operate under? What happens if
the "private" version of Social Security goes belly up and tens of
millions of citizens start knocking on Uncle Sam's door asking to be
bailed out?
> And "progressives" want to
> protect ineffective public schools by going against school vouchers
> that can be spent on private schools.
School vouchers are just welfare for the upper middle class. I thought
you were against that sort of thing.
> In the U.S., true progressives are those who want a smaller Federal
> Government, not only in terms of spending, but also in terms of
> scope, and less taxes.
But mainly the "less taxes" part, right? That's what it boils down to:
unwillingness to pay one's fair share of taxes.
> You think reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government isn't
> progressive? Why should the Fed Government: spend $10s of billions
> on corporate welfare; subsidize artists through the NEA, and national
> TV and radio networks through the CPB; provide taxpayer subsidized
> health insurance for rich and middle class elderly; rob me of my own
> retirement money to fund current retirement funds, including funds
> for rich and middle class retirees; and continue to subsidize Amtrak?
I think the "Fed Government" is supposed to do those things for the
benefit of society as a whole. Now of the grab-bag of examples you
provided each individual will support some and oppose others, and that
is why the public needs to make clear which programs it supports and
which it doesn't. But to just say privatize everything and eliminate all
government subsidies across the board is silly. You have to get down to
specifics, and when you do that it is no longer possible to generalize
about "progressives" having one position or the other, because there is
too much individual variation.
> Tell me why big government is less selfish than any individual or
> corporate entity.
If you really don't know the answer to this one, you're hopeless.
> Why so much big government resistance to reform
> broken big government systems like public education, Social Security
> and Medicare?
Is there really resistance to genuine efforts at reform? Or are people
frightened by the slash-and-burn rhetoric of people like you? (Your
buddy Newt found out the answer the hard way.)
Libertarian arguments require sweeping generalizations in order to be
persuasive. "Big government systems like public education, Social
Security and Medicare" are "broken" so they should be "privatized." But
the fact is that each of these examples has its successes and failures,
and to blithely call them "broken" while ignoring their considerable
successes is a gross generalization.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
mdryoon
>
> mdryoon wrote:
>
> > Left-wingers co-opted a generally good word to describe themselves as
> > something that they aren't, at least not in the U.S. The so-called
> > "progressives" too often advocate the perpetuation of bureaucracies
> > that are unnecessary and don't perform their stated jobs well.
>
> So progressives are against reforms that will make those bureaucracies
> more efficient and help them to "perform their stated jobs well"? That's
> news to me.
Then why do leftist "progressives" resist welfare reform, the concept
of privatizing Social Security, eliminating government funding of the
NEA and CPB and eliminating the Departments of Education and
Commerce?
> No, what progressives (as well as most of the rest of the political
> spectrum with the exception of the lunatic fringe right, like the
> libertarians) advocate is not throwing the baby out with the bath water
> by simply junking all government services and then hoping, based on a
> rigidly held but completely unrealistic ideology, that "the market" will
> somehow sort things out.
The marketplace usually does. When it doesn't, like with national
defense, infrastructure beneficial to interstate commerce and the
elimination of private sector monopolies, true progressives believe
that government should rightfully intervene.
<snip>
> > notice how "progressives" complained bitterly over the
> > passage of welfare reform?
>
> Yes, they were worried that it would hurt the most defenseless and
> vulnerable people in our society: poor children.
I wouldn't say big government helped poor children when it enticed
single mothers with poor job skills and low education levels to stay
on welfare. Many poor single mothers didn't have much book smarts,
but many of them were smart enough to know that welfare provided them
with more money than they could have made by working in jobs. So,
many of them decided to stay on welfare (After all, big government
was "taking care" of them and their children.) Many of the daughters
emulated their mothers by going on welfare themselves. And many of
their granddaughters followed suit. Thus, the creation of the
permanent underclass. Great "help" welfare was for poor children.
:-(
> But of course to Ayn
> Rand fans like you this is not important.
I only have a vague concept about Ayn Rand's political beliefs. The
only part of Ayn Rand's works I ever read was a snippet containing a
few sentences from one of her books. Otherwise, I read nothing else
from her. Furthermore, I read nothing about her that delved into
her beliefs in much detail.
As if you don't know by now, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand.
> "Better that they starve and
> reduce the surplus population," as Scrooge would say.
If an adult who's capable of working isn't willing to work, that
adult doesn't deserve other people's resources.
> > Some "progressives" speak out against
> > privatization of Social Security, which will reduce the elderly's
> > dependence on big government, increase the future viability of Social
> > Security, and be less of a fiscal burden.
>
> Maybe. But we'd better examine the details before we as voters sign off
> on it, don't you think?
Fine with me. But some form of privatization of Social Security
better happen soon. Do you think the current-style Social Security
system is sustainable once many Baby Boomers collect Social Security?
> Fact is, most people are not stupid enough to
> actually believe that privatizing something will automatically make it
> work better and more efficiently. How exactly is this privatization to
> be carried out? What guidelines will it operate under?
I believe the future Social Security system will be something like
this: Individuals have a large part of their Social Security funds
withheld to invest themselves. They can choose any legal investment,
except for very high risk investments like futures and derivatives.
Some Social Security funds and other tax dollars will be used to fund
"current" Social Security fund consumers, and to fund a government
program that provides barely enough money for a spartan lifestyle for
those who invested their privatized Social Security funds poorly.
> What happens if
> the "private" version of Social Security goes belly up and tens of
> millions of citizens start knocking on Uncle Sam's door asking to be
> bailed out?
Good question, Scott. Meanwhile, answer this real life question:
What happens when big government invests everyone's Social Security
funds so poorly that Social Security's bankruptcy is virtually
guaranteed to occur unless it's radically reformed?
> School vouchers are just welfare for the upper middle class. I thought
> you were against that sort of thing.
Government can always means test school vouchers.
I'm not fully convinced that the benefits of school vouchers outweigh
their risks. School vouchers smack of big government intrusion.
Also, school vouchers might end up driving up the cost of primary and
secondary schools much the same way government and private sector
institutions drive up the cost of college tuitions by flooding
colleges with lots of scholarship, grant and student loan money.
> > In the U.S., true progressives are those who want a smaller Federal
> > Government, not only in terms of spending, but also in terms of
> > scope, and less taxes.
>
> But mainly the "less taxes" part, right?
Less taxes, less spending and less scope are concomitant with each
other. When true progressives advocate one, it is deliberately done
for the benefit of the others.
> That's what it boils down to:
> unwillingness to pay one's fair share of taxes.
IOW, encourage people to extract far more from government programs
than what they paid in taxes. Seems like what leftist "progressives"
want: compel people to consume more big government programs, and fund
big government by forcing rich people to pay an ever increasing share
of taxes as time goes by.
> > You think reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government isn't
> > progressive? Why should the Fed Government: spend $10s of billions
> > on corporate welfare; subsidize artists through the NEA, and national
> > TV and radio networks through the CPB; provide taxpayer subsidized
> > health insurance for rich and middle class elderly; rob me of my own
> > retirement money to fund current retirement funds, including funds
> > for rich and middle class retirees; and continue to subsidize Amtrak?
>
> I think the "Fed Government" is supposed to do those things for the
> benefit of society as a whole. Now of the grab-bag of examples you
> provided each individual will support some and oppose others, and that
> is why the public needs to make clear which programs it supports and
> which it doesn't.
Will you be so democratic when the American people advocate truly
progressive policies, like smaller government and more freedom?
Speaking about "grab-bag" examples, the FY 1998 budget (the last
fiscal year that wasn't estimated) showed that the Federal Government
spent $1.653 trillion total. Of that, $379 billion was spent on
Social Security, and $193 billion was spent on Medicare. IOW, the
Federal Government spent nearly 35% of its FY 1998 budget on only two
programs targeted towards poor, middle class and rich elderly people
(BTW, did you know that poor elderly people qualify for coverage
under Medicaid as well as Medicare?). Why should taxpayers in the
U.S. spend nearly 35% of their Fed Government tax dollars for welfare
to the elderly, many of them middle class and rich?
Do you know what the life expectancy of the average black man is in
the U.S.? Why should the average black man have a significant chunk
of his hard-earned income go to big government invested Social
Security, and then, once he dies, his Social Security fund leaves his
family nothing more than a paltry death benefit while big government
gives the rest of it to people he doesn't know, many of them richer
than he and his family? Do you think big government should continue
to operate Social Security like this?
> But to just say privatize everything and eliminate all
> government subsidies across the board is silly.
Who, besides a "libertarian anarchist," says that?
> You have to get down to
> specifics, and when you do that it is no longer possible to generalize
> about "progressives" having one position or the other, because there is
> too much individual variation.
You don't seem to apply that advice when it comes to "libertarians."
For example, you thought I was a fan of Ayn Rand.
With few exceptions, leftist "progressives" advocate welfare programs
for poorer people, progressive taxation and government interference
to smooth the incompassionate, hard edges of private markets. Guess
what, Scott? I support all of those as well.
What separates true progressives like me from leftist "progressives"
is that true progressives believe that big government can be just as
selfish and cruel as big business and rich people, and that more
individual freedoms create an environment where the diversity of
millions of individual decisions usually minimizes the effects of
social dysfunctions better than monopolistic decisions from big
government. In comparison, leftist "progressives" believe that big
government, almost as a rule, is more altruistic than corporations
and the rich, and they also generally have more faith in "one size
fits all," monopolistic big government proposals to blunt the effects
of social dysfunctions.
> > Tell me why big government is less selfish than any individual or
> > corporate entity.
>
> If you really don't know the answer to this one, you're hopeless.
Please tell me why.
> > Why so much big government resistance to reform
> > broken big government systems like public education, Social Security
> > and Medicare?
>
> Is there really resistance to genuine efforts at reform?
Yes.
> Or are people
> frightened by the slash-and-burn rhetoric of people like you? (Your
> buddy Newt found out the answer the hard way.)
What was so "slash-and-burn" about congressional Republican rhetoric
over Medicare?
Congressional Republican attempts to reform Medicare in FY 1996 were
modest. Their reforms basically amounted to raising the Medicare
budget "only" by 5.5%, and by providing Medisave accounts and managed
care options as alternatives to Medicare Part B insurance. But these
modest reforms were attacked by partisan Democrats who claimed that
the GOP was trying to hurt old people. Thanks to demagogic Democrats
and cowardly Republicans, minor, but much needed, Medicare reforms
were delayed by at least five years.
> Libertarian arguments require sweeping generalizations in order to be
> persuasive.
That sounds like a sweeping generalization, Scott.
> "Big government systems like public education, Social
> Security and Medicare" are "broken" so they should be "privatized." But
> the fact is that each of these examples has its successes and failures,
> and to blithely call them "broken" while ignoring their considerable
> successes is a gross generalization.
Tell me how sustainable Social Security and Medicare will be once
many Baby Boomers reach retirement age. Tell me how great public
school systems throughout the U.S. have been these days, especially
compared to other countries' public school systems. Why should we
encourage big government to maintain itself as is or get even bigger
when it's relying on yet-to-be-realized, future budget surpluses to
sustain itself amid the potential fiscal nightmare of lots of aged
Baby Boomers consuming Social Security and Medicare?
Why advocate leftist "progressive" policies that led to the collapse
of the Soviet Union and continue to hamper Western European economic
competitiveness? The U.S. can't continue to sustain big government,
leftist "progressive" policies. The best alternatives are more
freedom and more sustainable, smaller government policies advocated
by true progressives.
Jack Mehoff
Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38C9D751...@gol.com...
> Laissez-faire wrote:
>
> > Wanting to help the poor and downtrodden is a form of humanitarianism for some,
> > religious doctrine for others. One does not have to subscribe to your definition of
> > "progressive" politics in order to lift a finger to help people. That's one of the problems
> > with our society, we let other people and labels define what are actions should be.
> > There's absolutely nothing in libertarian philosophy that would run counter to your
> > explanation above.
>
> Except that progressives think that government has a useful, indeed an
> indispensable, role to play in the above, and libertarians don't.
Libertarians believe the government has an essential role to play in a minimum set
of functions, like the defense of the nation. Creating a welfare state with their hard
earned dollars is not one of them.
>
> > The problem is that "liberals" have no faith in human compasion
> > and charity, and therefore have to mandate what should be taken from people and
> > given to others.
>
> Another way of putting this is to say that they are realists.
The reality is that the form of "progessive" government you're alluding to has
never succeeded in creating the kind of utopian society liberals believed it would.
Liberals are "realists" when it comes to pointing fingers, not when it comes to the
success of their own political plans.
>
> > Sort of a big brother meets Robin Hood style of government.
>
> And yet one finds this style of government in every advanced,
> industrialized country, to a greater or lesser extent.
And, not surprisingly, the nations that practice this to the _least_ extent
are the ones with the best economy and highest standards of living.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
>
>
Susan Cohen
Scott Reynolds wrote:
> mdryoon wrote:
> >
> > And "progressives" want to
> > protect ineffective public schools by going against school vouchers
> > that can be spent on private schools.
>
> School vouchers are just welfare for the upper middle class. I thought
> you were against that sort of thing.
I wish someone could tell me the how taking tax money &
giving it to people to sue for schools when the amount
they're talking about won't pay any actual tuition cost, but
could go *loads* further in improving the schools that they
are complaining about in the first place, makes any sense??
Susan
Scott Reynolds
> And, not surprisingly, the nations that practice this to the _least_ extent
> are the ones with the best economy and highest standards of living.
No, surprisingly, there is no such simple correlation.
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Tom Billings
"TheRuggedOne" <Ruggg...@powwowmail.com> wrote:
> I wish someone could explain to me why, when we keep throwing more and more
> money at public education, and the results keep getting progressively worse
> and worse, the only answer they find acceptable is to throw more money at
> the public schools.
> And why is any answer OTHER than throwing money at the public schools
> considered an ATTACK on the system?
Alternatives to more money usually involve cutting the agency
costs of the academic hierarchies. This means teacher's union jobs.
Also, any other answer usually _is_ an attack on the hierarchy
of the academic institutions, as well. The academic networks, to the
extent they are allowed to exist, are the productive portion of academia,
because they communicate amongst both students and faculty. The
hierarchies of academia control the flow of money, and derive their
justification for existence within that demand for control.
Vouchers, and most other market oriented approaches to education
won't allow the academic hierarchies to control eductaion. The
assumption from administrators, that this will mean an utter
destruction of academic excellence, is based in the idea that
_their_ control somehow contributes to academic excellence.
In fact, it degrades that excellence, since it diverts to the agency
costs of the hierarchy innumerable resources, of both money
and human attention, needed to promote learning, and research.
Regards,
Tom Billings
--
Oregon L5 Society
http://www.teleport.com/~rfrederi/L5/
Susan Cohen
Tom Billings wrote:
So far, what this boils down to is that you like
vouchers so teachers won't get paid what they're
worth.
Susan
Tom Billings
Not at All!!
I like market solutions that will meet _real_ needs, like teachers
salaries for needed instruction. The agency costs of hierarchy
are _not_ the compensation for competent teaching, but the
diversion of resources to other desires of upper-level hierarchs
within school hierarchies. Whether it's as gross as corruption
in building and maintaining schools ( D.C. schools being a prime
example for some years) or as subtle as mandating incompetent
methods of teaching basic readng skills, these agency costs
predominate in far too many school districts.
The point of the hierarchy is control. The need of the students
is to communicate well enough to learn what they need to live
successfully in a communications intensive, technological,
industrial environment. Hierarchies are poor at communicating
because they focus on control. Networks focus on productivity,
and thus find communication at a premium. I wish to see networks
get the resources, and see the heirarchies reduced to being as flat
and inoffensive as possible. Market solutions will, IMHO, do that
when pushed to the desirable extent. Vouchers are only _one_
way of doing this.
Indeed, IMHO, vouchers are the smallest increment of change
that has any good hope of moving resources to the cutting edge
of education, on the boundary of the student's minds, where
good teachers are crucial. More radical solutions are quite feasible,
but society only accepts incremental changes without crisis, and
crisis of a magnitude which I hope we don't have to experience.
haozertree
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Susan
Some people like vouchers because they only plan to send their kids to
private schools anyways and wish not to see tax money going into a service
which they do not intend to use.
It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better than public
ones...
Tom Billings
> haozertree wrote:
> > Some people like vouchers because they only plan to send their kids to
> > private schools anyways and wish not to see tax money going into a service
> > which they do not intend to use.
> I know at least in my state that even those who send their
> children to private school still have to pay school taxes.
> While this does seem unfair, you have to realize that the
> less money that goes to private schools, the less educated
> people will be turned out (One can argue that standards
> simply need to be raised - I have said this myself - but with
> higher (stricter!)standards comes higher salaries for teachers
> - which I would like to see). A school tax is an investment
> in everyone's future - and I say this with the firm knowledge
> that I will be paying it alongside private school fees.
> Vouchers, OTOH, are only diverting more tax dollars away
> from public schools - and, since they won't really cover
> *any* *real* school fees, are (as a previous poster pointed
> out ) welfare for the upper middle class & higher - the
> majority of the people who will be sending their children to
> private schools anyway.
Is this why so many poor parents are backing voucher plans,
while the NEA sues to stop them? _They_ certainly don't believe
that only those rich enough to send their kids to private schools
anyway would benefit.
> > It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better
than public
> > ones...
> Oh, true. Because those schools can have standards that
> everyone has to follow or be booted out.
Until a few years ago, when pro-voucher people were pointing
it out in an Oregon initiative campaign for school vouchers, the
Portland Oregon schools here would often pay the local catholic
schools to take their "problem" children, with quite good results
for the students.
One good thing about vouchers, is that it will allow public schools
to exclude the student that is disruptive, without condemning
them to illiteracy. The student's parents can simply take their
child to some school that will tajke him into an environment
which, like the schools that dealt so well with the "problem"
children here, can get them studying, instead of hell-raising.
This alone could well improve the public schools, mightily! I
believe that it would probably balance any drop in total public
school funding, since fuding _isn't_ the biggest thing in
determining a school's performance.
Laissez-faire
Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38CB5441...@gol.com...
> Jack Mehoff wrote:
>
> > And, not surprisingly, the nations that practice this to the _least_ extent
> > are the ones with the best economy and highest standards of living.
>
> No, surprisingly, there is no such simple correlation.
Oh, yes there is.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Susan Cohen
haozertree wrote:
> Some people like vouchers because they only plan to send their kids to
> private schools anyways and wish not to see tax money going into a service
> which they do not intend to use.
I know at least in my state that even those who send their
children to private school still have to pay school taxes.
While this does seem unfair, you have to realize that the
less money that goes to private schools, the less educated
people will be turned out (One can argue that standards
simply need to be raised - I have said this myself - but with
higher (stricter!)standards comes higher salaries for teachers
- which I would like to see). A school tax is an investment
in everyone's future - and I say this with the firm knowledge
that I will be paying it alongside private school fees.
Vouchers, OTOH, are only diverting more tax dollars away
from public schools - and, since they won't really cover
*any* *real* school fees, are (as a previous poster pointed
out ) welfare for the upper middle class & higher - the
majority of the people who will be sending their children to
private schools anyway.
> It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better than public
> ones...
Oh, true. Because those schools can have standards that
everyone has to follow or be booted out.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Tom Billings wrote:
> In article <38CC2678...@his.com>, fla...@hers.com wrote:
>
> >
> > So far, what this boils down to is that you like
> > vouchers so teachers won't get paid what they're
> > worth.
>
> Not at All!!
>
> I like market solutions that will meet _real_ needs, like teachers
> salaries for needed instruction. The agency costs of hierarchy
> are _not_ the compensation for competent teaching, but the
> diversion of resources to other desires of upper-level hierarchs
> within school hierarchies.
I totally misunderstood, sit corrected & apologize if you
were insulted by my misunderstanding.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Tom Billings wrote:
> In article <38CDCDE0...@his.com>, fla...@hers.com wrote:
> >
> > Vouchers, OTOH, are only diverting more tax dollars away
> > from public schools - and, since they won't really cover
> > *any* *real* school fees, are (as a previous poster pointed
> > out ) welfare for the upper middle class & higher - the
> > majority of the people who will be sending their children to
> > private schools anyway.
>
> Is this why so many poor parents are backing voucher plans,
> while the NEA sues to stop them? _They_ certainly don't believe
> that only those rich enough to send their kids to private schools
> anyway would benefit.
I can't imagine what they think they're going to get for 2,000 a year.
Maybe they've been sold a bill of goods.
> > > It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better
> than public
> > > ones...
>
> > Oh, true. Because those schools can have standards that
> > everyone has to follow or be booted out.
>
> Until a few years ago, when pro-voucher people were pointing
> it out in an Oregon initiative campaign for school vouchers, the
> Portland Oregon schools here would often pay the local catholic
> schools to take their "problem" children, with quite good results
> for the students.
Which is one of the reasons that people are complaining
about this on constitutional grounds. No way anyone's sending
*my* kid to Catholic school - or my tax dollars.
> One good thing about vouchers, is that it will allow public schools
> to exclude the student that is disruptive, without condemning
> them to illiteracy. The student's parents can simply take their
> child to some school that will tajke him into an environment
> which, like the schools that dealt so well with the "problem"
> children here, can get them studying, instead of hell-raising.
It would be nice if it were that simple. But I doubt it.
Susan
panther
fla...@hers.com wrote:
> Tom Billings wrote:
>In article <38CDCDE0...@his.com>, fla...@hers.com wrote:
>
> > > Vouchers, OTOH, are only diverting more tax dollars away
> > > from public schools - and, since they won't really cover
> > > *any* *real* school fees, are (as a previous poster pointed
> > > out ) welfare for the upper middle class & higher - the
> > > majority of the people who will be sending their children to
> > > private schools anyway.
>
> > Is this why so many poor parents are backing voucher plans,
> > while the NEA sues to stop them? _They_ certainly don't believe
> > that only those rich enough to send their kids to private schools
> > anyway would benefit.
>
> I can't imagine what they think they're going to get for 2,000 a year.
> Maybe they've been sold a bill of goods.
>
that restricting State education subsidies to a narrow cartel of public-
sector unions will result in better education than would allowing each
parent to select the school which will receive the State allocation for
her child.
>
>...> It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better
>...> than public ones...
>
> > > Oh, true. Because those schools can have standards that
> > > everyone has to follow or be booted out.
> >
> > Until a few years ago, when pro-voucher people were pointing
> > it out in an Oregon initiative campaign for school vouchers, the
> > Portland Oregon schools here would often pay the local catholic
> > schools to take their "problem" children, with quite good results
> > for the students.
>
> Which is one of the reasons that people are complaining
> about this on constitutional grounds. No way anyone's sending
> *my* kid to Catholic school - or my tax dollars.
>
food stamps?
>
MK. From an editorial page column in the Washington Post: ...[As the
Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe on this
subject: "Any objection that anyone would have to a voucher program
would have to be policy-based and could not rest on legal doctrine. One
would have to be awfully clumsy to write voucher legislation that could
not pass constitutional scrutiny. . . . Aid to parents . . . would be
constitutional."]...
>
> > One good thing about vouchers, is that it will allow public schools
> > to exclude the student that is disruptive, without condemning
> > them to illiteracy. The student's parents can simply take their
> > which, like the schools that dealt so well with the "problem"
> > children here, can get them studying, instead of hell-raising.
>
> It would be nice if it were that simple. But I doubt it.
>
>
MK. ["Comparative Education", Vol. 35, #3, 1999.] "The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 26, paragraph3) states that
'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall
be given to their children.' Later, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966,
Article 13, paragraph 3) commits its signatories to 'respect for the
liberty of parents...to choose for their children schools, other than
those established by public authorities...and to ensure the religious
and moral education of their children in conformity with their own
convictions.' The Council of Europe (1950) has adopted similar
resolutions (Husen and Postlethwaite, 1994)." [Christine Teelken,
"Market Mechanisms in Education: school choice in The Netherlands,
England, and Scotland in a comparative perspective" Comparative
Education]. See E.G. West's article for the World Bank Research
Observer (available online from ProQuest, a Bell and Howell information
service). Belgium, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Poland, Sweden,
Belize, Bangladesh, Colombia, Chile, and elsewhere, support a parent's
choice of school.
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"] p.138, Belgium: "Article 17 of the
Belgian Constitution lays down that: 'There shall be freedom of
education; any measure hindering such freedom shall be prohibited;
penalties of infringement shall be governed by law.' In Belbium,
therefore, the organizing power lies with various bodies, and education
is thus peovided by the state, the province, the communes, and free
institutions--the largest of which by far is the Catholic Church. The
law provides that identical help be given to all authorized forms of
education within set limits and conventions; this 'help system'
includes the guarantee of the possibility of choosing between religious
or non-religious education. State education must remain neutral."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]p. 333, Hong Kong "While the reliance
upon private education as a profit-making venture has become less
acceptible, the attern of dependence on management by voluntary
agencies as increased and, of the 537,000 children in primary schools
in 1985, just over 37,000 were in government schools. All kindergarten
schools are still operated privately. At the secondary level, the
picture is similar in that, of the enrollment of 401,200 up to form 5
(grade 11), only 31,400 are in government schools."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]. p. 375, Ireland: "The administration
and management of schools in Ireland involves a complex balance of
private and public interests, local and central control. Each primary
school is managed by a local board, made up of representatves of a
church, parents, and teachers. At second level, secondary schools are
private institutions. Most are owned and managed by religious bodies."
>
MK. [Postlethwaite, "The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and
National Systems of Education"]. p. 596, Singapore: "During the 1970's,
about two thirds of the nation's schools were operated and financed by
the government, while most of the remaining third were aided schools
that received government financial subsidies covering staff salaries
and a large portion of development costs
>
MK. From: Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology.
"Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these
studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children,
especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United
States...."
"In the early 1980s, while the senior author was involved in a
school violence project, an informal survey of a random group of inner
city high school students was conducted. When asked why they
misbehaved in school, the most common response was that they wanted to
get back at teachers who put them down, did not care about them, or
showed disrespect for them, their families, or their culture...."
"...schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional
maltreatment of students by staff or investigatiion into how this
behavior might affect student misbehavior...."
"...Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored
all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were
also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to
separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results
indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were
sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this
disorder develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing
symptoms are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."
"While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a school-
aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be about
10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer
serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman, 1990; Hyman,
Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these students develop
angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and
its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical,
psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks
on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992)."
"As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional
maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic
status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>
[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some
of its Implications",Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
"The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher,
Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of
social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992)
was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem
behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home-
schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are
not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong
question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled
children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of
schooled children of such poor quality?"
>
"The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test
instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated
children are more mature and better socialized than those attending
school." ...p. 277
>
"12. So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign
of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
mental health problem"....p.281[Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education
Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications",Educational
Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
>
MK. "...(M)any well-known adolescent difficulties are not intrinsic to
the teenage years but are related to the mismatch between adolescents'
developmental needs and the kinds of experiences most junior high and
high schools provide. When students need close affiliation, they
experience large depersonalized schools; when they need to develop
autonomy, they experience few opportunities for choice and punitive
approaches to discipline..." [Linda Darling-Hammond, professor of
education, Stanford University. American School Board Journal,
September 1999].
>
MK. "When Newsweek quotes a classmate saying that the two [MK. Harris
and Kliebold, the Columbine killers] walked the halls of Columbine
'with their heads down, because if they looked up they'd get thrown
into lockers and get called a 'fag'', who doesn't exactly understand
the anger and frustration such abuse inspires?". [Nick Gillespie.
Reason Magazine, July 1999].
>
MK. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests for drug possession and promotion fall
in summer. Adult arrests for promotion fall, and adult arrests for
possession rise. -Reported- burglaries fall in summer. Juvenile
hospitalizations for injury (total), motor vehicle-induced trauma, and
attempted suicide fall in summer.
>
"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it
is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole
span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks,
new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense
and common decency."
--H.L. Mencken
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
>
www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective homeschoolers)
>
http://www.LosAngelesMission.com/ed/articles/2000/0200cz.htm
>
http://jamesmadison.org/review/milwaukee.html
>
http://www.interlog.com/~klima/ed/voucher.html
>
www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment on
school. Please read this.)
>
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n9.html
>
The model:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537273125&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=271
>
The proposal:
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537272956&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=270
nba...@rigel.oac.uci.edu
1. "Is this why so many poor parents are backing voucher plans,
while the NEA sues to stop them?"
2. If someone can choose their diet (even kosher and religious diet) with
food stamps, then a family has the right to choose school (even kosher
or religious school)
3. "Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe on this
subject: 'Any objection that anyone would have to a voucher program
would have to be policy-based and could not rest on legal doctrine. One
would have to be awfully clumsy to write voucher legislation that could
not pass constitutional scrutiny. . . . Aid to parents . . . would be
constitutional.']..."
4. "One good thing about vouchers, is that it will allow public schools
to exclude the student that is disruptive, without condemning
them to illiteracy. The student's parents can simply take their
child to some school that will take him into an environment
which, like the schools that dealt so well with the "problem"
children here, can get them studying, instead of hell-raising."
5. "Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 26, paragraph3) states that
'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall
be given to their children.' Later, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966,
Article 13, paragraph 3) commits its signatories to 'respect for the
liberty of parents...to choose for their children schools, other than
those established by public authorities...and to ensure the religious
and moral education of their children in conformity with their own
convictions.' "
6. MK. From: Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology.
Susan Cohen
panther wrote:
> In article <38CDF572...@his.com>,
> fla...@hers.com wrote:
> > Tom Billings wrote:
> >In article <38CDCDE0...@his.com>, fla...@hers.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Vouchers, OTOH, are only diverting more tax dollars away
> > > > from public schools - and, since they won't really cover
> > > > *any* *real* school fees, are (as a previous poster pointed
> > > > out ) welfare for the upper middle class & higher - the
> > > > majority of the people who will be sending their children to
> > > > private schools anyway.
> >
> > > Is this why so many poor parents are backing voucher plans,
> > > while the NEA sues to stop them? _They_ certainly don't believe
> > > that only those rich enough to send their kids to private schools
> > > anyway would benefit.
> >
> > I can't imagine what they think they're going to get for 2,000 a year.
> > Maybe they've been sold a bill of goods.
> >
> MK.
Is this your initials?
> The people who've been sold a bill of goods are those who believe
> that restricting State education subsidies to a narrow cartel of public-
> sector unions will result in better education than would allowing each
> parent to select the school which will receive the State allocation for
> her child.
Except that, as I've explained before, the money given will
not cover any tuition, only subsidize those who are already
sending their children - i.e., not the ones who need it the most.
All the voucher system will do is
a) take money away from already poor schools
b) give it to people who don;t need it
c) *probably* give money to religious insitutions - they're the
only ones who will *probably* take people who can't pay.
> >...> It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better
> >...> than public ones...
> >
> > > > Oh, true. Because those schools can have standards that
> > > > everyone has to follow or be booted out.
> > >
> > > Until a few years ago, when pro-voucher people were pointing
> > > it out in an Oregon initiative campaign for school vouchers, the
> > > Portland Oregon schools here would often pay the local catholic
> > > schools to take their "problem" children, with quite good results
> > > for the students.
> >
> > Which is one of the reasons that people are complaining
> > about this on constitutional grounds. No way anyone's sending
> > *my* kid to Catholic school - or my tax dollars.
> >
> MK. Does it bother you that an Orthodox Jew can buy a kosher diet with
> food stamps?
Non sequitur.
> MK.
Just what does this mean???
> From an editorial page column in the Washington Post: ...[As the
> Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe on this
> subject: "Any objection that anyone would have to a voucher program
> would have to be policy-based and could not rest on legal doctrine. One
> would have to be awfully clumsy to write voucher legislation that could
> not pass constitutional scrutiny. . . . Aid to parents . . . would be
> constitutional."]...
I'm sure lots of people have different opinions.
> > > One good thing about vouchers, is that it will allow public schools
> > > to exclude the student that is disruptive, without condemning
> > > them to illiteracy. The student's parents can simply take their
> > > child to some school that will take him into an environment
> > > which, like the schools that dealt so well with the "problem"
> > > children here, can get them studying, instead of hell-raising.
> >
> > It would be nice if it were that simple. But I doubt it.
> >
> MK. It really is that simple. Freedom is better than slavery.
Your rhetoric aside, the problem of educating all children
is not that simple.
Peter L
voucher law is unconstitutional, throwing out the nation's first
statewide
program to help children in failing public schools to attend private
schools.
Fifty-three children attending private schools in Pensacola can finish
the
school year but the state can take no action to implement the law,
Circuit
Judge L. Ralph Smith Jr. ruled. The program, championed by Gov. Jeb
Bush, allows students in Florida's worst public schools to receive
vouchers
of up to $3,389 a year to pay for a private or parochial school
education at
taxpayer expense. The decision will be appealed, but lawyers on both
sides
of the case said it was likely the appeals court would be asked to pass
the
case on to the Florida Supreme Court.
Tom Billings
> Tom Billings wrote:
> > In article <38CDCDE0...@his.com>, fla...@hers.com wrote:
> > > Vouchers, OTOH, are only diverting more tax dollars away
> > > from public schools - and, since they won't really cover
> > > *any* *real* school fees, are (as a previous poster pointed
> > > out ) welfare for the upper middle class & higher - the
> > > majority of the people who will be sending their children to
> > > private schools anyway.
> > Is this why so many poor parents are backing voucher plans,
> > while the NEA sues to stop them? _They_ certainly don't believe
> > that only those rich enough to send their kids to private schools
> > anyway would benefit.
> I can't imagine what they think they're going to get for 2,000 a year.
> Maybe they've been sold a bill of goods.
Maybe they should get as much as the public
schools spend on kids then? No? Well, they
probably don't need that much, but it would
be a nice equitable arrabgement, not that I
expect the NEA, or their pet pols, to ever agree.
> > > > It is a fact though, that in most cases private schools are better
> > than public
> > > > ones...
> > > Oh, true. Because those schools can have standards that
> > > everyone has to follow or be booted out.
> > Until a few years ago, when pro-voucher people were pointing
> > it out in an Oregon initiative campaign for school vouchers, the
> > Portland Oregon schools here would often pay the local catholic
> > schools to take their "problem" children, with quite good results
> > for the students.
> Which is one of the reasons that people are complaining
> about this on constitutional grounds.
Actually, no one complained at all, until the comparative
competence of the private schools was pointed out in a
sensitive political campaign. Then, the competent program
for these kids was crushed.
> No way anyone's sending
> *my* kid to Catholic school - or my tax dollars.
In fact, your tax dollars go to catholic schools every day,
whenever a G.I. Bill veteran goes to a college or other school
run by that group. The same thing happens when others gain
a public scholarship, and use it for college at a school run by
anyone from BYU to Bob Jones U. to ..... The idea that mandatory
primary and secondary school should be the express preserve
of a guild monopoly, run by the administrators of the guild,
is one that goes back to Horace Mann's close copy of the Prussian
school system, which he introduced in Boston in the 1820s.
Its pedigree is _not_ sufficient to compensate for its incompetence.
Decisions about educational excellence there are, in fact, no different
than the decisions at the college level, and the application of tax
dollars should be no different. It wouldn't be, except that the NEA
guildsmen control so many pols that their incompetence is buried
beneath their money and their spin control.
> > One good thing about vouchers, is that it will allow public schools
> > to exclude the student that is disruptive, without condemning
> > them to illiteracy. The student's parents can simply take their
> > child to some school that will take him into an environment
> > which, like the schools that dealt so well with the "problem"
> > children here, can get them studying, instead of hell-raising.
> It would be nice if it were that simple. But I doubt it.
Which it? What I mentioned is only one of many factors in school
performance that markets would allow to improve, some faster,
some slower. Not simple, no.
Simple is the _last_ thing I'd call it, at least in an implementation
through the political process. Fortunately, some of the businesses
now being bilked for taxes to fund public schools are now so desparate
for competent HS graduates, never mind college, that they are
willingly double taxing themselves, and more and more often
providing funds for private schooling for children who couldn't
go to a school where learning comes first, without their help.
Scott Reynolds
>
> Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:38CB5441...@gol.com...
> > Jack Mehoff wrote:
> >
> > > And, not surprisingly, the nations that practice this to the _least_ extent
> > > are the ones with the best economy and highest standards of living.
> >
> > No, surprisingly, there is no such simple correlation.
>
> Oh, yes there is.
Okay. Examples?
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
panther
fla...@hers.com wrote:
> panther wrote:
> Tom Billings wrote:
>
MK. Discussion deleted (impact of vouchers)...
>
> > > I can't imagine what they think they're going to get for 2,000 a
year.
> > > Maybe they've been sold a bill of goods.
>
> > MK.
>
>
MK. Yes. MK = Malcolm Kirkpatrick.
>
> > The people who've been sold a bill of goods are those who believe
> > that restricting State education subsidies to a narrow cartel of
public-
> > sector unions will result in better education than would allowing
each
> > parent to select the school which will receive the State allocation
for
> > her child.
>
> not cover any tuition, only subsidize those who are already
> sending their children - i.e., not the ones who need it the most.
> All the voucher system will do is
> a) take money away from already poor schools
> b) give it to people who don;t need it
> c) *probably* give money to religious insitutions - they're the
> only ones who will *probably* take people who can't pay.
>
Obviously, in a district with 99% of school-age population in State
schools and a wealthy 1% in exclusive independent schools, most of the
demand for vouchers would originate with State school inmates. In
districts with good State schools in wealthy areas and wretched schools
in poor areas, the wealthy already get exclusive (State) schools, and
again, the demand would originate with poor parents. I suspect that
over time the difference between schools in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel
and other schools would fade. Schools might specialize in methods,
curricula, or cultural background, as vouchers promoted
diversification. Perhaps full-service schools will disappear. The
problem of the independent-school overhang (current enrollment) is
real. There are several solutions. Vouchers could be phased in,
applying only to 1st grade in the first year of the plan, then 1+2 in
year 2...1-12 in year 12. The fraction of State per-pupil budget given
as a voucher could be based on the number of applicants for vouchers
from the State schools.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > Which is one of the reasons that people are complaining
> > > about this on constitutional grounds. No way anyone's sending
> > > *my* kid to Catholic school - or my tax dollars.
> > >
> > MK. Does it bother you that an Orthodox Jew can buy a kosher diet
with
> > food stamps?
>
>
MK. Why? If parents buy education (nutrition) with vouchers (food
stamps), what concern of yours is it that they get to reinforce their
religious values as well? If the Catholic Church can do a better job
than the NEA, legislators fail in their duty to act in the taxpayers'
interest.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > It would be nice if it were that simple. But I doubt it.
>
> > MK. It really is that simple. Freedom is better than slavery.
>
> is not that simple.
>
monopoly is an inappropriate industrial model. An efficient,
compassionate, and flexible State bureaucracy would be a wonder akin to
a vegetarian, barking cat.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Erasmus Brown
> I am so amazed with her. She doesn't even know what is happening in the
> US. She can't even know the difference between blacks and indians! LOL!
> Amazing! Is she going to be the first lady??? Very scary. ;-(
God, I HOPE Not!!!