Limbaugh's Sources
Bill Reid
In article <5nd4l2$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler) wrote:
>In <kesler-0706...@pa4dsp5.lex.infi.net> kes...@lex.infi.net
>(Kesler Stivers) writes:
>>
>> This is nothing new to many progressive thinkers in this group. So
>I
>>offer this to the new folks.
>>
>> Sure Limbaugh uses newspapers. But for his direction of the news
>and
>>right wing policy, check out ( on the WWW ) the National Center for
>Public
>>Policy Research, and Capitol Links. (use your search engine)
>>
>> You will find areas that list "talking points" relating to
>left/right
>>contoversies. These "talking points" condense the issues and reduce
>the
>>complexities of those issues. They reduce the complex issues to
>simplistic
>>one liners. Limbaugh runs with these. I have been amazed how
>Limbaugh's
>>programs and views have coincided with these web pages and the
>Washington
>>Times.
>>
>> Right Wingers have a much better network than the left. They have
>the
>>money.
This is not only due to superior funding; it's also due to their lock-step
ideology--I've heard Republicans *themselves* unconsciously contrast the
"principles" they espouse with the "ideas" of the left. Simplistic
adherence to unquestionable principles galvanizes a social force, while
openly generating and examining diverging ideas on a continuous basis has
a diluting effect.
> Don't be fooled! The Limbagh show is controlled by the central
>>simplistic right wing movement.
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Check it out.
>>
>>
>> Kesler
>
>
>So what is the problem with that?
One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
Silver Shadow
On 8 Jun 1997 13:43:41 GMT, br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
>In article <5nd4l2$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E Knadler) wrote:
>
>>In <kesler-0706...@pa4dsp5.lex.infi.net> kes...@lex.infi.net
>>(Kesler Stivers) writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
>people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
thru there patsy's in the NEA
how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
education system is in today?
you liberals and your socialistic values had 37 years to destroy the
american education system and you did a real good job of it.
Silver Shadow
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
says...
> conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> thru there patsy's in the NEA
> how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> education system is in today?
If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
"their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
possession and not plurality.
--
Send replies to: Salzberg[AT]Flash.Net
(Substitute "@" for "[AT]")
=========================================
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.flash.net/~salzberg
=========================================
Ask me about the Texas-Dance, Houston-Performances,
and Cichlid mailing lists.
=========================================
rob
Silver Shadow wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
> >people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
>
> liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> thru there patsy's in the NEA
> how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> education system is in today?
> american education system and you did a real good job of it.
>
> Silver Shadow
I have no idea where you get the idea that liberals had anything to do
with education, and how you managed to stick into your "rebuttal" the
NEA I still can't figure out, but based on YOUR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING
ERRORS, someone really fucked up trying to teach YOU anything.
Reverend Chuck
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> >
> > In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
> > says...
> >
> > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
Do you mean "patsy's", as in the singular possesive form, or the plural form, "patsies"?
> > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > education system is in today?
Hard to really pin them down on this. You get a sense of the problem when school
textbooks date back to the Eisenhower administration.
> >
> > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > possession and not plurality.
> >
>
> In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
>
> jdb...@metronet.com
K. Knopp
> Silver Shadow wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<
> > >
> > >One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
> > >people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
> >
> > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > education system is in today?
> > you liberals and your socialistic values had 37 years to destroy the
> > american education system and you did a real good job of it.
> >
> > Silver Shadow
>
> I have no idea where you get the idea that liberals had anything to do
> with education, and how you managed to stick into your "rebuttal" the
> NEA I still can't figure out, but based on YOUR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING
> ERRORS, someone really fucked up trying to teach YOU anything.
Have you ever heard of a device called a "run-on" sentence? I hear that
it's a sign of poor writing skills. People who write with glass pencils,
shouldn't throw stones.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete the "ha." from my adress to reply via e-mail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Black
Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
>
> In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
> says...
>
> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > education system is in today?
>
J.D. Black
rob wrote:
>
> Silver Shadow wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<
> > >
> > >One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
> > >people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
> >
> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > education system is in today?
> > american education system and you did a real good job of it.
> >
> > Silver Shadow
>
> I have no idea where you get the idea that liberals had anything to do
> with education, and how you managed to stick into your "rebuttal" the
> NEA I still can't figure out, but based on YOUR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING
> ERRORS, someone really fucked up trying to teach YOU anything.
This is just tooooo funny. Ignorance knows no bounds.
BTW: Try alt.flame.spelling or alt.flame.grammar...they may even care.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
In article <5ngsin$fof$1...@newnews.metronet.com>, jdblack@!metronet.com
says...
> > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > possession and not plurality.
> >
>
> In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
The message was about education (see the first sentence of my response?
"If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less
literate...."); therefore; comments on the literacy of the poster are
certainly relevant.
Please read more carefully.
rob
J.D. Black wrote:
>
>shelje@super..zippo..com
> > says...
> >
> > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > education system is in today?
> >
> > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > possession and not plurality.
> >
>
> In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
>
I realize that it all went right over your head, so let me try to
explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
Geez!
Milt
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
:Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
:>
:> In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
:> says...
:>
:> > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
:> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
:> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
:> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
:> > education system is in today?
:>
:> If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
:> conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
:> "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
:> possession and not plurality.
:
:In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
:and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
:
That's not the point. The point is, you attempt to refute the assertion
that "conservatism breeds illiteracy" with a paragraph that is a
grammatical nightmare. I count eight majot errors, including 3 spelling
errors in a row, punctualtion that is out of control, and horrible syntax.
In a normal post, I would say that the response was out of line. But when
you're trying to make a point about education, it might be best to check
your grammar and spelling...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
--George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
Milt
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, K. Knopp wrote:
:In article <339BA9...@nix.net>, r...@nix.net wrote:
:
:> Silver Shadow wrote:
:> >
:> >
:> > >>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<
:> > >
:> > >One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
:> > >people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
:> >
:> > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
:> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
:> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
:> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
:> > education system is in today?
:> > you liberals and your socialistic values had 37 years to destroy the
:> > american education system and you did a real good job of it.
:> >
:> > Silver Shadow
:>
:> I have no idea where you get the idea that liberals had anything to do
:> with education, and how you managed to stick into your "rebuttal" the
:> NEA I still can't figure out, but based on YOUR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING
:> ERRORS, someone really fucked up trying to teach YOU anything.
:
:Have you ever heard of a device called a "run-on" sentence? I hear that
:it's a sign of poor writing skills. People who write with glass pencils,
:shouldn't throw stones.
Well, actually, Knopp, if you'd bother to diagram the above sentence,
it's not really a "run-on" sentence. I would prefer it was shorter, for
clarity, but grammatically, it's fine...
As for the above, I would actually agree that liberals were running the
schools for many years, because conservatives basically didn't care at
all; they were too busy getting business degrees, and making big bucks.
Modern conservatism is not known for its pragmatism, and going to school
for up to 10 years, for a job that pays a max of about $40-50K seems
really "stupid" to most modern cons. So, who's fault is it that liberals
are the majority in the school systems. (Potter-- note the plural)
And liberals have made many mistakes, and experimented on things that were
just flat stupid, like "new math" and "whole word recognition".
Additionally, there seems to be a tendency to keep kids in school who
don't belong there, and a return to reform schools seems to be in order.
But this "school failure" shit just doesn't follow from any available
stats. Let's go back 37 years, shall we? The literacy rate was about 87%,
and climbing. It's 98% now. Math scores are much higher, SAT scores are
higher, more people are going to college, more are getting degrees. More
are getting diplomas than ever before, and while an argument can
definitely be made that teachers are pushing kids through, is that a worse
solution than what they used to do, which was basically to tell them to
stop coming to school when they turned 16?
There is a tendency to "compare" the educational system with some
delusional "standard" that never existed. The norm of all kids going to
school wasn't a norm until the 50s. The norm of all kids wanting to
getting to go to college wasn't a norm until the 60s, when it was
discovered that the GI Bill was having a VERY positive effect on the
economy.
Like I said, there are problems. But conservatives have been so far
removed from participation in the educational systems for so long, they
have a warped view of how it's changed. The system has improved
tremendously; "new math" was dropped a long time ago; phonics was restored
to reading programs a long time ago. School systems are beginning to test
kids before they move them on to the next grade, and community colleges
are providing an alternative to the four-year degree that is many times
more valuable.
There seems to be a tendency to compare us to other countries, with
unrealistic standards. So some countries have higher overall test scores?
Who really cares? Look at reality. Germany, for example, tests better
overall in math and science. Of course, they have half the population, and
they also have a severe unemployment problem, while they have had to
import people from other countries to perform manual labor. Same with
japan and France.
Intead of trying to push our test scores ever higher, to "compete", maybe
we should concentrate on discovering people's abilities, and training them
for a job suited to them. Higher test scores may make for great PR, but
our unemployment rate is half that of most countries with higher math and
science scores. How many scientists do we need, anyway?
Milt
:On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
:
::Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
::>
::> In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
::> says...
::>
::> > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
::> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
::> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
::> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
::> > education system is in today?
::>
::> If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
::> conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
::> "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
::> possession and not plurality.
::
::In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
::and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
::
:That's not the point. The point is, you attempt to refute the assertion
:that "conservatism breeds illiteracy" with a paragraph that is a
:grammatical nightmare. I count eight major errors, including 3 spelling
:errors in a row, punctuation that is out of control, and horrible syntax.
:In a normal post, I would say that the response was out of line. But when
:you're trying to make a point about education, it might be best to check
:your grammar and spelling...
:
:--Milt
:
:
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970609072120.27318C-
100...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>, msh...@U.Arizona.EDU says...
> But this "school failure" shit just doesn't follow from any available
> stats. Let's go back 37 years, shall we? The literacy rate was about 87%,
> and climbing. It's 98% now. Math scores are much higher, SAT scores are
> higher, more people are going to college, more are getting degrees. More
> are getting diplomas than ever before, and while an argument can
> definitely be made that teachers are pushing kids through, is that a worse
> solution than what they used to do, which was basically to tell them to
> stop coming to school when they turned 16?
While I agree with most of what you say, it should be noted that one of
the reason for rising SAT scores is that the SAT test has been made
simpler. This, of course, penalizes the bright kids; their outstanding
scores aren't worth as much.
--
Send replies to: Salzberg[AT]flash.net (Substitute "@" for "[AT]")
Bill Reid
>On 8 Jun 1997 13:43:41 GMT, br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
>>One major problem is it spreads illiteracy and ignorance, crippling
>>people's ability to anlalyze *very important problems.*
>
>conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
>liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
>thru there patsy's in the NEA
>how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
>education system is in today?
>you liberals and your socialistic values had 37 years to destroy the
>american education system and you did a real good job of it.
A measure of literacy would afford you awareness of the post-hoc, ergo
propter hoc fallacy. Not only did you utilize this fallacy in your post,
is it even your own conclusion? The parroting of conservative
scapegoating fallacies is an excellent example of how illiteracy spreads.
Not that the "it" in my previous post even referred to conservatism.
Scott D. Erb
>conservatism spreads illiteracy?
>you liberals and your socialistic values had 37 years to destroy the
>american education system and you did a real good job of it.
Yeah, it must be why our economy is in the pits, we're doing nothing
scientifically, and young people are massively unemployed.
Oh, wait. Those things aren't happening. In fact, quite the opposite.
Hmmm, maybe education isn't as bad as some want to say it is...
Milt
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Scott D. Erb wrote:
:In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
:
It's not.
We have more high school grads, more college grads and more trade school
and community college grads than ever before. The literacy is at its
highest point, and really can't get a whole lot higher. Consider the fact
that my son knows more about science than I knew by fifth grade, (and I
was a straight-A student), and you can see that not only are most kids
learning, they are learning more than we did in the sixties and seventies,
when I went to school. I would just like to see one solid set of stats,
from an unbiased source, that says the quality of education is lower than
it was at some unspecified point in history. I won't, though, because the
quality of education isn't lower. One could make the case that it's headed
down that road, but it's far from being bad yet, and with a few
preventative measures, the downward spiral doesn't have to happen.
Conservatives never were much for the truth. Empty rhetoric is much easier
to defend...
JoMak
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> >
> > In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
> > says...
> >
> > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > education system is in today?
> >
> > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > possession and not plurality.
> >
>
> In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
>
You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
Joe
Zepp
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:20:06 -0500, Salz...@Phlash.Nett (Jeffrey E.
Salzberg) wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970609072120.27318C-
>100...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>, msh...@U.Arizona.EDU says...
>
>> But this "school failure" shit just doesn't follow from any available
>> stats. Let's go back 37 years, shall we? The literacy rate was about 87%,
>> and climbing. It's 98% now. Math scores are much higher, SAT scores are
>> higher, more people are going to college, more are getting degrees. More
>> are getting diplomas than ever before, and while an argument can
>> definitely be made that teachers are pushing kids through, is that a worse
>> solution than what they used to do, which was basically to tell them to
>> stop coming to school when they turned 16?
>
>While I agree with most of what you say, it should be noted that one of
>the reason for rising SAT scores is that the SAT test has been made
>simpler. This, of course, penalizes the bright kids; their outstanding
>scores aren't worth as much.
Actually, the opposite is true. We know a lot more than we did 37
years ago. Back in 1960, kids weren't expected to be able to describe
what DNA does, or explain why the shuttle has to decellerate in order
to catch an object in same orbit but 300 miles ahead, or discuss
American history outside of cherry tree pablums. I read somewhere
that the typical American is exposed to more information in one day
than his late 18th century counterpart was in a lifetime. That might
be persiflage, but it does illustrate the explosion of knowledge we
are undergoing. And the SATs, of course, reflect that.
>--
>Send replies to: Salzberg[AT]flash.net (Substitute "@" for "[AT]")
>=========================================
>Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer: http://www.flash.net/~salzberg
>=========================================
>Ask me about the Texas-Dance, Houston-Performances, and Cichlid mailing
>lists.
>=========================================
=====================================================================
Mayra Montero, the Cuban novelist, avers that "a country [America]
composed of promiscuous Puritans was never going to be at
ease with itself."
Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
rich don't have to.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Zepp
J.D. Black
Milt wrote:
> That's not the point. The point is, you attempt to refute the assertion
> that "conservatism breeds illiteracy" with a paragraph that is a
> errors in a row, punctualtion that is out of control, and horrible syntax.
> In a normal post, I would say that the response was out of line. But when
> your grammar and spelling...
>
Then in the spirit of cooperation, I find it interesting to see spelling
errors, and possibly grammar errors, in a posting criticizing same.
If nothing else, it makes for a fun flame war.
J.D. Black
Milt wrote:
>
> :On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
> :
> ::Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> ::>
> ::> In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
> ::> says...
> ::>
> ::> > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> ::> > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> ::> > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> ::> > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> ::> > education system is in today?
> ::>
> ::> If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> ::> conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> ::> "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> ::> possession and not plurality.
> ::
> ::In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> ::and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> ::
> :That's not the point. The point is, you attempt to refute the assertion
> :that "conservatism breeds illiteracy" with a paragraph that is a
> :errors in a row, punctuation that is out of control, and horrible syntax.
> :In a normal post, I would say that the response was out of line. But when
> :you're trying to make a point about education, it might be best to check
> :your grammar and spelling...
Oops, you do catch on.
J.D. Black
rob wrote:
>
> J.D. Black wrote:
> >
> >shelje@super..zippo..com
> > > says...
> > >
> > > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > > education system is in today?
> > >
> > > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > > possession and not plurality.
> > >
> >
> > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> >
>
> I realize that it all went right over your head, so let me try to
> explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
> about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
> rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
> Geez!
Maybe subtly is a little too subtl for ya. And there was not a single
refutation of the criticism either. Only complaints of misspellings and
such, all the while misspelling and such.
Does no one else find the really funny?
J.D. Black
JoMak wrote:
>
> J.D. Black wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> > >
> > > says...
> > >
> > > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > > education system is in today?
> > >
> > > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > > possession and not plurality.
> > >
> >
> > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> >
> > jdb...@metronet.com
>
Hardly. There was no defense of the NEA or sad state of education.
Simply whines about spelling and grammar. The irony is in the
misspelling and such. I mean we were public school system educated were
we not?
> Joe
Marc H. Pinsonneault
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> JoMak wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Black wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > > > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > > > education system is in today?
> > > >
> > > > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > > > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > > > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > > > possession and not plurality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> > >
> > > jdb...@metronet.com
> > You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
> >
>
> Hardly. There was no defense of the NEA or sad state of education.
education sad? The poor grammar and spelling of the initial poster
has already been noted. It is also true that he didn't specify what
exactly he thought the NEA did, or what exactly the problem with the
current state of education is. All he did was to state conservative
dogma. Poorly.
And no, "everybody knows the problem" is not an answer.
> Simply whines about spelling and grammar. The irony is in the
> misspelling and such. I mean we were public school system educated were
> we not?
Actually, yes. Your point?
Marc Pinsonneault
>
> jdb...@metronet.com
>
> > Joe
--
Remove nospam to get true email address.
Marc H. Pinsonneault
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> rob wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > > > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > > > education system is in today?
> > > >
> > > > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > > > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > > > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > > > possession and not plurality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> > >
> > > jdb...@metronet.com
> >
> > explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
> > about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
> > rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
> > Geez!
>
> Maybe subtly is a little too subtl for ya. And there was not a single
> refutation of the criticism either. Only complaints of misspellings
refute?
Marc Pinsonneault
and
> such, all the while misspelling and such.
>
> Does no one else find the really funny?
>
> jdb...@metronet.com
--
Adam Bernay
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 tt...@ziplink.com wrote:
> I must ad that it seems that the conservatives highest priorities, now
> that they have decided to rekindle an interest in schooling, are the
> Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer.
Oh, really? what about school choice, which is what the major school
interest for conservatives? Or would mentioning that just destroy
argument?
Adam Bernay
Elect Dan Lungren California Governor in 1998
tt...@ziplink.com
School choice would have been next on my list. Another way to shift
public money to religious use.
woof
> School choice would have been next on my list. Another way to shift
> public money to religious use.
I'd be for school vouchers if they guaranteed:
1) No private school could turn down any student applying, accepting only
the voucher as payment.
2) The private school must provide the same level os service as the public
school did, including sign language for deaf kids, etc...
3) No religious instruction using government money.
Of course there is not a chance in hell the conservatives would ever
accept this. And not because of number 3, but because of number 1.
--
woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
Thomas Andrews
In article <woof-10069...@nuthouse.com>,
Also (2). One of the constant lies of the anti-public-school crowd
is to compare the per-student costs of private versus public
schools, while ignoring that public schools are required (under
the equal protection cause) to have facilities for all children, and
that a huge amount of public school funds go to special-needs students.
[ Of course, it could be argued that vouchers are a way to get around
the equal protection issue, therefore cutting costs... ]
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Adam Bernay
On 10 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
> >>>>> Adam Bernay writes:
>
> Adam> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 tt...@ziplink.com wrote:
>
> >> I must ad that it seems that the conservatives highest priorities, now
> >> that they have decided to rekindle an interest in schooling, are the
> >> Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer.
>
> Adam> Oh, really? what about school choice, which is what the major school
> Adam> interest for conservatives? Or would mentioning that just destroy
> Adam> argument?
>
> Many see this as merely a back door method of funding
> religious schools. Their perception is not entirely
> without merit, as mainly religious schools would be
> affordable on solely the voucher amount.
That analysis has the right outcome, but not the right objective. Private
schools (not necessarily religious ones) generally give a better education
than our public schools. Many parents would like to be able to send their
kids to a good private school, or even to a better public school in their
district, but unless school choice iniatives go through, they won't be
able to send their children to better schools.
If you want a better educated nation, one able to compete in a global,
technological marketplace, school choice is the answer...
Adam Bernay
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, woof wrote:
> In article <339DBC...@ziplink.com>, tt...@ziplink.com wrote:
>
> > School choice would have been next on my list. Another way to shift
> > public money to religious use.
>
> I'd be for school vouchers if they guaranteed:
>
> 1) No private school could turn down any student applying, accepting only
> the voucher as payment.
>
> 2) The private school must provide the same level os service as the public
> school did, including sign language for deaf kids, etc...
>
> 3) No religious instruction using government money.
>
>
> Of course there is not a chance in hell the conservatives would ever
> accept this. And not because of number 3, but because of number 1.
My only problem with Number 1 is that I can see non-religious people
putting kids into religious schools to cause trouble. If you think I'm
being paranoid, well, it's happened already, even without school
vouchers. That's my only problem with it, and I definately am a
Conservative. My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
a religious school, what's wrong with that?
Now, I know some of you are going to say, "They can send them there
anyway", well, no, many can't. Why? Because they are forced to pay
punitively high tax rates, including property taxes which, at least here
in California, go to schools. Since parents are forced to pay for school
funding, why can't they choose *ANY* kind of school they want for their
kids, with that money they are forking over for schools?
Now, I know most private schools are religious, but I think that would
change if school vouchers were implemented. I think you'd see a rise in
the number of private schools in general, and in non-religious private
schools in particular.
Reverend Chuck
Milt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Darrel Westbrook wrote:
>
> :<SNIP>
> :
> :>
> :> --Milt
> :> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
> :>
> :> "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
> :> sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
> :> you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
> :> burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> :> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
> :
> :George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
> :drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
I didn't know Mr. Carlin was "drug induced". I don't know that he's taking drugs right
now, or if he ever has in the past. I know he performed comedy material in the 1970's
that dealt with drugs, but that proves nothing further about the man's offstage
behavior. Nor is his comedy oriented in that partcular direction. Mr. Carlin's most
notorious act dealt with "Seven Words the FCC Won't Let You Say on Televsion". He's
also covered such diverse topics as cholesterol, driving, god's nature, and frequently,
abuse of English grammar. Don't be so eager to write him off.
Johnny Pissoff
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:16:37 -0700, Adam Bernay
<abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
<Snip>
>My only problem with Number 1 is that I can see non-religious people
>putting kids into religious schools to cause trouble. If you think I'm
>being paranoid, well, it's happened already, even without school
>vouchers.
One might assume, then, that you likewise object to religious
fundamentalists sitting on local public school boards, yes?
>That's my only problem with it, and I definately am a
>Conservative. My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
>a religious school, what's wrong with that?
Not a damn thing, so long as it's on their own dime.
>Now, I know some of you are going to say, "They can send them there
>anyway", well, no, many can't. Why? Because they are forced to pay
>punitively high tax rates, including property taxes which, at least here
>in California, go to schools. Since parents are forced to pay for school
>funding, why can't they choose *ANY* kind of school they want for their
>kids, with that money they are forking over for schools?
For the precise reason that the same parents can't select from a menu
of other public services: public safety, infrastructure, et al. As I
have no children, should I withhold my property taxes? And if so,
where's the money for your exalted voucher?
>Now, I know most private schools are religious, but I think that would
>change if school vouchers were implemented. I think you'd see a rise in
>the number of private schools in general, and in non-religious private
>schools in particular.
Doubtful. Even if so, evidence already suggests that the caliber of
startup private secondary schools tends toward the miserable. Why
would a free-marketeer such as yourself think for a moment that an
appropriate profit could be made off such a venture, short of fraud?
Would you invest in one? Would you, honestly, send your children to
one?
J.D. Black
Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
>
> J.D. Black wrote:
> >
> > rob wrote:
[snippy]
> > > I realize that it all went right over your head, so let me try to
> > > explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
> > > about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
> > > rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
> > > Geez!
> >
> > Maybe subtly is a little too subtl for ya. And there was not a single
> > refutation of the criticism either. Only complaints of misspellings
> Do you care to enlighten us by telling us what we are supposed to
> refute?
>
The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
the solution. But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
30 years...to no or little improvement. Conservatives claim that
throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
federal government mandates.
Clear enough?
J.D. Black
Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
>
> J.D. Black wrote:
[snippy]
> > > >
> > > > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > > > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> > > >
> > > > jdb...@metronet.com
> > > You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
> > >
> >
> > Hardly. There was no defense of the NEA or sad state of education.
> Defence of the NEA against what?
In defense that the NEA should even be listened to!
>In what respect is the state of
> education sad?
Too many kids graduatiing without being able to read/write.
>The poor grammar and spelling of the initial poster
> has already been noted.
Irrelevantly.
>It is also true that he didn't specify what
> exactly he thought the NEA did, or what exactly the problem with the
> current state of education is. All he did was to state conservative
> dogma. Poorly.
Is it dogma to be in favor of school choice? Is it dogma to desire the
best out of our school system -- which ever system it is? Is it dogma
to desire some level of accountability of the educators?
All these 'dogmas,' the NEA is against.
> And no, "everybody knows the problem" is not an answer.
>
> > Simply whines about spelling and grammar. The irony is in the
> > misspelling and such. I mean we were public school system educated were
> > we not?
> Actually, yes. Your point?
>
Well, if we are public school educated and have a poor, or non-existent,
grasp of spelling or grammar, then it would seem that the public school
system that has been touted as the savior of the world leaves something
to be desired.
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
:Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
:>
:> J.D. Black wrote:
:> >
:> > rob wrote:
:
:[snippy]
:
:> > > I realize that it all went right over your head, so let me try to
:> > > explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
:> > > about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
:> > > rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
:> > > Geez!
:> >
:> > Maybe subtly is a little too subtl for ya. And there was not a single
:> > refutation of the criticism either. Only complaints of misspellings
:> Do you care to enlighten us by telling us what we are supposed to
:> refute?
:>
:
:The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
:the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
:Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
:the solution.
No, liberals don't. Liberals aren't asking for more money, but equalized
funding. There's no good reason why the school on the "right" side of town
should get all new textbooks and a pool and a new theatre, while the
school in the "wrong" side of town is dilapidated, with textbooks from the
60s...
:But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
:30 years...to no or little improvement.
No we haven't. School funding hasn't increased that much over the last 30
years, in most areas of the country, and the equalization issue has never
been solved. If you don't believe me, look at the LA Unified School
District. Some areas have brand new schools, with lots of computers, while
others are practically condemnable, with hand-me-down Apples, if there are
any computers at all. As for the improvement; that's a crock. In the last
30 years, the literacy rate is higher, the drop-out rate is lower, and the
number of people going to college and getting degrees is increasing
yearly. I love these comparisons with "the good old days"-- they are not
very realistic. Do you realize that, before about the early fifties, the
average person didn't go past 8th grade, few went to college, and
historically, the literacy rate was around 75-80%. Now, it's over 98%.
:Conservatives claim that
:throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
:involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
:are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
:
They're not mean-spirited, they're just stupid and short-sighted. They
would take even more money from the poor schools, put more money into the
already-well-off schools, and promise nothing in return. Vouchers would do
NOTHING to solve the problems that exist in education, because they don't
address the problems at all. I agree that parental involvement is
essential. How do vouchers foster parental involvement? The parents who
would be most likely to take their kids out of public schools would be the
ones at the bottom of the ladder, wouldn't you say? How is taking all of
that money out of schools that are already underfunded going to make them
better? You also perpetrate the fiction that "competition" will make
things better. Well, as any good capitalist knows, competition costs
money. Where is the money going to come from? Also, where are all those
seats going to come from in private schools. Most of them are full
already, which makes vouchers pointless. Also, private schools are
discriminatory (not in a negative way; they take the students they think
will do best, or will get the most from what they have to offer); vouchers
would force them to NOT be that way. They would be required to treat all
applicants equally, which would mean that people would be lining up to get
into very few spaces, which takes away the "choice" argument that
conservatives use. Vouchers are the only suggestion made by conservatives,
and it's not workable. Besides the obvious constitutional arguments about
funding religious schools, and the possible constitutional problem with
means-testing for vouchers, there is no "choice" offered in this system.
You wouldn't be able to force schools to take the vouchers, and the
academies, which poor people envision their children getting into, will
simply raisr their tuition to cover the vouchers, and keep the riff-raff
out.
:So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
:get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
:federal government mandates.
:
:Clear enough?
:
It's now more choice. That's a fiction, which makes the above a straw man.
Liberals aren't for MORE money, but a fairer distribution of the money
that's there, which makes that a straw man. The NEA is a union, which
teachers in private schools would be free to vote in if they choose, which
makes that a straw man. Gee, this is becoming a fire hazard...
Marc H. Pinsonneault
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Black wrote:
> > >
> > > rob wrote:
>
> [snippy]
>
> > > > I realize that it all went right over your head, so let me try to
> > > > explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
> > > > about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
> > > > rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
> > > > Geez!
> > >
> > > Maybe subtly is a little too subtl for ya. And there was not a single
> > > refutation of the criticism either. Only complaints of misspellings
> > Do you care to enlighten us by telling us what we are supposed to
> > refute?
> >
>
> The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
> the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
can say that overall the system has been about the same, not a lot
worse.
In an article today, there was an international ranking of 3rd and
4th graders in science and math. The US was 3rd in the world in
science ( a few points behind Singapore and S Korea, ahead of Japan
and all of the European countries). It was in the middle of the pack in
math - ahead of Britain and behind the Asian tigers and the northern
European countries. So in what respect are things *overall* so
terrible?
> Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
> the solution. But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
> 30 years...to no or little improvement. Conservatives claim that
To show this you would have to compare with the case where we have
spent less money. Much of the increase has gone to special ed - and
yes, we do a far better job of educating special ed kids than we did
30 years ago. This alone accounts for a 30% increase in the money
spent on education (from Kangas's web page).
Computers cost money. Would you prefer that we not have them in
schools?
And some of the money has not affected performance very much.
> throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
> involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
> are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
I don't see vouchers as mean-spirited; I see them as of limited use
at best and counterproductive at worst.
>
> So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
> get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
> federal government mandates.
>
> Clear enough?
You'd have to begin by showing how more choice will solve the problem.
If I came up with some idea for improving public education I'd be
expected to show how it would help. You are asking for a case against
something which is pretty nebulous. What do you mean by "more choice"?
Magnet schools and charter schools within the public system? Great
idea; lets try it. Vouchers? Maybe some demonstration programs are
a good idea. If they work, expand them. But you'll need to describe
the programs that you want; you can construct a voucher system that
opens up opportunity or one that siphons the best kids out of the
public schools, making it even harder to educate the children that
remain.
And "more money" can either be wasted or very useful; depends on how
it is spent. I'd say that smaller class sizes and modern facilities
are a good use of money. Higher teacher salaries will have a much
longer term payoff, and money on bureaucrats is wasted.
cheers,
Marc Pinsonneault
Marc H. Pinsonneault
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Black wrote:
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > > > > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> > > > >
> > > > > jdb...@metronet.com
> > > > You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hardly. There was no defense of the NEA or sad state of education.
> > Defence of the NEA against what?
>
> In defense that the NEA should even be listened to!
Golly, I thought that teachers might have something interesting to
say about education. The NEA also represents the economic interests
of teachers, and this sometimes leads them to positions that are
counterproductive for the kids. But not always. I'll listen to a
variety of people and try to judge their positions on the merits.
You sound like someone who will just dismiss everything some
organization (like the NEA ) says just because you don't like it.
>
> >In what respect is the state of
> > education sad?
>
> Too many kids graduatiing without being able to read/write.
Compared to what? If you compare to public schools in the past,
students are doing about the same as they were 20 - 30 years ago.
There are clearly some problem areas and some deficient schools -
primarily urban and poor rural ones. It is important to specify
what the problem is and where the problem is. If suburban schools are
doing just fine, for example, we can leave the status quo there alone
and concentrate our efforts on the systems which are troubled.
>
> >The poor grammar and spelling of the initial poster
> > has already been noted.
>
> Irrelevantly.
>
> >It is also true that he didn't specify what
> > exactly he thought the NEA did, or what exactly the problem with the
> > current state of education is. All he did was to state conservative
> > dogma. Poorly.
>
> Is it dogma to be in favor of school choice? Is it dogma to desire the
> best out of our school system -- which ever system it is? Is it dogma
> to desire some level of accountability of the educators?
> All these 'dogmas,' the NEA is against.
The NEA is against desiring the best out of our schools?
This sounds to me like the triumph of your ideological hostility to
the NEA over logic. They may disagree with you about how to get there,
but most teachers are very committed to quality education.
>
> > And no, "everybody knows the problem" is not an answer.
> >
> > > Simply whines about spelling and grammar. The irony is in the
> > > misspelling and such. I mean we were public school system educated were
> > > we not?
> > Actually, yes. Your point?
> >
>
> Well, if we are public school educated and have a poor, or non-existent,
> grasp of spelling or grammar, then it would seem that the public school
> system that has been touted as the savior of the world leaves something
> to be desired.
If a particular person is incoherent when writing this reflects on
them much more than it reflects on the overall system. Cats and dogs
both have tails; it does not follow that cats are dogs. You are
falling into the same logical fallacy : poor writing from one
public school graduate does not imply that all public schools produce
poor writers.
But poor writing does reflect on the individual responsible for it.
Michael S Payer Jr
Johnny Pissoff <sop...@BITE.ME.AMWAY.WANNABES.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
article <339dfd47....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:16:37 -0700, Adam Bernay
> <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> >My only problem with Number 1 is that I can see non-religious people
> >putting kids into religious schools to cause trouble. If you think I'm
> >being paranoid, well, it's happened already, even without school
> >vouchers.
>
> One might assume, then, that you likewise object to religious
> fundamentalists sitting on local public school boards, yes?
>
> >That's my only problem with it, and I definately am a
> >Conservative. My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
> >a religious school, what's wrong with that?
>
> Not a damn thing, so long as it's on their own dime.
But its OK for you to extort my dime from me and
spend it on your secular school !!!!! That makes
no sense at all............
--
MSP
|||_________________________
@###|||_________________________/
||| Some Times The Dragon Wins
Michael S Payer Jr
woof <wo...@woofwoof.com> wrote in article
<woof-10069...@findlinks.com>...
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970610...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
> Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
>
> >My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
> > a religious school, what's wrong with that?
>
> I don't want my tax dollars going to religious schools teaching stuff
like
> "creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
No, your not.........Prove it !!!!!!!!!
Adam Bernay
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, woof wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970610...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
> Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
>
> >My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
> > a religious school, what's wrong with that?
>
> I don't want my tax dollars going to religious schools teaching stuff like
> "creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
No, you are not. I have news for you, pal, the anti-establishment
clause means exactly that, anti-establishment. the government cannot
establish a state religion. And, since not all of these monies would
be going to *ONE* religion (there are Jewish private schools, there
Muslim private schools, there are other religions' private schools,
there are *SECULAR* private schools), *IT'S NOT ESTABLISHING A
RELIGION!*
Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
arguments.
> > Now, I know some of you are going to say, "They can send them there
> > anyway", well, no, many can't. Why? Because they are forced to pay
> > punitively high tax rates, including property taxes which, at least here
> > in California, go to schools.
>
> This is a phony argument. If you can't afford private schools you aren't
> paying high tax rates. If you are paying "high" tax rates (our are the
> lowest in the industrialized world) it is BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING A LOT OF
> MONEY!
Wrong. Everyone currently pays very high taxes. And, studies have
shown that most families who pay taxes could afford private schools
if they didn't have to pay their taxes. As for the rest, I'd say
that it's a good thing we're giving the "poor" (we really don't have
poor in this country, go look at India if you want to see really poor
people) families a chance to give their children something better for
themselves, through a school of their choice, which *DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN A RELIGIOUS ONE!* Why would you deny them ths
opportunity? Do you want them stupid so you can push your liberal
propaganda down their throats?
> > Since parents are forced to pay for school funding, why can't they
> > choose *ANY* kind of school they want for their
> > kids, with that money they are forking over for schools?
>
> Since we pay for public transportation why shouldn't the government buy
> each of us a Cadillac? Is that what you're asking?
No. First off, only the initial investment in public transportation
is made by government (and that's only sometimes, the best run systems
were started by private businesses on a contract with the local
government) and the rest of the costs, on the ones run correctly, are
paid by the fares paid by passengers. So this is another phoney
argument by you.
> > Now, I know most private schools are religious, but I think that would
> > change if school vouchers were implemented.
>
> Why do yo think this? The vouchers won't be enough to pay for the cost of
> a private school. They can't be because it is a myth that public schools
> cost more than private schools.
First off, what did this paragraph have to do with the statement you're
quoting here is talking about the fact that the number of secular private
schools would grow, not about the relative costs of public and private
schools.
And you are wrong on both counts above. One, the vouchers are enough for
most private schools, as has been demonstrated in *ALL* of the school
voucher pilot programs so far. Also, yes, public schools do cost more
than most private schools. The only private schools that public schools
*DON'T* cost more than are *BOARDING* schools, which are very much in the
minority of private schools. This statement by the left that "private
schools cost more than public schools" is fueled by the fact that their
figures either average *ALL* private schools (which include boarding
schools), or, in some of the propaganda I've read from the Left on this,
their figures are *EXCLUSIVELY* those of boarding schools, so their lie
can be perpetrated.
Your lies are being called such by someone who knows the issue and knows
the facts. I cannot wait to see what your response will be...
Milt
On 11 Jun 1997, Michael S Payer Jr wrote:
:Johnny Pissoff <sop...@BITE.ME.AMWAY.WANNABES.ix.netcom.com> wrote in
:article <339dfd47....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
:> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:16:37 -0700, Adam Bernay
:> <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
:>
:> <Snip>
:>
:> >My only problem with Number 1 is that I can see non-religious people
:> >putting kids into religious schools to cause trouble. If you think I'm
:> >being paranoid, well, it's happened already, even without school
:> >vouchers.
:>
:> One might assume, then, that you likewise object to religious
:> fundamentalists sitting on local public school boards, yes?
:>
:> >That's my only problem with it, and I definately am a
:> >Conservative. My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
:> >a religious school, what's wrong with that?
:>
:> Not a damn thing, so long as it's on their own dime.
:
:But its OK for you to extort my dime from me and
:spend it on your secular school !!!!! That makes
:no sense at all............
:
Extort? Hardly. Go look up the word before you misuse it again. We do
require all citizens pay for what they use. If you can get a majority of
Americans to agree to stop providing a school system, well, be my guest.
But as long as we're providing it, it HAS to be a secular system. It's a
little thing called the Constitution...
Marc H. Pinsonneault
Adam Bernay wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, woof wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970610...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
> > Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> >
> > > a religious school, what's wrong with that?
> >
> > "creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
>
> No, you are not. I have news for you, pal, the anti-establishment
> clause means exactly that, anti-establishment. the government cannot
> establish a state religion. And, since not all of these monies would
> be going to *ONE* religion (there are Jewish private schools, there
> Muslim private schools, there are other religions' private schools,
> there are *SECULAR* private schools), *IT'S NOT ESTABLISHING A
> RELIGION!*
You are aware that vouchers for religious schools here in Ohio were
recently ruled to be unconstitutional? You are also aware that the
federal courts have severely restricted even indirect state aid to
religious schools? For example, in cases where special ed students
are elegible for programs the state may send teachers to the schools
but cannot actually have them teach on school grounds - they have to
take the students out to portable classrooms.
You may not like the way that the courts have interpreted the
establishment clause, but your opinion is not the law of the land.
So will you stop calling others liars when they are not?
Marc Pinsonneault
>
> Your lies are being called such by someone who knows the issue and knows
> the facts. I cannot wait to see what your response will be...
>
> Adam Bernay
>
> Elect Dan Lungren California Governor in 1998
--
woof
In article <01bc7674$e92792e0$2a00aace@default>, "Michael S Payer Jr"
<msp...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> woof <wo...@woofwoof.com> wrote in article
> <woof-10069...@findlinks.com>...
> > In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970610...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
> > Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> >
> > >My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
> > > a religious school, what's wrong with that?
> >
> > I don't want my tax dollars going to religious schools teaching stuff
> like
> > "creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
>
> No, your not.........Prove it !!!!!!!!!
>
You want me to PROVE that the Constitution says tax dollars can't support
religious schools????
Do you know what the Supreme Court is?
woof
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970611...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> No, you are not. I have news for you, pal, the anti-establishment
> clause means exactly that, anti-establishment. the government cannot
> establish a state religion.
And tax dollars cannot be used for religious purposes. You "accidentally"
left out that part.
> Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
> would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
> private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
> the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
> arguments.
I said that TAX DOLLARS cannot go to this. You cannot use tax dollars to
teach the nonsense of creationism.
>> If you can't afford private schools you aren't
>> paying high tax rates. If you are paying "high" tax rates (our are the
>> lowest in the industrialized world) it is BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING A LOT OF
>> MONEY!
> Wrong. Everyone currently pays very high taxes.
They do? Everyone pays high taxes? People receiving the Earned Income
Tax Credit do? People making less than $30,000 pay high taxes?
Makes me wonder if you are old enough to have a job. Or really rich. Are
yo that Republican Congressman who says that pepole making $300,000 a year
are "middle class?"
> And, studies have
> shown that most families who pay taxes could afford private schools
> if they didn't have to pay their taxes.
Let me get this right. If people receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit
weren't receiving it they could send their kids to private schools.
People paying $4,000 a year in taxes (about 40% of the public) could
instead send their kids to private schools.
> we really don't have
> poor in this country, go look at India if you want to see really poor
> people)
No, there are no poor in the U.S. Right.
>One, the vouchers are enough for
> most private schools, as has been demonstrated in *ALL* of the school
> voucher pilot programs so far.
Name two.
> Also, yes, public schools do cost more
> than most private schools.
Not private schools that offer the same level of services they don't. You
are advocating denying educations to disabled kids and emotionally
disturbed kids.
> Your lies are being called such by someone who knows the issue and knows
> the facts. I cannot wait to see what your response will be...
Your tone betrays you as a typical nasty, insulting, obnoxious Republican.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
In article <01bc7674$e92792e0$2a00aace@default>, msp...@pacbell.net
says...
> > I don't want my tax dollars going to religious schools teaching stuff
> like
> > "creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
>
> No, your not.........Prove it !!!!!!!!!
Anyone -- no matter which side of the issue he or she is on -- who want's
to be taken seriously in a discussion of our educational system would be
well advised to learn the difference between "you're" (the contraction of
"you are") and "your" (the second-person possessive pronoun).
--
Send replies to: Salzberg[AT]flash.net (Substitute "@" for "[AT]")
=========================================
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer: http://www.flash.net/~salzberg
=========================================
Ask me about the Texas-Dance, Houston-Performances, and Cichlid mailing
lists.
=========================================
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
In article <01bc7674$8405fc80$2a00aace@default>, msp...@pacbell.net
says...
> But its OK for you to extort my dime from me and
> spend it on your secular school !!!!! That makes
> no sense at all............
No, it's not OK.
Fortunately, no one's doing that.
Adam Bernay
On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
> As a capitalist I tend to agree with you, but as a fan
> of freedom of religion, I have real problems with the
> government funding religious propaganda. I would want
> schools that had explicit religious indoctrination as
> part of their curriculum excluded.
The government wouldn't be funding it. You seem to be missing the point.
The government in and of itself doesn't fund anything. It is the peoples'
monies that are going into government coffers. They pay the taxes. It's
*THEIR* money. So, I think the answer, for everyone's freedom, including
freedom of religion, is one of two possibilities. Either we stop having
public schools and stop collecting that tax money, or we give it back in
the form of school vouchers to be used for *ANY* school the parent wants.
If the parent chooses, using their freedom of religion, a religious school
(of any religion), then the *GOVERNMENT IS NOT ESTABLISHING A RELIGION*,
which is what the anti-establishment clause is about.
If all of the schools were Christian, or all of them were Jewish, or all
of them Muslim, or all of them any particular religion, I would agree with
you. But the facts are that because all religions are reflected in
private schools, and there are also secular private schools, plus we'd
still have the public schools open for those parents who want to use their
vouchers there, there is no establishment of anything except freedom of
choice, which is what Freedom of Religion is about.
Zepp
>
>On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 tt...@ziplink.com wrote:
>
>> I must ad that it seems that the conservatives highest priorities, now
>> that they have decided to rekindle an interest in schooling, are the
>> Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer.
>
>Oh, really? what about school choice, which is what the major school
>interest for conservatives? Or would mentioning that just destroy
>argument?
That's just Republican class warfare. The "choice" would be for the
wealthy only. That's why California shot the last voucher scheme down
in flames. And of course, the notion of two-tier schooling sorta
doesn't mesh with the idea of universal education, does it?
Darrel Westbrook
On 6/9/97 10:43PM, in message <339CE9...@flash.net>, JoMak <jo...@flash.net>
wrote:
> J.D. Black wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
> > > says...
> > >
> > > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
> > > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
> > > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
> > > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
> > > > education system is in today?
> > >
> > > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
> > > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
> > > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
> > > possession and not plurality.
> > >
> >
> > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> >
> > jdb...@metronet.com
> You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
>
> Joe
A typical liberal type response. If you do not have a good reply, attack the
person not the idea.
Darrel
Darrel Westbrook
<SNIP>
>
> > Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
> > would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
> > private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
> > the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
> > arguments.
>
> I said that TAX DOLLARS cannot go to this. You cannot use tax dollars to
> teach the nonsense of creationism.
>
Who are you to label creationism as nonsense? Just because you and I may be
skeptical of creationism as is our right, other people's right to believe in it is
just as valid. It is a very pompous, self-indulgent individual that claims a
Constitutional right and then denies it to others. You have labeled yourself as a
flaming, my way only, feel good left wing LIBERAL.
Darrel Westbrook
<SNIP>
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>
> "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
> sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
> you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
> burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
>
George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
Matthew Alexander
I'm not sure how feasible it would be, but has a "flat-rate" voucher
system been considered? Qualified schools may accept vouchers as full
tuition, but not as a $10K-off coupon for some posh boarding school.
That could concevibly prevent some of the disparity between rich and
poor schools, while still allowing parents and students the most
options.
Comments?
-><- Matt Alexander
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew
them like applesauce they taste more like prunes than a rhubarb does.
Now, uh.. Now you tell me what you know." -Marx*
Adam Bernay
On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> One might assume, then, that you likewise object to religious
> >> fundamentalists sitting on local public school boards, yes?
>
> Adam> No, because they aren't there to cause trouble.
>
> This is really funny! They are there to try to get my money
> spent to fund religious indoctrination.
Really? All of them? (Hint: the answer is no, because I can name
several who don't, that I personally know, and I know they're not the
only ones.)
> They are there to try and have creationism taught in the schools,
Not that I necessarily support teaching creationism in public schools,
but I have a question: is evolution fully scientifically proven? No!
Then it remains a theory. Why can't we teach alternate theories as
well, which include creationism? Not *ENDORSING* that view, but saying
it's a theory believed by many people (many more than evolution, BTW).
> to have abstinence only sex education programs which fail to teach the
> science of sex.
Here's the science of sex: the *ONLY* way to fully protect yourself
from AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancy is abstinence. That is a
*FACT*. Condoms have a 20% failure rate when used *CORRECTLY*, and
that percentage goes up if they're used incorrectly. That is a *FACT*.
That is the science of sex.
> You really have to sit down and think about some of the things you say.
I do. I think about everything I say, to make sure it is true, or
as true as I can get. Why don't you do that?
> >> That's my only problem with it, and I definately am a
> >> >Conservative. My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
> >> >a religious school, what's wrong with that?
> >>
> >> Not a damn thing, so long as it's on their own dime.
>
> Adam> Since they are paying tax dollars to go for the education of their
> Adam> children, it *IS* their dime.
>
> Do you really think every one pays full fare in their housing taxes?
> What about families with 5 kids that live in a 80k house? Again, you
> must sit down and think about this.
I have. Do you realize how much property taxes *ARE*?!? *A HECK OF A
BUNCH!*
> >> >Now, I know some of you are going to say, "They can send them
> >> >there anyway," well, no, many can't. Why? Because they are
> >> >forced to pay punitively high tax rates, including property taxes
> >> >which, at least here in California, go to schools. Since parents
> >> >are forced to pay for school funding, why can't they choose *ANY*
> >> >kind of school they want for their kids, with that money they are
> >> >forking over for schools?
>
> >> For the precise reason that the same parents can't select from a menu
> >> of other public services: public safety, infrastructure, et al. As I
> >> have no children, should I withhold my property taxes? And if so,
> >> where's the money for your exalted voucher?
>
> Adam> Alright, there's two things on this:
>
> Adam> 1) You cannot select from a menu for other public services because
> Adam> they are ones that deal with everyone on, essentially, a
> Adam> non-personal nature. You can't have multiple different
> Adam> law-enforcement agencies, for example, working in the same
> Adam> jurisdiction without chaos. Schools are *DIFFERENT*. They are
> Adam> personal to each child. There can be different schools without
> Adam> chaos.
>
> In large enough areas.
>
> Adam> 2) You've hit on the basic problem of public schools: people are
> Adam> paying for that which they are not using. This country used to
> Adam> not have public schools at all. The educational level was higher,
>
> Nonsense. Learn a bit of history.
I know history. Apparrently you do not. Go back to right after this
country was founded and you will see I am right.
> Adam> and we had a *MUCH* higher literacy rate, etc. However, we've
>
> Chuckle!
Yeah, I chuckle when I read your stuff too...I'm glad to see you realize
that what you say is as ridiculous as I do...
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:
:On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
:
:> By your "logic" the government can spend money on anything it
:> wants because it is not really spending money, the taxpayers are.
:>
:> Nope, does not wash.
:
:You seem to keep missing this. This is specifically about tis topic.
: Your logic is the one that doesn't wash...
No, it isn't. Read it again...
:> Adam> If all of the schools were Christian, or all of them were Jewish,
:> Adam> or all of them Muslim, or all of them any particular religion, I
:> Adam> would agree with you. But the facts are that because all
:> Adam> religions are reflected in private schools, and there are also
:> Adam> secular private schools, plus we'd still have the public schools
:> Adam> open for those parents who want to use their vouchers there, there
:> Adam> is no establishment of anything except freedom of choice, which is
:> Adam> what Freedom of Religion is about.
But look at your logic. What happens when one religion decides that it
will not take vouchers for any of its schools. All of a sudden, you have
government money going to some religions, and not others, through no fault
of the taxpayers. Now, let's take it a step further, and pretend that
Satanists start a school. Or worshipers of Charles Manson start a school.
By your logic, we would have to support those. The problem is, what you're
proposing isn't possible, because it is impossible to treat every single
religion exactly equally, and it's also impossible to anticipate what
might happen in the future.
:>
:> The parents are free to spend their own money on any religion
:> they want. They are not free to use government education money,
:> collected from all taxpayers, to fund religious indoctrination of
:> any type.
Absolutely. I would also point out the following; if a "church" starts a
school, the government can have NO say in how the school is run. The
Church of Satan could start a school, and teach the children nothing at
all, and there is nothing the gov't can do about it. Now, sure; parents
can pull their kids out of the schools, but then someone else can start
another one, and do the same thing. It's a VERY slippery slope...
:1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education.
Try and separate the two. And if you can separate the two, then what's the
point of a religious school? What would be the point, for example, of a
church starting a secular school? (Better question; is it possible...)
:2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the government
: says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon, BTW)
:
The government can't say they can, if the Constitution says they can't. In
other words, don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to look hard at
this issue, and don't be surprised when the USSC says "no way"...
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Darrel Westbrook wrote:
:<SNIP>
:>
:> > Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
:> > would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
:> > private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
:> > the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
:> > arguments.
:>
:> I said that TAX DOLLARS cannot go to this. You cannot use tax dollars to
:> teach the nonsense of creationism.
:
:Who are you to label creationism as nonsense?
Do you have evidence that it's not?
In all seriousness, though, think about this. This discussion is WHY there
is a separation of church and state, and WHY government money should never
go to religion. There is no way to win when you do so..
I would also point out that, if a religious school takes government money,
the only way they should be able to teach creationism is if they can find
a scientific, rational basis for it, that has nothing to do with the
Bible.
:Just because you and I may be
:skeptical of creationism as is our right, other people's right to
:believe in it is
:just as valid. It is a very pompous, self-indulgent individual that
:claims a
:Constitutional right and then denies it to others. You have labeled
:yourself as a
:flaming, my way only, feel good left wing LIBERAL.
I can already anticipate the answer, but in what way is labelling
creationism abrogating your right to believe what you wish? Don't you
realize that you're contradicting yourself. He says you're wrong, and
you're insulted because you think he's wrong. He is not denying your
constitutional right to believe anything. He is merely exercising his
constitutional right to say you're full of crap.
BTW, us libbb'rullls are not insulted when you call us that, so you might
as well stop. All of the other adjectives are simply a flame, as you
accuse us liberals of. Ironic?
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Darrel Westbrook wrote:
:<SNIP>
:
:>
:> --Milt
:> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
:>
:> "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
:> sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
:> you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
:> burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
:> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
:>
:
:George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
:drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
:
Have you been waiting for a prophet? I though you guys claim he'd already
been here.
I put it there because it's funny, and makes a point. The God that the
typical Christian believes in isn't very rational. I like mine better...
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Darrel Westbrook wrote:
:On 6/9/97 10:43PM, in message <339CE9...@flash.net>, JoMak <jo...@flash.net>
:wrote:
:
:> J.D. Black wrote:
:> >
:> > Jeffrey E. Salzberg wrote:
:> > >
:> > > In article <339afe0a....@snews.zippo.com>, shelje@super..zippo..com
:> > > says...
:> > >
:> > > > conservatism spreads illiteracy? and ignorance? seems to me the
:> > > > liberals have been in charge of education for almost 40 years
:> > > > thru there patsy's in the NEA
:> > > > how do you figure conservatism has anything to do with the shape the
:> > > > education system is in today?
:> > >
:> > > If you're trying to make the point that liberals are less literate than
:> > > conservatives, you should first learn the difference between "there" and
:> > > "their". It also might behoove you to learn that the apostrophe connotes
:> > > possession and not plurality.
:> > >
:> >
:> > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
:> > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
:> >
:> > jdb...@metronet.com
:> You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
:>
:> Joe
:
:A typical liberal type response. If you do not have a good reply, attack the
:person not the idea.
:
:Darrel
:
Hmm, you must be a liberal, huh? Because in three posts by you, you have
done this in every single one of them...
Adam Bernay
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
> :> Adam> If all of the schools were Christian, or all of them were
> :> Adam> Jewish,
> :> Adam> or all of them Muslim, or all of them any particular religion, I
> :> Adam> would agree with you. But the facts are that because all
> :> Adam> religions are reflected in private schools, and there are also
> :> Adam> secular private schools, plus we'd still have the public schools
> :> Adam> open for those parents who want to use their vouchers there, there
> :> Adam> is no establishment of anything except freedom of choice, which is
> :> Adam> what Freedom of Religion is about.
>
> But look at your logic. What happens when one religion decides that it
> will not take vouchers for any of its schools. All of a sudden, you have
> government money going to some religions, and not others, through no fault
> of the taxpayers.
First off, I don't see that happening. Secondly, even if it does,
that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
> Now, let's take it a step further, and pretend that
> Satanists start a school. Or worshipers of Charles Manson start a school.
> By your logic, we would have to support those. The problem is, what you're
> proposing isn't possible, because it is impossible to treat every single
> religion exactly equally,
What the heck are you talking about? First off, if Satanists start a
school, naturally, we would have to allow vouchers to be used there.
That's not the government supporting those churches. Secondly, how is
what I'm proposing not possible? And also, why is "treating religions
equally" an issue? This is about schools, including secular ones.
> and it's also impossible to anticipate what might happen in the
> future.
This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously, we can't anticipate what
might happen in the future. We can't anticipate that about anything.
So, by your logic, we dismantle the government altogether, because they
can't anticipate everything.
> :> The parents are free to spend their own money on any religion
> :> they want. They are not free to use government education money,
> :> collected from all taxpayers, to fund religious indoctrination of
> :> any type.
>
> Absolutely. I would also point out the following; if a "church" starts a
> school, the government can have NO say in how the school is run. The
> Church of Satan could start a school, and teach the children nothing at
> all, and there is nothing the gov't can do about it. Now, sure; parents
> can pull their kids out of the schools, but then someone else can start
> another one, and do the same thing. It's a VERY slippery slope...
You're missing the point. For a voucher to be allowed to be used at a
school, it *HAS* to be accredited (I've said this several times now).
This eliminates this problem.
> : 1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education. >
> Try and separate the two. And if you can separate the two, then what's the
> point of a religious school? What would be the point, for example, of a
> church starting a secular school? (Better question; is it possible...)
Again, define "religious indoctrination", for one. And for two, that
shouldn't be what this discussion is about.
> : 2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the government
> : says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon, BTW)
> :
> The government can't say they can, if the Constitution says they can't.
The thing is, the Constitution *DOESN'T* say they can't.
> In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to look hard
> at this issue,
They're going to be looking at it soon, it's on the docket.
> and don't be surprised when the USSC says "no way"...
If the Supreme Court says no, it will be another case of them exceeding
their bounds, because *THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THIS IS NOT OKAY.
THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE*.
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:
:On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
:
:> :> Adam> If all of the schools were Christian, or all of them were
:> :> Adam> Jewish,
:> :> Adam> or all of them Muslim, or all of them any particular religion, I
:> :> Adam> would agree with you. But the facts are that because all
:> :> Adam> religions are reflected in private schools, and there are also
:> :> Adam> secular private schools, plus we'd still have the public schools
:> :> Adam> open for those parents who want to use their vouchers there, there
:> :> Adam> is no establishment of anything except freedom of choice, which is
:> :> Adam> what Freedom of Religion is about.
:>
:> But look at your logic. What happens when one religion decides that it
:> will not take vouchers for any of its schools. All of a sudden, you have
:> government money going to some religions, and not others, through no fault
:> of the taxpayers.
:
:First off, I don't see that happening.
Oh, don't be silly. You can't imagine a religion deciding not to take
gov't money on ethical or moral grounds? I guarantee it will happen...
:Secondly, even if it does,
:that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
:doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
:
Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what people
"mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot abridge your
freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
:> Now, let's take it a step further, and pretend that
:> Satanists start a school. Or worshipers of Charles Manson start a school.
:> By your logic, we would have to support those. The problem is, what you're
:> proposing isn't possible, because it is impossible to treat every single
:> religion exactly equally,
:
:What the heck are you talking about? First off, if Satanists start a
:school, naturally, we would have to allow vouchers to be used there.
:That's not the government supporting those churches. Secondly, how is
:what I'm proposing not possible? And also, why is "treating religions
:equally" an issue? This is about schools, including secular ones.
:
If you mean secular private schools, you're right. But when you include
religious schools, you create a huge series of problems which you seem to
dismiss like it's no big deal. For example, you say, "naturally, we would
have to allow vouchers to be used..." But something tells me, (I could be
wrong), most people would not accept that as readily as you or I. A wiccan
school would certainly create problems with people. as far as "treating
religions equally", I can't believe you don't think it's an issue. You're
talking about using tax money to support religious schools. Of course it's
an issue. It's THE issue...
:> and it's also impossible to anticipate what might happen in the
:> future.
:
:This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously, we can't anticipate what
:might happen in the future. We can't anticipate that about anything.
:So, by your logic, we dismantle the government altogether, because they
:can't anticipate everything.
:
No, that's not by my logic. My point is this; suppose you set up a voucher
program, which includes religious schools, and every religion
participates. Then several decide they don't want to any longer. Suddenly,
you have a problem. Or a Wiccan church opens a school, and the community
objects. You have a potential Constitutional problem. In setting this up,
you MUST anticipate the future...
:> :> The parents are free to spend their own money on any religion
:> :> they want. They are not free to use government education money,
:> :> collected from all taxpayers, to fund religious indoctrination of
:> :> any type.
:>
:> Absolutely. I would also point out the following; if a "church" starts a
:> school, the government can have NO say in how the school is run. The
:> Church of Satan could start a school, and teach the children nothing at
:> all, and there is nothing the gov't can do about it. Now, sure; parents
:> can pull their kids out of the schools, but then someone else can start
:> another one, and do the same thing. It's a VERY slippery slope...
:
:You're missing the point. For a voucher to be allowed to be used at a
:school, it *HAS* to be accredited (I've said this several times now).
:This eliminates this problem.
:
This doesn't eliminate a problem; it creates another one. Don't you get
it? The gov't is not ALLOWED to tell the church how to run its school. The
minute it requires conditions to be met, there is a constitutional
problem. You do realize that, as of now, accreditation of private schools
is voluntary. Most Catholic schools are not accredited by a secular group
of any kind. Suddenly, to participate, the government is going to require
CHURCHES to follow government regulations? That can't happen...
:> : 1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education. >
:> Try and separate the two. And if you can separate the two, then what's the
:> point of a religious school? What would be the point, for example, of a
:> church starting a secular school? (Better question; is it possible...)
:
:Again, define "religious indoctrination", for one. And for two, that
:shouldn't be what this discussion is about.
Religious indoctrination is a very broad concept. For example, it can be
pictures of angels or crucifixes or Menorahs, or abeyahs. It can be
prayers; it can be methods of teaching science or social studies.
basically, religious schools would pretty much have to remove everything
religious from the schools in order to get gov't money.
:> : 2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the government
:> : says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon, BTW)
:> :
:> The government can't say they can, if the Constitution says they can't.
:
:The thing is, the Constitution *DOESN'T* say they can't.
:
Afraid it does. First Amendment, and the fourteenth...
:> In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to look hard
:> at this issue,
:
:They're going to be looking at it soon, it's on the docket.
:
A lot of things are on the docket. But they don't do everything that's
docketed...
:> and don't be surprised when the USSC says "no way"...
:
:If the Supreme Court says no, it will be another case of them exceeding
:their bounds, because *THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THIS IS NOT OKAY.
:THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE*.
:
BULLSHIT, Adam! It's right there in the 1st and fourteenth amendment. They
cannot make laws regarding the establishment of religion. That means
NOTHING. NADA. No way, no how. You may not like it, but every
Constitutional scholar I know thinks it's a slam dunk, and vouchers cannot
happen, unless they EXCLUDE religious schools. Of course, the
conservatives are pushing this to expand religious influence, so that
would effectively kill it. The constitution is silent on vouchers, UNTIL
they deal with religious schools. The minute they do, they become a
constitutional problem...
Milt
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Reverend Chuck wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:>
:> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Darrel Westbrook wrote:
:>
:> :<SNIP>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> --Milt
:> :> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
:> :>
:> :> "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
:> :> sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
:> :> you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
:> :> burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
:> :> --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
:> :>
:> :
:> :George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
:> :drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
:
:I didn't know Mr. Carlin was "drug induced". I don't know that he's taking drugs right
:now, or if he ever has in the past. I know he performed comedy material in the 1970's
:that dealt with drugs, but that proves nothing further about the man's offstage
:behavior. Nor is his comedy oriented in that partcular direction. Mr. Carlin's most
:notorious act dealt with "Seven Words the FCC Won't Let You Say on Televsion". He's
:also covered such diverse topics as cholesterol, driving, god's nature, and frequently,
:abuse of English grammar. Don't be so eager to write him off.
:
You have to understand the modern neoconservative. They feel compelled to
write people off, who don't toe the company line. You gotta say the right
thing, or you're a (fill in the blank with something that discredits the
person). They've been doing it for five years now with Bill Clinton. Funny
thing is, he's the best friend conservatives have ever had; a right
leaning, government-reducing, social service-cutting market and job
creator...
Divine...@pipeline.com
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:51:58 -0700, wo...@woofwoof.com (woof) wrote:
>I don't want my tax dollars going to religious schools teaching stuff like
>"creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
Right now the schools you so love don't teach reading, writing, or
math either. I suppose that's what you really like. People who will
grow up and believe whatever Peter Jennings tells them because they
can't think on their own. What you hate is private school success.
>> Now, I know some of you are going to say, "They can send them there
>> anyway", well, no, many can't. Why? Because they are forced to pay
>> punitively high tax rates, including property taxes which, at least here
>> in California, go to schools.
>
>This is a phony argument. If you can't afford private schools you aren't
>paying high tax rates. If you are paying "high" tax rates (our are the
>lowest in the industrialized world) it is BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING A LOT OF
>MONEY!
No, it is because wasteful government, backed by uneducated idiots
write the paragraph above.
>> Since parents are forced to pay for school
>> funding, why can't they choose *ANY* kind of school they want for their
>> kids, with that money they are forking over for schools?
>
>Since we pay for public transportation why shouldn't the government buy
>each of us a Cadillac? Is that what you're asking?
Speaks for itself (in a light whisper).
>> Now, I know most private schools are religious, but I think that would
>> change if school vouchers were implemented.
>
>Why do yo think this? The vouchers won't be enough to pay for the cost of
>a private school. They can't be because it is a myth that public schools
>cost more than private schools.
I'm sure you don't believe in ANY myths........
D. & L. Holland
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Adam Bernay writes:
>
> Adam> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 tt...@ziplink.com wrote:
>
> >> I must ad that it seems that the conservatives highest priorities, now
> >> that they have decided to rekindle an interest in schooling, are the
> >> Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer.
>
> Adam> interest for conservatives? Or would mentioning that just destroy
> Adam> argument?
>
> Many see this as merely a back door method of funding
> religious schools. Their perception is not entirely
> without merit, as mainly religious schools would be
> affordable on solely the voucher amount.
>
> ah
>
* Have you noticed that more and more people are pulling their kids
out of public and private schools and are homeschooling them? Any
wonder why? The real focus on "education" should be education itself.
It seemed to me that the curriculum in most schools is not conducive
to education at all. Why teach a child the mistakes before he learns
correctly, if it's not to produce a nation of illiterate moronic
puppets? Very scary thought, don't you think?
J.D. Black
Milt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
>
> :Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
> :>
[snippy]
> :The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
> :the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
> :Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
> :the solution.
>
> No, liberals don't. Liberals aren't asking for more money, but equalized
> funding.
Pardon me but what is all the fuss from the administration about
Republicans wanting to destroy the school system by 'cutting' funding
and the like?
}There's no good reason why the school on the "right" side of town
> should get all new textbooks and a pool and a new theatre, while the
> school in the "wrong" side of town is dilapidated, with textbooks from the
> 60s...
>
So then you are advocating the theft from the halfs to give to the
half-nots. Robin Hood? In Texas that concept has been classified as
illegal.
I am all for equalization of education, but taking money away (by force
of government) from some folks to give to another set of folks is really
dishonest.
> :But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
> :30 years...to no or little improvement.
>
> No we haven't. School funding hasn't increased that much over the last 30
> years, in most areas of the country, and the equalization issue has never
> been solved.
We haven't? What exactly is 'that much?' Seems that the federal funds
being sent to the public school systems has been increasing -- including
adjusting for inflation.
}If you don't believe me, look at the LA Unified School
> District. Some areas have brand new schools, with lots of computers, while
> others are practically condemnable, with hand-me-down Apples, if there are
> any computers at all.
I understand the unequal level of education. I have no doubt of that.
That does not indicate that federal funding and the cry from the NEA for
more money -- for everyone, including the union -- changes anything.
}As for the improvement; that's a crock. In the last
> 30 years, the literacy rate is higher, the drop-out rate is lower, and the
> number of people going to college and getting degrees is increasing
> yearly.
So then, you are contending that even with 'unequal' funding the school
system is better? Did I read that correctly?
}I love these comparisons with "the good old days"--
Who mentioned anything about 'the good old days?'
}they are not
> very realistic. Do you realize that, before about the early fifties, the
> average person didn't go past 8th grade, few went to college, and
> historically, the literacy rate was around 75-80%. Now, it's over 98%.
>
And were you aware that during those years one did not need much
education to actually make something of one's self...support a
family...stay off the public dole (oh yeah, they didn't have that
yet)...self supporting?
> :Conservatives claim that
> :throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
> :involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
> :are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
> :
> They're not mean-spirited, they're just stupid and short-sighted.
So making one responsible for themself is stupid. Wow, we had a bunch
of stupid people running this country (and many, many others) before say
about 1900.
}They
> would take even more money from the poor schools, put more money into the
> already-well-off schools, and promise nothing in return.
Puhleeze! Where in any suggested path of action has taking away from
poor schools to give to rich schools in being proposed!?
}Vouchers would do
> NOTHING to solve the problems that exist in education,
Nothing? I beg to differ. It may not solve all the problems but it
would put the responsiblity where it belongs. Personally, I'm not sure
I totally accept the voucher solution but it would start moving in a
direction other than the current status quo failed direction.
}because they don't
> address the problems at all. I agree that parental involvement is
> essential. How do vouchers foster parental involvement?
By giving the parents the resposibility of selecting and monitoring the
school attended by the little tykes.
}The parents who
> would be most likely to take their kids out of public schools would be the
> ones at the bottom of the ladder, wouldn't you say?
No I would not. The parents most likely to take the kids out of public
schools are those that already have!
}How is taking all of
> that money out of schools that are already underfunded going to make them
> better?
By forcing them to become better with what they have and not relying on
more for less.
}You also perpetrate the fiction that "competition" will make
> things better.
Will it solve all the problems? No. Will it start the process in a
different direction? Yes!
}Well, as any good capitalist knows, competition costs
> money.
Not always.
}Where is the money going to come from?
Those paying for the service...namely, the parents.
}Also, where are all those
> seats going to come from in private schools.
Same place they come from in public schools. Yeah, see, if more folks
attend private schools, more schools will be needed and 'if you build
them, they will come.'
BTW: Where did I mention private schools?
}Most of them are full
> already,
Surprised?
}which makes vouchers pointless.
No, it actually makes the point that choice is somehow more attractive.
}Also, private schools are
> discriminatory (not in a negative way; they take the students they think
> will do best, or will get the most from what they have to offer);
Not necessarily. However, they will not allow a single disrtuptive
student ruin the education of the rest of the class.
}vouchers
> would force them to NOT be that way.
Sorry, no true.
}They would be required to treat all
> applicants equally, which would mean that people would be lining up to get
> into very few spaces, which takes away the "choice" argument that
> conservatives use.
Sorry, but a disruptive student doesn't get to go there. Public schools
are doing this already, why would private schools under any voucher
system be any different?
}Vouchers are the only suggestion made by conservatives,
> and it's not workable.
Actually, no. It is simply the only one liberal will even tolerate (if
that can be said).
}Besides the obvious constitutional arguments about
> funding religious schools,
Which, to this point, have been either way wrong or irrelevant.
}and the possible constitutional problem with
> means-testing for vouchers,
One has nothing to do with the other!
}there is no "choice" offered in this system.
> You wouldn't be able to force schools to take the vouchers,
I agree that you shouldn't but the feds do a lot that they should and
the feds could do this.
}and the
> academies, which poor people envision their children getting into, will
> simply raisr their tuition to cover the vouchers, and keep the riff-raff
> out.
>
As opposed to the public school system that allows the 'riff-raff' in
and as a result no one gets an education?
Yeah! I like that idea!
> :So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
> :get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
> :federal government mandates.
> :
> :Clear enough?
> :
> It's now more choice. That's a fiction, which makes the above a straw man.
It is neither a fiction or a strawman. Vouchers could enable choice but
I have never totally accepted the voucher concept. I much prefer taking
less away from me and let me decide how I spend it.
> Liberals aren't for MORE money,
THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP ASKING FOR MORE?
}but a fairer distribution of the money
Sorry, wrong. they want more for everyone but use the poor schools as
examples to get more for everyone.
> that's there, which makes that a straw man.
As opinions go, that certainly is one.
}The NEA is a union, which
> teachers in private schools would be free to vote in if they choose,
Only if they are a member. And if I'm not mistaken, less than 50% of
all teachers, public and private, are members of said money syphon.
}which
> makes that a straw man. Gee, this is becoming a fire hazard...
>
And since you are wrong on almost every strawman claim, that must make
it NOT a strawman. I take it you were public school educated.
Bill Anderson
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970611...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > Evolution is as "scientifically proven" as anything ever gets.
>
> Uh, no it's not. There are still some *MASSIVE* holes in it. For one
> thing, they still have yet to find the "missing link", and there's
> still other problems with it.
I'm not sure which "missing link" you're talking about; there are holes
in the fossil record, but that's to be expected.
> > It's the basic theory of modern biology, and you can't dismiss it
> > without giving up the whole body of knowledge.
>
> Actually, "modern biology" is substantially the same as biology
> was before the Scopes Monkey Trial
Adam, I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about
here. For one thing, the Scopes trial took place more than sixty
years after the publication of _Origins of Species_; by 1925, Darwin's
theory was already widely established among scientists. For another,
there have been several revolutionary discoveries in biology since 1925--
DNA, to name only the most obvious.
> and the general "acceptance" of
> the Evolution theory by the educational community (it's still not
> generally accepted among scientists, BTW, there's a large
> percentage that either doesn't accept it or doesn't accept it
> completely).
That's just not true. Evolution is accepted as fact by the overwhelming
majority of scientists.
> And I'm not saying we stop teaching the evolution
> theory. I'm saying it should be balanced with the other theories,
> and all of them labeled what they are: *THEORIES*.
But that would be false. Evolution is merely the change in allele
frequencies in a population over time; it's an observable, verified
fact, as sure as the Earth goes round the sun. The theory of natural
selection explains that fact, and its been subjected to rigorous testing,
both in the laboratory and in nature. No observed facts contradict
the theory. A theory, in science, isn't just a guess, Adam.
> > "Creation Science," on the other hand, is totally without scientific
> > foundation.
>
> It isn't? Funny, I've heard several scientists explain it's scientific
> foundation.
You have? You might want to run over to talk.origins and explain it to
them. In the years that group has existed, nobody's even been able to
say what the "theory of creation" is, much less explain its scientific
foundation. "Creation Scientists" start with their conclusions already
firmly established--they know that the world was created substantially
as recorded in the Bible, and they go about looking for evidence to
support that conclusion, ignoring anything that contradicts it. True
scientists, on the other hand, are theoretically prepared to give up
ANY theory that doesn't fit the facts. That's science, Adam.
>...teach ALL the major theories...
Okay. Shall we teach the "theory" that the earth was vomitted forth by
a great turtle? What about the "theory" that it was created from the
dismembered corpse of a monster goddess? Science isn't about being fair
to everybody who has a "theory," Adam--it's about observation and verification.
The current evolutionary theories meet that standard; no other theory on
the subject does.
Bill
To send email, delete "dont_bother" from my address.
"In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you; bethink yourself
that you may be wrong." --Oliver Cromwell
J.D. Black
Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
>
> J.D. Black wrote:
> >
> > Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
[snippy]
> > The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
> > the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
> SAT scores have been flat, not dropping like a rock.
I don't remember any rocks being thrown, however, SAT scores have been
'relatively' flat over 10+ years. However, there has been a downward
trend.
}At worst you
> can say that overall the system has been about the same, not a lot
> worse.
I have never stated that the system is 'a lot worse.' That has been
fostered by this administration in an attempt to paint Repubs and
conservatives in a negative light and to get more money.
> In an article today, there was an international ranking of 3rd and
> 4th graders in science and math. The US was 3rd in the world in
> science ( a few points behind Singapore and S Korea, ahead of Japan
> and all of the European countries). It was in the middle of the pack in
> math - ahead of Britain and behind the Asian tigers and the northern
> European countries. So in what respect are things *overall* so
> terrible?
>
Ask Bubba?
> > Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
> > the solution. But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
> > 30 years...to no or little improvement. Conservatives claim that
> To show this you would have to compare with the case where we have
> spent less money.
Correct, and how can we show that? Less money is never an option is it?
}Much of the increase has gone to special ed - and
> yes, we do a far better job of educating special ed kids than we did
> 30 years ago. This alone accounts for a 30% increase in the money
> spent on education (from Kangas's web page).
> Computers cost money. Would you prefer that we not have them in
> schools?
The point is irrelevant. It does not take computers to teach reading,
writing, math, does it?
> And some of the money has not affected performance very much.
>
So more money is not the solution after all.
> > throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
> > involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
> > are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
>
> I don't see vouchers as mean-spirited; I see them as of limited use
> at best and counterproductive at worst.
>
Counterproductive I do not see, limited use is my problem with
vouchers. Why not take less from me and let me decide how to use it?
> >
> > So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
> > get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
> > federal government mandates.
> >
> > Clear enough?
>
> You'd have to begin by showing how more choice will solve the problem.
Mostly because I am now resposible for the education of my kids...like
it should be. No government, in a free society, should be held
resposibile for educating my kids. I'll do that. And if the government
would quite taking more and more money away from me, I will have more
freedom (choice) on how best to do that.
> If I came up with some idea for improving public education I'd be
> expected to show how it would help.
Then leave me and my kids alone and let me take care of them. I have
more of an interest in their well-being, education-wise and other, than
you will ever be.
}You are asking for a case against
> something which is pretty nebulous. What do you mean by "more choice"?
Let ME decide what is best for MY kids. Get out of my house, get out of
my back pocket, and get out of my life!
> Magnet schools and charter schools within the public system? Great
> idea; lets try it.
We have to a limited success.
}Vouchers? Maybe some demonstration programs are
> a good idea. If they work, expand them.
But judges keep killing any voucher programs states come up with.
}But you'll need to describe
> the programs that you want; you can construct a voucher system that
> opens up opportunity or one that siphons the best kids out of the
> public schools, making it even harder to educate the children that
> remain.
Then, just give me my money back and let me decide where to put my kids!
> And "more money" can either be wasted or very useful;
As is always the case. How wasted are the public school systems?
}depends on how
> it is spent. I'd say that smaller class sizes and modern facilities
> are a good use of money. Higher teacher salaries will have a much
> longer term payoff, and money on bureaucrats is wasted.
I have no problem here. But who decides how I spend the money? Me or
some busybody in Washington?
I prefer me to decide. I have not totally accepted vouchers but if you
give me my money back, I'll have greater freedom of choice on deciding
where my money is spent and what the salary of the teachers are.
Gail Thaler
Darrel Westbrook wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > --Milt
> > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
> >
> > "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
> > sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
> > you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
> > burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> > --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
> >
>
> George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
> drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
Profit? Is this a Freudian slip? I mean, I know we often
accuse Limbots of being motivated by greed and worshipping
the holy dollar, but is this an admission?
(this is not a spelling flame)
loki
>> The parents are free to spend their own money on any religion
>> they want. They are not free to use government education money,
>> collected from all taxpayers, to fund religious indoctrination of
>> any type.
>
>1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education.
>2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the government
> says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon, BTW)
1. If money goes to a school which allows teaching one religion is the
proper way to think, behave, etc. it is endorsing that religion over
others which is a violation of The Constitution.
2. Because of the slippery slope that comes about as a result. If we
are to allow tax money to go twoards promoting Christianity, Judahism,
Islam etc. we will also need to make it avalible to promote Satanism,
Scientology, Druidism, and the Branch Davidians.
Loki
loki
><SNIP>
>>
>> > Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
>> > would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
>> > private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
>> > the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
>> > arguments.
>>
>> I said that TAX DOLLARS cannot go to this. You cannot use tax dollars to
>> teach the nonsense of creationism.
>>
>
>Who are you to label creationism as nonsense? Just because you and I may be
>skeptical of creationism as is our right, other people's right to believe in it is
>just as valid. It is a very pompous, self-indulgent individual that claims a
>Constitutional right and then denies it to others. You have labeled yourself as a
>flaming, my way only, feel good left wing LIBERAL.
Personally I have no problem with Creationism being taught in a class
on comparitive religions. However, teaching it in any type of science
class would be rediculous since there is no scientific basis in it.
Loki
loki
>I'm not sure how feasible it would be, but has a "flat-rate" voucher
>system been considered? Qualified schools may accept vouchers as full
>tuition, but not as a $10K-off coupon for some posh boarding school.
>That could concevibly prevent some of the disparity between rich and
>poor schools, while still allowing parents and students the most
>options.
>
>Comments?
What determines what schools are "qualified"? It seems like a small
detail, but that is the detail that caused the voucher initative to
crash and burn in California.
Loki
Conan The Librarian
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970611...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> writes:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970611...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
>> Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Not that I necessarily support teaching creationism in public schools,
>> > but I have a question: is evolution fully scientifically proven? No!
>> > Then it remains a theory. Why can't we teach alternate theories as
>> > well, which include creationism? Not *ENDORSING* that view, but saying
>> > it's a theory believed by many people (many more than evolution, BTW).
>>
>> Evolution is as "scientifically proven" as anything ever gets.
>
>Uh, no it's not. There are still some *MASSIVE* holes in it. For one
>thing, they still have yet to find the "missing link", and there's
>still other problems with it.
Uh, Adam ... if you mean to say that they haven't found the *one* exact
simian/human transitional fossil, then you are correct. Such is the nature
of fossil records. However, there are fish/amphibian, reptile/bird, and
amphibian/reptile connecting links, as well as a great deal of fossil
evidence establishing the link between man and ape.
BTW, what are some of these "other problems"?
>> It's the basic theory of modern biology, and you can't dismiss it
>> without giving up the whole body of knowledge.
>
>Actually, "modern biology" is substantially the same as biology
>was before the Scopes Monkey Trial
Excuse me? Where did you come to this conclusion? You have just
managed to brush aside nearly three-quarters of a century of biological
research and advances.
>and the general "acceptance" of
>the Evolution theory by the educational community (it's still not
>generally accepted among scientists, BTW, there's a large
>percentage that either doesn't accept it or doesn't accept it
>completely).
You make this up as you go along, don't you?
Educate me. Give me a percentage of scientists who don't accept the
theory of evolution. Name some names.
>> "Creation Science," on the other hand, is totally without scientific
>> foundation.
>
>It isn't? Funny, I've heard several scientists explain it's scientific
>foundation.
Give me some names.
>> To put the two on equal footing as "just theories" betrays a failure to
>> understand what the word "theory" means in science.
>
>Actually, your clinging to the evolution theory as being fact betrays
>an even greater failure to understand what "theory" means.
You just made his point for him. You really should do some basic
reading about what constitutes a scientific "theory".
BTW, do you also believe that "law" means the same thing in science as
it does in religion?
> [snip]
Chuck Vance
Milt
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
:Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
:>
:> J.D. Black wrote:
:> >
:> > Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
:
:[snippy]
:
:> > The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
:> > the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
:> SAT scores have been flat, not dropping like a rock.
:
:I don't remember any rocks being thrown, however, SAT scores have been
:'relatively' flat over 10+ years. However, there has been a downward
:trend.
The problem with evaluating SAT scores is two-fold. For one thing, not all
students take them, but the numbers that have been taking them has been
expanding, as college has become more possible for more people. As the
number of people taking the test grows, it would be natural for the scores
to drop. The other problem is that the test has undergone several major
changes over the last 20 years, and comparing scores today with scores
from 10-15 years ago may be disingenuous. That doesn't mean the test has
gotten harder; it may be easier. But it makes things hard to compare...
:}At worst you
:> can say that overall the system has been about the same, not a lot
:> worse.
:
:I have never stated that the system is 'a lot worse.' That has been
:fostered by this administration in an attempt to paint Repubs and
:conservatives in a negative light and to get more money.
Oh, come off it! This fiction has been perpetrated by conservatives of
both parties for quite a few years. Lately, the greatest purveyers of "the
schools have failed miserably" POV are the pro-voucher people. BOTH sides
are pushing this, though; the Dems to get more money, and the Repubs, as
an excuse to push for public funding of private schools...
:> In an article today, there was an international ranking of 3rd and
:> 4th graders in science and math. The US was 3rd in the world in
:> science ( a few points behind Singapore and S Korea, ahead of Japan
:> and all of the European countries). It was in the middle of the pack in
:> math - ahead of Britain and behind the Asian tigers and the northern
:> European countries. So in what respect are things *overall* so
:> terrible?
:>
:
:Ask Bubba?
:
Why? He's never said the schools are bad, just that they could be better.
He does call for voluntary national standards, which makes some sense, in
a way. It'd be nice to know that, if i hire someone who graduated from a
school in Mississippi, I'm getting someone with a comparable education to
the people who live in Vermont.
:> > Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
:> > the solution. But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
:> > 30 years...to no or little improvement. Conservatives claim that
:> To show this you would have to compare with the case where we have
:> spent less money.
:
:Correct, and how can we show that? Less money is never an option is it?
It's not about more OR less money. It's about fair distribution of the
money that's in the system already. Money within districts should be
distributed according to school enrollment, NOT the neighborhood the
school's in...
:}Much of the increase has gone to special ed - and
:> yes, we do a far better job of educating special ed kids than we did
:> 30 years ago. This alone accounts for a 30% increase in the money
:> spent on education (from Kangas's web page).
:> Computers cost money. Would you prefer that we not have them in
:> schools?
:
:The point is irrelevant. It does not take computers to teach reading,
:writing, math, does it?
:
Nowadays, I don't see how you can avoid it. If a kid is a genius in
reading, writing and math, and hits age 18 without ever seeing a computer
close-up, we haven't trained them for the job market, which is the whole
point of a school system...
:> And some of the money has not affected performance very much.
:
:So more money is not the solution after all.
:
Who says it is? Although I would say that you're likely to get better and
more dedicated teachers at $60K a year than at $30K. I say we trade the
concept of tenure for higher salaries, and start testing teachers for
their qualifications, rather than simply looking for an education degree.
I know people who have years of experience in the world, but because they
don't have an Education degree or a Masters, they can't teach. That's
ridiculous...
:> > throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
:> > involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
:> > are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
:>
:> I don't see vouchers as mean-spirited; I see them as of limited use
:> at best and counterproductive at worst.
:
:Counterproductive I do not see, limited use is my problem with
:vouchers. Why not take less from me and let me decide how to use it?
:
They are counterproductive. They take money out of a system that is
bursting at the seams, and make the problem worse. As for the "taking less
from me", what do you mean? You do realize that, in the average school,
only about 20% of the tax money used for that school come from the parents
of the kids at that school. The other 80% comes from taxes on businesses,
and on people who either have no kids, or whose kids are grown. So, this
concept that you are somehow "owed" the money from the vouchers is
disingenuous...
:> > So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
:> > get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
:> > federal government mandates.
:> >
:> > Clear enough?
:>
:> You'd have to begin by showing how more choice will solve the problem.
:
:Mostly because I am now resposible for the education of my kids...like
:it should be. No government, in a free society, should be held
:resposibile for educating my kids. I'll do that. And if the government
:would quite taking more and more money away from me, I will have more
:freedom (choice) on how best to do that.
Oh, bullcrap! If you took the time off to teach your own kids, the
resultant loss of income would be more than the tax money you claim you're
losing. And like I said; most school money comes from property taxes,
including property taxes from people and entities that don't have a kid in
the system. You get quite a bargain, because those without kids pick up a
large portion of your school bill...
: :> If I came up with some idea for improving public education I'd be
:> expected to show how it would help.
:
:Then leave me and my kids alone and let me take care of them. I have
:more of an interest in their well-being, education-wise and other, than
:you will ever be.
:
Fine, then home-school them, and stop whining about your taxes. If you
have a $100K home, and you were rebated the portion of your taxes that go
to schools, you'd get back a few hundred dollars at most. And not per kid,
either...
:}You are asking for a case against
:> something which is pretty nebulous. What do you mean by "more choice"?
:
:Let ME decide what is best for MY kids. Get out of my house, get out of
:my back pocket, and get out of my life!
:
Stop whining! No one is FORCING you to send your kids to public schools.
You can take another job, and send them to private school, or you can
home-school them. This is not about the government "forcing" your children
into anything. It's like welfare. Just because it's out there, doesn't
mean you have to take it...
:> Magnet schools and charter schools within the public system? Great
:> idea; lets try it.
:
:We have to a limited success.
:
Limited, my ass! Here, they have a whole system of magnet schools, and
test scores have gone through the roof, the dropout rate is way down, and
the number of disruptions is way down, as well. They have a science
school, a math school, an arts school, etc. It only makes sense to put a
child in a school that conforms to his/her abilities/interests...
:}Vouchers? Maybe some demonstration programs are
:> a good idea. If they work, expand them.
:
:But judges keep killing any voucher programs states come up with.
:
Yeah; it's a little barrier called the Constitution. You may have heard of
it. There are two problems with vouchers. Religious schools are the
biggest problem. But there may also be a problem with means-testing. Many
taxpayers are living with the fiction that the money for the voucher is
somehow money that the gov't owes them, and some peple will have a major
problem with not getting that to which they think they're entitled.
Vouchers will tie up the courts for about 20 years...
:}But you'll need to describe
:> the programs that you want; you can construct a voucher system that
:> opens up opportunity or one that siphons the best kids out of the
:> public schools, making it even harder to educate the children that
:> remain.
:
:Then, just give me my money back and let me decide where to put my kids!
:
Like I said; where are you going to put your kids for a few hundred
dollars?
:> And "more money" can either be wasted or very useful;
:
:As is always the case. How wasted are the public school systems?
:
They have a problem with too much administration; I will give you that.
But that's the fault of the parents and other taxpayers. But they are
actually very efficient with the money they do get...
:}depends on how
:> it is spent. I'd say that smaller class sizes and modern facilities
:> are a good use of money. Higher teacher salaries will have a much
:> longer term payoff, and money on bureaucrats is wasted.
:
:I have no problem here. But who decides how I spend the money? Me or
:some busybody in Washington?
:
Washington is not allowed to decide how local money is spent, with the
exception of specific grants that the school may apply for. But in
questions of curriculum and teacher salaries and the like, it's all local.
The feds have been forbidden from having anything to do with local
districts...
:I prefer me to decide. I have not totally accepted vouchers but if you
:give me my money back, I'll have greater freedom of choice on deciding
:where my money is spent and what the salary of the teachers are.
:
Again, with the "my money" BS. How far is a few hundred bucks going to get
you? And why are you under the delusion that you pay enough in taxes to
cover your kids' schooling each year?
Milt
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:>
:> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
:>
:> :Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
:> :>
:
:[snippy]
:
:> :The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
:> :the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
:> :Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
:> :the solution.
:>
:> No, liberals don't. Liberals aren't asking for more money, but equalized
:> funding.
:
:Pardon me but what is all the fuss from the administration about
:Republicans wanting to destroy the school system by 'cutting' funding
:and the like?
Okay. So, you ask your boss to not cut your pay, and that's the same as
asking for a raise?
:
:}There's no good reason why the school on the "right" side of town
:> should get all new textbooks and a pool and a new theatre, while the
:> school in the "wrong" side of town is dilapidated, with textbooks from the
:> 60s...
:
:So then you are advocating the theft from the halfs to give to the
:half-nots. Robin Hood? In Texas that concept has been classified as
:illegal.
It is NOT illegal. The Ninth Circuit ruled just the opposite, and demanded
that Arizona school funding be equalized. As for stealing from the
"halfs", I would point out that the parents of all of the children in an
average school, contribute about 20% of that school's funding. The bulk of
school funding comes from property taxes, which are paid by people who own
property, many of whom do not have kids in school, have grown kids, or are
corporations, which have no kids...
:I am all for equalization of education, but taking money away (by force
:of government) from some folks to give to another set of folks is really
:dishonest.
:
To think that the few hundred that each homeowner pays in school property
taxes covers the amount that the district provides in school funding is
either dishonest or just simple-minded. And if you enter that into the
equation, your point is moot...
:> :But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
:> :30 years...to no or little improvement.
:>
:> No we haven't. School funding hasn't increased that much over the last 30
:> years, in most areas of the country, and the equalization issue has never
:> been solved.
:
:We haven't? What exactly is 'that much?' Seems that the federal funds
:being sent to the public school systems has been increasing -- including
:adjusting for inflation.
:
No, it's gone down, actually. And federal funding provides less than 15%
of all school funding in most districts. And here again; if they
"returned" your portion of the money to you, you'd have about $2. How much
education will that buy you?
:}If you don't believe me, look at the LA Unified School
:> District. Some areas have brand new schools, with lots of computers, while
:> others are practically condemnable, with hand-me-down Apples, if there are
:> any computers at all.
:
:I understand the unequal level of education. I have no doubt of that.
:That does not indicate that federal funding and the cry from the NEA for
:more money -- for everyone, including the union -- changes anything.
:
They do not cry for "more money", and haven't for years. They cry for more
equal funding, which is quite fair...
:}As for the improvement; that's a crock. In the last
:> 30 years, the literacy rate is higher, the drop-out rate is lower, and the
:> number of people going to college and getting degrees is increasing
:> yearly.
:
:So then, you are contending that even with 'unequal' funding the school
:system is better? Did I read that correctly?
:
Better? A little. Mostly, they're just not worse...
:}I love these comparisons with "the good old days"--
:
:Who mentioned anything about 'the good old days?'
:
Well, if you're talking about the schools not doing what they are supposed
to...
:}they are not
:> very realistic. Do you realize that, before about the early fifties, the
:> average person didn't go past 8th grade, few went to college, and
:> historically, the literacy rate was around 75-80%. Now, it's over 98%.
:>
:
:And were you aware that during those years one did not need much
:education to actually make something of one's self...support a
:family...stay off the public dole (oh yeah, they didn't have that
:yet)...self supporting?
:
All the more reason not to cut education funding, wouldn't you say?
:
:> :Conservatives claim that
:> :throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
:> :involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
:> :are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
:> :
:> They're not mean-spirited, they're just stupid and short-sighted.
:
:So making one responsible for themself is stupid. Wow, we had a bunch
:of stupid people running this country (and many, many others) before say
:about 1900.
:
There was no "choice" before 1900. There was little choice before WWII.
Few people went to school past fourth or fifth grade, fewer people had
diplomas, and almost no one went to college, until the GI Bill opened
people's eyes in the 50s. And the only way to make people responsible for
themselves is through education these days...
:}They
:> would take even more money from the poor schools, put more money into the
:> already-well-off schools, and promise nothing in return.
:
:Puhleeze! Where in any suggested path of action has taking away from
:poor schools to give to rich schools in being proposed!?
:
In the voucher system, which parents are going to be the quickest to take
their kids out? Hmmmm?
:}Vouchers would do
:> NOTHING to solve the problems that exist in education,
:
:Nothing? I beg to differ. It may not solve all the problems but it
:would put the responsiblity where it belongs. Personally, I'm not sure
:I totally accept the voucher solution but it would start moving in a
:direction other than the current status quo failed direction.
:
It hasn't failed! Now YOU are comparing the system with the "good old
days" which never existed. How have they failed? As for the twin delusions
of "my money" and "choice", the vouchers are not "your money"; it is money
that others provide for your child's education; it also takes religious
schools out of the mix, since the constitutional implications would
probably preclude that. As for choice, you have the lack of choice of a
religious school, and a VERY limited number of seats in private schools.
What good is "choice" if you're on ten waiting lists for ten years? Some
choice.
:}because they don't
:> address the problems at all. I agree that parental involvement is
:> essential. How do vouchers foster parental involvement?
:
:By giving the parents the resposibility of selecting and monitoring the
:school attended by the little tykes.
:
They/you have that responsibility now. Ever been to a PTO or school board
meeting? If 30 people show up, that's considered a lot...
:}The parents who
:> would be most likely to take their kids out of public schools would be the
:> ones at the bottom of the ladder, wouldn't you say?
:
:No I would not. The parents most likely to take the kids out of public
:schools are those that already have!
:
Read what you just wrote. If that's the case, where's the choice? Sounds
like you gave people who already have the means to "choose" the money that
would have gone to your kids' education. Here in Tucson, the average
waiting list to a private school is about 3-5 years. Where are all of
these slots for vouchers going to come from?
:}How is taking all of
:> that money out of schools that are already underfunded going to make them
:> better?
:
:By forcing them to become better with what they have and not relying on
:more for less.
:
I see. So, they should use those txtbooks from the 50s for a few more
years, is that it?
:}You also perpetrate the fiction that "competition" will make
:> things better.
:
:Will it solve all the problems? No. Will it start the process in a
:different direction? Yes!
:
:}Well, as any good capitalist knows, competition costs
:> money.
:
:Not always.
:
ALWAYS! Name one way that competition doesn't cost. You either have to
upgrade, which costs money, or you have to advertise/use PR, which costs
money...
:}Where is the money going to come from?
:
:Those paying for the service...namely, the parents.
:
:}Also, where are all those
:> seats going to come from in private schools.
:
:Same place they come from in public schools. Yeah, see, if more folks
:attend private schools, more schools will be needed and 'if you build
:them, they will come.'
:BTW: Where did I mention private schools?
:
What other purpose do vouchers have, other than to use gov't money to
support private schools? As for the "if you build it..." crap; like I
said; the average private school here has a waiting list. Why aren't they
building them now?
:}Most of them are full
:> already,
:
:Surprised?
:
:}which makes vouchers pointless.
:
:No, it actually makes the point that choice is somehow more attractive.
:
No, it doesn't. It points up that there already is choice.
:}Also, private schools are
:> discriminatory (not in a negative way; they take the students they think
:> will do best, or will get the most from what they have to offer);
:
:Not necessarily. However, they will not allow a single disrtuptive
:student ruin the education of the rest of the class.
:
Public schools don't have to do that now...
:}vouchers
:> would force them to NOT be that way.
:
:Sorry, no true.
:
:}They would be required to treat all
:> applicants equally, which would mean that people would be lining up to get
:> into very few spaces, which takes away the "choice" argument that
:> conservatives use.
:
:Sorry, but a disruptive student doesn't get to go there. Public schools
:are doing this already, why would private schools under any voucher
:system be any different?
:
Why do you obsess over disruptive students? I'm not talking about the ones
who go there; I'm talking about the ones that DO NOT...
:}Vouchers are the only suggestion made by conservatives,
:> and it's not workable.
:
:Actually, no. It is simply the only one liberal will even tolerate (if
:that can be said).
:
Most liberals would NEVER tolerate using tax money to support religious
schools...
:}Besides the obvious constitutional arguments about
:> funding religious schools,
:
:Which, to this point, have been either way wrong or irrelevant.
Oh, really? Vouchers are entitlement programs, which means that the people
who get them don't fully pay for them. That means that most of the money
in them is government money, not yours. That makes it unconstitutional, if
they are used to fund religious schools..
:}and the possible constitutional problem with
:> means-testing for vouchers,
:
:One has nothing to do with the other!
Why? It basically creates a problem, because ALL children are entitled to
an equal education (14th amendment), and if you means-test for vouchers,
you may violate that concept...
:}there is no "choice" offered in this system.
:> You wouldn't be able to force schools to take the vouchers,
:
:I agree that you shouldn't but the feds do a lot that they should and
:the feds could do this.
Actually, this is where you're way off. The feds can't force anything in
this issue. They have NO say in local school systems, and they cannot tell
private entitities that they HAVE to take vouchers, and they certainly
ca't force religious schools to accept them...
: :}and the
:> academies, which poor people envision their children getting into, will
:> simply raisr their tuition to cover the vouchers, and keep the riff-raff
:> out.
:
:As opposed to the public school system that allows the 'riff-raff' in
:and as a result no one gets an education?
:Yeah! I like that idea!
Well, I think they should re0introduce the concept of reform school, and
kick these kids into it. But the "riff-raff" would still be in the public
schools; in fact, they'd make up a larger percentage of the enrollment.
And since there will be limited slots in private schools, your kids may
still be stuck in there...
:> :So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
:> :get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
:> :federal government mandates.
:> :
:> :Clear enough?
:> :
:> It's not more choice. That's a fiction, which makes the above a straw
:> man.
:
:It is neither a fiction or a strawman. Vouchers could enable choice but
:I have never totally accepted the voucher concept. I much prefer taking
:less away from me and let me decide how I spend it.
:
How much of that few hundred a year (if you own a home) do you want to
spend on your kids' education?
:> Liberals aren't for MORE money,
:
:THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP ASKING FOR MORE?
:
Since when?
:}but a fairer distribution of the money
:
:Sorry, wrong. they want more for everyone but use the poor schools as
:examples to get more for everyone.
:
Bullshit. I dare you to show me one example of liberals trying to take
money out of the Beverly Hills school system, and putting it into the
Compton schools. What we do say, though, is that all of the schools within
a school district should get money based on the enrollment, and NOT based
on property values of the immediate area...
:> that's there, which makes that a straw man.
:
:As opinions go, that certainly is one.
:
:}The NEA is a union, which
:> teachers in private schools would be free to vote in if they choose,
:
:Only if they are a member. And if I'm not mistaken, less than 50% of
:all teachers, public and private, are members of said money syphon.
:
Which means they're not the problem that you say they are, huh? But
teachers at any private school would be free to join a union if they
chose, which means that vouchers would not "solve" that "problem"...
:}which
:> makes that a straw man. Gee, this is becoming a fire hazard...
:>
:
:And since you are wrong on almost every strawman claim, that must make
:it NOT a strawman. I take it you were public school educated.
:
I was both. Yet another strawman. BTW, you have said I'm wrong about them
being straw men, but you've never refuted them...
Zaphkiel
Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com> wrote:
>Darrel Westbrook wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> >
>> > --Milt
>> > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>> >
>> > "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
>> > sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
>> > you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
>> > burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
>> > --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
>> >
>>
>> George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
>> drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
>Profit? Is this a Freudian slip? I mean, I know we often
>accuse Limbots of being motivated by greed and worshipping
>the holy dollar, but is this an admission?
And yet, Mr. Carlin is a pretty good capitalist. In his last HBO
special, he advocated a plan to reduce the deficit and reduce
the drug problem at the same time. Behead the bankers who
launder the drug money during halftime of Monday night Football.
Let the severed heads roll downhill into one of several nubered
slots, and let people bet on which slot it will end up in. Sell
advertising to Marlboro and DOW chemical, and watch the
money come rolling in....
I know I would watch.
--Zaphkiel
Steve Casburn
In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.970612...@mustique.u.arizona.edu>, Milt
<msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> Nowadays, I don't see how you can avoid it. If a kid is a genius in
> reading, writing and math, and hits age 18 without ever seeing a computer
> close-up, we haven't trained them for the job market, which is the whole
> point of a school system...
Do you see training students to live "the examined life" as a
potential part of the point of a school system as well? Should living well
take a back seat to living long and living wealthy?
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.
Adam Bernay
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
> :Secondly, even if it does,
> :that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
> :doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
> :
> Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what people
> "mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot abridge your
> freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
> house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
> matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
> treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
Yeah. By offering this to everyone, that's treating them equally.
And no, the Constitution does not govern the result. It governs the
basic action. It governs what the Federal Government can and cannot
do by action, not when someone refuses a voluntary offer of help.
> :> Now, let's take it a step further, and pretend that
> :> Satanists start a school. Or worshipers of Charles Manson start a school.
> :> By your logic, we would have to support those. The problem is, what you're
> :> proposing isn't possible, because it is impossible to treat every single
> :> religion exactly equally,
> :
> :What the heck are you talking about? First off, if Satanists start a
> :school, naturally, we would have to allow vouchers to be used there.
> :That's not the government supporting those churches. Secondly, how is
> :what I'm proposing not possible? And also, why is "treating religions
> :equally" an issue? This is about schools, including secular ones.
> :
> If you mean secular private schools, you're right. But when you include
> religious schools, you create a huge series of problems which you seem to
> dismiss like it's no big deal. For example, you say, "naturally, we would
> have to allow vouchers to be used..." But something tells me, (I could be
> wrong), most people would not accept that as readily as you or I. A wiccan
> school would certainly create problems with people. as far as "treating
> religions equally", I can't believe you don't think it's an issue. You're
> talking about using tax money to support religious schools. Of course it's
> an issue. It's THE issue...
No, I'm not talking about using tax money to support religious schools.
I'm talking about using tax money to give children the education
(within educational standards) that the parents choose. It's not the
government's business if that's a secular private school, a religious
private school, a public school, or, even possibly, home schooling.
"Using tax money to support religious schools" would be the government
just automatically giving money to schools, with no basis of the
enrollment of students or not. But merely by redeeming a voucher given
to the parents for the education of their children isn't "using tax
money to support religious schools" at all.
> :> and it's also impossible to anticipate what might happen in the
> :> future.
> :
> :This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously, we can't anticipate what
> :might happen in the future. We can't anticipate that about anything.
> :So, by your logic, we dismantle the government altogether, because they
> :can't anticipate everything.
> :
> No, that's not by my logic.
THat is exactly what you're saying. A governmental program that one
cannot anticipate all possibilities that might happen in the future
shouldn't happen. That's all government programs.
> My point is this; suppose you set up a voucher program, which includes
> religious schools, and every religion participates. Then several decide
> they don't want to any longer. Suddenly, you have a problem.
How is it a problem when a private group decides *NOT* to accept
governmental assistance? That's not against the Constitution, in fact
that sort of attitude is *PROTECTED* by the Constitution.
> Or a Wiccan church opens a school, and the community objects. You have a
> potential Constitutional problem.
How is this a Constitutional problem? Answer: it's not, it's a
community problem. The government needs to stay out of the problem
except to meet the obligations of it's program.
> In setting this up, you MUST anticipate the future...
I agree. But you cannot anticipate *ALL* possibilities, it's
impossible. And unless someone brings up a valid Constitutional
issue, the Fed can do it, unless you want to bring up the fact that
the Constitution does not provide the government the power to be
messing around in schools at all (despite the fact that it's being
done).
> :> :> parents are free to spend their own money on any religion
> :> :> they want. They are not free to use government education money,
> :> :> collected from all taxpayers, to fund religious indoctrination of
> :> :> any type.
> :>
> :> Absolutely. I would also point out the following; if a "church" starts a
> :> school, the government can have NO say in how the school is run. The
> :> Church of Satan could start a school, and teach the children nothing at
> :> all, and there is nothing the gov't can do about it. Now, sure; parents
> :> can pull their kids out of the schools, but then someone else can start
> :> another one, and do the same thing. It's a VERY slippery slope...
> :
> :You're missing the point. For a voucher to be allowed to be used at a
> :school, it *HAS* to be accredited (I've said this several times now).
> :This eliminates this problem.
> :
> This doesn't eliminate a problem; it creates another one. Don't you get
> it? The gov't is not ALLOWED to tell the church how to run its school. The
> minute it requires conditions to be met, there is a constitutional
> problem. You do realize that, as of now, accreditation of private schools
> is voluntary. Most Catholic schools are not accredited by a secular group
> of any kind. Suddenly, to participate, the government is going to require
> CHURCHES to follow government regulations? That can't happen...
Yeah, it can. The difference here is that the school is *CHOOSING* to
be a part of a *VOLUNTARY* Federal program. Therefore, it loses some of
its rights to have no government regulations. At the same time, it must
be mandated by law that *ALL* the government can do is regulate that
they meet minimum educational standards in the secular classes. That
protects everyone.
> :> :> 1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education.
>
> :> Try and separate the two. And if you can separate the two, then what's the
> :> point of a religious school? What would be the point, for example, of a
> :> church starting a secular school? (Better question; is it possible...)
> :
> :Again, define "religious indoctrination", for one. And for two, that
> :shouldn't be what this discussion is about.
>
> Religious indoctrination is a very broad concept. For example, it can be
> pictures of angels or crucifixes or Menorahs, or abeyahs. It can be
> prayers; it can be methods of teaching science or social studies.
> basically, religious schools would pretty much have to remove everything
> religious from the schools in order to get gov't money.
No, they wouldn't. Again, they must meet basic *EDUCATIONAL* (not
moral, not religious or non-religious, but *EDUCATIONAL*) standards in
their secular classes. They could still hand religious pictures,
ornamentaria, etc, around all they want. And as long as they meet the
basic educational requirements, they can teach from whatever perspective
they want. For example, teaching in history class the history of their
religion in addition to teaching "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean
blue", etc, is permissible, because they're still getting the basics.
> :> :> 2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the
> :> :> government says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon,
> :> :> BTW)
> :> :
> :> The government can't say they can, if the Constitution says they can't.
> :
> :The thing is, the Constitution *DOESN'T* say they can't.
> :
> Afraid it does. First Amendment, and the fourteenth...
Uh, no. The First Amendment states that one, the government can't
establish *AN OFFICIAL RELIGION* and that people are *FREE TO PRACTICE
WHATEVER RELIGION THEY WANT*. Not only does this *NOT* violate that, it
*UPHOLDS* it.
> :> and don't be surprised when the USSC says "no way"...
> :
> :If the Supreme Court says no, it will be another case of them exceeding
> :their bounds, because *THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THIS IS NOT OKAY.
> :THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE*.
> :
> BULLSHIT, Adam! It's right there in the 1st and fourteenth amendment. They
> cannot make laws regarding the establishment of religion. That means
> NOTHING. NADA. No way, no how. You may not like it, but every
> Constitutional scholar I know thinks it's a slam dunk, and vouchers cannot
> happen, unless they EXCLUDE religious schools. Of course, the
> conservatives are pushing this to expand religious influence, so that
> would effectively kill it. The constitution is silent on vouchers, UNTIL
> they deal with religious schools. The minute they do, they become a
> constitutional problem...
*BULL-PUCKEY* to you, Milt. I've explained this to you, and that
explanation is almost *WORD-FOR-WORD* from several conservative
Constitutional scholars.
And, no, Conservatives are *NOT* pushing this to expand religious
infuence. That's what the liberal line is to stop it, because right now
*THEY* control the education of most of the children in this country, and
they don't want to give it up, even though they have roundly *FAILED* to
educate the bulk of our children.
Face it. This is about educating children with *REAL* education, not the
liberal propaganda that passes for education in most schools today. If
the educational establishment had stuck to reading, writing, math,
history, science, and the rest of basic education, and not the liberal
propaganda they've been doing, this wouldn't be happening. Kindergarten
classes (in many places, but Bakersfield is the place I call to mind right
now) are being taught to *PICKET* to get what they want for their
classrooms, on *CLASS* time. High school students are graduating without
knowing how to read (I know, I'm in college english classes with them and
I see it, every day). If the educational system had been doing its job,
and only its job, this wouldn't be happening. But your liberal buddies in
the education establishment haven't, so we must now step in and find some
way of allowing parents to get their kids the education they need, and
school choice is the way to do it.
Adam Bernay
The Firehawk
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970610...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
abe...@mammoth.psnw.com says...
>
> On 10 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Adam Bernay writes:
> >
> > Adam> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 tt...@ziplink.com wrote:
> >
> > >> I must ad that it seems that the conservatives highest priorities, now
> > >> that they have decided to rekindle an interest in schooling, are the
> > >> Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer.
> >
> > Adam> Oh, really? what about school choice, which is what the major school
> > Adam> interest for conservatives? Or would mentioning that just destroy
> > Adam> argument?
> >
> > Many see this as merely a back door method of funding
> > religious schools. Their perception is not entirely
> > without merit, as mainly religious schools would be
> > affordable on solely the voucher amount.
>
> schools (not necessarily religious ones) generally give a better education
> than our public schools. Many parents would like to be able to send their
> kids to a good private school, or even to a better public school in their
> district, but unless school choice iniatives go through, they won't be
> able to send their children to better schools.
>
> If you want a better educated nation, one able to compete in a global,
> technological marketplace, school choice is the answer...
>
>
> Adam Bernay
>
> Elect Dan Lungren California Governor in 1998
>
>
Worrying about whether or not this money is going to go to religious
schools evades the REAL reason vouchers were brought up in the first
place. Whether or not this religious funding issue is valid.
Vouchers were devised because parents in a few areas of the country were
upset to be paying for services they did not utilize. Namely, public
education. Vouchers originated as an idea in grass roots organizations
of parents tired of being charged twice, and for schools they neither
used nor wanted to support any longer. And they wanted to remove their
support because they thought those public school systems were not doing
their job. I am not going to speak for the GOP, but the vast majority of
conservatives I have had conversations with have long been tired of a
school system(in general) that advocates handing out condoms to teens
while throwing out some of those same teens for praying. Those
conservatives, myself among them, understand a Constitutional ban on a
state religion, but look at the wording of that Constitution and see it
simply stating that NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion may be
made. And that includes banning of religion. To this type of
conservative, anyway.
The money would STILL go towards educating our children. I thought that
was the important part of this all. Instead, we're afraid of HOW they're
educated? If that were truly the case, perhaps we'd never have reached
the point where 11-year-old boys take a 14-year girl into a bathroom IN
SCHOOL and rape her, or where a peck on the cheek gets a boy expelled.
Or where 18 year-old High School Graduates read like 6th grade children.
Perhaps. But we'll never know, because some seem to be too afraid that
might just be the case.
--
Where in the Constitution is the right to Privacy SPECIFICALLY mentioned?
Or a right to not be offended?
Once we went beyond a strict interpretation, we ran into the Twilight
Zone of Assumed Rights.
If it's worth having as a right, it's worth putting into the
Constitution.
Rطك
Bill Anderson
> On Wed, 11 Jun 97 23:59:27 GMT, westb...@nortexinfo.net (Darrel
> Westbrook) wrote:
> >Who are you to label creationism as nonsense? Just because you and I may be
> >skeptical of creationism as is our right, other people's right to
believe in > >it is just as valid.
Thus speaketh the relativist.
> >It is a very pompous, self-indulgent individual that claims a
> >Constitutional right and then denies it to others.
I didn't hear anyone in this discussion trying to deny anyone else the right
to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, Darrel.
Thomas Andrews
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97061...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
>
>> :Secondly, even if it does,
>> :that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
>> :doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
>> :
>> Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what people
>> "mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot abridge your
>> freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
>> house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
>> matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
>> treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
>
Hmmm, depends. It was found constitutional, as I recall, to require
shopkeepers to be closed on Sundays. If a shopkeeper were a practicing Jew,
he would be required by law to be closed on Sunday and required by
faith to be closed on Saturday.
The result is that in this circumstance, it is difficult for a practicing
Jew to run a business because the majority has required him to take
their day of rest, as well. The law is "religion neutral" in name,
but not in effect.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Marc H. Pinsonneault
Darrel Westbrook wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > > Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
> > > would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
> > > private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
> > > the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
> > > arguments.
> >
> > I said that TAX DOLLARS cannot go to this. You cannot use tax dollars to
> > teach the nonsense of creationism.
> >
>
> skeptical of creationism as is our right, other people's right to believe in it is
> Constitutional right and then denies it to others. You have labeled yourself as a
> flaming, my way only, feel good left wing LIBERAL.
Because it fails as a scientific theory. You can't falsify
political beliefs but you can falsify science. The Earth is not
6000 years old -it is about a million times older than that.
Creationism is about as scientifically valid as the Ptolemaic
system that had the Sun orbiting around a stationary Earth.
*That*, and not politics, is the reason why we shouldn't teach it
in sciece classes the public schools - or support it with tax dollars.
It does belong in classes on comparative regions...
Marc Pinsonneault
--
Remove nospam to get true email address.
Milt
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Adam Bernay wrote:
:
:On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
:
:> :Secondly, even if it does,
:> :that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
:> :doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
:> :
:> Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what people
:> "mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot abridge your
:> freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
:> house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
:> matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
:> treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
:
:Yeah. By offering this to everyone, that's treating them equally.
But not if the religion either doesn't have schools, or refuses to take
the vouchers...
:And no, the Constitution does not govern the result. It governs the
:basic action. It governs what the Federal Government can and cannot
:do by action, not when someone refuses a voluntary offer of help.
It governs the result, Adam. If the result of a law will be to abrogate
someone's civil rights, it is not necessary that the government intended
to do so. The ends are much more important than the means or intentions.
:> :> Now, let's take it a step further, and pretend that
:> :> Satanists start a school. Or worshipers of Charles Manson start a school.
:> :> By your logic, we would have to support those. The problem is, what you're
:> :> proposing isn't possible, because it is impossible to treat every single
:> :> religion exactly equally,
:> :
:> :What the heck are you talking about? First off, if Satanists start a
:> :school, naturally, we would have to allow vouchers to be used there.
:> :That's not the government supporting those churches. Secondly, how is
:> :what I'm proposing not possible? And also, why is "treating religions
:> :equally" an issue? This is about schools, including secular ones.
:> :
:> If you mean secular private schools, you're right. But when you include
:> religious schools, you create a huge series of problems which you seem to
:> dismiss like it's no big deal. For example, you say, "naturally, we would
:> have to allow vouchers to be used..." But something tells me, (I could be
:> wrong), most people would not accept that as readily as you or I. A wiccan
:> school would certainly create problems with people. as far as "treating
:> religions equally", I can't believe you don't think it's an issue. You're
:> talking about using tax money to support religious schools. Of course it's
:> an issue. It's THE issue...
:
:No, I'm not talking about using tax money to support religious schools.
: I'm talking about using tax money to give children the education
:(within educational standards) that the parents choose. It's not the
:government's business if that's a secular private school, a religious
:private school, a public school, or, even possibly, home schooling.
:
Unfortunately for your argument, it DOES matter if it's a religious
school. Says so in the First Amendment...
:"Using tax money to support religious schools" would be the government
:just automatically giving money to schools, with no basis of the
:enrollment of students or not. But merely by redeeming a voucher given
:to the parents for the education of their children isn't "using tax
:money to support religious schools" at all.
:
Of course it is. You are not getting a cash rebate for your taxes. Few
people pay enough in property taxes to cover the amount of the voucher,
which means that most of the voucher represents government expenditures.
Then, you give the school the voucher, and the gov't gives the school the
money. The GOVERNMENT gives the RELIGIOUS SCHOOL the money...
:> :> and it's also impossible to anticipate what might happen in the
:> :> future.
:> :
:> :This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously, we can't anticipate what
:> :might happen in the future. We can't anticipate that about anything.
:> :So, by your logic, we dismantle the government altogether, because they
:> :can't anticipate everything.
:> :
:> No, that's not by my logic.
:
:THat is exactly what you're saying. A governmental program that one
:cannot anticipate all possibilities that might happen in the future
:shouldn't happen. That's all government programs.
:
No, because all government programs do not have the potential to become
unconstitutional, as the constitution stands now...
:> My point is this; suppose you set up a voucher program, which includes
:> religious schools, and every religion participates. Then several decide
:> they don't want to any longer. Suddenly, you have a problem.
:
:How is it a problem when a private group decides *NOT* to accept
:governmental assistance? That's not against the Constitution, in fact
:that sort of attitude is *PROTECTED* by the Constitution.
:
The problem isn't that they DON'T take them. The problem is that the
RESULT is that people who belong to a particular church do not have equal
access to their religion's schools. RESULT: unconstitutional. Of course, a
church can opt out of a voucher program; I wouldn't dream of forcing them
to. But that they refuse to accept them creates a RESULT that is
unconstitutional...
:> Or a Wiccan church opens a school, and the community objects. You have a
:> potential Constitutional problem.
:
:How is this a Constitutional problem? Answer: it's not, it's a
:community problem. The government needs to stay out of the problem
:except to meet the obligations of it's program.
:
And if the people object, which they would, you have a constitutional
problem. The government cannot stay out of it at that point. I'm telling
you; gov't support of religion is a deviously slippery slope...
:> In setting this up, you MUST anticipate the future...
:
:I agree. But you cannot anticipate *ALL* possibilities, it's
:impossible. And unless someone brings up a valid Constitutional
:issue, the Fed can do it, unless you want to bring up the fact that
:the Constitution does not provide the government the power to be
:messing around in schools at all (despite the fact that it's being
:done).
:
Not at the federal level. They keep trying, but reality is, their hands
are tied...
:> :> :> parents are free to spend their own money on any religion
Um, ADAM. You have to look at the WHOLE picture. You portray a voluntary
program. Well, if you allow one religious school in, you have to allow
them all. And you cannot EXCLUDE one for any reason. You cannot set
regulations, except as regards safety issues. For example; suppose a
religion refuses to be accredited by the gov't-chosen entity? No one can
force them to do so, and they cannot refuse to allow them to participate,
because that would be discriminatory. What if their refusal has a
religious basis? Suppose a religious school refuses to teach anything
other than creationism? That's their right, but secular accreditation
would be just about impossible, since there is no scientific basis for
creationism, and there is plenty for evolution. (I happen to think they're
both partly right...) Government cannot provide money to all private
schools, and then hold everyone to a different standard; that would
violate the Constitution. Likewise, trying to hold religious schools to
the same standard as everyone else is unconstitutional, and refusing to
allow a religious school to participate because of a secular standard
would be unconstitutional. Not only that, but if a religion exempts its
schools from the programs, people of that religion would be treated
differently, through no fault of their own, which is...
Vouchers and religious schools do NOT mix...
:> :> :> 1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education.
:>
:> :> Try and separate the two. And if you can separate the two, then what's the
:> :> point of a religious school? What would be the point, for example, of a
:> :> church starting a secular school? (Better question; is it possible...)
:> :
:> :Again, define "religious indoctrination", for one. And for two, that
:> :shouldn't be what this discussion is about.
:>
:> Religious indoctrination is a very broad concept. For example, it can be
:> pictures of angels or crucifixes or Menorahs, or abeyahs. It can be
:> prayers; it can be methods of teaching science or social studies.
:> basically, religious schools would pretty much have to remove everything
:> religious from the schools in order to get gov't money.
:
:No, they wouldn't. Again, they must meet basic *EDUCATIONAL* (not
:moral, not religious or non-religious, but *EDUCATIONAL*) standards in
:their secular classes. They could still hand religious pictures,
:ornamentaria, etc, around all they want. And as long as they meet the
:basic educational requirements, they can teach from whatever perspective
:they want. For example, teaching in history class the history of their
:religion in addition to teaching "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean
:blue", etc, is permissible, because they're still getting the basics.
:
And if they refuse? What if a religion doesn't believe in math? Suppose
there's a religious school which teaches that there was no Holocaust, and
that Hitler never did any of the horrible things he did? With the gov't
involved, either they would be no longer able to teach the above, which
may be against their religion, or the government would have to make an
exception to their accreditation standards. Both of these would be
unconstitutional...
:> :> :> 2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the
:> :> :> government says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon,
:> :> :> BTW)
:> :> :
:> :> The government can't say they can, if the Constitution says they can't.
:> :
:> :The thing is, the Constitution *DOESN'T* say they can't.
:> :
:> Afraid it does. First Amendment, and the fourteenth...
:
:Uh, no. The First Amendment states that one, the government can't
:establish *AN OFFICIAL RELIGION* and that people are *FREE TO PRACTICE
:WHATEVER RELIGION THEY WANT*. Not only does this *NOT* violate that, it
:*UPHOLDS* it.
:
No, what the government is forbidden from doing is making laws regarding
the *establishment* of religion. In other words, anything that promotes
it, or anything that affects a religion that is established. Giving a
voucher to an Episcopalian to attend their religious school, while not
giving one to a Methodist that he is free to use at a Methodist school,
for whatever reason, even if it's not thegov't's fault, favors a member
of one religion over another...
:> :> and don't be surprised when the USSC says "no way"...
:> :
:> :If the Supreme Court says no, it will be another case of them exceeding
:> :their bounds, because *THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THIS IS NOT OKAY.
:> :THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE*.
:> :
:> BULLSHIT, Adam! It's right there in the 1st and fourteenth amendment. They
:> cannot make laws regarding the establishment of religion. That means
:> NOTHING. NADA. No way, no how. You may not like it, but every
:> Constitutional scholar I know thinks it's a slam dunk, and vouchers cannot
:> happen, unless they EXCLUDE religious schools. Of course, the
:> conservatives are pushing this to expand religious influence, so that
:> would effectively kill it. The constitution is silent on vouchers, UNTIL
:> they deal with religious schools. The minute they do, they become a
:> constitutional problem...
:
:*BULL-PUCKEY* to you, Milt. I've explained this to you, and that
:explanation is almost *WORD-FOR-WORD* from several conservative
:Constitutional scholars.
Name them. I have mentors who are the top constitutional scholars in the
nation; one is CJ Rehnquist's best friend, and they both say that vouchers
will never fly. Rehnquist, who is not exactly a flaming liberal, can't see
how they could fly, unless religious schools were left out...
:And, no, Conservatives are *NOT* pushing this to expand religious
:infuence. That's what the liberal line is to stop it, because right now
:*THEY* control the education of most of the children in this country, and
:they don't want to give it up, even though they have roundly *FAILED* to
:educate the bulk of our children.
Only because conservatives have basically ignored education...
But the schools have NOT failed. More people are literate; more people get
high school degrees and college diplomas than at any time in our history,
and test scores have NEVER trended down. Some other countries, like Japan
and Germany trended up faster than us for a while, because they started
with nothing. But now, things are shaking out, and our educational system
is still among the best. Perfect? NO! But it's hardly a failure. I love
this conservative BS rhetoric! The BULK of our kids graduate. The BULK of
our kids have more skills than their parents, in a more-complicated world.
The BULK of our kids take college classes at some point, and pass them.
How can you even make the statement that the system has failed the BULK of
our kids? I'd really like to see the evidence for that...
:Face it. This is about educating children with *REAL* education, not the
:liberal propaganda that passes for education in most schools today.
You know, up until this point, while I disagreed with you, at least you
were making rational arguments. Why is it, when a neocon finds something
he can't argue, he pulls out the liberal bogeyman? Think about it, Adam.
If liberals were running things so completely, then explain to me why
there are schools that are rich, and schools that are poor. Us Lib'ruls
would have equalized things a long time ago. And yeah; most teachers are
liberal. Why don't oyu try recruiting conservatives to be teachers,
knowing that they will NEVER make more than 50K a year. Good luck...
:If
:the educational establishment had stuck to reading, writing, math,
:history, science, and the rest of basic education, and not the liberal
:propaganda they've been doing, this wouldn't be happening. Kindergarten
:classes (in many places, but Bakersfield is the place I call to mind right
:now) are being taught to *PICKET* to get what they want for their
:classrooms, on *CLASS* time.
Where did this happen? Bakersfield? Oh, here's the other neocon
"argument-buster"! Anecdotal evidence! ONE Kindergarten teacher does this,
so all of them must do it. Jean Smart hired one of her students to kill
her husband. Are you now going to tell us that schools are teaching
conspiracy and murder?
:High school students are graduating without
:knowing how to read (I know, I'm in college english classes with them and
:I see it, every day).
No, you don't, you liar. They have to take SATs, and almost all
universities have placement exams. Those who can't read at a basic level
will NEVER be accepted in a university (athletes excepted), and will be
given a remedial class at a community college. And SOME students are
graduating without reading well. SO? Before they did that, they just let
them drop out. Are you telling me that's somehow better?
:If the educational system had been doing its job,
:and only its job, this wouldn't be happening. But your liberal buddies in
:the education establishment haven't, so we must now step in and find some
:way of allowing parents to get their kids the education they need, and
:school choice is the way to do it.
:
No, it isn't. And if you would look at reality, and stop making things up,
you would find that your arguments have no support. Worst school district
in the country? Arguably, The South-Central district of LA Unified. How
many private schools are there within that district? THREE! Best school
district? Montgomery County, Md. How many private schools? Too many to
count; all of them with waiting lists. And vouchers will NOT change
this...
Steve Casburn
> liberal propaganda that passes for education in most schools today. If
> the educational establishment had stuck to reading, writing, math,
> history, science, and the rest of basic education, and not the liberal
> propaganda they've been doing, this wouldn't be happening. Kindergarten
> classes (in many places, but Bakersfield is the place I call to mind right
> now) are being taught to *PICKET* to get what they want for their
> classrooms, on *CLASS* time. High school students are graduating without
> knowing how to read (I know, I'm in college english classes with them and
> I see it, every day). If the educational system had been doing its job,
> and only its job, this wouldn't be happening. But your liberal buddies in
> the education establishment haven't, so we must now step in and find some
> way of allowing parents to get their kids the education they need, and
> school choice is the way to do it.
I take a personal interest in education issues, because several
friends of mine are teachers at public high schools and junior high
schools, and I thought about becoming a teacher myself.
I agree with you, Adam, that some of what is happening in public
schools is bad. Situations like the one you mention here, where teachers
manipulate children to become advocates for the teachers' positions, do
happen, are wrong, and should be stopped.
What I don't see, though, is any reason to believe that these
incidents are anything more than...isolated incidents. One of the major
logical errors that conservative pundits on education (I'm thinking
especially of Lynne Cheney and Dinesh D'Souza here) make is that they
mention incidents like the one above, then claim that this is the trend in
public schooling. But a few incidents do not a trend make, and rarely is
any sufficient evidence provided to support the sweeping denunciations that
these pundits make after shocking the reader by mentioning a few (terrible)
incidents.
The public high schools and junior high schools that I am familiar
with are basically similar. They all have some excellent teachers, some
acceptable teachers, and some nightmares. At any of them, a student who
wants a good education can get one -- for most of the teachers I know,
those interested students are why they teach, and most are willing to help
out above and beyond the call of duty.
Most of the high school teachers I have either had for classes or
know from college are indeed liberals, because the sad fact of the matter
is that when it comes to public service, most conservatives I know talk the
talk, but won't walk the walk. The people I know who are out there doing
the hard work of running those "mediating institutions" that conservatives
rhapsodize about are almost all liberals. I get so damn uncomfortable with
the discussions that go on around me when I volunteer, but it's hard to
take an opposing view when you're out-numbered 15-to-1.
But the thing is, as I posted a few days ago, I don't remember any
sort of coercing or brainwashing going on at my high school. I got into
heated discussions with a couple of teachers, but it never affected my
grades. In the college prep track I was in, most of the classroom time was
spent on... well, reading, writing, math, history, and science. If students
would prefer to goof off or doze off rather than pay attention and do the
homework, is that the teacher's fault?
Which brings me to my last point: You talk about "allowing parents to
get their kids the education they need." My experience in suburbia was that
the kids whose parents actually cared about their education *were* getting
the education they needed, because they were motivated to seek out the
ample opportunities that the public school provided. The kids who
floundered were the ones whose parents never took an interest in their
lives or kept an eye on their activities. I don't see how dismembering the
public school system is going to help this situation at all.
The "conservative" arguments against public education always sound
reasonable in theory, but when I think of the arguments in terms of my
real-life experience and the experiences of people I've talked to about the
schools... I just don't find them compelling at all.
Tom Tilley
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970611...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> shared with us:
>
>On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
>> >> That's my only problem with it, and I definately am a
>> >> >Conservative. My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
>> >> >a religious school, what's wrong with that?
>> >>
>> >> Not a damn thing, so long as it's on their own dime.
>>
>> Adam> Since they are paying tax dollars to go for the education of their
>> Adam> children, it *IS* their dime.
>>
>> Do you really think every one pays full fare in their housing taxes?
>> What about families with 5 kids that live in a 80k house? Again, you
>> must sit down and think about this.
>
>I have. Do you realize how much property taxes *ARE*?!? *A HECK OF A
>BUNCH!*
Well, perhaps you might wish to quantify A HECK OF A BUNCH...
You're posting from California. In California property tax rates
start at 1%, plus local add-ons (requiring 2/3 voter approval)
from bonds, etc., plus assessments. In my community the combined
rate is a little over 1.07%, and assessments add about $200 or so.
The majority of those assessments from my bill go to the local sewer
district.
Of course, rates are only part of the story in California because
property owners are not assessed equally based upon the current value
of their home. The basis starts at the sale price of the home when
it's transferred, and cannot go up by any more than 2% per year
(except for appraisals based upon major improvements, etc.). Finally,
state law provides for the exemption of $7K from the taxable value of
owner-occupied housing (the first house, not a vacation home).
(There are other exceptions, but for most people the above is a good
description.)
In the Bay Area, an $80K house is in a rather poor area, and in need
of major foundation repair. Yet, there are areas of the state where
$80K is more realistic, so let's continue with Andrew's example.
Assuming the house is owner-occupied, the highest taxable value this
home can have is $73,000. Although the house might well have a lower
assessed value, let's use this "worst-case."
At 1.07%, the tax bill (not counting assessments) will be $781.10
per year. Andrew's example had five kids from this house attending
school, so this house generated $156.22 per child per year in taxes.
Assuming it was just purchased.
Perhaps you can give us the names and phone numbers of private schools
in California where the tuition is $156.22 per year? Noting, of course,
that this tax money not only supports schools, but city and county
government as well.
[ snip ]
Tom.
--
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley | "Mr. Coburn, to say, to say your understanding of |
| Remove ".NoSpam" | both history and television is wafer thin would be |
| from addr. to | an insult to wafers everywhere." |
| reply to Usenet | - Bill Maher, bestowing the "Get Over Yourself" |
| posts. | award to Rep. Coburn (R-OK), who denounced NBC's |
| | airing of Schindler's List as an offense against |
| | "decent-minded individuals everywhere." |
Milt
On 12 Jun 1997, Thomas Andrews wrote:
:In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97061...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
:Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
:>
:>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
:>
:>> :Secondly, even if it does,
:>> :that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
:>> :doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
:>> :
:>> Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what people
:>> "mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot abridge your
:>> freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
:>> house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
:>> matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
:>> treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
:>
:
:Hmmm, depends. It was found constitutional, as I recall, to require
:shopkeepers to be closed on Sundays. If a shopkeeper were a practicing Jew,
:he would be required by law to be closed on Sunday and required by
:faith to be closed on Saturday.
You need to keep up. Blue laws have been found unconstitutional many times
in the last 20-30 years, because they are religious-based. A city can no
longer require a shop to close the entire day on Sunday, and they can only
restrict hours on a limited basis...
:The result is that in this circumstance, it is difficult for a practicing
:Jew to run a business because the majority has required him to take
:their day of rest, as well. The law is "religion neutral" in name,
:but not in effect.
:
That is why it is now unconstitutional. Thank you for making my point for
me...
kenfran
Darrel Westbrook wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > --Milt
> > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
> >
> > "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
> > sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
> > you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
> > burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> > --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
> >
>
> drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
Someone who believes that the Book of Revelations is in any way linked
to reality talks about drug-induced ramblings?
These conservative christians who tell us we are all going to hell and
then get mad whenever anyone criticizes THEIR beliefs are so
hypocritical.
And although I rarely mention spelling, it is somewhat amusing in a
thread on education to see George Carlin referred to as a "profit."
kenfran
Zaphkiel wrote:
>
> Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com> wrote:
>
> >Darrel Westbrook wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --Milt
> >> > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
> >> >
> >> > "We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
> >> > sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
> >> > you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
> >> > burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
> >> > --George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
> >> >
> >>
> >> George Carlin is hardly the profit we have all been waiting for. So why quote his
> >> drug induced ramblings because he has a problem with God?
>
> >accuse Limbots of being motivated by greed and worshipping
> >the holy dollar, but is this an admission?
>
> And yet, Mr. Carlin is a pretty good capitalist. In his last HBO
> special, he advocated a plan to reduce the deficit and reduce
> the drug problem at the same time. Behead the bankers who
> launder the drug money during halftime of Monday night Football.
> Let the severed heads roll downhill into one of several nubered
> slots, and let people bet on which slot it will end up in. Sell
> advertising to Marlboro and DOW chemical, and watch the
> money come rolling in....
> I know I would watch.
>
> --Zaphkiel
>
the U.S. installed as V-P of Panama when they invaded? (Ford) The bank
he was on the board of (in Miami) was convicted of money laundering. I
don't think anyone went to jail though.
kenfran
Adam Bernay wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, woof wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970610...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
> > Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> >
> > >My problem really *IS* Number 3. If the parents choose
> > > a religious school, what's wrong with that?
> >
> > "creationism" instead of science. And I'm backed by the constitution.
>
> clause means exactly that, anti-establishment. the government cannot
> establish a state religion. And, since not all of these monies would
> be going to *ONE* religion (there are Jewish private schools, there
> Muslim private schools, there are other religions' private schools,
> there are *SECULAR* private schools), *IT'S NOT ESTABLISHING A
> RELIGION!*
>
> Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
> would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
> private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
> the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
> arguments.
>
> > > anyway", well, no, many can't. Why? Because they are forced to pay
> > > punitively high tax rates, including property taxes which, at least here
> > > in California, go to schools.
> >
> > This is a phony argument. If you can't afford private schools you aren't
> > paying high tax rates. If you are paying "high" tax rates (our are the
> > lowest in the industrialized world) it is BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING A LOT OF
> > MONEY!
>
> shown that most families who pay taxes could afford private schools
> if they didn't have to pay their taxes. As for the rest, I'd say
> that it's a good thing we're giving the "poor" (we really don't have
> poor in this country, go look at India if you want to see really poor
> people) families a chance to give their children something better for
> themselves, through a school of their choice, which *DOES NOT
> NECESSARILY MEAN A RELIGIOUS ONE!* Why would you deny them ths
> opportunity? Do you want them stupid so you can push your liberal
> propaganda down their throats?
>
> > > Since parents are forced to pay for school funding, why can't they
> > > choose *ANY* kind of school they want for their
> > > kids, with that money they are forking over for schools?
> >
> > Since we pay for public transportation why shouldn't the government buy
> > each of us a Cadillac? Is that what you're asking?
>
> is made by government (and that's only sometimes, the best run systems
> were started by private businesses on a contract with the local
> government) and the rest of the costs, on the ones run correctly, are
> paid by the fares paid by passengers. So this is another phoney
> argument by you.
>
You evidently not only know little about education, but transportation
as well. Show me a system that is run by private enterprise that is
"well-run" and doesn't get any government subsidies. And why should the
initial investment for a private company be covered by the government?
We could all be rich if the government paid for setting up a
multi-million-dollar company and handed it over for us to run as a
private enterprise. I think I am gonna put in for an auto company
myself. The government can pay for building the plant and for the
initial supply of materials, and I promise that all the rest will be
paid for by the people that buy the cars.
As for education, care to compare the number of Nobel Prize winners that
went to public schools to the ones who went to private schools? I
dispute the basic premise, that private schools are better.
kenfran
Darrel Westbrook wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > > Also, all accredited private schools (which are the only places I
> > > would allow to be used for) teach science. If they are a religious
> > > private school, they teach, *AS IS THEIR RIGHT*, that Creationism is
> > > the *REASON* all of this happened. So you are the one peddling phoney
> > > arguments.
> >
> > teach the nonsense of creationism.
> >
>
> Who are you to label creationism as nonsense? Just because you and I may be
> skeptical of creationism as is our right, other people's right to believe in it is
> just as valid. It is a very pompous, self-indulgent individual that claims a
> Constitutional right and then denies it to others. You have labeled yourself as a
> flaming, my way only, feel good left wing LIBERAL.
judge who has the 10 commandments in his court but wouldn't allow a
Hindu prayer.
kenfran
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > rob wrote:
>
> [snippy]
>
> > > > I realize that it all went right over your head, so let me try to
> > > > explain it to you in small words. The poster was trying to make a point
> > > > about how liberals fucked up education, yet in his own post he seemed
> > > > rather ignorant with his own spelling and grammar errors!
> > > > Geez!
> > >
> > > Maybe subtly is a little too subtl for ya. And there was not a single
> > > refutation of the criticism either. Only complaints of misspellings
> > Do you care to enlighten us by telling us what we are supposed to
> > refute?
> >
>
> The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
> Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
> 30 years...to no or little improvement. Conservatives claim that
> throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
> involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
> are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
>
> get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
> federal government mandates.
>
> Clear enough?
>
The purpose of the voucher movement is to throw more money at
conservative parents who already send kids to private schools and at the
religious schools that are failing and want public subsidies.
This money would be taken from the public school, and would mean a
poorer education for those who can't afford the extra cost of the
private schools over the vouchers, or don't want their children at the
religious schools that educate poorly and discriminate against
non-religious.
kenfran
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Milt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, J.D. Black wrote:
> >
> > :Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
>
> [snippy]
>
> > :The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
> > :the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
> > :Bubba even makes this claim. Yet the liberals claim that more money is
> > :the solution.
> >
> > funding.
>
> Pardon me but what is all the fuss from the administration about
> Republicans wanting to destroy the school system by 'cutting' funding
> and the like?
>
> > should get all new textbooks and a pool and a new theatre, while the
> > school in the "wrong" side of town is dilapidated, with textbooks from the
> > 60s...
> >
>
> So then you are advocating the theft from the halfs to give to the
> half-nots. Robin Hood? In Texas that concept has been classified as
> illegal.
>
> of government) from some folks to give to another set of folks is really
> dishonest.
away from anybody? But that is exactly what vouchers do.
>
> > :But we have been throwing money at the problem for over
> > :30 years...to no or little improvement.
> >
> > years, in most areas of the country, and the equalization issue has never
> > been solved.
>
> We haven't? What exactly is 'that much?' Seems that the federal funds
> being sent to the public school systems has been increasing -- including
> adjusting for inflation.
>
> > District. Some areas have brand new schools, with lots of computers, while
> > others are practically condemnable, with hand-me-down Apples, if there are
> > any computers at all.
>
> I understand the unequal level of education. I have no doubt of that.
> That does not indicate that federal funding and the cry from the NEA for
> more money -- for everyone, including the union -- changes anything.
>
> > 30 years, the literacy rate is higher, the drop-out rate is lower, and the
> > number of people going to college and getting degrees is increasing
> > yearly.
>
> So then, you are contending that even with 'unequal' funding the school
> system is better? Did I read that correctly?
>
>
> Who mentioned anything about 'the good old days?'
>
> > very realistic. Do you realize that, before about the early fifties, the
> > average person didn't go past 8th grade, few went to college, and
> > historically, the literacy rate was around 75-80%. Now, it's over 98%.
> >
>
> And were you aware that during those years one did not need much
> education to actually make something of one's self...support a
> family...stay off the public dole (oh yeah, they didn't have that
> yet)...self supporting?
>
> > :throwing more money at the problem is not the solution but more parental
> > :involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
> > :are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
> > They're not mean-spirited, they're just stupid and short-sighted.
>
> So making one responsible for themself is stupid. Wow, we had a bunch
> of stupid people running this country (and many, many others) before say
> about 1900.
>
> > would take even more money from the poor schools, put more money into the
> > already-well-off schools, and promise nothing in return.
>
> Puhleeze! Where in any suggested path of action has taking away from
> poor schools to give to rich schools in being proposed!?
>
a better one, you are saying? So then the poorer school gets less
funding, making it even less viable. What is it about this concept that
you don't understand? And the rich school that everyone wants to send
kids to is even richer, because it gets a lot of vouchers.
> }Vouchers would do
> > NOTHING to solve the problems that exist in education,
>
> Nothing? I beg to differ. It may not solve all the problems but it
> would put the responsiblity where it belongs. Personally, I'm not sure
> I totally accept the voucher solution but it would start moving in a
> direction other than the current status quo failed direction.
Public schools as a whole provide a superior education. Compare how many
Nobel Prize winners, or even Westinghouse or National Merit winners,
come from public schools and how many from private schools. Many private
schools, notably the "segregation academies," deliver an extremely poor
education, and have trouble even getting acredited. If distribution of
funding were more equal, the poor schools in the public system could be
brought up to decent standards. The voucher system would make the poor
schools even poorer.
>
> }because they don't
> > address the problems at all. I agree that parental involvement is
> > essential. How do vouchers foster parental involvement?
>
> By giving the parents the resposibility of selecting and monitoring the
> school attended by the little tykes.
>
> }The parents who
> > would be most likely to take their kids out of public schools would be the
> > ones at the bottom of the ladder, wouldn't you say?
>
> No I would not. The parents most likely to take the kids out of public
> schools are those that already have!
>
> }How is taking all of
> > that money out of schools that are already underfunded going to make them
> > better?
>
> By forcing them to become better with what they have and not relying on
> more for less.
>
> }You also perpetrate the fiction that "competition" will make
> > things better.
>
> Will it solve all the problems? No. Will it start the process in a
> different direction? Yes!
>
> }Well, as any good capitalist knows, competition costs
> > money.
>
> Not always.
>
> }Where is the money going to come from?
>
> Those paying for the service...namely, the parents.
>
> }Also, where are all those
> > seats going to come from in private schools.
>
> Same place they come from in public schools. Yeah, see, if more folks
> attend private schools, more schools will be needed and 'if you build
> them, they will come.'
> BTW: Where did I mention private schools?
>
> }Most of them are full
> > already,
>
> Surprised?
>
> }which makes vouchers pointless.
>
> No, it actually makes the point that choice is somehow more attractive.
>
> }Also, private schools are
> > discriminatory (not in a negative way; they take the students they think
> > will do best, or will get the most from what they have to offer);
>
> Not necessarily. However, they will not allow a single disrtuptive
> student ruin the education of the rest of the class.
>
> }vouchers
> > would force them to NOT be that way.
>
> Sorry, no true.
>
> }They would be required to treat all
> > applicants equally, which would mean that people would be lining up to get
> > into very few spaces, which takes away the "choice" argument that
> > conservatives use.
>
> Sorry, but a disruptive student doesn't get to go there. Public schools
> are doing this already, why would private schools under any voucher
> system be any different?
>
> }Vouchers are the only suggestion made by conservatives,
> > and it's not workable.
>
> Actually, no. It is simply the only one liberal will even tolerate (if
> that can be said).
>
> }Besides the obvious constitutional arguments about
> > funding religious schools,
>
> Which, to this point, have been either way wrong or irrelevant.
>
> }and the possible constitutional problem with
> > means-testing for vouchers,
>
> One has nothing to do with the other!
>
> }there is no "choice" offered in this system.
> > You wouldn't be able to force schools to take the vouchers,
>
> I agree that you shouldn't but the feds do a lot that they should and
> the feds could do this.
>
> }and the
> > academies, which poor people envision their children getting into, will
> > simply raisr their tuition to cover the vouchers, and keep the riff-raff
> > out.
> >
>
> As opposed to the public school system that allows the 'riff-raff' in
> and as a result no one gets an education?
> Yeah! I like that idea!
>
> > :So please refute how more choice and not simply more money will begin to
> > :get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
> > :federal government mandates.
> > :
> > :Clear enough?
> > :
> > It's now more choice. That's a fiction, which makes the above a straw man.
>
> It is neither a fiction or a strawman. Vouchers could enable choice but
> I have never totally accepted the voucher concept. I much prefer taking
> less away from me and let me decide how I spend it.
>
> > Liberals aren't for MORE money,
>
> THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP ASKING FOR MORE?
>
> }but a fairer distribution of the money
>
> Sorry, wrong. they want more for everyone but use the poor schools as
> examples to get more for everyone.
>
> > that's there, which makes that a straw man.
>
> As opinions go, that certainly is one.
>
> }The NEA is a union, which
> > teachers in private schools would be free to vote in if they choose,
>
> Only if they are a member. And if I'm not mistaken, less than 50% of
> all teachers, public and private, are members of said money syphon.
>
> }which
> > makes that a straw man. Gee, this is becoming a fire hazard...
> >
>
> And since you are wrong on almost every strawman claim, that must make
> it NOT a strawman. I take it you were public school educated.
>
kenfran
Milt wrote:
<snip>
I suggest you get out of MY back pocket. I don't have kids in school.
Why should I pay to school your kids? To hell with the vouchers, if you
want to withdraw your kids from school, withdraw them, and quit using my
money to educate them. You come around whining that you want vouchers to
pay some private school. Why should I pay for a private school for you?
Take what the government (with my and a lot of other people's help) pays
for, or shut up and withdraw them. Stupid conservatives talk about
"welfare" and it's always them with their hands out, wanting money from
the government.
kenfran
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Black wrote:
> > >
> > > Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
>
> [snippy]
>
> > > The case of the condition of the public school system. Folks claim that
> > > the public school system is less than desired -- to say it nicely.
>
> 'relatively' flat over 10+ years. However, there has been a downward
> trend.
>
> > can say that overall the system has been about the same, not a lot
> > worse.
>
> I have never stated that the system is 'a lot worse.' That has been
> fostered by this administration in an attempt to paint Repubs and
>
> > In an article today, there was an international ranking of 3rd and
> > 4th graders in science and math. The US was 3rd in the world in
> > science ( a few points behind Singapore and S Korea, ahead of Japan
> > and all of the European countries). It was in the middle of the pack in
> > math - ahead of Britain and behind the Asian tigers and the northern
> > European countries. So in what respect are things *overall* so
> > terrible?
> >
>
> Ask Bubba?
>
> > > 30 years...to no or little improvement. Conservatives claim that
> > To show this you would have to compare with the case where we have
> > spent less money.
>
> Correct, and how can we show that? Less money is never an option is it?
>
> > yes, we do a far better job of educating special ed kids than we did
> > spent on education (from Kangas's web page).
> > Computers cost money. Would you prefer that we not have them in
> > schools?
>
> The point is irrelevant. It does not take computers to teach reading,
> writing, math, does it?
>
> >
>
> So more money is not the solution after all.
>
> > > involvement...like choice, vouchers, and the such. Yet these attempts
> > > are called mean-spirited (in some strange way) and not helpful.
> >
> > at best and counterproductive at worst.
> >
>
> vouchers. Why not take less from me and let me decide how to use it?
>
> > >
> > > get closer to the solution than the desire of more money, more NEA, more
> > > federal government mandates.
> > >
> > > Clear enough?
> >
> > You'd have to begin by showing how more choice will solve the problem.
>
> Mostly because I am now resposible for the education of my kids...like
> it should be. No government, in a free society, should be held
> resposibile for educating my kids. I'll do that. And if the government
> would quite taking more and more money away from me, I will have more
> freedom (choice) on how best to do that.
>
> > expected to show how it would help.
>
> Then leave me and my kids alone and let me take care of them. I have
> more of an interest in their well-being, education-wise and other, than
> you will ever be.
>
> > something which is pretty nebulous. What do you mean by "more choice"?
>
> Let ME decide what is best for MY kids. Get out of my house, get out of
> my back pocket, and get out of my life!
>
> > idea; lets try it.
>
> We have to a limited success.
>
> > a good idea. If they work, expand them.
>
> But judges keep killing any voucher programs states come up with.
>
> > the programs that you want; you can construct a voucher system that
> > opens up opportunity or one that siphons the best kids out of the
> > remain.
>
> Then, just give me my money back and let me decide where to put my kids!
>
>
> As is always the case. How wasted are the public school systems?
>
> > it is spent. I'd say that smaller class sizes and modern facilities
> > longer term payoff, and money on bureaucrats is wasted.
>
> I have no problem here. But who decides how I spend the money? Me or
> some busybody in Washington?
>
> give me my money back, I'll have greater freedom of choice on deciding
> where my money is spent and what the salary of the teachers are.
>
"Your" money back would not ammount to a hill of beans. You only pay (on
average) for 20% of your kid's education. Why should you get the tax
money paid by others in a voucher for a private school?
If you want a better system, start taxing employers to pay for the
school system. The purpose is to educate people so they can get a good
job. So why should individuals pay for the basic skills people need to
be productive at work? The companies get the benefits, let them do the
paying.
Adam Bernay
This is absolutely the case. The liberals who have controlled our
educational system for over 30 years have failed. They know
they've failed. Before, they wanted to try and make sure we
didn't know they failed. That's what the elimination of grades in
their "outcome based education" programs was for, so little
Johnny's "report card" would merely say "he's learning", but no
accountability as to how well he's doing.
Well, we found out what they were doing. And now, we're saying,
"We don't want you educating our children anymore, we want these
private schools, that have a much better academic track record,
doing it." But that is financially unfeasible for most people,
partially (or mainly) because of their punitively high tax burden.
So, the school choice movement started.
Thanks for speaking out. We'll win, you'll see.
> Perhaps. But we'll never know, because some seem to be too afraid that
> might just be the case.
Don't worry about. The GOP Congressional members aren't afraid to say
this, aren't afraid to do what has to be done.
Adam Bernay
On 12 Jun 1997, Thomas Andrews wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97061...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
> Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
> >
> >> :Secondly, even if it does,
> >> :that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
> >> :doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
> >> :
> >> Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what people
> >> "mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot abridge your
> >> freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
> >> house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
> >> matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
> >> treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
> >
>
> Hmmm, depends. It was found constitutional, as I recall, to require
> shopkeepers to be closed on Sundays. If a shopkeeper were a practicing Jew,
> he would be required by law to be closed on Sunday and required by
> faith to be closed on Saturday.
>
> The result is that in this circumstance, it is difficult for a practicing
> Jew to run a business because the majority has required him to take
> their day of rest, as well. The law is "religion neutral" in name,
> but not in effect.
First off, this "businesses closed on Sundays" thing no longer exists
(I've never been anywhere in this country where most businesses were
closed on Sunday, at least not public service businesses like stores.)
Secondly, I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion.
kenfran
J.D. Black wrote:
>
> Marc H. Pinsonneault wrote:
> >
> > J.D. Black wrote:
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, don't refute the message but criticize the the grammar
> > > > > and spelling. Try alt.flame.spelling...they may even care...
> > > > >
> > > > > jdb...@metronet.com
> > > > You obviously failed to see the irony in the post.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hardly. There was no defense of the NEA or sad state of education.
> > Defence of the NEA against what?
>
> In defense that the NEA should even be listened to!
>
> >In what respect is the state of
> > education sad?
>
> Too many kids graduatiing without being able to read/write.
>
> >The poor grammar and spelling of the initial poster
> > has already been noted.
>
> Irrelevantly.
>
> >It is also true that he didn't specify what
> > exactly he thought the NEA did, or what exactly the problem with the
> > current state of education is. All he did was to state conservative
> > dogma. Poorly.
>
> Is it dogma to be in favor of school choice? Is it dogma to desire the
> best out of our school system -- which ever system it is? Is it dogma
> to desire some level of accountability of the educators?
> All these 'dogmas,' the NEA is against.
>
> > And no, "everybody knows the problem" is not an answer.
> >
> > > Simply whines about spelling and grammar. The irony is in the
> > > misspelling and such. I mean we were public school system educated were
> > > we not?
> > Actually, yes. Your point?
> >
>
> Well, if we are public school educated and have a poor, or non-existent,
> grasp of spelling or grammar, then it would seem that the public school
> system that has been touted as the savior of the world leaves something
> to be desired.
>
> jdb...@metronet.com
And the private-school-educated people that have a poor education? I was
educated in public schools, both high school and college. I don't think
you will find many with as good an education as I got in public schools.
kenfran
Adam Bernay wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> > of freedom of religion, I have real problems with the
> > government funding religious propaganda. I would want
> > schools that had explicit religious indoctrination as
> > part of their curriculum excluded.
>
> The government wouldn't be funding it. You seem to be missing the point.
> The government in and of itself doesn't fund anything. It is the peoples'
> monies that are going into government coffers. They pay the taxes. It's
> *THEIR* money.
Wrong. It is government money. And 80% of it is not from the people with
kids in school.
> So, I think the answer, for everyone's freedom, including
> freedom of religion, is one of two possibilities. Either we stop having
> public schools and stop collecting that tax money, or we give it back in
> the form of school vouchers to be used for *ANY* school the parent wants.
> If the parent chooses, using their freedom of religion, a religious school
> (of any religion), then the *GOVERNMENT IS NOT ESTABLISHING A RELIGION*,
> which is what the anti-establishment clause is about.
>
> If all of the schools were Christian, or all of them were Jewish, or all
> of them Muslim, or all of them any particular religion, I would agree with
> you. But the facts are that because all religions are reflected in
> private schools, and there are also secular private schools, plus we'd
> still have the public schools open for those parents who want to use their
> vouchers there, there is no establishment of anything except freedom of
> choice, which is what Freedom of Religion is about.
There is an establishment of religion. As I said, you are using
government money, 80% of which is not from the parents of schoolkids, to
educate kids in religion. This is not constitutional.
Adam Bernay
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
> :> Well, luckily for us, the Constitution is not written to cover what
> :> people "mean" to do. It governs the result. The government cannot
> :> abridge your
> :> freedom of speech, even if they didn't "mean to". They can't enter your
> :> house without a warrant, even if it was by accident. In short, it doesn't
> :> matter by what means the inequality happens; the government is required to
> :> treat all religions and non-religious people exactly equally...
> :
> :Yeah. By offering this to everyone, that's treating them equally.
>
> But not if the religion either doesn't have schools, or refuses to take
> the vouchers...
That is their *FREE CHOICE*, and does not effect the program.
> : And no, the Constitution does not govern the result. It governs the
> :basic action. It governs what the Federal Government can and cannot
> :do by action, not when someone refuses a voluntary offer of help.
>
> It governs the result, Adam. If the result of a law will be to abrogate
> someone's civil rights, it is not necessary that the government intended
> to do so. The ends are much more important than the means or intentions.
Explain how a school voucher system would abrogate someone's civil
rights. Answer: IT DOESN'T. In fact, it *SUPPORTS* civil rights.
No, it *DOESN'T* say so in the First Amendment. It says the
government shall not establish a religion or infringe on the free
practice thereof. Not only does the First Amendment not say that the
government *CAN'T* do it, having such a voucher system *SUPPORTS* the
First Amendment.
> : Using tax money to support religious schools" would be the government
> :just automatically giving money to schools, with no basis of the
> :enrollment of students or not. But merely by redeeming a voucher given
> :to the parents for the education of their children isn't "using tax
> :money to support religious schools" at all.
> :
> Of course it is. You are not getting a cash rebate for your taxes. Few
> people pay enough in property taxes to cover the amount of the voucher,
> which means that most of the voucher represents government expenditures.
> Then, you give the school the voucher, and the gov't gives the school the
> money. The GOVERNMENT gives the RELIGIOUS SCHOOL the money...
The government give the *SCHOOL* the money. Not the church. The
*SCHOOL*. You are only harping on this because you are afraid that
the brainwashing centers your kind laughingly bills "schools" will be
empty. Well, they won't be empty because of religion, they'll be empty
because parents want a better *SECULAR* education for their kids, and
if, in addition to that *SECULAR* education, some of the kids get some
religious training that their parents want, that is good, not bad. And
it supports the First Amendment, because it supports free practice.
Face it. Your First Amendment argument doesn't give you a leg to stand
on.
> :> :> and it's also impossible to anticipate what might happen in the
> :> :> future.
> :> :
> :> :This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously, we can't anticipate what
> :> :might happen in the future. We can't anticipate that about anything.
> :> :So, by your logic, we dismantle the government altogether, because they
> :> :can't anticipate everything.
> :> :
> :> No, that's not by my logic.
> :
> :THat is exactly what you're saying. A governmental program that one
> :cannot anticipate all possibilities that might happen in the future
> :shouldn't happen. That's all government programs.
> :
> No, because all government programs do not have the potential to become
> unconstitutional, as the constitution stands now...
ANd neither does school vouchers.
> :> My point is this; suppose you set up a voucher program, which
> :> includes religious schools, and every religion participates. Then
> :> several decide they don't want to any longer. Suddenly, you have a
> :> problem.
> :
> :How is it a problem when a private group decides *NOT* to accept
> :governmental assistance? That's not against the Constitution, in fact
> :that sort of attitude is *PROTECTED* by the Constitution.
> :
> The problem isn't that they DON'T take them. The problem is that the
> RESULT is that people who belong to a particular church do not have equal
> access to their religion's schools. RESULT: unconstitutional. Of
> course, a church can opt out of a voucher program; I wouldn't dream of
> forcing them to. But that they refuse to accept them creates a RESULT
> that is unconstitutional...
No, it doesn't. Because the religion is making a decision not to
participate in a voluntary governmental program. What happens?
Their freedom of religion is protected, and the parents are free to
take their kids and their vouchers somewhere else, another private
school (probably a secular one) or a public school. No
unconstitutional problem here. In fact, it's *EXACTLY* the
opposite: the true intent of the Constitution is upheld.
> :> Wiccan church opens a school, and the community objects. You have a
> :> potential Constitutional problem.
> :
> :How is this a Constitutional problem? Answer: it's not, it's a
> :community problem. The government needs to stay out of the problem
> :except to meet the obligations of it's program.
> :
> And if the people object, which they would, you have a constitutional
> problem. The government cannot stay out of it at that point. I'm telling
> you; gov't support of religion is a deviously slippery slope...
You are missing this: one, it's *NOT* government support of religion,
it's government support of education. Two, in this situation, all the
government would be obliged to do is continue redeeming vouchers for the
school. That's it at the Fed level. At the local level, the police
make sure no crimes are committed. Beyond that, nothing. And there is
no Constituitional problem. You have failed to cite a legitimate
Constitutional problem, because there isn't one.
> :> :> In setting this up, you MUST anticipate the future...
> : > :I agree. But you cannot anticipate *ALL* possibilities, it's
> :impossible. And unless someone brings up a valid Constitutional
> :issue, the Fed can do it, unless you want to bring up the fact that
> :the Constitution does not provide the government the power to be
> :messing around in schools at all (despite the fact that it's being
> :done).
> :
> Not at the federal level. They keep trying, but reality is, their hands
> are tied...
No, their hands are not tied. Your bringing up fake Constitutional
"problems" does not mean their hands are tied, it means you do not
know te Constitution.
Yes.
> You cannot set regulations, except as regards safety issues. For
> example; suppose a religion refuses to be accredited by the gov't-chosen
> entity? No one can force them to do so, and they cannot refuse to allow
> them to participate, because that would be discriminatory. What if their
> refusal has a religious basis? Suppose a religious school refuses to
> teach anything other than creationism? That's their right, but secular
> accreditation would be just about impossible, since there is no
> scientific basis for creationism, and there is plenty for evolution. (I
> happen to think they're both partly right...) Government cannot provide
> money to all private schools, and then hold everyone to a different
> standard, that would violate the Constitution. Likewise, trying to hold
> religious schools to the same standard as everyone else is
> unconstitutional, and refusing to allow a religious school to
> participate because of a secular standard would be unconstitutional. Not
> only that, but if a religion exempts its schools from the programs,
> people of that religion would be treated differently, through no fault
> of their own, which is...
>
> Vouchers and religious schools do NOT mix...
You really don't know the Constitution, do you? I'm done with this
facet of the debate. You've been proven wrong, and you cannot accept
it. So, at least for now, I must go.
Steve Casburn
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.970612...@mammoth.psnw.com>,
Adam Bernay <abe...@mammoth.psnw.com> wrote:
>
>
> The liberals who have controlled our
> educational system for over 30 years have failed. They know
> they've failed. Before, they wanted to try and make sure we
> didn't know they failed. That's what the elimination of grades in
> their "outcome based education" programs was for, so little
> Johnny's "report card" would merely say "he's learning", but no
> accountability as to how well he's doing.
Let's stipulate your premises, then look at your logic.
If these evil, wicked liberal teachers wanted to "make sure we didn't
know they failed," then why wouldn't they just give every Johnny straight
A's regardless of Johnny's class performance? Wouldn't that be much easier
(and we know how lazy those evil, wicked liberal teachers are) and less
controversial than switching to an entirely new system of student
evaluation?
Your reasoning makes no sense.
> Well, we found out what they were doing. And now, we're saying,
> "We don't want you educating our children anymore, we want these
> private schools, that have a much better academic track record,
> doing it."
Assuming for the moment that private schools *do* have a much better
academic track record, why would we assume that they would continue to do
better if their enrollments expanded? In education, quantity and quality
are often inversely related, because there are only so many excellent
teachers and only so many eager students in the world, and because
(generally speaking) the fewer students a teacher has, the better he can
help each one. If private schools expand, and consequently become less
selective in their admissions, can they continue to keep the same track
record?
kenfran
Adam Bernay wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Milt wrote:
>
> > :> Adam> Jewish,
> > :> Adam> or all of them Muslim, or all of them any particular religion, I
> > :> Adam> would agree with you. But the facts are that because all
> > :> Adam> religions are reflected in private schools, and there are also
> > :> Adam> secular private schools, plus we'd still have the public schools
> > :> Adam> open for those parents who want to use their vouchers there, there
> > :> Adam> is no establishment of anything except freedom of choice, which is
> > :> Adam> what Freedom of Religion is about.
> >
> > But look at your logic. What happens when one religion decides that it
> > will not take vouchers for any of its schools. All of a sudden, you have
> > government money going to some religions, and not others, through no fault
> > of the taxpayers.
>
> First off, I don't see that happening. Secondly, even if it does,
> that's their choice, and shouldn't effect the program, as they are
> doing it voluntarily. Then it's not the government discriminating.
>
> > Satanists start a school. Or worshipers of Charles Manson start a school.
> > By your logic, we would have to support those. The problem is, what you're
> > proposing isn't possible, because it is impossible to treat every single
> > religion exactly equally,
>
> What the heck are you talking about? First off, if Satanists start a
> school, naturally, we would have to allow vouchers to be used there.
> That's not the government supporting those churches. Secondly, how is
> what I'm proposing not possible? And also, why is "treating religions
> equally" an issue? This is about schools, including secular ones.
>
> > future.
>
> This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously, we can't anticipate what
> might happen in the future. We can't anticipate that about anything.
> So, by your logic, we dismantle the government altogether, because they
> can't anticipate everything.
>
> > :> they want. They are not free to use government education money,
> > :> collected from all taxpayers, to fund religious indoctrination of
> > :> any type.
> >
> > Absolutely. I would also point out the following; if a "church" starts a
> > school, the government can have NO say in how the school is run. The
> > Church of Satan could start a school, and teach the children nothing at
> > all, and there is nothing the gov't can do about it. Now, sure; parents
> > can pull their kids out of the schools, but then someone else can start
> > another one, and do the same thing. It's a VERY slippery slope...
>
> You're missing the point. For a voucher to be allowed to be used at a
> school, it *HAS* to be accredited (I've said this several times now).
> This eliminates this problem.
What do you know about acreditation? Did you know that acrediting
organizations are private? Did you know that Catholic schools, for one,
have their own acrediting organization? Who defines what acreditation
is sufficient? If the gov't makes these decisions the religious schools
will howl. If not, the taxpayers whose money is going to religious
schools have a legitimate beef. And what about the "segregation
academies?" If their acrediting organization acredits them, will they be
allowed to reject non-white students?
Will private schools be required to accept special education children
and give them an adequate education, for the same voucher? Will private
schools be required to accept children that are discipline problems, and
get paid with the same voucher? Just because the kid burned the
principal's car at the last school, you can't refuse to admit him. How
about pregnant students?
Are you going to force the public schools to accept all the kids that
private schools don't want? This would raise costs in public schools,
resulting in a lousy education for anyone who stayed there, since all
the money is going to the private schools.
In short, vouchers are a terrible idea. They are embraced by the
conservatives who believe in welfare for the rich. The private schools
are a failure in the free market, so they want government subsidies.
>
> > : 1) It's not "religious indoctrination", it's education. >
> > Try and separate the two. And if you can separate the two, then what's the
> > point of a religious school? What would be the point, for example, of a
> > church starting a secular school? (Better question; is it possible...)
>
> Again, define "religious indoctrination", for one. And for two, that
> shouldn't be what this discussion is about.
>
> > : 2) Why can't they use their tax dollars that way, if the government
> > : says they can? (Congress will be looking at this soon, BTW)
> > :
> > The government can't say they can, if the Constitution says they can't.
>
> The thing is, the Constitution *DOESN'T* say they can't.
>
> > In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to look hard
> > at this issue,
>
> They're going to be looking at it soon, it's on the docket.
>
> > and don't be surprised when the USSC says "no way"...
>
> If the Supreme Court says no, it will be another case of them exceeding
> their bounds, because *THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THIS IS NOT OKAY.
> THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE*.
>