Why the Pledge shouldn't be said in our schoolsoranywherepublic
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:..
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted (jalison inserts newsgroup citations)...
>:|>
>:|> Black unmarked helos are frequently seen by this nut,
>:|>
>:|> Perhaps he would like to tell us of his experiences when he was beamed up
>:|> by aliens as well.
>:|>
>:|> No MK, the entire world isn't out to get you, some have of it has already
>:|> gotten you.
>:|>
>:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|grow shrill.
Which shrills dippy?
>:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
>:|United for the Separation of Church and State, until I reproduced a
>:|post in which he claimed membership. The NEA supports AU.
Smoke screen argument to cover up his misrepresentation of facts as shown
below in the GOOGLE URLS.
Notice how he tries to fend off his own misrepresentations by creating a
smoke screen.
========================================================
From: jal...@cox.net
Newsgroups:
seattle.politics,wa.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.education,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why the Pledge shouldn't be said in our
schoolsoranywherepublic
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:28:49 GMT
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|> Bob LeChevalier wrote:...
>:|>
>:|> MK might be a "libertarian," I don't know. I do know he has a very real
>:|> hard on for the public school system
>:|>
>:|> He would love to see it fail
>:|> Thus, he is very biased.
>:|>
>:|MK. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools are failing,
[MK-AKA panther]
Black unmarked helos are frequently seen by this nut,
Perhaps he would like to tell us of his experiences when he was beamed up
by aliens as well.
No MK, the entire world isn't out to get you, some have of it has already
gotten you.
I ask the readers to excuse me if I am employing of this nut's favorite
supporters posting tactics, i.e. susupply
Truth of the matter is, MK has developed a specialized code that he uses in
his posting on this topic. A code that is unproven, yet designed to illicit
nothing but pure raw emotions.
The fact of the matter is, MK, as a former teacher in the public school
system feels that system treated him unfairly, thus he has a really big
hard on against the public school system.
Anyone reading his posts and replies on this topic should take that into
consideration in evaluating his comments including his emotional code
"The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel"
I am sure the term cartel has many applications but in recent years in out
culture is has a lot of exposure as a negative, i e, drug cartels, etc. I
suspect that is why he likes to use the word.
MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
fronts for said organizations,
BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
All the stats he likes to presents are from other countries, and he likes
to try and pass those off as being meaningful to this country.
A country with a totally different history, legal system, culture,
traditions, in most cases government, etc. His claim or implication by
posting such information is --- what and how there --- would be the same
outcome here as well.
There is no proof of that, in fact far more evidence that would not be the
case.
There is no longer term studies of vouchers on a mass scale in this
country, simply because there has not been any mass vouchers applications
in this country. There are a few studies based on a couple programs in a
couple individual med, sized cities.
The results of the voucher programs in those places are mixed.
The best private schools aren't doing much better, if at all than the best
public schools.
The average private schools are comparable to the average private schools.
The poor private schools usually close down. There has been corruption at
times, poor management etc.
In short, those vouchers have not really lived up the various claims the
pro voucher folks like to say vouchers will achieve.
MK is extremely biased, with an agenda and that agenda isn't nobile.
Now with all of that in mind, readers are urged to urged to "enjoy" his
posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY HE IS BIASED AGAINST THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Subject: Panther's history as a teacher
Date: 1999/11/28
Newsgroups: misc.education
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3848426c.8807597%40news.pilot.infi.net&output=gplain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIS MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE FACTS
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Subject: Re: Panther/Lieberman-finish
Date: 1999/12/01
Newsgroups: misc.education
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38488738.7202615%40news.pilot.infi.net&output=gplain
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>
MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>
"If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a
good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It
might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they
pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the
poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expense of
those who have no one else to pay for them." -- J.S. Mill, On Liberty
>
MK. Discussion deleted (ad hominem)...
> >:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
> >:|grow shrill.
>
> Which shrills dippy?
>
>
> >:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
> >:|United for the Separation of Church and State, until I reproduced a
> >:|post in which he claimed membership. The NEA supports AU.
>
> Smoke screen argument to cover up his misrepresentation of facts as shown
> below in the GOOGLE URLS.
>
(why bother?). Myron Lieberman says in "The Teacher Unions" that the
NEA supports Americans United for Separation of Church and State and
People for the American Way. I remembered this as --financial--
support. jalison observed that Lieberman did not say that, so I wrote
to Dr. Lieberman's organization http://www.educationpolicy.org and
asked. The NEA supports PFAW and AU financially. That is the sum of
my "misrepresentation".
>
> I am sure the term cartel has many applications but in recent years in out
> culture is has a lot of exposure as a negative, i e, drug cartels, etc. I
> suspect that is why he likes to use the word.
>
interest, somewhere between "monopoly" and a competitive market.
>
MK. Discussion deleted (argument repeated by jalison, addressed
previously)
>
MK. Anyway, to our topic: A policy that gives to parents the power to
determine which institution shall receive the State's K-12 education
subsidy would benefit students, parents, real classroom teachers, and
taxpayers. School vouchers would reduce social tensions by converting
issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance from winner-take-all contests
into a matter of choice (and indifference to many). School vouchers
are constitutional, according to the USSC. State amendments which
restrict a State's K-12 education subsidy to secular organizations are
probably unconstitutional, if otherwise children may attend schools
operated by non-government organizations. Even within that
restriction, however, there is a simple method to give parents
control: Mandate that school districts --must-- hire parents on
personal service contracts to provide for their children's education,
if the parents apply fr the contract. Parents could then homeschool,
hire tutors, pool resources and send their kids to a neighbor, or pay
tuition to an independent school.
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective
homeschoolers)
http://www.educationnext.org/20014/68.html
http://www.educationnext.org/20014/68.html (voucher study)
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>:|>
>:|"If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a
>:|good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It
>:|might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they
>:|pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the
>:|poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expense of
>:|those who have no one else to pay for them." -- J.S. Mill, On Liberty
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted (ad hominem)...
>:|>
>:|> >:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|> >:|grow shrill.
>:|>
>:|> Which shrills dippy?
>:|>
>:|MK. "Shills", jalison, "shills".
Which shrills dippy?
These so called shrills have names?
How DO YOU define shrills?
You got any proof they are shrills?
>:|>
>:|> >:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
>:|> >:|United for the Separation of Church and State, until I reproduced a
>:|> >:|post in which he claimed membership. The NEA supports AU.
>:|>
>:|> Smoke screen argument to cover up his misrepresentation of facts as shown
>:|> below in the GOOGLE URLS.
>:|>
>:|MK. Readers may backtrack to assess the accuracy of that assertion
>:|(why bother?). Myron Lieberman says in "The Teacher Unions" that the
>:|NEA supports Americans United for Separation of Church and State and
>:|People for the American Way. I remembered this as --financial--
>:|support. jalison observed that Lieberman did not say that, so I wrote
>:|to Dr. Lieberman's organization http://www.educationpolicy.org and
>:|asked. The NEA supports PFAW and AU financially. That is the sum of
>:|my "misrepresentation".
>:|>
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:..
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted (jalison inserts newsgroup citations)...
>:|>
>:|> Black unmarked helos are frequently seen by this nut,
>:|>
>:|> Perhaps he would like to tell us of his experiences when he was beamed up
>:|> by aliens as well.
>:|>
>:|> No MK, the entire world isn't out to get you, some have of it has already
>:|> gotten you.
>:|>
>:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|grow shrill.
Which shrills dippy?
>:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
>:|United for the Separation of Church and State, until I reproduced a
>:|post in which he claimed membership. The NEA supports AU.
Smoke screen argument to cover up his misrepresentation of facts as shown
below in the GOOGLE URLS.
Notice how he tries to fend off his own misrepresentations by creating a
smoke screen.
========================================================
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
[MK-AKA panther]
I am sure the term cartel has many applications but in recent years in out
culture is has a lot of exposure as a negative, i e, drug cartels, etc. I
suspect that is why he likes to use the word.
MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
Founding Father
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
>
> MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
> used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist
organizations
> were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
>
> The implication was that these organizations received much or most of
their
> monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
> fronts for said organizations,
>
> BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
> various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
> organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
I just saw this as the first post in this thread, so I don't know what
exactly you're referring to, but funding to conservative organizations is a
pittance compared with liberal ones, like the Ford Foundation.
A pet theme of liberals in recent years has been to attribute
conservative successes to lavish funding from foundations, J. Gordon
Lamb
writes at www.frontpagemag.com.
"People For The American Way ... have taken this idea to an entirely
new
level by way of their published report 'Buying a Movement: Right Wing
Foundations and American Politics,' which documents with specific
figures
in order to educate the reader, 'Each year conservative foundations
channel millions of dollars into a broad range of conservative
political
organizations.' "
PFAW "specifically targets the Lynne And Harry Bradley Foundation, the
Koch Family Foundations, ... the John M. Olin Foundation, the Scaife
Foundations ... and the Adolph Coors Foundation," Mr. Lamb said.
Those foundations had total assets of $1.3 billion in 2001 and awarded
$95 million in grants that year.
Impressive? Perhaps. But left-wing foundations actually are much
larger,
Mr. Lamb said.
"By contrast, the four largest foundations that consistently fund
left-
wing agendas are the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford
Foundation, the David And Lucille Packard Foundation and the John D.
And
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation."
Their total assets in 2001 were $53 billion. And their total grants
that
year were $2.6 billion.
"But why, given the availability of myth-busting facts, does the left
consistently cry 'poor'?" Mr. Lamb asks. "Well, it makes for good
press.
The image of scary, big-money, far-right foundations makes a good bogey
man for their platforms."
But, hey, don't let facts get in your way.
> There is no longer term studies of vouchers on a mass scale in this
> country, simply because there has not been any mass vouchers applications
> in this country. There are a few studies based on a couple programs in a
> couple individual med, sized cities.
Thanks to the concerted fascist obstruction by left wing politicians who are
in the pocket of the NEA. And most of these left wing politicians are gross
hypocrites, sending their OWN children to private/religious schools and
denying that right to those who are not wealthy.
> The results of the voucher programs in those places are mixed.
> The best private schools aren't doing much better, if at all than the best
> public schools.
> The average private schools are comparable to the average private schools.
> The poor private schools usually close down. There has been corruption at
> times, poor management etc.
>
> In short, those vouchers have not really lived up the various claims the
> pro voucher folks like to say vouchers will achieve.
Not only do children do better in voucher programs, school choice even
improves the public schools. From the New York Times:
February 16, 2001
Threat of Vouchers Motivates Schools to Improve, Study Says
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 - A new study of Florida's efforts to
turn
around failing schools has found that the threat that
children
would receive vouchers to attend private schools spurred the
worst performing schools to make significant academic
strides.
The study, sponsored by the state, was conducted by Jay P.
Greene of the Manhattan Institute, a pro- voucher research
group
based in Manhattan. The study promptly came under fire from
opponents of vouchers, with some saying that it was the
state's
failing grade of the schools rather than the threat of
vouchers
that motivated the schools to improve. Some independent
researchers said it was far too early to tell much from the
Florida initiative.
To change public schoolsThe Washington Times
www.washtimes.com
To change public schools
Ken Johnson
Published 2/12/01
As vice president of a large urban school board, I have a message to
parents of every public school child in America: Private school choice
is
one of the best things that ever happened to my city's public schools.
Many will be surprised to hear an elected member of the Milwaukee
Public
Schools (MPS) Board of Directors say that. They'd be even more
surprised
to learn that several of my board colleagues agree that school choice
is
strengthening our public schools.
Milwaukee's experience with school choice flatly contradicts the
propaganda of its opponents, who mislead citizens to think that school
choice will harm children "left behind" in public schools. The exact
opposite is true in Milwaukee, where we have the nation's oldest and
largest program of tax-supported vouchers for low-income parents.
School choice fundamentally has changed Milwaukee's public education
mindset. Before the Milwaukee parental choice plan, some in MPS seemed
to
have the view that 'we own the children of Milwaukee.' Then, only
wealthier parents had choice. If you were poor and lived in Milwaukee,
you were going to go to MPS. End of story. A system that believes its
students lack options lacks any incentive to perform.
Parental choice changed all that -- not that the competitive spirit
seized the public schools overnight. In the early 1990s, public
schools
looked for ways to kill the program. A big change came in 1998, when
Wisconsin's Supreme Court upheld the program's constitutionality. As a
labor union member and an electrician by trade, I know a little bit
about high voltage situations. When the court upheld vouchers, it sent
a
shock through the public school system. With the realization that low-
income parents now had options, the public education establishment
knew
it would have to improve.
Actually, the best education is home schooling. Parents who do so should
get back what they are saving the public school system.
> MK is extremely biased, with an agenda and that agenda isn't nobile.
Sounds like you're talking about yourself. And you an NEA member by any
chance?
Founding Father
One additional, but important point:
In a free society, proponents of school choice should not have to prove
their system is better. In a free society parents should be able to choose
what school their children go to, and the choice should include private and
religious schools.
Such choice would remove all arguments about prayer in the schools, saying
the pledge, and what values are being taught.
Obviously, then, the NEA and left wing politicians have conspired to make
this not a free society.
The Axis of Weasel
wrote:
>
><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
>
>One additional, but important point:
>
>In a free society, proponents of school choice should not have to prove
>their system is better. In a free society parents should be able to choose
>what school their children go to, and the choice should include private and
>religious schools.
We have school choice. You just want church schools subsidized, and
the public isn't interested.
>
>Such choice would remove all arguments about prayer in the schools, saying
>the pledge, and what values are being taught.
>
Just don't make me pay for your flat-earth academies.
>Obviously, then, the NEA and left wing politicians have conspired to make
>this not a free society.
>
By not subscibing to your "welfare for Jeezus" program?
****************
They said if I voted for Gore, we would have massive spending deficits, angry allies, and be bogged down in "police actions"
I did, and we are.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal.
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
jal...@cox.net
Founding father? LOL Yea right.
{snipped the rest of the crap]
Here is a news bulletin for you, all sides us the same tactics, have the
same types of organizations that do funding and anyone, and I don't give a
dame who thy are that single out only one side and say bad bad are biased
Bob LeChevalier
><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
>>
>> MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
>> used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
>> were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
>>
>> The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
>> monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
>> fronts for said organizations,
>>
>> BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
>> various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
>> organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
>
>I just saw this as the first post in this thread, so I don't know what
>exactly you're referring to, but funding to conservative organizations is a
>pittance compared with liberal ones, like the Ford Foundation.
You've gotta be kidding!
Have you looked at the money raised by the Republican Party compared
to the Democratic Party? Even with the unions, the Democrats don't
come close to match the Republicans.
>> There is no longer term studies of vouchers on a mass scale in this
>> country, simply because there has not been any mass vouchers applications
>> in this country. There are a few studies based on a couple programs in a
>> couple individual med, sized cities.
>
>Thanks to the concerted fascist obstruction by left wing politicians who are
>in the pocket of the NEA.
Not to mention the voters of many states that have voted down vouchers
almost every time they've been give a choice.
>And most of these left wing politicians are gross
>hypocrites, sending their OWN children to private/religious schools and
>denying that right to those who are not wealthy.
They've been spending their own money when they do so.
They also probably buy better cars than the poor (who may not even own
a car).
>> In short, those vouchers have not really lived up the various claims the
>> pro voucher folks like to say vouchers will achieve.
>
>Not only do children do better in voucher programs, school choice even
>improves the public schools.
Not supported by your own article - you didn't read to the bottom.
>From the New York Times:
>
> February 16, 2001
> Threat of Vouchers Motivates Schools to Improve, Study Says
> By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
>
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 - A new study of Florida's efforts to turn
> around failing schools has found that the threat that children
> would receive vouchers to attend private schools spurred the
> worst performing schools to make significant academic strides.
There is NO evidence that improvements in poor schools came as a
result of a "threat".
> The study, sponsored by the state, was conducted by Jay P.
> Greene of the Manhattan Institute, a pro- voucher research group
> based in Manhattan.
Which means that the conclusion was foregone.
> The study promptly came under fire from
> opponents of vouchers, with some saying that it was the state's
> failing grade of the schools rather than the threat of vouchers
> that motivated the schools to improve. Some independent
> researchers said it was far too early to tell much from the
> Florida initiative.
In other words, how you interpret the results seems to be based on
your political agenda. Thus the article says that there is NO sure
conclusion that school choice has improved the schools.
>Actually, the best education is home schooling. Parents who do so should
>get back what they are saving the public school system.
They aren't saving the public school system a single penny. Pull your
kid out of school, and the school's costs aren't cut in any
significant way. The marginal cost of educating one more kid in the
schools is negligible. It takes large numbers of kids to make a
difference.
>> MK is extremely biased, with an agenda and that agenda isn't nobile.
>
>Sounds like you're talking about yourself. And you an NEA member by any
>chance?
Vouchers are regularly voted down by the majority of the public. The
majority of the public is not a member of any union, much less the NEA
which has less than 1% of the population among its membership.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
>
>One additional, but important point:
>
>In a free society, proponents of school choice should not have to prove
>their system is better. In a free society parents should be able to choose
>what school their children go to, and the choice should include private and
>religious schools.
They have that choice. But choice costs money. If you spend the
money you have as much choice of schools as you have choice of cars
and houses and doctors.
If you don't have money you have get the equivalent of public busses,
public housing, and public health clinics, all of which are
considerably better than nothing, but none of which are preferred by
people who choose to spend their own money elsewhere.
>Such choice would remove all arguments about prayer in the schools, saying
>the pledge, and what values are being taught.
>
>Obviously, then, the NEA and left wing politicians have conspired to make
>this not a free society.
"Freedom of choice" isn't supposed to be government-paid. That is
socialism.
lojbab
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>
MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>
> >:|> >:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
> >:|> >:|grow shrill.
>
> >:|> Which shrills dippy?
>
> >:|MK. "Shills", jalison, "shills".
>
> Which shrills dippy?
> These so called shrills have names?
> How DO YOU define shrills?
> You got any proof they are shrills?
>
>
MK. Ad hominem deleted...
>
MK. jalison repeats himself. I will refer any patient reader to an
earlier post in answer.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2478233601d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=dfbfc9b9.0303211256.5420aa62%40posting.google.com&rnum=101
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Founding Father
"The Axis of Weasel" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:qb468v05verfrtd69...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:07:04 -0700, "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
> >
> >One additional, but important point:
> >
> >In a free society, proponents of school choice should not have to prove
> >their system is better. In a free society parents should be able to
choose
> >what school their children go to, and the choice should include private
and
> >religious schools.
>
> We have school choice. You just want church schools subsidized, and
> the public isn't interested.
Right. Just like the voters in Iraq have freedom of choice whom they vote
for.
The public IS interested. But overcoming fascist Democrats who are in the
pocket of the NEA has proven to be very difficult.
But I'll tell you what. I'm perfectly willing to compromise. End all
government involvement in education and let parents use their own money no
longer confiscated in taxes to educate their own kids.
But you won't agree to that because of your fascist need to control the
education of America's future (which is damn bleak, given current public
education performance).
> >
> >Such choice would remove all arguments about prayer in the schools,
saying
> >the pledge, and what values are being taught.
> >
> Just don't make me pay for your flat-earth academies.
And don't make me pay for your public schools that indoctrinate children
into loony leftism and teach nothing.
> >Obviously, then, the NEA and left wing politicians have conspired to make
> >this not a free society.
> >
> By not subscibing to your "welfare for Jeezus" program?
By forcing children into worthless public schools that succeed at nothing
but undermining parents' values.
Founding Father
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:g4j68v0bn1vfu565k...@4ax.com...
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> ><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
> >
> >One additional, but important point:
> >
> >In a free society, proponents of school choice should not have to prove
> >their system is better. In a free society parents should be able to
choose
> >what school their children go to, and the choice should include private
and
> >religious schools.
>
> They have that choice. But choice costs money. If you spend the
> money you have as much choice of schools as you have choice of cars
> and houses and doctors.
That's exactly the point. Parents would have the choice except for the fact
that the government confiscates the money they need to pay for it. If they
have enough left over, they're paying twice.
> >Such choice would remove all arguments about prayer in the schools,
saying
> >the pledge, and what values are being taught.
> >
> >Obviously, then, the NEA and left wing politicians have conspired to make
> >this not a free society.
>
> "Freedom of choice" isn't supposed to be government-paid. That is
> socialism.
>
> lojbab
So what you're saying is if the government pays for it, you get no choice.
That's a pretty revealing admission from a liberal. I'm not sure you
realize the implications. The solution then, is to end public education and
make parents pay for their own kids.
Founding Father
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> ><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book
he
> >> used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist
organizations
> >> were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
> >>
> >> The implication was that these organizations received much or most of
their
> >> monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
> >> fronts for said organizations,
> >>
> >> BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
> >> various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
> >> organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
> >
> >I just saw this as the first post in this thread, so I don't know what
> >exactly you're referring to, but funding to conservative organizations is
a
> >pittance compared with liberal ones, like the Ford Foundation.
>
> You've gotta be kidding!
>
> Have you looked at the money raised by the Republican Party compared
> to the Democratic Party? Even with the unions, the Democrats don't
> come close to match the Republicans.
You really should learn to read. The post I replied to referred to
"activist organizations." That generally does not include the political
parties.
If you include the unions "in kind" aid and all the free publicity by the
left wing controlled media that basically parrot the Democrat Pary line, the
Republicans are far behind. Talk radio helps, but people have to seek that
out, and those who do are usually already well informed, and therefore
conservative. Those who get all their news from network TV get an endless
stream of Democrat propaganda. The major newspapers are just as bad.
> >> There is no longer term studies of vouchers on a mass scale in this
> >> country, simply because there has not been any mass vouchers
applications
> >> in this country. There are a few studies based on a couple programs in
a
> >> couple individual med, sized cities.
> >
> >Thanks to the concerted fascist obstruction by left wing politicians who
are
> >in the pocket of the NEA.
>
> Not to mention the voters of many states that have voted down vouchers
> almost every time they've been give a choice.
After massive lies and spending and organizing by the teachers unions, which
even use the children to send home propaganda.
The biggest lie, that it violates the Constitution, has been dispensed with.
The second biggest lie, that is siphons of funds from public education is in
the process of being dispelled. But again, it's hard to fight the
entrenched bureaucracy. But freedom will win in the end. Too bad so many,
mostly poor minority kids, will be guaranteed a life of poverty until then.
There is no well financed counterpart to the NEA that can spend millions on
a referendum and buy the advertising needed to counter NEA lies parroted by
the left wing media,
> >And most of these left wing politicians are gross
> >hypocrites, sending their OWN children to private/religious schools and
> >denying that right to those who are not wealthy.
>
> They've been spending their own money when they do so.
Right. The wealthy get choice. The poor get crap. But if the public
schools are "just as good" why do all these rich liberals choose private
schools instead? And why do public school teachers put more of their
children in private schools than the general population - why crying poverty
at the same time? Obviously they know something the general population does
not.
Give the parents their own tax money back if the pull their kids our of the
public schools.
> They also probably buy better cars than the poor (who may not even own
> a car).
But nobody is taxing the poor for a public automobile system, and then
sticking them with 10 year old Yugos.
> >> In short, those vouchers have not really lived up the various claims
the
> >> pro voucher folks like to say vouchers will achieve.
> >
> >Not only do children do better in voucher programs, school choice even
> >improves the public schools.
>
> Not supported by your own article - you didn't read to the bottom.
>
> >From the New York Times:
> >
> > February 16, 2001
> > Threat of Vouchers Motivates Schools to Improve, Study
Says
> > By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
> >
> > WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 - A new study of Florida's efforts to
turn
> > around failing schools has found that the threat that
children
> > would receive vouchers to attend private schools spurred
the
> > worst performing schools to make significant academic
strides.
>
> There is NO evidence that improvements in poor schools came as a
> result of a "threat".
If not, public schools that did not face this "threat" would have improved
just as much. They didn't.
The gains, Dr. Greene said, were greater for schools
receiving
an F on the state's ranking scale than for those receiving a
D,
a grade that also indicated poor performance, but did not
carry
the threat of vouchers.
>
> > The study, sponsored by the state, was conducted by Jay
P.
> > Greene of the Manhattan Institute, a pro- voucher
research group
> > based in Manhattan.
>
> Which means that the conclusion was foregone.
And every study by liberal groups is likewise? You'd be in big trouble then
because most of these groups are liberal.
And here's a source that is clearly unbiased - Ken Johnson, a member of the
AFL-CIO, and Vice President of the Milwaukee Public School Board.
Will all this change really make public schools better? Our new
accountability report shows that the MPS high school dropout rate declined
for
the fourth year in a row. Suspensions are down, too. The percentage of
students
showing proficiency in math and reading is up. Of course there is much more
to
do, but these indicators are finally moving in the right direction.
As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently editorialized: "Much of what
the
school system is doing to improve gained impetus because of the expansion of
choice in Milwaukee." Indeed, without school choice and charters, I don't
think
we would be seeing anything like the change taking place in Milwaukee's
public
schools.
The idea that public schools need to improve has been around a long
time.
It took the incentive of private school choice to make public schools
change.
>
> > The study promptly came under fire from
> > opponents of vouchers, with some saying that it was the
state's
> > failing grade of the schools rather than the threat of
vouchers
> > that motivated the schools to improve. Some independent
> > researchers said it was far too early to tell much from
the
> > Florida initiative.
>
> In other words, how you interpret the results seems to be based on
> your political agenda. Thus the article says that there is NO sure
> conclusion that school choice has improved the schools.
>
> >Actually, the best education is home schooling. Parents who do so should
> >get back what they are saving the public school system.
>
> They aren't saving the public school system a single penny. Pull your
> kid out of school, and the school's costs aren't cut in any
> significant way. The marginal cost of educating one more kid in the
> schools is negligible. It takes large numbers of kids to make a
> difference.
So, let's make the number larger. Helps the public schools and the kids
pulled out.
> >> MK is extremely biased, with an agenda and that agenda isn't nobile.
> >
> >Sounds like you're talking about yourself. And you an NEA member by any
> >chance?
>
> Vouchers are regularly voted down by the majority of the public. The
> majority of the public is not a member of any union, much less the NEA
> which has less than 1% of the population among its membership.
You obviously have NO idea how local politics, or even statewide politics
works, especially with respect to referenda.
Campaign spending is a huge factor in such issues.
By Paul Strand
Washington Bureau
May 17, 2001
Christianity.com
The latest battlefield over vouchers was California. There the teacher
groups spent tens of millions of dollars campaigning against vouchers.
After that, one Republican lawmaker introduced a bill that would force
California public school teachers to keep their own children in the
public
schools.
Well, the teachers rose up in loud protest.
It seems the opponents of school choice were outraged someone would
take
that choice away from them. In fact, it turns out many of these
teachers,
who know the public schools better than anyone else, won't let their
own
kids be educated in them.
So just how many have opted out of the public school system?
"Among teachers, the percentage is much higher than the general
population," said Krista Kafer, an education policy analyst at the
Heritage Foundation. "Looking specifically at California, it's roughly
a
third of the teachers. And just to get a comparison, the general
population is under 10 percent."
"Those numbers are much higher in the inner cities where in many
instances, half or more of public school teachers send their own kids
to
private schools while at the same time their union is dead set against
letting low-income parents exercise the same choice,"
Hypocrites and fascists. Quite a combination.
Educator says vouchers build communities
Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 3/31/2002
Private-school voucher programs are likely to make low-income
neighborhoods
more racially integrated and boost property values, says an economics
professor
who is studying the effects of education policy changes on communities and
school quality.
In the current education system, families are assigned to a public
school
according to their address, Thomas J. Nechyba told a forum at the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) on Friday.
Taxpayer-funded voucher programs, which allow families to choose a
school,
encourage mobility because they "sever the link" between residency and
schools,
said Mr. Nechyba, who is an associate professor of economics and public
policy
studies at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
There is "unambiguous and robust" evidence that shows private-school
vouchers would dramatically change a low-income community, said Mr. Nechyba,
who
developed computer models to test his hypotheses.
Here's a source you should like - the decidedly liberal Brookings
Institution:
Scores of blacks rise with vouchers
Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 5/9/2002
Inner-city black students in voucher programs consistently scored
higher
than their peers in public schools, say two researchers who have been doing
an
unprecedented study of voucher programs.
These results indicate a need for more research on larger,
better-funded
voucher programs in cities with large black populations, said Harvard
University
professor Paul E. Peterson and William G. Howell, assistant professor of
political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
"Vouchers should be given serious attention," Mr. Peterson said during
a
forum at the Brookings Institution yesterday.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Howell have reported their findings in a new book,
"The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools," published by Brookings.
Patrick J. Wolfe, assistant professor at Georgetown University's Public
Policy Institute, and David E. Campbell, a fellow at the Center for the
Study of
Democratic Politics at Princeton University, contributed to the book.
EDITORIAL
February 12, 2001
Democrats for choice
Opponents of school choice will face a new obstacle the
next
time they try to prevent inner city children living in poverty
from
getting a good education -- the Democrats. With Bill Clinton and
Al
Gore out of the White House, Democrats are finally speaking out
to
help those their presidential campaign ignored. From AFL-CIO
member
Kenneth L. Johnson of Milwaukee Public Schools to the Rev. Floyd
Flake of New York, these activists are fighting for the notion
that
public funds should allow parents and children to choose what
public
or private school they attend, and they are encouraging their
party
members to do the same.
"School choice belongs in the discussion of the
[Democratic]
Party," Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist said at the National Press
Club recently. "I was a delegate and it wasn't even an issue at
the
convention."
"We have a choice system that is dividing children by
incomes,"
Mr. Norquist said at the press conference, sponsored by the
Black
Alliance for Education Options (BAEO). "It separates the poor
from
the wealthy, the African American from the white." In cities
like
Milwaukee, where more than 9,000 students below the poverty
level
use publicly funded vouchers to attend public or private
schools,
choice has not meant closing a single public school.
Even John Witte, the University of Wisconsin professor
whose
research has been used by the National Education Association to
show
that school choice doesn't increase poor students' performance,
now
supports the movement. In his book, "The Market Approach to
Education: An Analysis of America's First Voucher Program," he
now
says that school choice is "useful tool to aid low-income
families."
Bob LeChevalier
>The public IS interested. But overcoming fascist Democrats who are in the
>pocket of the NEA has proven to be very difficult.
The votes in public referenda on vouchers does not support your claim.
>But I'll tell you what. I'm perfectly willing to compromise. End all
>government involvement in education and let parents use their own money no
>longer confiscated in taxes to educate their own kids.
Not a compromise. 80% of the kids in the country would not be
educated. That was the situation before public schooling.
>But you won't agree to that because of your fascist need to control the
>education of America's future (which is damn bleak, given current public
>education performance).
Current performance is superior to any time in the past.
>> Just don't make me pay for your flat-earth academies.
>
>And don't make me pay for your public schools that indoctrinate children
>into loony leftism and teach nothing.
You are welcome to leave.
>> >Obviously, then, the NEA and left wing politicians have conspired to make
>> >this not a free society.
>> >
>> By not subscibing to your "welfare for Jeezus" program?
>
>By forcing children into worthless public schools that succeed at nothing
>but undermining parents' values.
The public finds them quite worthwhile, and generally in accord with
the public's values (which are not necessarily the values of the
parents).
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> They have that choice. But choice costs money. If you spend the
>> money you have as much choice of schools as you have choice of cars
>> and houses and doctors.
>
>That's exactly the point. Parents would have the choice except for the fact
>that the government confiscates the money they need to pay for it.
Bullshit. If I paid no taxes at all, I could not afford private
school tuition for my two high schoolers (and that tuition would
probably rise if not held down by the need to "compete" with free
public education).
>> "Freedom of choice" isn't supposed to be government-paid. That is
>> socialism.
>
>So what you're saying is if the government pays for it, you get no choice.
Your choice is at the ballot box.
>That's a pretty revealing admission from a liberal.
No it is a revealing admission from a conservative who recognizes that
public education is one of the welfare services of our government. We
don't give welfare recipients a lot of choices as to what kind of
welfare they receive; indeed we make them jump through hoops in order
to receive that welfare. Getting free services from the government
doesn't entitle welfare recipients to "choice".
>I'm not sure you
>realize the implications. The solution then, is to end public education and
>make parents pay for their own kids.
That is what most extremists on the right are really hoping for.
They don't care about kids, only their pocketbooks.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|>Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted...
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|> >:|> >:|grow shrill.
>:|>
>:|> >:|> Which shrills dippy?
>:|>
>:|> >:|MK. "Shills", jalison, "shills".
>:|>
>:|> Which shrills dippy?
>:|> These so called shrills have names?
>:|> How DO YOU define shrills?
>:|> You got any proof they are shrills?
>:|>
>:|MK. Read carefully, jalison. There is no "r" in "shills"
>:|>
Ahhhh the distraction method
It is noted
(1) Big deal on the "R" actually there is a word shrill which is why
the spell checker didn't catch it
(2) you didn't answer the question. more unsubstantiated claims by you on
this same matter. Fronts, shills etc you like to toss them out there a
lot don't you dippy?
>:|MK. Ad hominem deleted...
>:|>
>:|MK. jalison repeats himself. I will refer any patient reader to an
>:|earlier post in answer.
>:|>
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2478233601d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=dfbfc9b9.0303211256.5420aa62%40posting.google.com&rnum=101
Ther are no acceptable answers to the lies/ misrepresentations you made
before.
Your answer was the same as above, you immediately resorted to distraction.
(1) BTW, have you included the threads where others jumped your unethical
tactics that was exposed when I exposed your misrepresentations of the
book you kept mentioning? HUH? well?
(2) Did you includes URLs to threads that contain posts and replies from a
number of people pointing out how pathetic your attempted distraction
was? Indeed, the joke of trying to claim a one years membership to a group
several years earlier was the same as a ongoing misrepresentation of what
was said in a book. A misrepresentation that was 90% straight from your own
imagination. A number of people jumped your case on you trying that. Are
those URLs included dippy?
(3) How do you address you obvious agenda and biases. How do you explain
those? Do you give a disclaimer. warning people that you are always going
to slant, misrepresent and only give one distorted side to this issue in
all of your posts?
LOL
==========================================
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>:|>
>:|"If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a
>:|good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It
>:|might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they
>:|pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the
>:|poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expense of
>:|those who have no one else to pay for them." -- J.S. Mill, On Liberty
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted (ad hominem)...
>:|>
>:|> >:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|> >:|grow shrill.
>:|>
>:|> Which shrills dippy?
>:|>
>:|MK. "Shills", jalison, "shills".
Which shills dippy?
These so called shills have names?
How DO YOU define shills?
You got any proof they are shills?
>:|>
>:|> >:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
>:|> >:|United for the Separation of Church and State, until I reproduced a
>:|> >:|post in which he claimed membership. The NEA supports AU.
>:|>
>:|> Smoke screen argument to cover up his misrepresentation of facts as shown
>:|> below in the GOOGLE URLS.
>:|>
>:|MK. Readers may backtrack to assess the accuracy of that assertion
>:|(why bother?). Myron Lieberman says in "The Teacher Unions" that the
>:|NEA supports Americans United for Separation of Church and State and
>:|People for the American Way. I remembered this as --financial--
>:|support. jalison observed that Lieberman did not say that, so I wrote
>:|to Dr. Lieberman's organization http://www.educationpolicy.org and
>:|asked. The NEA supports PFAW and AU financially. That is the sum of
>:|my "misrepresentation".
>:|>
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:..
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted (jalison inserts newsgroup citations)...
>:|>
>:|> Black unmarked helos are frequently seen by this nut,
>:|>
>:|> Perhaps he would like to tell us of his experiences when he was beamed up
>:|> by aliens as well.
>:|>
>:|> No MK, the entire world isn't out to get you, some have of it has already
>:|> gotten you.
>:|>
>:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|grow shrill.
Which shrills dippy?
>:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|You really should learn to read. The post I replied to referred to
>:|"activist organizations." That generally does not include the political
>:|parties.
Duh, many who support political parties also support activist groups that
represent their philosophies.
Are you going to list the "activist" groups that support vouchers?
Are you going to list the groups that finance some of those groups and many
of the litigation that has taken place over the past 20 some years in
support of vouchers?
Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was expended
in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
What can you tell us about the following groups:
[The following is only a partial list of various activist groups, fund
raising groups and individual, legal groups that are taking the cases to
court, etc]
Coral Ridge Ministries
James Dodson's Focus on the Family
Christian Coalition
Akkiance Defensr Fund
Rutherford Institute
ACLJ
Curistian Legal Society for law and religious freedom
(CLS Center)
Liberty Counsel
Center For Faith and Freedom
Liberty Legal Insitutte
Pacific Justice Institute
==========================
http://www.tfn.org/issues/vouchers/statementsenate.htm
============================
The Texas Public Policy Foundation
Eagle Forum:
American Family Association:
New York City financier Theodore J. Forstman
John Walton, heir to the Wal-Mart fortune
Family Research Council
CEO America
Local organization called PAVE (Partners Advancing Values in Education) -
Bradley Foundation.
Ted Forstmann
TesseracT Group (formerly Education Alternatives Inc.)
School Futures Research Foundation
American Education Reform Foundation
James Leininger
J. Patrick Rooney
David Brennan
Howard Ahmanson
Richard DeVos (via his Amway Corp.)
Whittle Communications, the creator of the controversial Channel One
television program that has injected commercials into the classroom
Edison Project, a national chain of private schools.
PAC for Parental School Choice
The Walton Family Foundation
Foundation of Ohio voucher proponent David Brennan
California venture capitalist Tim Draper
Michael Milken has moved from junk bonds to education,
Bob Thompson of Washington, D.C.
Windway Capital Corporation,
John MacDonough, a former Miller Brewing Company executive
Barre Seid, a "Chicago contributor to GOP and school
choice efforts."
The William J. Hume Trust
PMA Foundation,
Pete du Pont
Robert Schoolfield, "founder of a school choice group in
Austin, Texas."
Mary and Terry Kohler ($10,000); Robert Thompson
New York business executive Charles Brunie
attorney George Gagnon
Milwaukee religious school voucher supporters
Susan Mitchell, Michael
Joyce and John MacDonough.
======================================
HERE IS A TYPICAL COURT CASE ON VOUCHERS
LISTING WHO IS WHO ON EACH SIDE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 97-0270 Complete Title of Case:
Warner Jackson, Jennifer Evans, Wendell Harris, The Reverend Andrew
Kennedy, Rabbi Isaac Serotta, Ceil Ann Libber, Father Thomas
J. Mueller, Reverend John N. Gregg, Diane Brewer, Colleen Beaman, Mary
Morris, Penny Morse, Kathleen Jones and Philip Jones,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
John T. Benson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Public
Instruction and James E. Doyle,
Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners,
Marquelle Miller, Cynthia Miller, Angela Gray, Zachery Gray, Shon
Richardson, George Richardson, Latrisha Henry, Faye Henry, Reigne
Barrett, Valerie Barrett, Candice Williams, Senton Williams, Clintrai
Giles, Sharon Giles,
Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants, Parents For School
Choice, Pilar Gonzalez, Dinah Cooley, Julie Vogel, Kate Helsper, Blong
Yang, Gail Crockett, Yolanda Lassiter and Jeanine Knox,
Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants-
Petitioners.
__________________________________
Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, by its President, M. Charles
Howard, Michael Lengyel, Donald Lucier, Tracy Adams,
Milwaukee Public Schools Administrators and Supervisors
Council, Inc., by its Executive Director, Carl A. Gobel,
People for the American Way, by its Executive Vice President and Legal
Director, Elliott M. Minceberg, John Drew, Susan Endress, Richard Riley,
Jeanette Robertson, Vincent Knox, Bertha Zamudio, James Johnson,
Robert Ullman and Sally F. Mills,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
John T. Benson, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Public
Instruction and James E. Doyle,
Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners,
Marquelle Miller, Cynthia Miller, Angela Gray, Zachery Gray, Shon
Richardson, George Richardson, Latrisha Henry, Faye
Henry, Reigne Barrett, Valerie Barrett, Candice Williams, Senton Williams,
Clintrai Giles, Sharon Giles,
Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants,
Parents For School Choice, Pilar Gonzalez, Dinah Cooley, Julie Vogel, Kate
Helsper, BlongYang, Gail Crockett, Yolanda Lassiter and Jeanine Knox,
Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants-
Petitioners.
__________________________________
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Felmers O.
Chaney, Lois Parker, on behalf of herself and her minor
child, Rashaan Hobbs, Derrick D. Scott, on behalf of himself and his minor
children, Deresia C.A. Scott and Desmond L.J. Scott, Constance J. Cherry,
on behalf of herself and her minor children, Monique J. Branch, Monica
S. Branch, and William A. Branch,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
John T. Benson, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Wisconsin, in his
official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS
Reported at: 213 Wis. 2d 1, 570 N.W.2d 407
(Ct. App. 1997-PUBLISHED)
For the intervenors-defendants-appellants-petitioners, parents for school
choice, et al., there were briefs by Steve P. Hurley and Hurley, Burish &
Milliken, S.C., Madison; William H. Mellor, III, Clint Bolick, Nicole S.
Garnett and Institute for Justice, Washington, D,C, and Michael D. Dean,
Waukesha and oral argument by Clint Bolick.
For the intervenors-defendants-appellants, Marquelle Millter,
et al., there were briefs by Kevin Potter and Brennan Steil, Madison and
Richard P. Hutchison and Landmark Legal Foundation, Kansas City, MO and
oral argument by Richard P. Hutchison.
For the plaintiffs-respondents, Warner Jackson, et
al., there was a brief by Jeffrey J. Kassel, Melanie E. Cohen and
LaFollette & Sinykin, Madison; Peter M. Koneazny and American Civil
Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc.,, Milwaukee; Steven R.
Shapiro and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY and
Steven K. Green and Americans United for Separation of Church &
State, Washington, D.C., and oral argument by Jeffrey J. Kassel.
For the plaintiffs-respondents, there was a brief by Robert H.
Chanin, John M. West and Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.;
Richard Perry, Richard Saks and Perry, Lerner & Quindel,
Milwaukee; Bruce Meredith, Chris Galinat and Wisconsin Education
Association, Madison; Elliot M.Mincberg, Judith Schaeffer, Washington, D.C.
and Timothy Hawks and Schneidman, Myers, Dowling & Blumenfield, Milwaukee
and oral argument by Robert H. Chanin.
For the plaintiffs-respondents, NAACP, et al., there was a brief
by William H. Lynch and Law Offices of William H. Lynch, Milwaukee and
James H. Hall, Jr., and Hall, Patterson & Charne, Milwaukee and oral
argument by James H. Hall, Jr.
Amicus curiae was filed by K. Scott Wagner and Hale & Lein,
S.C., Milwaukee and James C. Geoly, Kevin R. Gustafson and Burke, Warren,
MacKay & Serritella, P.C., Chicago, IL for the Center for Education Reform,
American Legislative Exchange, CEO America, CEO Central Florida, CEO
Connecticut, Putting Children First, James Madison Institute for
Public Policy Studies, Jewish Policy Center, "I Have a Dream" Foundation
(Washington, D.C. Chapter), Institute for Public Affairs, Liberty
Counsel, Maine School Choice Coalition, Pennsylvania Manufacturers
Association, Reach Alliance, Arkansas Policy Foundation, North
Carolina Education Reform Foundation, Texas Justice Foundation, Minnesota
Business Partnership, Minnesotans for School Choice, Toussaint Institute,
South Carolina Policy Counsel, and United New Yorkers for Choice in
Education.
Amicus curiae was filed by Ralph I. Thomas, Madison; Steven T.
McFarland, Kimberlee W. Colby and Christian Legal Society, Annandale, VA
and of counsel, Thomas C. Berg and Cumberland Law School,
Birmingham, AL for The Christian Legal Society, Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod and the National Association of Evangelicals.
Amicus curiae was filed by David R. Riemer, Milwaukee for Howard
L. Fuller, John O. Norquist, Steven M. Foti, Alberta Darling, Margaret A.
Farrow, Joseph Leean, John S. Gardner, Warren D. Braun, Bruce R. Thompson,
Jeanette Mitchell and David Lucey.
Amicus curiae was filed by Daniel Kelly and McLario, Helm &
Bertling, S.C., Menomonee Falls for the Family Research Institute,
Christian Defense Fund, Center for Public Justice, Family Research
Council, Toward Tradition, Liberty Counsel and Focus on the Family.
Amicus curiae was filed by Bradden C. Backer and
Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Milwaukee and Robert L. Gordon and Weiss, Berzowski,
Brady & Donahue, Milwaukee for The Milwaukee Jewish Council for
Community Relations and The Wisconsin Jewish Conference.
Amicus curiae was filed by Marc D. Stern, Lois C.
Waldmani and American Jewish Congress, New York, NY for the American Jewish
Congress.
============================================================
jal...@cox.net
|
>:|That's exactly the point. Parents would have the choice except for the fact
>:|that the government confiscates the money they need to pay for it. If they
>:|have enough left over, they're paying twice.
===============================================================
A New Look At Vouchers.
(Permission of author to use this has been given)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A new look at vouchers
From: ai...@unity.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Date: 1 Aug 1995 19:13:36 GMT
This occurred to me the other day, while listening to a talk-show debate
on school vouchers.
Some people want a "rebate" on the money they give to the state to educate
their children, in order to spend that money in religious schools of their
choice. Fine, although that they get might not be what they expect.
The problem is, the money that a person pays into the system for schools,
via property taxes, sales tax, etc. is *NOT* for the education of their
own children, but for public education as a whole**. Many of the arguments
I've heard that support this is that public education is supposed to be
good for the community as a whole, hence everybody pays. I have no children
in the school system, yet I must pay to educate other people's children.
Other people, with children or not, do the same. The illusion inherent in
the system is that the money taken from them is taken for "their" children-
it is not.
If there is to be any "rebate", then the amount given back is *not* the
total amount contributed, but the percentage portion represented by their
children versus the entire system. If a person pays $5000 into a school
system with 1000 children, then the total amount of *their* money paying
for *their* children is $5 per child. That is all they should expect
back for removing their children from the public school system; the rest
is the "common good" payment. Any more than that, received either
through tax credits or voucher payments, means that they have unfairly
shifted the "common good" burden to other people.
If instead, you look at it from the point of the "total" amount of money
for each child following that child, then you have still have the problem
that the vast majority of that total is from *other people*, who cannot
legally be forced to contribute to sectarian institutions against their
will. Despite claims of "choice", it is *still not a free-market system*
as long as the people paying are not the people directly benefitting, and
I find it perverse that many otherwise capitalistic-free-market-preaching
conservatives have no problem with such a special welfare system, as long
as its to *their* advantage.
Any voucher system, no matter how you cut it, is still almost entirely
*other people's money", and will remain a separation violation, as long
as the socialistic elements remain in the system.
[**] Whether people should be forced to contribute money for collectivist
social institutions or not is a separate issue altogether. As long as
the system exists, for better or worse, everyone has to be treated equally.
--------------------------------------
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
Ahem, another biased zealot of is it troll.
Amazing how as soon as one vanishes another shows up to take their place.
Wonder how many lately have been doing a Nemesis
In case you don't know who he was or is, it is a nut case who uses about
100 different names to post under.
jal...@cox.net
>:|The public IS interested. But overcoming fascist Democrats
Just to set the record straight
Fascists or Fascism is considered to be at the far right end of the
political spectrum (Kabish? )
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|>Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
Here bad ass, explain this
Anyone reading his posts and replies on this topic should take that into
consideration in evaluating his comments including his emotional code
"The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel"
I am sure the term cartel has many applications but in recent years in out
culture is has a lot of exposure as a negative, i e, drug cartels, etc. I
suspect that is why he likes to use the word.
MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
fronts for said organizations,
BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
==============================================
Are you going to label the following a "CARTEL" as well?
Are you going to list the "activist" groups that support vouchers?
Are you going to list the groups that finance some of those groups and many
of the litigation that has taken place over the past 20 some years in
support of vouchers?
Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was expended
in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
What can you tell us about the following groups:
[The following is only a partial list of various activist groups, fund
raising groups and individual, legal groups that are taking the cases to
court, etc]
Coral Ridge Ministries
James Dobson's Focus on the Family
Herman Rubin
This is a false conclusion. The spectrum is not one dimensional,
and there is essentially no difference between the totalitarian
"right" and the totalitarian "left".
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
jal...@cox.net
>:|In article <jj098vstobam6v4cv...@4ax.com>,
>:| <jal...@cox.net> wrote:
>:|>"Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>>:|The public IS interested. But overcoming fascist Democrats
>:|
>:|
>:|>Just to set the record straight
>:|>Fascists or Fascism is considered to be at the far right end of the
>:|>political spectrum (Kabish? )
>:|This is a false conclusion.
No it's not.
>:|The spectrum is not one dimensional,
>:|and there is essentially no difference between the totalitarian
>:|"right" and the totalitarian "left".
Actually there is. If your are talking a circle, there is some truth to
what you say, however, even then there can still be a stable of the right,
private ownership of the banks, businesses, industry, etc. whereas going
left that isn't a stable of the left
That is why you find the odds of a ultra right having a far greater support
among the upper classes, i.e. the barons of enterprise, business and
industry if you will and why the same so often hate and fear the ultra
left
For average joe blow in the street there isn't much difference but for some
segments there are considerable differences
Italy and Germany were both considered Fascist while Russia was considered
Communist. While there were many things alike there were also major
differences in structure, etc.
I stand by what I said.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:...
>
MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>
US school system?)...
>
> MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
> used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
> were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
>
> The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
> monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
> fronts for said organizations,
>
answered, I won't again.
>
> BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
> various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
> organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
>
little to the discussion. a) The current policy which, in most US
States, restricts a parent's options for the use of the taxpayers'
K-12 education subsidy to schools operated by government employees,
originated in anti-Catholic bigotry. Empire-building bureaucrats
replaced school choice systems in many polities in the early 19th
century with government school systems, when a surge of Catholic
immigrants provoked an allergic reaction in the resident Protestant
majority. How long must a system remain in place for its defenders to
merit the label "conservative"? The proper label for laissez faire
advocates is "liberal". It is in this sense, for example, that Benito
Mussoloni excoriates "liberals" in his essay "What is Fascism?".
Compulsory attendance at government schools characterizes totalitarian
States, and the US. Many of the world's industrial democracies give
parents more options than do US States. b) Parent control (taxpayer
subsidization of a parent's choice of school) would reduce inter-faith
animosity, as choice would reduce the need for agreement about things
like curriculum, values instruction, disciplinary policy, and the
lunch menu. One doesn't have to be a religious to see this.
>
> Are you going to label the following a "CARTEL" as well?
> Are you going to list the "activist" groups that support vouchers?
> Are you going to list the groups that finance some of those groups and many
> of the litigation that has taken place over the past 20 some years in
> support of vouchers?
>
not selling services to the the same purchaser over time. I recommend
Mancur Olsen's "The End of the Middle Way" (__American Economic
Review__) and his book __The Logic of Collective Action__, Jack
Hirscliiefer's "Anarchy and its Breakdown (__Journal of Political
Economy__) and Roger Axelrod's __The Evolution of Cooperation__ for a
discussion of the growth of special interest groups and their effects
on the overall economy.
>
> Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was expended
> in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
>
laws, jalison.
>
> What can you tell us about the following groups:
> [The following is only a partial list of various activist groups, fund
> raising groups and individual, legal groups that are taking the cases to
> court, etc]
>
Rooney) who donate millions to private school voucher programs, giving
poor kids a chance the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools deny to them,
are heros.
>
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
"Comparative Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore, the
regression results indicate that countries where private education is
more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it
is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
>
From: Hyman and Penroe, Journal of School Psychology.
"Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school
children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the
traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988;
Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these
studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children,
especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United
States...."
...A good percentage of these students develop angry and aggressive
responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and its relation to
misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical, psychological, or
legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks on school
discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992)."
"As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional
maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic
status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990)."
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:pfi68vcjk8e8ln8o2...@4ax.com...
>> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> ><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:8st08vsmduivs23t5...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
>> >> used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
>> >> were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
>> >>
>> >> The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
>> >> monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
>> >> fronts for said organizations,
>> >>
>> >> BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
>> >> various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
>> >> organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
>> >
>> >I just saw this as the first post in this thread, so I don't know what
>> >exactly you're referring to, but funding to conservative organizations is a
>> >pittance compared with liberal ones, like the Ford Foundation.
>>
>> You've gotta be kidding!
>>
>> Have you looked at the money raised by the Republican Party compared
>> to the Democratic Party? Even with the unions, the Democrats don't
>> come close to match the Republicans.
>
>You really should learn to read. The post I replied to referred to
>"activist organizations."
The quote is:
>>>>various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
>>>>organizations
>That generally does not include the political parties.
I disagree.
But even so, here are the 2000 contributions by PACs (which hopefully
fit your oddball definition of "activist"). More went to Republicans
than Democrats.
Meanwhile, why is a union considered to be an "activist organization",
but a corporation is not? They legally exist on opposite sides of a
fence of representation.
>If you include the unions "in kind" aid and all the free publicity by the
>left wing controlled media that basically parrot the Democrat Pary line,
You mean Fox?
>Talk radio helps, but people have to seek that out,
Not very hard - no harder than finding it on the TV. Just turn it on.
>There is no well financed counterpart to the NEA that can spend millions on
>a referendum and buy the advertising needed to counter NEA lies parroted by
>the left wing media,
Then why was there more spending in favor of the last California
referendum on vouchers than there was against it?
>> >And most of these left wing politicians are gross
>> >hypocrites, sending their OWN children to private/religious schools and
>> >denying that right to those who are not wealthy.
>>
>> They've been spending their own money when they do so.
>
>Right. The wealthy get choice. The poor get crap.
That's the way market capitalism works. Do you disapprove of market
capitalism?
When a right-winger seems to show compassion for the poor, I suspect
that a flim-flam is being pulled; almost invariably I am right.
>But if the public
>schools are "just as good" why do all these rich liberals choose private
>schools instead?
They don't "all" so choose. When they do, it is their business and
not mine.
>And why do public school teachers put more of their
>children in private schools than the general population
Because their familial incomes are higher on average than the general
public, if still below average for adults with degrees and comparable
years of experience. Many of them have spouses that are more highly
paid, and two professional incomes are together enough to pay for
private schooling.
>- why crying poverty at the same time?
The bottom line is that we have a shortage of teachers. The pay isn't
high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
that teachers aren't paid enough.
>Give the parents their own tax money back if the pull their kids our of the
>public schools.
Their share of their school tax money that goes for educating their
own kid is probably less than a dollar.
If you use a different calculation, then you've knocked out your
supposed compassion for the poor, because of course all right wingers
know that the poor pay almost no taxes. People with income over $100K
pay more than half the taxes.
>> They also probably buy better cars than the poor (who may not even own
>> a car).
>
>But nobody is taxing the poor for a public automobile system, and then
>sticking them with 10 year old Yugos.
Nobody is taxing the poor much at all. But they usually stick them
with 20 year old busses.
>> There is NO evidence that improvements in poor schools came as a
>> result of a "threat".
>
>If not, public schools that did not face this "threat" would have improved
>just as much.
Not necessarily. The farther down you are the easier it is to
improve.
> The gains, Dr. Greene said, were greater for schools receiving
> an F on the state's ranking scale than for those receiving a D,
> a grade that also indicated poor performance, but did not carry
> the threat of vouchers.
Note that in that particular program, the F-rated schools also got
extra state money. I believe another poster has reported that there
are parents transferring their kids into F rated schools from D rated
schools so that their kids get the extra assistance provided by the
state.
>> > The study, sponsored by the state, was conducted by Jay P.
>> > Greene of the Manhattan Institute, a pro- voucher research group
>> > based in Manhattan.
>>
>> Which means that the conclusion was foregone.
>
>And every study by liberal groups is likewise?
Yes.
>You'd be in big trouble then because most of these groups are liberal.
Therefore I only trust a scientific study if it demonstrates clearly
that it is non-aligned, not funded by any special interest group, and
evidences that it considered both sides of the question equally.
>And here's a source that is clearly unbiased - Ken Johnson, a member of the
>AFL-CIO, and Vice President of the Milwaukee Public School Board.
Why would I expect someone to be unbiased merely because of who he
works for? It is YOU who thinks that union people are all mindless
lefties, not me.
>> >Actually, the best education is home schooling. Parents who do so should
>> >get back what they are saving the public school system.
>>
>> They aren't saving the public school system a single penny. Pull your
>> kid out of school, and the school's costs aren't cut in any
>> significant way. The marginal cost of educating one more kid in the
>> schools is negligible. It takes large numbers of kids to make a
>> difference.
>
>So, let's make the number larger.
Let's not.
>Helps the public schools
And hurts society by contributing to division.
>> Vouchers are regularly voted down by the majority of the public. The
>> majority of the public is not a member of any union, much less the NEA
>> which has less than 1% of the population among its membership.
>
>You obviously have NO idea how local politics, or even statewide politics
>works, especially with respect to referenda.
I know that in this country, the voters are supposed to have the final
word. The right wing seems to reject this common American value.
>Campaign spending is a huge factor in such issues.
I don't vote based on which side spends more, and I doubt that most
voters do either. I think this is a case of correlation falsely
indicating causation.
> It seems the opponents of school choice were outraged someone would take
> that choice away from them. In fact, it turns out many of these teachers,
> who know the public schools better than anyone else, won't let their own
> kids be educated in them.
> So just how many have opted out of the public school system?
>
> "Among teachers, the percentage is much higher than the general
> population," said Krista Kafer, an education policy analyst at the
> Heritage Foundation. "Looking specifically at California, it's roughly a
> third of the teachers. And just to get a comparison, the general
> population is under 10 percent."
Lying with statistics. Teachers are actually a little lower than the
population sharing their income level.
> "Those numbers are much higher in the inner cities where in many
> instances, half or more of public school teachers send their own kids to
> private schools while at the same time their union is dead set against
> letting low-income parents exercise the same choice,"
He's a liar. They have no problem with any one exercising choice, so
long as they do so with their own money. That is generally considered
a conservative value, not a liberal one.
>Hypocrites and fascists. Quite a combination.
Yes. You should have looked in the mirror a lot sooner.
> In the current education system, families are assigned to a public school
>according to their address, Thomas J. Nechyba told a forum at the American
>Enterprise Institute (AEI) on Friday.
Another of those right-wing activist groups, along with the Heritage
Foundation.
>Here's a source you should like - the decidedly liberal Brookings
>Institution:
I don't care whether the source is liberal or conservative. Only
whether it is unbiased.
lojbab
Founding Father
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jj098vstobam6v4cv...@4ax.com...
That may be. But the spectrum from left to right does not comprise a
straight line, but instead forms a circle, with statism and liberty on
opposite sides. Fascism arrives at statism from the right,
socialism/communism from the left. But they have far more in common than
differences.
Fascists believe in a strong centralized government. Democrats, not
Republicans
Fascists believe in extreme regulation of business, to the point that the
government virtually runs the business. Democrats, not Republicans
Fascists consider individual liberty dangerous. Democrats, not Republicans
Fascists believe in ridding society of the unwanted ("useless eaters").
Democrats, not Republicans
Fascists believe in confiscation of guns. Democrats, not Republicans.
While Democrats are often described as socialists (which they are
ideologically), in practice they attempt to accomplish most of their ends
via fascist means - i.e., regulation of business rather than owning the
business. That is purely pragmatic because it can be done incrementally and
therefore much more subtly. Trying to actually take over the ownership of
private enterprise, like HillaryClintonCare, is so radical it's hard to get
past even the oblivious American public. The Democrats are very clever at
the incremental approach..
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any creature that the Lord God had
made." - Gen. 3:1
Founding Father
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9hl88v0vmi2hci51s...@4ax.com...
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >:|
> >:|You really should learn to read. The post I replied to referred to
> >:|"activist organizations." That generally does not include the
political
> >:|parties.
>
> Duh, many who support political parties also support activist groups that
> represent their philosophies.
>
> Are you going to list the "activist" groups that support vouchers?
> Are you going to list the groups that finance some of those groups and
many
> of the litigation that has taken place over the past 20 some years in
> support of vouchers?
>
> Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was
expended
> in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
>
>
> What can you tell us about the following groups:
> [The following is only a partial list of various activist groups, fund
> raising groups and individual, legal groups that are taking the cases to
> court, etc]
Attach a dollar amount each of these groups spends lobbying and then we can
talk. All of it together doesn't even add up to the NEA, much less all the
other leftwing anti-choice groups.
Founding Father
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:pfi68vcjk8e8ln8o2...@4ax.com...
> >> Have you looked at the money raised by the Republican Party compared
> >> to the Democratic Party? Even with the unions, the Democrats don't
> >> come close to match the Republicans.
> >
> >You really should learn to read. The post I replied to referred to
> >"activist organizations."
>
> The quote is:
> >>>>various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
> >>>>organizations
>
> >That generally does not include the political parties.
>
> I disagree.
Disagree all you like. Ask the average person to name some "activist
groups" and if they can name any at all, they will name organizations other
than parties.
> But even so, here are the 2000 contributions by PACs (which hopefully
> fit your oddball definition of "activist"). More went to Republicans
> than Democrats.
They're different. PACs are directed toward political candidates. Activist
groups focus on issues and often cross party lines. Right to life will
support a pro-life Democrat over a pro-abortion Republican. And vice versa
for Planned Parenthood or NARAL.
> Meanwhile, why is a union considered to be an "activist organization",
> but a corporation is not? They legally exist on opposite sides of a
> fence of representation.
Most corporations contribute to both parties, with the party in power
getting somewhat more. And corporations are hardly uniformly conservative.
Some major organizations like AT&T, Motorola, Disney, etc., have social
policy agendas as far left as the most extreme elements of the Democrat
Party.
Unions on the other hand give 95% of their money to Democrats.
> >If you include the unions "in kind" aid and all the free publicity by the
> >left wing controlled media that basically parrot the Democrat Pary line,
>
> You mean Fox?
You tell me what share of the audience FOX gets compared to ABC, NBC, CBS
and CNN. It's a pittance.
> >Talk radio helps, but people have to seek that out,
>
> Not very hard - no harder than finding it on the TV. Just turn it on.
Most people get their news from TV, not radio. And even most talk shows
that have conservative hosts have their news done by NBC, ABC or CBS.
(I note you didn't bother arguing the point with respect to newspapers.)
> >There is no well financed counterpart to the NEA that can spend millions
on
> >a referendum and buy the advertising needed to counter NEA lies parroted
by
> >the left wing media,
>
> Then why was there more spending in favor of the last California
> referendum on vouchers than there was against it?
I found this:
There has never been a successful school choice initiative. Washington
voters nixed a 1996 charter school proposal. Foes of a 1993 California
voucher ballot measure spent more than $20 million - five times the spending
of voucher advocates - to defeat it. Vouchers have been vehemently opposed
by the teachers unions, which until this year had the upper hand
financially.
Now the pro-voucher forces have also attracted big bucks. In California, Tim
Draper, who heads the venture-capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson, has used
his millions to promote Prop. 38. As of June, its supporters had raised $3.8
million in 2000, with 65 donations, 23 of which came as loans or
contributions from the Timothy Draper Living Trust for a total of $3.6
million. On the other side is a broad coalition, led by the California
Teachers Association, which had raised $1.1 million this year (as of their
June 30 filing). But these totals are likely to go much higher: Draper has
promised he will spend $20 million of his own money, and he'll likely raise
another $20 million, says Dane Waters, president of the Initiative and
Referendum Institute. Waters says organized labor and other opponents will
likely match that $40 million figure, and the measure could wind up costing
$80 million.
That does not, of course, account for media coverage which is almost in
lockstep with the anti-choice NEA.
> >> >And most of these left wing politicians are gross
> >> >hypocrites, sending their OWN children to private/religious schools
and
> >> >denying that right to those who are not wealthy.
> >>
> >> They've been spending their own money when they do so.
> >
> >Right. The wealthy get choice. The poor get crap.
>
> That's the way market capitalism works. Do you disapprove of market
> capitalism?
That's exactly the point. we DON'T have market capitalism because the
government runs the system. Even you can't be that stupid about economics.
> When a right-winger seems to show compassion for the poor, I suspect
> that a flim-flam is being pulled; almost invariably I am right.
And when a left winger is willing to screw poor black inner city children to
kowtow to a major lobbying group, as they did when they defeated vouchers in
the place with the worst public school system in the country - Washington,
DC, I suspect that's their true nature.
> >But if the public
> >schools are "just as good" why do all these rich liberals choose private
> >schools instead?
>
> They don't "all" so choose. When they do, it is their business and
> not mine.
So when the wealthy buy more and better health care than most people can
afford on their own, that's not your concern either, right?
> >And why do public school teachers put more of their
> >children in private schools than the general population
>
> Because their familial incomes are higher on average than the general
> public, if still below average for adults with degrees and comparable
> years of experience. Many of them have spouses that are more highly
> paid, and two professional incomes are together enough to pay for
> private schooling.
That doesn't explain why those working in the system reject it for their own
children, does it?
> >- why crying poverty at the same time?
>
> The bottom line is that we have a shortage of teachers. The pay isn't
> high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
> that teachers aren't paid enough.
There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
> > "Those numbers are much higher in the inner cities where in many
> > instances, half or more of public school teachers send their own
kids to
> > private schools while at the same time their union is dead set
against
> > letting low-income parents exercise the same choice,"
>
> He's a liar. They have no problem with any one exercising choice, so
> long as they do so with their own money. That is generally considered
> a conservative value, not a liberal one.
How can you exercise choice when the money you need to exercise that choice
has been stolen from you? If the government took $20,000 from you and gave
you a Yugo in return, and then told you you had your choice of any car you
want, I doubt even you would be so stupid as to agree.
Bob LeChevalier
>> But even so, here are the 2000 contributions by PACs (which hopefully
>> fit your oddball definition of "activist"). More went to Republicans
>> than Democrats.
>
>They're different. PACs are directed toward political candidates. Activist
>groups focus on issues and often cross party lines. Right to life will
>support a pro-life Democrat over a pro-abortion Republican. And vice versa
>for Planned Parenthood or NARAL.
http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_ee.exe?DoFn=02P
single issue groups contributed more to republicans than democrats
>> Meanwhile, why is a union considered to be an "activist organization",
>> but a corporation is not? They legally exist on opposite sides of a
>> fence of representation.
>
>Most corporations contribute to both parties, with the party in power
>getting somewhat more. And corporations are hardly uniformly conservative.
>Some major organizations like AT&T, Motorola, Disney, etc., have social
>policy agendas as far left as the most extreme elements of the Democrat
>Party.
>
>Unions on the other hand give 95% of their money to Democrats.
http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_sic.exe?DoFn=
gives the totals by various industries. It was around 90% for labor
unions. If you total all of the rest of industry, you'll find that
the labor bias for democrats was just about equal to the industry bias
for repubicans.
http://www.commoncause.org/publications/051397_sdy.htm
Tobacco companies gave over 80% to Republicans.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/enroncfr020114.html
Enron went 70% Republican
>> >If you include the unions "in kind" aid and all the free publicity by the
>> >left wing controlled media that basically parrot the Democrat Pary line,
>>
>> You mean Fox?
>
>You tell me what share of the audience FOX gets compared to ABC, NBC, CBS
>and CNN. It's a pittance.
http://www.geocities.com/thepolemic/mediabias1.html
Fox 70% republican in 2000, 80-90% in the prior elections,
NBC 64% republican in 2000, majority republican in prior elections
MSNBC 56% republican
CBS 80% democrat
CNN 67% democrat
ABC 65% democrat
Looks fairly even to me, especially since MSNBC's parent companies
put in as much money as all the others combined.
>> >Right. The wealthy get choice. The poor get crap.
>>
>> That's the way market capitalism works. Do you disapprove of market
>> capitalism?
>
>That's exactly the point. we DON'T have market capitalism because the
>government runs the system. Even you can't be that stupid about economics.
The results are those of market capitalism, as you admitted: the
welathy get choice and the poor get crap. That is the normal result
of market capitalism. This presumably motivates the poor to try to
change that status.
>> >But if the public
>> >schools are "just as good" why do all these rich liberals choose private
>> >schools instead?
>>
>> They don't "all" so choose. When they do, it is their business and
>> not mine.
>
>So when the wealthy buy more and better health care than most people can
>afford on their own, that's not your concern either, right?
Nope.
>> >And why do public school teachers put more of their
>> >children in private schools than the general population
>>
>> Because their familial incomes are higher on average than the general
>> public, if still below average for adults with degrees and comparable
>> years of experience. Many of them have spouses that are more highly
>> paid, and two professional incomes are together enough to pay for
>> private schooling.
>
>That doesn't explain why those working in the system reject it for their own
>children, does it?
Most of them don't reject it. Some of them exercise choice. They are
paying for it; more power to them.
>> >- why crying poverty at the same time?
>>
>> The bottom line is that we have a shortage of teachers. The pay isn't
>> high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
>> that teachers aren't paid enough.
>
>There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
are shortages.
>> He's a liar. They have no problem with any one exercising choice, so
>> long as they do so with their own money. That is generally considered
>> a conservative value, not a liberal one.
>
>How can you exercise choice when the money you need to exercise that choice
>has been stolen from you?
Only disgusting libertarians consider taxes to be "stolen". Patriotic
Americans consider taxes their duty for living in this great country.
>If the government took $20,000 from you and gave
>you a Yugo in return, and then told you you had your choice of any car you
>want, I doubt even you would be so stupid as to agree.
If the government provided welfare services much above the Yugo level,
rightwingers would call it "socialism". Oh, they do anyway.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, if you had read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies I have posted) you would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence.. I supply information from experts in the field, usually
from more than one source. Also primary source historical data. I do not
merely provide my opinion. In fact, seldom ever provide my opinion. My
personal opinion is irrelevant. Have I educated? Well, if you only would
have read that information that I provided. Examined, and explored
further...maybe looked up the works I listed from some of the best
scholars, and contemporary thinkers. If you would have done that, even YOU
might have been educated. I am prepared to respond with justifications,
evidence, and facts, and will state when something is a belief.
=========================================================
Don't ask another to do something you haven't done, dippy
I accept your inability to be able to show the evidence I provided was
false or inaccurate, to counter it.
I accept that you have a need to try and save face.
I accept your loss by default. now run along.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Founding Father
> >getting somewhat more. And corporations are hardly uniformly conservative.
> >Some major organizations like AT&T, Motorola, Disney, etc., have social
> >policy agendas as far left as the most extreme elements of the Democrat
> >Party.
> >
> >Unions on the other hand give 95% of their money to Democrats.
>
> http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_sic.exe?DoFn=
> gives the totals by various industries. It was around 90% for labor
> unions. If you total all of the rest of industry, you'll find that
> the labor bias for democrats was just about equal to the industry bias
> for repubicans.
2000 CYCLE
Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC, Soft & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties
Business $191,338,406 $67,858,325 $123,175,832 35% 64%
Labor $58,988,914 $54,184,191 $4,637,073 92% 8%
Ideological $35,414,897 $16,542,512 $18,765,799 47% 53%
Other $816,449 $462,981 $352,968 57% 43%
Unknown $437,345 $156,500 $280,845 36% 64%
Something obviously doesn't jibe. But what data did you use to come up with the statement that industry had a 90% bias for Republicans - or did you just make it up? Slightly less than 2 to 1 (using the second set of figures which give you the benefit of the doubt) is vastly different from 9 to 1.
> http://www.commoncause.org/publications/051397_sdy.htm
> Tobacco companies gave over 80% to Republicans.
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/enroncfr020114.html
> Enron went 70% Republican
>
> >> >If you include the unions "in kind" aid and all the free publicity by the
> >> >left wing controlled media that basically parrot the Democrat Pary line,
> >>
> >> You mean Fox?
> >
> >You tell me what share of the audience FOX gets compared to ABC, NBC, CBS
> >and CNN. It's a pittance.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/thepolemic/mediabias1.html
> Fox 70% republican in 2000, 80-90% in the prior elections,
> NBC 64% republican in 2000, majority republican in prior elections
> MSNBC 56% republican
> CBS 80% democrat
> CNN 67% democrat
> ABC 65% democrat
From May 1996 MediaWatch
Page One
Media Clique Clap for Clinton
and 38 percent for George Bush. But the results were very different in
another America, the news media's Washington bureaus. A poll of 139 bureau
chiefs and congressional reporters discovered 89 percent pulled the lever
for Clinton and seven percent picked Bush.
In mid-April the Freedom Forum released a report examining
media-congressional relations. Buried in the appendix were "a few final
questions for classification purposes only." These were part of a 58
question Roper Center survey completed by mail in November and December
1995.
Asked "How would you characterize your political orientation?" 61 percent
said "liberal" or "liberal to moderate." Only nine percent labeled
themselves "conservative" or "moderate to conservative." The poll also found
that 59 percent considered the Contract with America "an election-year
campaign ploy" while only three percent thought it was "a serious reform
proposal." A decisive 85 percent admitted they were "very" or "somewhat"
surprised by the 1994 GOP win.
> >>
> >> That's the way market capitalism works. Do you disapprove of market
> >> capitalism?
> >
> >That's exactly the point. we DON'T have market capitalism because the
> >government runs the system. Even you can't be that stupid about economics.
>
> The results are those of market capitalism, as you admitted: the
> welathy get choice and the poor get crap. That is the normal result
> of market capitalism. This presumably motivates the poor to try to
> change that status.
> >> >children in private schools than the general population
> >>
> >> Because their familial incomes are higher on average than the general
> >> public, if still below average for adults with degrees and comparable
> >> years of experience. Many of them have spouses that are more highly
> >> paid, and two professional incomes are together enough to pay for
> >> private schooling.
> >
> >That doesn't explain why those working in the system reject it for their own
> >children, does it?
>
> Most of them don't reject it. Some of them exercise choice. They are
> paying for it; more power to them.
> >> high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
> >> that teachers aren't paid enough.
> >
> >There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
>
> Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
> school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
> are shortages.
> >> He's a liar. They have no problem with any one exercising choice, so
> >> long as they do so with their own money. That is generally considered
> >> a conservative value, not a liberal one.
> >
> >How can you exercise choice when the money you need to exercise that choice
> >has been stolen from you?
>
> Only disgusting libertarians consider taxes to be "stolen".
> >If the government took $20,000 from you and gave
> >you a Yugo in return, and then told you you had your choice of any car you
> >want, I doubt even you would be so stupid as to agree.
>
> If the government provided welfare services much above the Yugo level,
> rightwingers would call it "socialism".
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:uvea8vs8sg7b7fhjs...@4ax.com...
>> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> >Most corporations contribute to both parties, with the party in power
>> >getting somewhat more. And corporations are hardly uniformly conservative.
>> >Some major organizations like AT&T, Motorola, Disney, etc., have social
>> >policy agendas as far left as the most extreme elements of the Democrat
>> >Party.
>> >
>> >Unions on the other hand give 95% of their money to Democrats.
>>
>> http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_sic.exe?DoFn=
>> gives the totals by various industries. It was around 90% for labor
>> unions. If you total all of the rest of industry, you'll find that
>> the labor bias for democrats was just about equal to the industry bias
>> for repubicans.
>
>Your source gives the following: (Tables best viewed in non-proportional font)
>
>PAC Hard Dollar Contributions Made By Industry Groupings (Based On Standard Industry Classification - SIC) Over Several Election Cycles
>
>Election Cycle Democrats Republicans
>1999-2000 $109,709,163 $116,842,216
>
>This makes my original point exactly - industry gives about equally to both sides.
Thanks. That includes the unions as an industry group (and even then
the Republicans edge slightly.
>A better source, in terms of making breakdowns easy to see is http://www.opensecrets.org
>
>ELECTION OVERVIEW
>2000 CYCLE
>Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC, Soft & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties
>
> Grand Total Democrats Republicans Dem % Repub %
>Business $191,338,406 $67,858,325 $123,175,832 35% 64%
>Labor $58,988,914 $54,184,191 $4,637,073 92% 8%
>Ideological $35,414,897 $16,542,512 $18,765,799 47% 53%
>Other $816,449 $462,981 $352,968 57% 43%
>Unknown $437,345 $156,500 $280,845 36% 64%
>
>Something obviously doesn't jibe. But what data did you use to come
> up with the statement that industry had a 90% bias for Republicans -
> or did you just make it up? Slightly less than 2 to 1 (using the
> second set of figures which give you the benefit of the doubt) is
> vastly different from 9 to 1.
I didn't say that there was a 90% bias. That 64% bias amounts to $55
million, whereas the 92% bias for Dems in Labor only amounts to $50
million, BECAUSE BUSINESS GIVES MORE THAN 3 TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS
COMPARED WITH LABOR.
>> >> You mean Fox?
>> >
>> >You tell me what share of the audience FOX gets compared to ABC, NBC, CBS
>> >and CNN. It's a pittance.
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/thepolemic/mediabias1.html
>> Fox 70% republican in 2000, 80-90% in the prior elections,
>> NBC 64% republican in 2000, majority republican in prior elections
>> MSNBC 56% republican
>> CBS 80% democrat
>> CNN 67% democrat
>> ABC 65% democrat
>
>A totally irrelevant set of figures. The owners of news outlets
> rarely try to influence the content of the news - the news people
> wouldn't stand for it. You think NBC tells Tom Brokaw what to say
> and/or how to say it?
Yep. Or at least if he goes too far afield, he doesn't stay employed.
Why else is Fox aligned with right-wing owner Murdoch and the
Washington Times aligned with right-wing owner Moon. If you were
correct, the talent and not the owner would dictate the political
stance.
> Asked "How would you characterize your political orientation?" 61 percent
> said "liberal" or "liberal to moderate." Only nine percent labeled
> themselves "conservative" or "moderate to conservative." The poll also found
> that 59 percent considered the Contract with America "an election-year
> campaign ploy" while only three percent thought it was "a serious reform
> proposal." A decisive 85 percent admitted they were "very" or "somewhat"
> surprised by the 1994 GOP win.
Believe it or not, political beliefs do not necessarily lead to biased
reporting.
Those people's JOBS depend on not being surprised by things like the
1994 GOP win. Someone who was not surprised would have made a lot of
scoops. Hence these people were admitting a failing, not a bias.
>> >That's exactly the point. we DON'T have market capitalism because the
>> >government runs the system. Even you can't be that stupid about economics.
>>
>> The results are those of market capitalism, as you admitted: the
>> welathy get choice and the poor get crap. That is the normal result
>> of market capitalism. This presumably motivates the poor to try to
>> change that status.
>
>Your position is disproved by the fact that every time some wealthy
> people put up scholarships for private or religious schools, poor
> people flood the programs with 10 applications for every slot. Now
> bear in mind that both the public school and the private school are
> now "free" insofar as the parents are concerned.
1. This shows that charitable giving is only 1/10 the apparent
"need".
2. This proves that poor people aren't stupid, and will take free
money.
I have no doubt that there are poor people who would choose religious
schools if they could afford to. Indeed, polls seem to show that poor
people are more religious than rich people, more likely to believe in
nonsense like creationism, etc.
>In Washington, D.C., thousands of poor black parents make huge
> sacrifices to come up with the $3,000 they need to send their -
> mostly Baptist - children to Catholic schools, and their children do
> FAR better academically than those in the public schools.
If I were making huge sacrifices to send my kids to a private school,
they damned well BETTER do better academically.
Parents who make sacrifices for their kids are better and more
attentive parents, and that will enhance their kids' educability.
Those same kids are the ones who would do better than average in the
public schools, and their absence drops the average (as would be
expected when primarily better than average students leave).
Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the private schools actually do
any better than the public schools after correcting for known factors
like SES, parental education levels, etc. Indeed there is rather
little evidence on private school quality since private schools are
not accountable.
> Note: the
> city spends (wastes) over $10,000 per student. Just think how much
> money could be saved with vouchers.
None.
>> >> Because their familial incomes are higher on average than the general
>> >> public, if still below average for adults with degrees and comparable
>> >> years of experience. Many of them have spouses that are more highly
>> >> paid, and two professional incomes are together enough to pay for
>> >> private schooling.
>> >
>> >That doesn't explain why those working in the system reject it for their own
>> >children, does it?
>>
>> Most of them don't reject it. Some of them exercise choice. They are
>> paying for it; more power to them.
>
>Let me ask you this - would you eat at a restaurant where 1/3 of its
> workers refused to ever eat, even though the food was free for them?
Since the "workers" can only eat at one "restaurant" per kid, I would
neither be surprised nor dissuaded by such a statistic.
>> >> The bottom line is that we have a shortage of teachers. The pay isn't
>> >> high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
>> >> that teachers aren't paid enough.
>> >
>> >There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
>>
>> Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
>> school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
>> are shortages.
>
>There's no free market when the government controls over 90% of the
> business. If there were, at least half of the public schools would
> have been shut down decades ago and far better and cheaper private
> schools would have replaced them.
You love to ignore what I say. There is a job market for employment
in the schools, a market which exists regardless of government control
of the business since government cannot force people to work for the
schools.
It is not a totally free market, in that most labor prices are
dictated by union scales, but it is a market nonetheless. Markets
need not be totally free to be markets.
>> >How can you exercise choice when the money you need to exercise that choice
>> >has been stolen from you?
>>
>> Only disgusting libertarians consider taxes to be "stolen".
>
>Lots of liberals consider tax money that goes to religious institutions "stolen."
If it is public money, then it is merely unconstitutional, not stolen.
If it is private money, more power to them.
>> Patriotic Americans consider taxes their duty for living in this great country.
>
>Only those taxes that are appropriately and well spent.
Nope. It is not a principle of this country that you only have a duty
to pay taxes when you approve of the spending.
>The federal government takes over 20% of GDP, more than at the height
> of WWII.
So what? The public voted for the Congresscritters that spent the
money. Taxation WITH representation.
20% is low compared to other developed nations.
>And it's curious that the people
> who have increased the tax burden so onerously for social welfare
> programs - including education - are the very same people who have no
> sense of patriotism when it comes to supporting our military
> financially.
It is the current administration that doesn't support the military
financially. All it supports is tax cuts. (hint: spending a trillion
dollars you don't have to keep military spending flat isn't
"supporting the military financially")
Patriotic Americans uphold the founding concepts as set forth in the
Declaration and Constitution such as individual liberty and limited
government, neither of which allow for the massive levels of spending
we have now,
The Declaration says nothing about spending except that the people
should have a voice in selecting those who decide that spending.
The Constitution in no way limits massive spending at the state and
local level, or in any way limits state government. Meanwhile within
certain areas, it allows considerable latitude to government.
> nor taking parents money away
Perfectly constitutional.
>and forcing their children into government run schools that do not educate.
No one forces this. You can spend your own money for private schools.
Or you if you can't afford the choices you want, you can exercise the
choice to not have kids.
>> >If the government took $20,000 from you and gave
>> >you a Yugo in return, and then told you you had your choice of any car you
>> >want, I doubt even you would be so stupid as to agree.
>>
>> If the government provided welfare services much above the Yugo level,
>> rightwingers would call it "socialism".
>
>I note you dodged the question.
Well, the government doesn't take $20,000 from me. And from the
typical inner city parent, takes rather less than the cost of a Yugo.
If government took $1000 from you and said you can have a free Yugo,
or you can spend your own money and get whatever kind of car you
wanted, most people would take the Yugo.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|
Actually there is. If your are talking a circle, there is some truth to
what you say, however, even then there can still be a stable of the right,
private ownership of the banks, businesses, industry, etc. whereas going
left that isn't a stable of the left
That is why you find the odds of a ultra right having a far greater support
among the upper classes, i.e. the barons of enterprise, business and
industry if you will and why the same so often hate and fear the ultra
left
For average joe blow in the street there isn't much difference but for some
segments there are considerable differences
Italy and Germany were both considered Fascist while Russia was considered
Communist. While there were many things alike there were also major
differences in structure, etc.
I stand by what I said.
If you want to continue the topic, have fun talking with yourself,
The topic here is or was the Pledge.
Founding Father
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:uvea8vs8sg7b7fhjs...@4ax.com...
> >> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.geocities.com/thepolemic/mediabias1.html
> >> Fox 70% republican in 2000, 80-90% in the prior elections,
> >> NBC 64% republican in 2000, majority republican in prior elections
> >> MSNBC 56% republican
> >> CBS 80% democrat
> >> CNN 67% democrat
> >> ABC 65% democrat
> >
> >A totally irrelevant set of figures. The owners of news outlets
> > rarely try to influence the content of the news - the news people
> > wouldn't stand for it. You think NBC tells Tom Brokaw what to say
> > and/or how to say it?
>
> Yep. Or at least if he goes too far afield, he doesn't stay employed.
> Why else is Fox aligned with right-wing owner Murdoch and the
> Washington Times aligned with right-wing owner Moon. If you were
> correct, the talent and not the owner would dictate the political
> stance.
I guess that's why the overwhelming majority of Americans consider the news
to be biased to the left. Even liberals see that bias, albeit to a smaller
degree.
> > Asked "How would you characterize your political orientation?" 61
percent
> > said "liberal" or "liberal to moderate." Only nine percent labeled
> > themselves "conservative" or "moderate to conservative." The poll
also found
> > that 59 percent considered the Contract with America "an
election-year
> > campaign ploy" while only three percent thought it was "a serious
reform
> > proposal." A decisive 85 percent admitted they were "very" or
"somewhat"
> > surprised by the 1994 GOP win.
>
> Believe it or not, political beliefs do not necessarily lead to biased
> reporting.
Let's try replacing all the existing reporters with a group that voted 90%
for Reagan, Bush and Bush. Then we'll see if there is a change in how the
news appears.
What do you think?
> Those people's JOBS depend on not being surprised by things like the
> 1994 GOP win. Someone who was not surprised would have made a lot of
> scoops. Hence these people were admitting a failing, not a bias.
No, they were blinded by their bias. They think they are typical of
Americans. They're not even close. Left wing media bias has been proven by
numerous studies and exposes, like that of Bernard Goldman.
> >> >That's exactly the point. we DON'T have market capitalism because the
> >> >government runs the system. Even you can't be that stupid about
economics.
> >>
> >> The results are those of market capitalism, as you admitted: the
> >> welathy get choice and the poor get crap. That is the normal result
> >> of market capitalism. This presumably motivates the poor to try to
> >> change that status.
> >
> >Your position is disproved by the fact that every time some wealthy
> > people put up scholarships for private or religious schools, poor
> > people flood the programs with 10 applications for every slot. Now
> > bear in mind that both the public school and the private school are
> > now "free" insofar as the parents are concerned.
>
> 1. This shows that charitable giving is only 1/10 the apparent
> "need".
If all the tax money confiscated for compulsory state education were given
back, there would be far less "need" for charity.
> 2. This proves that poor people aren't stupid, and will take free
> money.
It's no more free than public schools.
> I have no doubt that there are poor people who would choose religious
> schools if they could afford to. Indeed, polls seem to show that poor
> people are more religious than rich people, more likely to believe in
> nonsense like creationism, etc.
And more likely to get into heaven. (Matt. 19:24)
> >In Washington, D.C., thousands of poor black parents make huge
> > sacrifices to come up with the $3,000 they need to send their -
> > mostly Baptist - children to Catholic schools, and their children do
> > FAR better academically than those in the public schools.
>
> If I were making huge sacrifices to send my kids to a private school,
> they damned well BETTER do better academically.
So it's no problem that public schools fail.
You just made my point for me. Thank you.
> Parents who make sacrifices for their kids are better and more
> attentive parents, and that will enhance their kids' educability.
> Those same kids are the ones who would do better than average in the
> public schools, and their absence drops the average (as would be
> expected when primarily better than average students leave).
>
> Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the private schools actually do
> any better than the public schools after correcting for known factors
> like SES, parental education levels, etc. Indeed there is rather
> little evidence on private school quality since private schools are
> not accountable.
They're much more accountable, as you inadvertently admitted above. If
parents don't like a private school, they can pull their child - and their
money - out. No such accountability with public schools.
You apparently have no actual experience in this area. We have just put our
son, who scores in the 98th to 99th percentile in IQ in his third different
public school in one calendar year, trying to find one that would meet his
needs. We had to buy a new house in a different district for the most
recent one. But it's still not adequate. In one year his achievement
scores actually got lower due to inadequate teaching. This is educational
malpractice and if teaching were a true profession, they could be sued for
it.
(Don't get me wrong, we've some wonderful teachers, who should be paid far
more than they're getting. But the others should be fired. That would
happen in a free system. In a government run system, no one ever gets fired
for underperformance, and usually not even incompetence.)
It is criminal how much potential is wasted in this country and how many
children are condemned to a life of near poverty because they are so poorly
educated.
> > Note: the
> > city spends (wastes) over $10,000 per student. Just think how much
> > money could be saved with vouchers.
>
> None.
I guess you went to public school and didn't learn any math.
> >> >> The bottom line is that we have a shortage of teachers. The pay
isn't
> >> >> high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
> >> >> that teachers aren't paid enough.
> >> >
> >> >There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
> >>
> >> Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
> >> school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
> >> are shortages.
> >
> >There's no free market when the government controls over 90% of the
> > business. If there were, at least half of the public schools would
> > have been shut down decades ago and far better and cheaper private
> > schools would have replaced them.
>
> You love to ignore what I say. There is a job market for employment
> in the schools, a market which exists regardless of government control
> of the business since government cannot force people to work for the
> schools.
OH! You want to restrict the discussion of free markets to just employment.
That's intellectually dishonest. But even there, there is no free market.
Wages are determined by a collusion of teachers unions and public officials
elected by teachers unions. If teachers were paid for performance, like
those of us who actually work in a free market, most of their salaries would
be far lower, assuming they still had their jobs. Note also how adamantly
the teachers unions fight merit pay. A great way to eliminate excellence
and guarantee mediocrity.
> >> >How can you exercise choice when the money you need to exercise that
choice
> >> >has been stolen from you?
> >>
> >> Only disgusting libertarians consider taxes to be "stolen".
> >
> >Lots of liberals consider tax money that goes to religious institutions
"stolen."
>
> If it is public money, then it is merely unconstitutional, not stolen.
> If it is private money, more power to them.
There is no such thing as "public money." That's a socialist/communist
concept. There is taxpayers' money.
And you're factually wrong again. Taxpayer money has gone to religious
colleges and universities since the G.I. Bill. And the Supreme Court has
recently confirmed the constitutionality of vouchers for elementary schools.
> >> Patriotic Americans consider taxes their duty for living in this
great country.
> >
> >Only those taxes that are appropriately and well spent.
>
> Nope. It is not a principle of this country that you only have a duty
> to pay taxes when you approve of the spending.
I guess you would have been with the Tories, not the Patriots.
> >The federal government takes over 20% of GDP, more than at the height
> > of WWII.
>
> So what? The public voted for the Congresscritters that spent the
> money. Taxation WITH representation.
So any spending Congress votes for is automatically constitutional?
> 20% is low compared to other developed nations.
Yes - socialist ones, whose economies are much worse than ours, who face a
demographic disaster when their baby boom generations start retiring and try
to collect on their overly generous benefits.
Again, your sympathies are obviously with the Europeans.
> >And it's curious that the people
> > who have increased the tax burden so onerously for social welfare
> > programs - including education - are the very same people who have no
> > sense of patriotism when it comes to supporting our military
> > financially.
>
> It is the current administration that doesn't support the military
> financially. All it supports is tax cuts. (hint: spending a trillion
> dollars you don't have to keep military spending flat isn't
> "supporting the military financially")
Look at the military budget under Bush compared to Clinton. You're
factually wrong again.
>> Patriotic Americans uphold the founding concepts as set forth in the
>> Declaration and Constitution such as individual liberty and limited
>> government, neither of which allow for the massive levels of spending
>> we have now,
>
> The Declaration says nothing about spending except that the people
> should have a voice in selecting those who decide that spending.
>
> The Constitution in no way limits massive spending at the state and
> local level, or in any way limits state government. Meanwhile within
> certain areas, it allows considerable latitude to government.
Factually wrong again. Look at the 10th Amendment.
> > nor taking parents money away
>
> Perfectly constitutional.
>
> >and forcing their children into government run schools that do not
educate.
>
> No one forces this. You can spend your own money for private schools.
> Or you if you can't afford the choices you want, you can exercise the
> choice to not have kids.
Sounds like the kind of "choice" a fascist offers.
> >> >If the government took $20,000 from you and gave
> >> >you a Yugo in return, and then told you you had your choice of any car
you
> >> >want, I doubt even you would be so stupid as to agree.
> >>
> >> If the government provided welfare services much above the Yugo level,
> >> rightwingers would call it "socialism".
> >
> >I note you dodged the question.
>
> Well, the government doesn't take $20,000 from me. And from the
> typical inner city parent, takes rather less than the cost of a Yugo.
>
> If government took $1000 from you and said you can have a free Yugo,
> or you can spend your own money and get whatever kind of car you
> wanted, most people would take the Yugo.
That's exactly the difference between us. You apparently think the $10,000
education the children in Washington, D.C. is worth $50,000 and the parents
should bow down and give thanks for it. I, and most of the above parents,
think it's worth about $2,000 and everyone - children and taxpayers - would
be better off if the district gave the parents who want it a fraction of
that $10,000 (say $6700) and let them buy a much better education. The
$3300 saved per student could be refunded to taxpayers. I would off the
option of adding to the $10,000 but that would just be pouring more money
down a rat hole.
Bob LeChevalier
>> >> The results are those of market capitalism, as you admitted: the
>> >> welathy get choice and the poor get crap. That is the normal result
>> >> of market capitalism. This presumably motivates the poor to try to
>> >> change that status.
>> >
>> >Your position is disproved by the fact that every time some wealthy
>> > people put up scholarships for private or religious schools, poor
>> > people flood the programs with 10 applications for every slot. Now
>> > bear in mind that both the public school and the private school are
>> > now "free" insofar as the parents are concerned.
>>
>> 1. This shows that charitable giving is only 1/10 the apparent
>> "need".
>
>If all the tax money confiscated for compulsory state education were given
>back, there would be far less "need" for charity.
There would be much more. The people who are needy pay little or no
taxes, and thus wouldn't get much back.
>> >In Washington, D.C., thousands of poor black parents make huge
>> > sacrifices to come up with the $3,000 they need to send their -
>> > mostly Baptist - children to Catholic schools, and their children do
>> > FAR better academically than those in the public schools.
>>
>> If I were making huge sacrifices to send my kids to a private school,
>> they damned well BETTER do better academically.
>
>So it's no problem that public schools fail.
Where do you pull that from?
>> Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the private schools actually do
>> any better than the public schools after correcting for known factors
>> like SES, parental education levels, etc. Indeed there is rather
>> little evidence on private school quality since private schools are
>> not accountable.
>
>They're much more accountable, as you inadvertently admitted above. If
>parents don't like a private school, they can pull their child - and their
>money - out.
I don't think most private schools give tuition refunds. And most
private schools don't like to take midyear admissions. So you are
generally stuck till the end of the school year.
Parents receive no information on which to decide that they don't like
the private school.
>You apparently have no actual experience in this area. We have just put our
>son, who scores in the 98th to 99th percentile in IQ
The public schools don't do well at educating the gifted. The public
doesn't want to pay for them to do it well. Live with it; I was 99th
percentile myself, and I survived.
>We had to buy a new house in a different district for the most
>recent one. But it's still not adequate. In one year his achievement
>scores actually got lower due to inadequate teaching. This is educational
>malpractice and if teaching were a true profession, they could be sued for
>it.
It is not malpractice, because the public is paying the teacher to
teach your kid the state minimum standard curriculum (which your kid
might be able to master in a couple of months in his sleep). The
public has NO interest in satisfying your desires for your kid. You
are a minority who has been outvoted. Live with it, just like the
2000 Naderites have to live with Bush.
>(Don't get me wrong, we've some wonderful teachers, who should be paid far
>more than they're getting. But the others should be fired.
Why? They are doing the job that the public pays them to do. It just
happens to be a different job than you want them to do. When it is
YOUR money, you get to do the hiring. When it is the public's money,
public priorities rule - and your kid isn't a public priority.
>It is criminal how much potential is wasted in this country and how many
>children are condemned to a life of near poverty because they are so poorly
>educated.
I think that if we had a perfect education system, we would still have
the same percentage living in or near poverty. Some has to do the
jobs that no one wants to pay people decent wages to do, while there
are only so many jobs that need higher skill levels.
>> > Note: the
>> > city spends (wastes) over $10,000 per student. Just think how much
>> > money could be saved with vouchers.
>>
>> None.
>
>I guess you went to public school and didn't learn any math.
No. I just realize that vouchers wouldn't save any money, unless they
gutted the schools.
>> >> >There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
>> >> school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
>> >> are shortages.
>> >
>> >There's no free market when the government controls over 90% of the
>> > business. If there were, at least half of the public schools would
>> > have been shut down decades ago and far better and cheaper private
>> > schools would have replaced them.
>>
>> You love to ignore what I say. There is a job market for employment
>> in the schools, a market which exists regardless of government control
>> of the business since government cannot force people to work for the
>> schools.
>
>OH! You want to restrict the discussion of free markets to just employment.
That was what I was talking about, the employment market. Here was
the portion of the earlier post where the "market" was raised.
Me:
>>> The bottom line is that we have a shortage of teachers. The pay isn't
>>> high enough to attract sufficient qualified people. The market says
>>> that teachers aren't paid enough.
You:
>>There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
Me:
>Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
>school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
>are shortages.
In that context, the ONLY market that is relevant is the employment
market. Note that I did not say it is a free market, either. Just
that it is a market.
>That's intellectually dishonest. But even there, there is no free market.
>Wages are determined by a collusion of teachers unions and public officials
>elected by teachers unions. If teachers were paid for performance, like
>those of us who actually work in a free market, most of their salaries would
>be far lower, assuming they still had their jobs.
Not likely. The warm body shortage would still necessitate paying
them. And collective bargaining is perfectly legitimate in a free
market as well.
>Note also how adamantly the teachers unions fight merit pay.
Since I don't believe that there is any agreed upon standard of
teacher merit, I have no problem with this.
>A great way to eliminate excellence and guarantee mediocrity.
We tried merit pay here. It was a disaster that did precisely that.
>> If it is public money, then it is merely unconstitutional, not stolen.
>> If it is private money, more power to them.
>
>There is no such thing as "public money." That's a socialist/communist
>concept. There is taxpayers' money.
Once the tax is paid, it is "public money". Read a law dictionary.
>> >> Patriotic Americans consider taxes their duty for living in this great country.
>> >
>> >Only those taxes that are appropriately and well spent.
>>
>> Nope. It is not a principle of this country that you only have a duty
>> to pay taxes when you approve of the spending.
>
>I guess you would have been with the Tories, not the Patriots.
Apparently you are not too well-educated in history.
>> >The federal government takes over 20% of GDP, more than at the height
>> > of WWII.
>>
>> So what? The public voted for the Congresscritters that spent the
>> money. Taxation WITH representation.
>
>So any spending Congress votes for is automatically constitutional?
No. Any taxes collected based on a Congressional action, given an
elected Congress, is automatically taxation with representation. At
the time of the D of I there was no written constitution.
>> 20% is low compared to other developed nations.
>
>Yes - socialist ones, whose economies are much worse than ours, who face a
>demographic disaster when their baby boom generations start retiring and try
>to collect on their overly generous benefits.
>
>Again, your sympathies are obviously with the Europeans.
Some Asian countries as well. Pretty much every country that has
GNP/capita over $10,000 also has high government spending.
>> It is the current administration that doesn't support the military
>> financially. All it supports is tax cuts. (hint: spending a trillion
>> dollars you don't have to keep military spending flat isn't
>> "supporting the military financially")
>
>Look at the military budget under Bush compared to Clinton. You're
>factually wrong again.
Comparable times in their presidential terms.
Military spending GNP
2002 $343.2 billion GNP $10.589 trillion 3.24%
1994 $281.6 billion $7.218 3.90%
Yes, the Clinton military budget dropped later in his term and dipped
below Bush's current level - But then Clinton balanced the budget,
remember.
If you go by percentage of government revenues, Bush has a long way to
go.
Revenues Military spending % of revenues
2002 $2.192 trillion $343.2 billion 15.7%
1999 $1.743 trillion $274.9 billion 15.7%
1994 $1.259 trillion $281.6 billion 22.3%
>>> Patriotic Americans uphold the founding concepts as set forth in the
>>> Declaration and Constitution such as individual liberty and limited
>>> government, neither of which allow for the massive levels of spending
>>> we have now,
>>
>> The Declaration says nothing about spending except that the people
>> should have a voice in selecting those who decide that spending.
>>
>> The Constitution in no way limits massive spending at the state and
>> local level, or in any way limits state government. Meanwhile within
>> certain areas, it allows considerable latitude to government.
>
>Factually wrong again. Look at the 10th Amendment.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people.
Which in no way limits state government. It says that anything not
explicitly mentioned in the constitution otherwise is a power reserved
to the states or the people. There is nothing constitutional that
would forbid a state from imposing a 100% tax, and spending it on all
manner of stuff, so long as the people elected the legislature
(republican form of government).
>> >and forcing their children into government run schools that do not
>educate.
>>
>> No one forces this. You can spend your own money for private schools.
>> Or you if you can't afford the choices you want, you can exercise the
>> choice to not have kids.
>
>Sounds like the kind of "choice" a fascist offers.
Personal fiscal responsibility as a basis for economic choice. Good
conservative values.
>> Well, the government doesn't take $20,000 from me. And from the
>> typical inner city parent, takes rather less than the cost of a Yugo.
>>
>> If government took $1000 from you and said you can have a free Yugo,
>> or you can spend your own money and get whatever kind of car you
>> wanted, most people would take the Yugo.
>
>That's exactly the difference between us. You apparently think the $10,000
>education the children in Washington, D.C. is worth $50,000 and the parents
>should bow down and give thanks for it.
I apparently think no such thing. Furthermore, DC spends only an
average of $10K/student. Most students have much less money spent on
them.
>I, and most of the above parents,
Nope. Most of the parents do not.
>think it's worth about $2,000
Number pulled out of your ass.
Non-educational baby-sitting costs a LOT more than that (and for many
parents, that is all they really care that the schools provide -
baby-sitting).
>and everyone - children and taxpayers - would
>be better off if the district gave the parents who want it a fraction of
>that $10,000 (say $6700) and let them buy a much better education.
You couldn't buy a "much better education". The private schools AT
BEST offer a SLIGHTLY better education, and after correcting for the
kids that they reject or eject and the socioeconomics, I'm not even
sure it is slightly better.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|>Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
>:|>
Here bad ass, explain this
Anyone reading his posts and replies on this topic should take that into
consideration in evaluating his comments including his emotional code
"The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel"
I am sure the term cartel has many applications but in recent years in out
culture is has a lot of exposure as a negative, i e, drug cartels, etc. I
suspect that is why he likes to use the word.
MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
fronts for said organizations,
BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
==============================================
Are you going to label the following a "CARTEL" as well?
Are you going to list the "activist" groups that support vouchers?
Are you going to list the groups that finance some of those groups and many
of the litigation that has taken place over the past 20 some years in
support of vouchers?
Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was expended
in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
What can you tell us about the following groups:
[The following is only a partial list of various activist groups, fund
raising groups and individual, legal groups that are taking the cases to
court, etc]
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
>:|MK. Discussion deleted...
Ahhhh the distraction method
LOL
==========================================
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Topic: School vouchers and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel...
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:..
>:|> Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:...
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted (jalison inserts newsgroup citations)...
>:|>
>:|> Black unmarked helos are frequently seen by this nut,
>:|>
>:|> Perhaps he would like to tell us of his experiences when he was beamed up
>:|> by aliens as well.
>:|>
>:|> No MK, the entire world isn't out to get you, some have of it has already
>:|> gotten you.
>:|>
>:|MK. This is as lucid an argument as jalison makes. The cartel's shills
>:|grow shrill.
Which shrills dippy?
>:} Jalison tried to deny his association with Americans
>:|United for the Separation of Church and State, until I reproduced a
>:|post in which he claimed membership. The NEA supports AU.
Smoke screen argument to cover up his misrepresentation of facts as shown
below in the GOOGLE URLS.
Notice how he tries to fend off his own misrepresentations by creating a
smoke screen.
========================================================
From: jal...@cox.net
Newsgroups:
seattle.politics,wa.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.education,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why the Pledge shouldn't be said in our
schoolsoranywherepublic
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:28:49 GMT
malcolmki...@yahoo.com (Malcolm Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote:...
>:|> Bob LeChevalier wrote:...
>:|>
>:|> MK might be a "libertarian," I don't know. I do know he has a very real
>:|> hard on for the public school system
>:|>
>:|> He would love to see it fail
>:|> Thus, he is very biased.
>:|>
>:|MK. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools are failing,
[MK-AKA panther]
Black unmarked helos are frequently seen by this nut,
Perhaps he would like to tell us of his experiences when he was beamed up
by aliens as well.
No MK, the entire world isn't out to get you, some have of it has already
gotten you.
I ask the readers to excuse me if I am employing of this nut's favorite
supporters posting tactics, i.e. susupply
Truth of the matter is, MK has developed a specialized code that he uses in
his posting on this topic. A code that is unproven, yet designed to illicit
nothing but pure raw emotions.
The fact of the matter is, MK, as a former teacher in the public school
system feels that system treated him unfairly, thus he has a really big
hard on against the public school system.
Anyone reading his posts and replies on this topic should take that into
consideration in evaluating his comments including his emotional code
"The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel"
I am sure the term cartel has many applications but in recent years in out
culture is has a lot of exposure as a negative, i e, drug cartels, etc. I
suspect that is why he likes to use the word.
MK has been known to misrepresent things in his posts, such as a book he
used to talk about that was suppose to prove certain activist organizations
were fronts or supported by the "cartel"
The implication was that these organizations received much or most of their
monies from the teachers unions, etc that they operated as puppets or
fronts for said organizations,
BTW, you will never hear MK mention any of the funding provided by the
various ultra conservative and religious right activist and legal
organizations to the pro voucher groups, organizations, etc.
All the stats he likes to presents are from other countries, and he likes
Founding Father
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> The results are those of market capitalism, as you admitted: the
> >> >> welathy get choice and the poor get crap. That is the normal result
> >> >> of market capitalism. This presumably motivates the poor to try to
> >> >> change that status.
> >> >
> >> >Your position is disproved by the fact that every time some wealthy
> >> > people put up scholarships for private or religious schools, poor
> >> > people flood the programs with 10 applications for every slot. Now
> >> > bear in mind that both the public school and the private school are
> >> > now "free" insofar as the parents are concerned.
> >>
> >> 1. This shows that charitable giving is only 1/10 the apparent
> >> "need".
> >
> >If all the tax money confiscated for compulsory state education were
given
> >back, there would be far less "need" for charity.
>
> There would be much more. The people who are needy pay little or no
> taxes, and thus wouldn't get much back.
Maybe not income taxes, but people who are needy do pay property taxes, even
if they rent. And don't forget, they work and pay taxes for 45 years. They
only have each child in school for 12. But you're right, poor people would
not get nearly as much back, which is why I favor vouchers.
> >> >In Washington, D.C., thousands of poor black parents make huge
> >> > sacrifices to come up with the $3,000 they need to send their -
> >> > mostly Baptist - children to Catholic schools, and their children do
> >> > FAR better academically than those in the public schools.
> >>
> >> If I were making huge sacrifices to send my kids to a private school,
> >> they damned well BETTER do better academically.
> >
> >So it's no problem that public schools fail.
>
> Where do you pull that from?
You seem to accept the fact that public schools are not accountable.
> >> Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the private schools actually do
> >> any better than the public schools after correcting for known factors
> >> like SES, parental education levels, etc. Indeed there is rather
> >> little evidence on private school quality since private schools are
> >> not accountable.
> >
> >They're much more accountable, as you inadvertently admitted above. If
> >parents don't like a private school, they can pull their child - and
their
> >money - out.
>
> I don't think most private schools give tuition refunds. And most
> private schools don't like to take midyear admissions. So you are
> generally stuck till the end of the school year.
Maybe you're stuck for half a year. That's a lot better than being stuck
for 6 or 12.
> Parents receive no information on which to decide that they don't like
> the private school.
What do consumers "receive" to decide what car to buy, what house to buy,
or, for a closer analogy, what college to choose?
> >You apparently have no actual experience in this area. We have just put
our
> >son, who scores in the 98th to 99th percentile in IQ
>
> The public schools don't do well at educating the gifted. The public
> doesn't want to pay for them to do it well. Live with it; I was 99th
> percentile myself, and I survived.
Except that federal law requires an "appropriate education" for gifted
children. And why the hell should we "love with it?"
What a slave mentality you have. Typical of a leftist.
> >We had to buy a new house in a different district for the most
> >recent one. But it's still not adequate. In one year his achievement
> >scores actually got lower due to inadequate teaching. This is
educational
> >malpractice and if teaching were a true profession, they could be sued
for
> >it.
>
> It is not malpractice, because the public is paying the teacher to
> teach your kid the state minimum standard curriculum (which your kid
> might be able to master in a couple of months in his sleep). The
> public has NO interest in satisfying your desires for your kid. You
> are a minority who has been outvoted. Live with it, just like the
> 2000 Naderites have to live with Bush.
No, I won't live with it. Unlike you, I don't like to live under tyranny.
There can only be one winner for public office. But there is no reason that
there has to be just one government run and incompetent school system.
Let us see what would happen if a private business produced a product as
shoddy as public education. Let's say an automobile manufacturer produced
cars, half of which were incapable of reaching highway speeds. The
government would likely shut them down. You, of course, would argue that
those people should just restrict themselves to side streets, and be
grateful their $25,000 car runs at all and tell us to "live with it."
> >(Don't get me wrong, we've some wonderful teachers, who should be paid
far
> >more than they're getting. But the others should be fired.
>
> Why? They are doing the job that the public pays them to do. It just
> happens to be a different job than you want them to do. When it is
> YOUR money, you get to do the hiring. When it is the public's money,
> public priorities rule - and your kid isn't a public priority.
>
> >It is criminal how much potential is wasted in this country and how many
> >children are condemned to a life of near poverty because they are so
poorly
> >educated.
>
> I think that if we had a perfect education system, we would still have
> the same percentage living in or near poverty. Some has to do the
> jobs that no one wants to pay people decent wages to do, while there
> are only so many jobs that need higher skill levels.
I'm hardly asking for "perfect." I'd settle for competent. We're not even
close to that.
> >> > Note: the
> >> > city spends (wastes) over $10,000 per student. Just think how much
> >> > money could be saved with vouchers.
> >>
> >> None.
> >
> >I guess you went to public school and didn't learn any math.
>
> No. I just realize that vouchers wouldn't save any money, unless they
> gutted the schools.
Oh, and how did you "realize that?" Some sort of revelation?
Try doing the math. It's simple.
Let's say there are 200,000 students in Washington, D.C. The district
spends $10,000 per student for a total budget of $2 billion. Now say they
institute a voucher system paying each student who leaves 2/3 of their per
pupil expenditure - a bit less than $6,700. Let's say 30,000 students
leave. Instantly there's almost an extra $600 per pupil to spend. If
45,000 students leave - just over 20% and hardly gutting the system - it
goes up to $1000 extra per student. This also automatically allows for
other improvements. Fewer teachers are needed, so the least competent can
be fired (as they should have been anyway). The older, more expensive to
maintain, buildings can be closed. Sounds like a win win proposition to me.
If the schools so decide they could decrease class size by 20% instead (a
favorite goal of the liberals, even though there is scant evidence at best
that class size - or spending, for that matter - is correlated with student
performance).
And if the parents think the schools are so bad that the system is gutted,
what, exactly, is wrong with "gutting" a completely failed enterprise? In
the real world a company that delivers a shoddy, overpriced product will go
out of business.
All you are doing is reinforcing my contention that government has no
business running a monopoly education system.
> You:
> >>There is no "market" in public education, stupid.
>
> Me:
> >Of course there is. The market is the negotiation of salaries for
> >school employees like teachers. If the pay isn't high enough, there
> >are shortages.
>
> In that context, the ONLY market that is relevant is the employment
> market. Note that I did not say it is a free market, either. Just
> that it is a market.
What the hell good is a market that is not free?
> >That's intellectually dishonest. But even there, there is no free market
.
> >Wages are determined by a collusion of teachers unions and public
officials
> >elected by teachers unions. If teachers were paid for performance, like
> >those of us who actually work in a free market, most of their salaries
would
> >be far lower, assuming they still had their jobs.
>
> Not likely. The warm body shortage would still necessitate paying
> them. And collective bargaining is perfectly legitimate in a free
> market as well.
Actually, no it's not. In a free society a business can hire anyone they
want at any wage thw worker agrees to, not be forced by the government to
hire only union members (closed shop) or pay union wages to non-union
workers (like Davis-Bacon, which costs taxpayers billions every year).
> >Note also how adamantly the teachers unions fight merit pay.
>
> Since I don't believe that there is any agreed upon standard of
> teacher merit, I have no problem with this.
That's funny. Other businesses manage to evaluate the performance of their
employees. Only government seems incapable of doing so.
> >A great way to eliminate excellence and guarantee mediocrity.
>
> We tried merit pay here. It was a disaster that did precisely that.
I find that hard to believe - you have a link to an account of what
happened?
> >> If it is public money, then it is merely unconstitutional, not stolen.
> >> If it is private money, more power to them.
> >
> >There is no such thing as "public money." That's a socialist/communist
> >concept. There is taxpayers' money.
>
> Once the tax is paid, it is "public money". Read a law dictionary.
Well you're right, but remember that the definition in a law dictionary is
just a description of what something means to lawyers. It need not have any
relationship to reality.
I found this from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:
In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a $500 per year per family tuition
tax credit payable to non-profit, tax exempt school tuition organizations in
Kotterman v. Killian. The court concluded that the tax credit statute
violated neither the U.S. nor the Arizona constitution. The Arizona court
opined, "According to Black's Law Dictionary, `public money' is `[r]evenue
received from federal state, and local governments from taxes, fees, fines,
etc.' Black's Law Dictionary 1005 (6th ed. 1990). As respondents note,
however, no money ever enters the state's control as a result of this tax
credit. Nothing is deposited in the state treasury or other accounts under
the management or possession of governmental agencies or public officials.
Thus, under any common understanding of the words, we are not here dealing
with `public money.'"[106]
Besides, the Supreme Court just validated my position - school vouchers are
constitutional.
> >> >> Patriotic Americans consider taxes their duty for living in this
great country.
> >> >
> >> >Only those taxes that are appropriately and well spent.
> >>
> >> Nope. It is not a principle of this country that you only have a duty
> >> to pay taxes when you approve of the spending.
> >
> >I guess you would have been with the Tories, not the Patriots.
>
> Apparently you are not too well-educated in history.
You are the one with absolutely no understanding of our founding principles
of limited government.
> >> >The federal government takes over 20% of GDP, more than at the height
> >> > of WWII.
> >>
> >> So what? The public voted for the Congresscritters that spent the
> >> money. Taxation WITH representation.
> >
> >So any spending Congress votes for is automatically constitutional?
>
> No. Any taxes collected based on a Congressional action, given an
> elected Congress, is automatically taxation with representation. At
> the time of the D of I there was no written constitution.
Not true. Children who bear the burden of taxes imposed on them for
something they do not benefit from have no representation. Jefferson
considered intergenerational taxes tyranny. He was right.
> >> 20% is low compared to other developed nations.
> >
> >Yes - socialist ones, whose economies are much worse than ours, who face
a
> >demographic disaster when their baby boom generations start retiring and
try
> >to collect on their overly generous benefits.
> >
> >Again, your sympathies are obviously with the Europeans.
>
> Some Asian countries as well. Pretty much every country that has
> GNP/capita over $10,000 also has high government spending.
I like being near the bottom of that list - as do all people who value
liberty.
> >> It is the current administration that doesn't support the military
> >> financially. All it supports is tax cuts. (hint: spending a trillion
> >> dollars you don't have to keep military spending flat isn't
> >> "supporting the military financially")
> >
> >Look at the military budget under Bush compared to Clinton. You're
> >factually wrong again.
>
> Comparable times in their presidential terms.
> Military spending GNP
> 2002 $343.2 billion GNP $10.589 trillion 3.24%
> 1994 $281.6 billion $7.218 3.90%
>
> Yes, the Clinton military budget dropped later in his term and dipped
> below Bush's current level - But then Clinton balanced the budget,
> remember.
You mean the Republican Congress balanced the budget. You DO know where
budgetary authority resides, don't you? Of course a president can have a
lot of influence on the budget since he submits the first one. But Clinton
never submitted a smaller budget than the Republicans proposed (except,
perhaps when he totally gutted defense spending - the primary legitimate
function of the federal government). Clinton was always a force for more
domestic spending, not for less. So to give HIM credit for balancing the
budget is disingenuous at best. In actuality, the budget was balanced
because the Republicans managed to impose a very slight amount of restraint
on the growth in spending while the stock market bubble produced hundreds of
billions in extra revenues. Of course, when the bubble burst in Clinton's
last year, the surplus disappeared.
> >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> > prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> > respectively, or to the people.
>
> Which in no way limits state government. It says that anything not
> explicitly mentioned in the constitution otherwise is a power reserved
> to the states or the people. There is nothing constitutional that
> would forbid a state from imposing a 100% tax, and spending it on all
> manner of stuff, so long as the people elected the legislature
> (republican form of government).
That's true. I'm glad, however, that you agree we can eliminate all federal
spending for education. That would save a lot.
> >> >and forcing their children into government run schools that do not
> >educate.
> >>
> >> No one forces this. You can spend your own money for private schools.
> >> Or you if you can't afford the choices you want, you can exercise the
> >> choice to not have kids.
> >
> >Sounds like the kind of "choice" a fascist offers.
>
> Personal fiscal responsibility as a basis for economic choice. Good
> conservative values.
Again, when you take people's money there's not much choice. In some places
slaves could buy their freedom. Does that mean they necessarily had a
choice whether to be a slave?
> Non-educational baby-sitting costs a LOT more than that (and for many
> parents, that is all they really care that the schools provide -
> baby-sitting).
And you're ahppy with that, apparently. Well those parents who actually
want their children educated should not be punished by being forced into
schools that are nothing but "baby sitting" services.
> >and everyone - children and taxpayers - would
> >be better off if the district gave the parents who want it a fraction of
> >that $10,000 (say $6700) and let them buy a much better education.
>
> You couldn't buy a "much better education". The private schools AT
> BEST offer a SLIGHTLY better education, and after correcting for the
> kids that they reject or eject and the socioeconomics, I'm not even
> sure it is slightly better.
I disagree. But that is actually irrelevant. In a FREE society, parents
should be able to choose.
But the left proves over and over again, it doesn't care about freedom and
it doesn't care about children.
Bob LeChevalier
>> There would be much more. The people who are needy pay little or no
>> taxes, and thus wouldn't get much back.
>
>Maybe not income taxes, but people who are needy do pay property taxes, even
>if they rent.
Not all parents pay rent. There are a lot of welfare mothers still
living at home because they can't afford to pay rent. When they do
pay rent of course, it is far less than the taxes spent to educate
their kids - many of them make less income than it costs to educate
their kids.
> And don't forget, they work and pay taxes for 45 years.
Only if they stay alive. Not necessarily in the jurisdiction that
educated their kids (indeed not necessarily in the US at all).
>> >> >In Washington, D.C., thousands of poor black parents make huge
>> >> > sacrifices to come up with the $3,000 they need to send their -
>> >> > mostly Baptist - children to Catholic schools, and their children do
>> >> > FAR better academically than those in the public schools.
>> >>
>> >> If I were making huge sacrifices to send my kids to a private school,
>> >> they damned well BETTER do better academically.
>> >
>> >So it's no problem that public schools fail.
>>
>> Where do you pull that from?
>
>You seem to accept the fact that public schools are not accountable.
I have no idea where you get that from the above.
They aren't accountable to parents in particular, but to the
taxpayers. But the above comments speaks more of the parents holding
THEIR KIDS accountable. A lot of parents in the public schools do
not.
>> >> Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the private schools actually do
>> >> any better than the public schools after correcting for known factors
>> >> like SES, parental education levels, etc. Indeed there is rather
>> >> little evidence on private school quality since private schools are
>> >> not accountable.
>> >
>> >They're much more accountable, as you inadvertently admitted above. If
>> >parents don't like a private school, they can pull their child - and their
>> >money - out.
>>
>> I don't think most private schools give tuition refunds. And most
>> private schools don't like to take midyear admissions. So you are
>> generally stuck till the end of the school year.
>
>Maybe you're stuck for half a year. That's a lot better than being stuck
>for 6 or 12.
You seem to think that moving a kid from school to school in search of
the elusive "better education" is good for the kid. Kids need
stability, and many a parent has rejected a school change to a "better
school" because the change might be more harmful than the school would
be better.
>> Parents receive no information on which to decide that they don't like
>> the private school.
>
>What do consumers "receive" to decide what car to buy,
Lots of public reviews like Consumer Reports. Thorough government
regulation of the auto industry too, with independent testing of MPG.
Even so, many consumers get lemons.
>what house to buy,
They get to look in depth at as many houses as they choose before they
pay a penny. They can hire a house inspector to professionally
evaluate the quality before they buy.
>or, for a closer analogy, what college to choose?
Again lots of public reviews. But do you realize how poorly college
choices are made? What percentage of kids that start, finish their
college education?
>> The public schools don't do well at educating the gifted. The public
>> doesn't want to pay for them to do it well. Live with it; I was 99th
>> percentile myself, and I survived.
>
>Except that federal law requires an "appropriate education" for gifted
>children. And why the hell should we "love with it?"
Actually, I don't believe that it does. See 300.7 for the definition
of an IDEA disability, which is where "free and appropriate public
education" comes into play.
http://www.ideapractices.org/law/regulations/topicIndex.php
Several states have added in giftedness as an additional category
warranting an IEP, but that is a state and not a federal decision.
http://ericec.org/digests/e541.html
contrasts the federal laws on gifted education with the laws on
education for the disabled.
>What a slave mentality you have. Typical of a leftist.
You expect government to solve the problems of the gifted, like a good
socialist.
>> It is not malpractice, because the public is paying the teacher to
>> teach your kid the state minimum standard curriculum (which your kid
>> might be able to master in a couple of months in his sleep). The
>> public has NO interest in satisfying your desires for your kid. You
>> are a minority who has been outvoted. Live with it, just like the
>> 2000 Naderites have to live with Bush.
>
>No, I won't live with it. Unlike you, I don't like to live under tyranny.
>There can only be one winner for public office. But there is no reason that
>there has to be just one government run and incompetent school system.
"We the people" have voted for there to be one, and it is no more
incompetent than we choose it to be.
>Let us see what would happen if a private business produced a product as
>shoddy as public education.
Ralph Nader goes after them. "Unsafe at Any Speed" and other examples
since then (Firestone tires, anyone?). Of course, people might die
before the business gets caught.
>Let's say an automobile manufacturer produced
>cars, half of which were incapable of reaching highway speeds.
You mean like the electric towncars that are starting to be
manufactured?
>The government would likely shut them down.
Why? If they false advertise that they can travel at highway speeds,
then that is fraud.
But if they only advertise that they meet the minimum requirements to
be termed a "motor vehicle" in every state, then there is nothing the
government can or should do.
>You, of course, would argue that
>those people should just restrict themselves to side streets, and be
>grateful their $25,000 car runs at all and tell us to "live with it."
Think before they spend their $25,000. After they spend it, unless
fraud or negligence is proven, "live with it" is the rule.
Since the public education systems of this country don't promise to
satisfy parents, and indeed don't promise that all kids will be
successfully educated, they cannot be held liable for failing to do so
(the courts have so ruled).
>> I think that if we had a perfect education system, we would still have
>> the same percentage living in or near poverty. Some has to do the
>> jobs that no one wants to pay people decent wages to do, while there
>> are only so many jobs that need higher skill levels.
>
>I'm hardly asking for "perfect." I'd settle for competent. We're not even
>close to that.
"Competent" does not mean "satisfying parents".
>> >> None.
>> >
>> >I guess you went to public school and didn't learn any math.
>>
>> No. I just realize that vouchers wouldn't save any money, unless they
>> gutted the schools.
>
>Oh, and how did you "realize that?" Some sort of revelation?
>
>Try doing the math. It's simple.
>
>Let's say there are 200,000 students in Washington, D.C. The district
>spends $10,000 per student for a total budget of $2 billion. Now say they
>institute a voucher system paying each student who leaves 2/3 of their per
>pupil expenditure - a bit less than $6,700. Let's say 30,000 students
>leave. Instantly there's almost an extra $600 per pupil to spend. If
>45,000 students leave - just over 20% and hardly gutting the system - it
>goes up to $1000 extra per student.
The fact that per-student spending averages are a myth kills this
argument.
Since kids don't all cost the same to educate, that $1000 extra would
not match the cost of the remaining students. The students who left
are after all kids that can be educated for $6700.
13% of the kids in DC are special ed, and chew up 30% of the budget.
They won't be leaving for $6700. The city is spending on average
around $25,000 for each of them. That means that non-special ed kids
cost an average of $8000 or so.
25% of the kids are in high school. Based on private school tuitions,
high school education costs around twice as much as elementary
education. A little algebra will show you that, to get an $8000
average for non-special ed kids, elementary kids get $6400 spent on
them and high school kids get $12,800 spent on them.
This of course leaves out funding for school lunch programs, Headstart
and ESL programs which aren't special ed, but leave some students
costing more than others to educate. But the $6400 alone is already
less than your $6700 voucher - the schools are losing $300 per
elementary, non-special ed student that leaves (and those are the only
kids that will find a private school in DC for under $6700).
>This also automatically allows for
>other improvements. Fewer teachers are needed, so the least competent can
>be fired
Not likely. If only 15% of the student population leaves from a
school having 2 classes at each grade level, probably not one single
teacher can be let go.
>(as they should have been anyway).
There is a teacher shortage now. Where will the private schools get
the teachers for those 30,000 kids, paying lower salaries than the
public schools. They'd have to start with the teachers that the
public schools let go.
>The older, more expensive to maintain, buildings can be closed.
Not quickly. Trying to close a neighborhood school down takes a few
years, possibly involving a lawsuit or two. A couple of years ago, DC
had decrepit schools operating at 40% of capacity that it could not
legally close down; no idea whether it has managed by now to do so.
For a comparison, look at how hard it has been for Congress to close
military bases. They eventually had to set up an independent
commission that determined all-or-nothing closure packages, because
any Congressman that permitted a base in his district to be closed was
guaranteed defeat at the next election. The public doesn't really
WANT "government efficiency"; they want convenience and government
support, and of course ever lower taxes.
The public schools are NOT a market operation, and they don't respond
well to market forces. When market forces operate as you suggest,
government becomes inefficient and non-responsive.
Indeed the DC schools are as bad and as expensive as they are in part
because of market forces. White flight led to the school population
being cut in half, and the electorate did not allow the schools to
shrink in accordance with the smaller market.
>Sounds like a win win proposition to me.
Only because you are ignorant about the costs of education.
>And if the parents think the schools are so bad that the system is gutted,
>what, exactly, is wrong with "gutting" a completely failed enterprise?
You've described 15% of the parents "gutting" the system for the
remaining 85%.
>In
>the real world a company that delivers a shoddy, overpriced product will go
>out of business.
Unless their shoddy overpriced product is cheaper and better-marketed
than the competition.
McDonalds does NOT produce especially nutritious food, and they make
buckets of profit. Many people would say that McDonalds indeed
produces "shoddy, overpriced products", even while they munch away at
their Big Mac.
>All you are doing is reinforcing my contention that government has no
>business running a monopoly education system.
Proof by ideology.
>> In that context, the ONLY market that is relevant is the employment
>> market. Note that I did not say it is a free market, either. Just
>> that it is a market.
>
>What the hell good is a market that is not free?
Since almost no market is "free", the world's economy depends on
precisely that sort of non-free market.
>> Not likely. The warm body shortage would still necessitate paying
>> them. And collective bargaining is perfectly legitimate in a free
>> market as well.
>
>Actually, no it's not. In a free society a business can hire anyone they
>want at any wage thw worker agrees to, not be forced by the government to
>hire only union members (closed shop) or pay union wages to non-union
>workers (like Davis-Bacon, which costs taxpayers billions every year).
And if the workers band together and refuse to work for less, you have
a union (or in the case of doctors, a "professional organization").
>> >Note also how adamantly the teachers unions fight merit pay.
>>
>> Since I don't believe that there is any agreed upon standard of
>> teacher merit, I have no problem with this.
>
>That's funny. Other businesses manage to evaluate the performance of their
>employees.
Not always, and often not very well.
>Only government seems incapable of doing so.
In private industry, normal practice is around 1 supervisor for at
most every 5-10 employees. A typical school has one principal
supervising 30+ teachers, and an equal number of non-teaching
employees, and the principal has other jobs in addition to supervising
the employees.
>> >A great way to eliminate excellence and guarantee mediocrity.
>>
>> We tried merit pay here. It was a disaster that did precisely that.
>
>I find that hard to believe - you have a link to an account of what
>happened?
>I found this from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:
>
>In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a $500 per year per family tuition
>tax credit payable to non-profit, tax exempt school tuition organizations in
>Kotterman v. Killian. The court concluded that the tax credit statute
>violated neither the U.S. nor the Arizona constitution. The Arizona court
>opined, "According to Black's Law Dictionary, `public money' is `[r]evenue
>received from federal state, and local governments from taxes, fees, fines,
>etc.' Black's Law Dictionary 1005 (6th ed. 1990). As respondents note,
>however, no money ever enters the state's control as a result of this tax
>credit. Nothing is deposited in the state treasury or other accounts under
>the management or possession of governmental agencies or public officials.
>Thus, under any common understanding of the words, we are not here dealing
>with `public money.'"[106]
I have long stated that tuition tax credits would avoid the
constitutional church/state issue on vouchers. I would oppose them
only as yet another tax break for the rich, who would primarily
benefit.
>Besides, the Supreme Court just validated my position - school vouchers are
>constitutional.
For now.
They still are wrong.
>> >> >> Patriotic Americans consider taxes their duty for living in this
>great country.
>> >> >
>> >> >Only those taxes that are appropriately and well spent.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. It is not a principle of this country that you only have a duty
>> >> to pay taxes when you approve of the spending.
>> >
>> >I guess you would have been with the Tories, not the Patriots.
>>
>> Apparently you are not too well-educated in history.
>
>You are the one with absolutely no understanding of our founding principles
>of limited government.
The founders gave up on the founding principle of limited government
between 1776 and 1787 when the Articles of Confederation failed.
Meanwhile nothing that the founders came up with limited state
governments. It took the Civil War to prove that unlimited States'
Rights could not be tolerated. It took the failure of states at
regulating business between 1860 and 1910 as they went from being
primarily local firms to national corporations and trusts. By 1875,
companies were able to buy entire state governments, and the only way
to check them was to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate
them. Even today, the top companies on the Fortune 500 rake as much
money per year as the 50 state systems of public education combined.
>> >So any spending Congress votes for is automatically constitutional?
>>
>> No. Any taxes collected based on a Congressional action, given an
>> elected Congress, is automatically taxation with representation. At
>> the time of the D of I there was no written constitution.
>
>Not true. Children who bear the burden of taxes imposed on them for
>something they do not benefit from have no representation. Jefferson
>considered intergenerational taxes tyranny. He was right.
Whoopie for Jefferson. He lost that one.
>> >Again, your sympathies are obviously with the Europeans.
>>
>> Some Asian countries as well. Pretty much every country that has
>> GNP/capita over $10,000 also has high government spending.
>
>I like being near the bottom of that list - as do all people who value
>liberty.
You value "liberty" like most libertoonians. You get yours, and screw
everyone else.
>> Comparable times in their presidential terms.
>> Military spending GNP
>> 2002 $343.2 billion GNP $10.589 trillion 3.24%
>> 1994 $281.6 billion $7.218 3.90%
>>
>> Yes, the Clinton military budget dropped later in his term and dipped
>> below Bush's current level - But then Clinton balanced the budget,
>> remember.
>
>You mean the Republican Congress balanced the budget. You DO know where
>budgetary authority resides, don't you?
I recall Clinton facing down the Republican Congress year after year,
and it caving.
>So to give HIM credit for balancing the
>budget is disingenuous at best. In actuality, the budget was balanced
>because the Republicans managed to impose a very slight amount of restraint
>on the growth in spending while the stock market bubble produced hundreds of
>billions in extra revenues. Of course, when the bubble burst in Clinton's
>last year, the surplus disappeared.
The surplus disappeared because of Shrub's tax cut.
>> Which in no way limits state government. It says that anything not
>> explicitly mentioned in the constitution otherwise is a power reserved
>> to the states or the people. There is nothing constitutional that
>> would forbid a state from imposing a 100% tax, and spending it on all
>> manner of stuff, so long as the people elected the legislature
>> (republican form of government).
>
>That's true. I'm glad, however, that you agree we can eliminate all federal
>spending for education. That would save a lot.
Not really. The Federal government covers only 7% of the cost of
public K/12 education, most of it special ed money, and the school
lunch and antipoverty programs. Around $30 billion dollars.
>> >> No one forces this. You can spend your own money for private schools.
>> >> Or you if you can't afford the choices you want, you can exercise the
>> >> choice to not have kids.
>> >
>> >Sounds like the kind of "choice" a fascist offers.
>>
>> Personal fiscal responsibility as a basis for economic choice. Good
>> conservative values.
>
>Again, when you take people's money there's not much choice.
No one takes people's money. They pay their taxes willingly as part
of the social contract, which they are free to leave at any time, so
long as they also leave the country.
>> Non-educational baby-sitting costs a LOT more than that (and for many
>> parents, that is all they really care that the schools provide -
>> baby-sitting).
>
>And you're ahppy with that, apparently.
The public is by and large satisfied with that.
>Well those parents who actually
>want their children educated should not be punished by being forced into
>schools that are nothing but "baby sitting" services.
They aren't. They can pay to send their kids to private schools.
Can't afford the choice? Well then they should have chosen not to
have kids until they could afford it.
>> >and everyone - children and taxpayers - would
>> >be better off if the district gave the parents who want it a fraction of
>> >that $10,000 (say $6700) and let them buy a much better education.
>>
>> You couldn't buy a "much better education". The private schools AT
>> BEST offer a SLIGHTLY better education, and after correcting for the
>> kids that they reject or eject and the socioeconomics, I'm not even
>> sure it is slightly better.
>
>I disagree. But that is actually irrelevant. In a FREE society, parents
>should be able to choose.
They can. If they spend their money.
>But the left proves over and over again, it doesn't care about freedom and
>it doesn't care about children.
As you prove, the right claims it is against leftism, except when it
comes to socialist benefits that accrue to their personal benefit.
And those of us in the middle consider you both to be wacky extremists
out of touch with reality because you are so enraptured with your
ideology.
lojbab
Founding Father
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> They have that choice. But choice costs money. If you spend the
> >> money you have as much choice of schools as you have choice of cars
> >> and houses and doctors.
> >
> >That's exactly the point. Parents would have the choice except for the
fact
> >that the government confiscates the money they need to pay for it.
>
> Bullshit. If I paid no taxes at all, I could not afford private
> school tuition for my two high schoolers (and that tuition would
> probably rise if not held down by the need to "compete" with free
> public education).
Then support vouchers. You can still have your "free" public school system
(which is very expensive, not free). And those of us who so chose will send
our children to schools that actually educate.
> >> "Freedom of choice" isn't supposed to be government-paid. That is
> >> socialism.
> >
> >So what you're saying is if the government pays for it, you get no
choice.
>
> Your choice is at the ballot box.
Do we get to vote where everyone shops, what houses people buy, what clothes
they put on their children? Even people on welfare get to pick the kind of
foods they want to eat. And some, believe it or not, actually tithe their
welfare check (horrors! government money going to churches).
If we let people vote, kids would be saying prayers in school.
> >That's a pretty revealing admission from a liberal.
>
> No it is a revealing admission from a conservative who recognizes that
> public education is one of the welfare services of our government. We
> don't give welfare recipients a lot of choices as to what kind of
> welfare they receive; indeed we make them jump through hoops in order
> to receive that welfare. Getting free services from the government
> doesn't entitle welfare recipients to "choice".
So now TAXPAYERS are welfare recipients when they get back some of what
they've paid?
Tell all the retired citizens that they are all welfare recipients too -
from the very first Social Security check they draw.
This defective thinking is the hallmark of a leftist who thinks that all
money really belongs to the government, not the people who earn it.
> >I'm not sure you
> >realize the implications. The solution then, is to end public education
and
> >make parents pay for their own kids.
>
> That is what most extremists on the right are really hoping for.
Only as an alternative if the left keeps obstructing freedom of choice.
(Why is it that the only time the left supports freedom of choice is when it
involves killing the unwanted?)
> They don't care about kids, only their pocketbooks.
Those are the teachers unions who only care for their pocketbooks. The
parents care about their kids. They want vouchers. Let our children go ...
to a decent school.
Founding Father
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:02m88v0nu92ohhd5m...@4ax.com...
This is one of the most moronic arguments I have heard. Must be an NEA
officer.
Founding Father
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4a0b8vkvg1qk2lule...@4ax.com...
Haven't seen much so far. A list of religious groups that you claim spend
all this money in support of vouchers with not a single dollar amount
attached to even one, a URL to a policy statement from a group laughingly
called the "Texas Freedom Network" which appears to mainly be engaged in
denying parents the freedom to choose what school their children go to (just
imagine a group supporting Bill Clinton calling itself the "Chastity
Network") and a URL to an inane argument that a taxpayer who is taxed $5000
for the public school system is only due back $5.
Oh yes, and an infantile flame war between you and someone named Malcolm
Kirkpatrick.
> I supply information from experts in the field, usually
> from more than one source. Also primary source historical data. I do not
> merely provide my opinion. In fact, seldom ever provide my opinion. My
> personal opinion is irrelevant. Have I educated? Well, if you only would
> have read that information that I provided. Examined, and explored
> further...maybe looked up the works I listed from some of the best
> scholars, and contemporary thinkers. If you would have done that, even YOU
> might have been educated. I am prepared to respond with justifications,
> evidence, and facts, and will state when something is a belief.
I guess I missed all that erudition. But then I've only been here about a
week and have nothing on my server prior to 3/27.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:tko78vkgspeqm9eu0...@4ax.com...
>> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >> They have that choice. But choice costs money. If you spend the
>> >> money you have as much choice of schools as you have choice of cars
>> >> and houses and doctors.
>> >
>> >That's exactly the point. Parents would have the choice except for the fact
>> >that the government confiscates the money they need to pay for it.
>>
>> Bullshit. If I paid no taxes at all, I could not afford private
>> school tuition for my two high schoolers (and that tuition would
>> probably rise if not held down by the need to "compete" with free
>> public education).
>
>Then support vouchers.
No.
>You can still have your "free" public school system
>(which is very expensive, not free). And those of us who so chose will send
>our children to schools that actually educate.
You can spend your own damned money, not the taxpayers' money. The
taxpayers pay -> the taxpayers (not the parents) choose.
>> >> "Freedom of choice" isn't supposed to be government-paid. That is
>> >> socialism.
>> >
>> >So what you're saying is if the government pays for it, you get no choice.
>>
>> Your choice is at the ballot box.
>
>Do we get to vote where everyone shops, what houses people buy, what clothes
>they put on their children?
If the taxpayers are paying for their shopping, then the taxpayers
have the right to make that choice. In the case of public health
clinics, they do choose. In the case of government subsidized
housing, they do choose.
Groceries and clothing, they don't choose, because for the most part,
the public sees no advantage in it.
>Even people on welfare get to pick the kind of
>foods they want to eat. And some, believe it or not, actually tithe their
>welfare check (horrors! government money going to churches).
So? And the taxpayers can and do have the right to cutoff that
welfare check for people who don't choose to live a lifestyle that
"we the people" approve of (as they have done with recent welfare
reforms)
>If we let people vote, kids would be saying prayers in school.
Good thing we have a constitution that prevents that.
>> No it is a revealing admission from a conservative who recognizes that
>> public education is one of the welfare services of our government. We
>> don't give welfare recipients a lot of choices as to what kind of
>> welfare they receive; indeed we make them jump through hoops in order
>> to receive that welfare. Getting free services from the government
>> doesn't entitle welfare recipients to "choice".
>
>So now TAXPAYERS are welfare recipients when they get back some of what
>they've paid?
"Public education" is a welfare program. People are given this
welfare benefit whether or not they've paid taxes, whether or not they
are capable of paying taxes. It has NOTHING to do with "getting back
some of what they've paid" which sounds more like "social security".
>Tell all the retired citizens that they are all welfare recipients too -
>from the very first Social Security check they draw.
Social security is for the most part NOT a welfare program. You are
not generally eligible UNLESS you (or someone you are the beneficiary
of) have contributed, and the amount you contribute helps determine
how much you receive back.
Welfare programs provide the same benefit to all recipients, whether
or not they contributed anything. They are considered an entitlement
for anyone meeting the specified qualifications (which do not include
being a taxpayer).
>This defective thinking is the hallmark of a leftist who thinks that all
>money really belongs to the government, not the people who earn it.
Nope. The feeling that people are entitled to a share of government
benefits just because they paid taxes are "socialists", though.
>> >I'm not sure you
>> >realize the implications. The solution then, is to end public education and
>> >make parents pay for their own kids.
>>
>> That is what most extremists on the right are really hoping for.
>
>Only as an alternative if the left keeps obstructing freedom of choice.
The left does no such thing. 200 years ago there was freedom of
choice, only private schools, and most kids did not go to school.
Public schools were started to make sure that all kids could and did
go to school and get what the public feels is a minimum amount of
education. No citizen is obliged to use the public schools; it just
happens to be less expensive than choosing your own way.
There have been people arguing for vouchers from the very beginning of
public education, and they have NEVER been considered acceptable.
Therefore, it is not the "left obstructing freedom of choice", but the
"radical right seeking to overturn the conservative status quo".
>(Why is it that the only time the left supports freedom of choice is when it
>involves killing the unwanted?)
Why is it that you beat your wife?
>> They don't care about kids, only their pocketbooks.
>
>Those are the teachers unions who only care for their pocketbooks.
Nonsense. EVERYONE cares about their pocketbooks.
> The parents care about their kids.
Some.
>They want vouchers.
Most don't.
>Let our children go ... to a decent school.
Pay for it yourself.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|Haven't seen much so far. A list of religious groups that you claim spend
>:|all this money in support of vouchers with not a single dollar amount
>:|attached to even one, a URL to a policy statement from a group laughingly
>:|called the "Texas Freedom Network" which appears to mainly be engaged in
>:|denying parents the freedom to choose what school their children go to (just
>:|imagine a group supporting Bill Clinton calling itself the "Chastity
>:|Network") and a URL to an inane argument that a taxpayer who is taxed $5000
>:|for the public school system is only due back $5.
============================================================
"Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|Attach a dollar amount each of these groups spends lobbying and then we can
>:|talk. All of it together doesn't even add up to the NEA, much less all the
>:|other leftwing anti-choice groups.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, if you had read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies I have posted) you would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence.. I supply information from experts in the field, usually
from more than one source. Also primary source historical data. I do not
merely provide my opinion. In fact, seldom ever provide my opinion. My
personal opinion is irrelevant. Have I educated? Well, if you only would
have read that information that I provided. Examined, and explored
further...maybe looked up the works I listed from some of the best
scholars, and contemporary thinkers. If you would have done that, even YOU
might have been educated. I am prepared to respond with justifications,
evidence, and facts, and will state when something is a belief.
=========================================================
"Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|You really should learn to read. The post I replied to referred to
>:|"activist organizations." That generally does not include the political
>:|parties.
Duh, many who support political parties also support activist groups that
represent their philosophies.
Are you going to list the "activist" groups that support vouchers?
Are you going to list the groups that finance some of those groups and many
of the litigation that has taken place over the past 20 some years in
support of vouchers?
Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was expended
in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
What can you tell us about the following groups:
[The following is only a partial list of various activist groups, fund
raising groups and individual, legal groups that are taking the cases to
court, etc]
Coral Ridge Ministries
James Dodson's Focus on the Family
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
jal...@cox.net
>:|Do we get to vote where everyone shops, what houses people buy, what clothes
>:|they put on their children? Even people on welfare get to pick the kind of
>:|foods they want to eat. And some, believe it or not, actually tithe their
>:|welfare check (horrors! government money going to churches).
Attach a amount figure to that tithing, LOL Isn't that what you want
others to do?
>:|So now TAXPAYERS are welfare recipients when they get back some of what
>:|they've paid?
Some of what they have paid where?
===============================================================
>:|
>:|Tell all the retired citizens that they are all welfare recipients too -
>:|from the very first Social Security check they draw.
S. Batte is a lawyer traied in the law and practices law as a practicing
attorney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|MK.wrote:
>:| The facts remain: Tax money, in the form of a voucher for the
>:|purchase of X (food) is given directly to consumers for use at
>:|designated private-sector institutions (grocery stores). No State
>:|operation required. As I argued above, this spares the community a lot
>:|of trouble. Notice, we do not see a lot of litigation over separation
>:|of nutrition and State.
=====================================================================
This set of exchanges took place in late 1996:
------- --------- ------- ------- ----
>:|>>:|> >:| I presume that almost *any* govt. hand out could be used at an
>:|>>:|> >:|entity which might throw in religion as a bonus. Food stamps might
>:|>>:|> >:|be used at a store that gave out religious stuff with purchases,
>:|>>:|> >:|or welfare money spent on church donations, etc. Although in some
>:|>>:|> >:|ways it'd be nice to use this argument to get rid of these programs,
>:|>>:|> >:|it seems there isn't really anything unique in the idea that a govt.
>:|>>:|> >:|handout might be used for something where religion could be theoretically
>:|>>:|> >:|thrown in as a bonus.
>:|>>:|> >:|
>:|>>:|>
-----------------------------------
[S. Batte]
The above argument is apples and oranges. Vouchers and welfare, food
stamps, etc are not the same things.
----------------------------------
>:|>>:| Obviously the product that money is being spent on is different, but
>:|>>:|the issue would appear to be the same.
>:|
---------------------------------
[S.Batte]
No, the issue isn't the same.
-------------------------------
>:|Explain why the issues are differrent. You have
>:|repeatedly argued against vouchers on the grounds that government money
>:|ends up in the hands of religion. In the case of voucherrs, government
>:|money is given out without regard to religion, but people may choose to
>:|use the vouchers in a way that aids religion. In your view this somehow
>:|invalidates vouchers. But the same is true of social security checks,
>:|where the recepients may give some or all of their check to a church. I
>:|believe what Bryan is saying is not that be suspects that welfare will
>:|soon be ruled unconstitutional, but that you do not truly apply your
>:|justifications constitently. The only difference you present is a
>:|statistical one, which I deal with below.
---------------------------------
Voucher money has one direct purpose - to aid a religious institution.
Social Security money is an entitlement, the amount of which is based on
the work record of the individual or the individual's spouse. Basing your
argument on the fact that the government doesn't control individual's from
spending their social security checks as they wish is unbelievable.
Controlling how the individual spends his entitlement is the same as
placing limitations on how you can spend your private pension. In addition,
the individual may spend every penny he receives to support a
televangelist, and the government won't give him a single penny more, even
if he is starving or in need of medication.
Welfare/food stamps are based on need. If the government has assessed that
an individual can receive a certain amount of welfare or food stamps based
on the number of dependents, income, medical condition, etc., then the
individual can receive a needs-based entitlement. If that person spends
that money to assist a relative in need or to send their child on a
religious retreat, the government will not give them one penny more to pay
for rent, food, utilities.
S. Batte, Esq.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>>:| What difference does the nature of the product make in the
>:|>>:|argument as to whether government money intended to pay for some
>:|>>:|particular product winds up being spent in a way that the person
>:|>>:|receives some religious item as part of the process.
>:|
-----------------------------------------
[S. Batte]
Religion isn't a factor in regards to welfare. That might be hard for you
to understand, but nonetheless is true.
---------------------------------------------
>:|OK, it's hard for us to underrstand. Perhaps you could explain it
>:|to us dumb bunnies out here. Why is religion only a factor in the case
>:|of school vouchers, when numerous other programs such as welfare (not
>:|just food stamps, but say social security) can put money in the hands of
>:|religion.
-----------------------------------------------------
I can only believe that some one many years from social security and
retirement would believe that a program based on the number of years you
worked and the amount of social security tax you paid is like a program
where our tax dollars (yours and mine) are paid directly to parochial
school parents to give their children a religious education at the expense
of funding for public schools.
S. Batte, Esq.
-------------------------------------------------------
>:|>>:| Could it be that you don't wish to see other government programs
>:|>>:|shut down and so you are trying to rationalize that they are somehow
>:|>>:|different from vouchers, without giving any rational reason as to
>:|>>:|how they are different?
-------------------------------------------------------
[S. Batte]
I haven't? Hmmmmm, interesting.
80% to 90% of all private schools of the k-12 grades are private religious
schools.
------------------------------------------------------
>:|You point being what? That government money can go to religion, but if
>:|more than a certain percentage goes to rreligion, the program becomes
>:|unconstitutional.
--------------------------------------------------------
No the point being that it is private religious schools who are asking for
vouchers. This is one of the big differences. With a voucher program there
is no guess work about it, the entire benefit goes straight to the
religious institutions. With all these other government programs - who
gets what when how and where are all unknowns. You're just using these
other situations to try to create some type of argument to allow voucher
benefits to exist. You don't even have or provide any evidence that what
you say about these other programs actually exists. With Vouchers, the
plan is all written down - the money goes to religious institutions.
S. Batte, Esq.
--------------------------------------------------------
> What percentage is this? 20%? 50%? 70%? The problems
>:|with this sot of an approach are obvious. In _Muller_ v. _Allen_ the
>:|Supreme Court faced a program in which parents could deduct tuition
>:|costs for any school. In repsonse to the challengers' argument that something
>:|like 80% of the private schools were parrochial, the Court said that it
>:|would not engage in troubling and unclear "statistical" tests.
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your statement is misleading. The argument posed by the taxpayers was that
96% of the children in private school attended private religious school so
that the bulk of the benefit of the tax deduction plan inured to religious
schools. The other side countered with the fact that public school parents
could recover for summer school tuition, tuition for placing their children
in public schools outside of their district, materials, etc. The Mueller
Court said they didn't want to get into the business of determining
constitutionality based on annual reports reciting the extent to which
various classes of private citizens claimed benefits under the law.
S. Batte, Esq.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>There is no aspect of the welfare program that would bring it into a
>:|>similar situation with regards to religion.
>:|
>:|>Some say that some people on welfare might put the change from food stamps
>:|>in a church collection plate. yes they might, but that does not violate the
>:|>establishment clause. The amount of money that would be involved in such a
>:|>situation is so small, providing that it even happens, and it hasn't been
>:|>proven that it does, that it is not a factor.
>:|
>:|In welfare are we just talking about food stamps? In some programs the
>:|government simply gives cash out. Or turning our attention from simply
>:|welfare, the FDIC can give out huge amounts of money to churches whose
>:|accounts disappeared in bank crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------
If the FDIC is an insurance program provided by banks when depositors place
their money therein, then why would the same benefit allowed all other
depositors be denied to a church? Isn't insurance all about you pay some
money to the insurance company before disaster strikes?
Welfare is an entirely different program involving totally different
qualifications, designed to accomplish different goals, etc, and has
nothing to do with religion.
S. Batte, Esq.
---------------------------------------------------------
>:|Similarly, vouchers have goals which have nothing to do with religion.
>:|Vouchers have to do with education.
---------------------------------------------------
Vouchers have to do with education at religious institutions where core
subjects are taught in a manner consistent with religious doctrine.
Again, welfare/food stamps and social security are in no way at all based
on religious criteria. If the government has assessed that an individual
can receive a certain amount of welfare or food stamps based on the number
of dependents, income, medical condition, etc., then the individual can
receive a needs-based entitlement. If that person spends that money to
assist a relative in need or to send their child on a religious retreat,
the government will not give them one penny more to pay for rent, food,
utilities.
Welfare programs do not violate the Establishment Clause. There has never
been a court challenge to prove it did or to show it did, I doubt seriously
that there ever would be. It would take some really strange circumstances
to bring about such a challenge.
S. Batte, Esq.
-----------------------------------------------------
>:|I don't think anyone's arguing that welfare programs violate the First
>:|Amendment. The point is that the arrgument yo have advanced for vouchers
>:|being unconstitutional appliies equally well to numerous other
>:|goverrnment programs.
>:|
>:|To give ten examples :
>:|
>:|1) Pell grants and student loans subsidizing college tutition at
>:| religion colleges. Also, (_Mueller_) tax deductions for tutition
>:| costs at all schools, and (_Witters_) state payment of tutition costs
>:| for all blind persons, even one studying at a religious school to become
>:| a pastor.
>:|2) Allowing religious groups the same access to public speaking
>:| facilties, school newspapers, school printers and computers, university
>:| speaking for, and so forth, as secular groups.
>:|3) Allowing church groups to use buses, public transportatiion,
>:| state-funded public highways, and so forth for trips to church or
>:| religious missions.
>:|4) Fire departments preventing local churches from burning down, thus
>:| dirrectly allowing religion to continue to propagate effectively
>:| in the region.
>:|5) Police protection and garbage collection at churches.
>:|6) Welfare checks, social security payments, and tax refunds being used
>:| for religious purposes and donations.
>:|7) FDIC making large payments to churches to restore funds lost by
>:| failed private banks.
>:|8) State payment for textbooks and bus trips to parochial schools.
>:|9) Tax-exempt status of churches, and tax-deductible donations to
>:| churches.
>:|10) State payment for sign language translation services, when those
>:| services are then used to translate religious messages.
--------------------------------------------------------
1. - private choice of individuals
2. - public forum
3, 4, 5 - health, safety
6. - Entitlement/based on individual work records, etc.
7. - Unknown - don't know anything about this program
8. - For SECULAR textbooks & don't know second case
9. - Waltz/Nyquist - If a tax levied against the church is a
"hostility" and a tax appropriation is direct aid in violation of First
Amendment, then no tax is neutrality and neither aids nor inhibits
religion. Also, excessive entanglement ensues if tax is levied against
church donations - delinquent taxes, audits, tax sales, etc.
10. - Zobrest still had to pay tuition, books, transportation,
meals, expenses. Attenuated benefit to parochial school.
S. Batte, Esq.
-----------------------------------------------------
>:|All of the above have either been directly uphled by the Supreme Court
>:|are are so obviously constitutional that they have never been
>:|challenged. What theoy do you have to explain why all of the above are
>:|constitution, while school vouchers are not? The Court has rightly
>:|rejected statistical arguments (which in any case would fail with 8 and
>:|9), some of the above have direct payments to churches (6, 7), other cases
>:|in involve enormous economic aid to a church, without which probably
>:|many churches would cease to exist (4, 5, 7, 9), others allow government
>:|resources to be directly used to transmit religiious messages (1, 2, 10),
>:|and all involve government rresources in some fashion being challenged
>:|to support religion. It's harrd to see what theory you could have that
>:|finds voucherrs unacceptable, but all of the above programs
>:|constitutional.
>:|
---------------------------------------------------
You're being misleading when you say the above cases have never been
challenged. How do you think they became cases? Obviously they weren't
clear cases. In addition, the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear every
case that comes down the pike. That they heard the above cases must have
meant that the cases weren't clear. Finally, what were the votes on these
cases? Were there dissenting opinions? Obviously, clarity is a relative
concept ....
Vouchers, among other things, support the religious mission of the school
and affiliated church. Granted there can be secular parts and sectarian
parts to the religious school. The Court has granted indirect aid in cases
where the secular side of the school is benefited and the religious side is
not (textbooks, fire, police, bus transportation).
Pell grants, student loans, and programs for the handicapped (1) have
secular eligibility criteria which must be met before the student receives
the benefit. The benefit rewards the individual's achievements or aids the
individual's handicap. Vouchers are awarded to parents because they send
their children to religious school - that is the only requirement. Secular
intent can be implied from awarding pell grants, student loans, or benefits
for the handicapped. No such secular intent can be gleaned from giving
money to parents to send their children to religious school.
(6) - Welfare/food stamps are based on need. If the government has assessed
that an individual can receive a certain amount of welfare or food stamps
based on the number of dependents, income, medical condition, etc., then
the individual can receive a needs-based entitlement. If that person spends
that money to assist a relative in need or to send their child on a
religious retreat, the government will not give them one penny more to pay
for rent, food, utilities.
(4,5) - Health and safety are of paramount concern to government and
citizens. Would you really want your neighborhood church to be destroyed
in a fire which could possibly spread to your homes, property, etc? Would
you really want to encourage criminals to break into churches by refusing
to provide them with police protection?
(9) Allowing the exemption for churches is not about providing churches
with economic aid. There was the fact that churches had the exemption
prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and as I have said before, tax
exemption neither supports nor inhibits religion, hence it is neutral.
S.Batte, Esq.
______________________________________________________________
>:|His welfare arguments, which you claim that no court would possibly
>:|listen to, appear to be exactly the same argument made by the Supreme
>:|Court in upholding the provision of family planning aid to church groups
>:|in _Bowers_ v. _Kendrick_, and repeated arguments by numerous justices
>:|that your logic would strike down fire departments and police aid to
>:|churches. His arguments thta you essentially wish to discriminated
>:|against religionis precisely the argument that seems to dominate the
>:|court now, implictly in the _Rosenberger_ opinion, and more explicitly
>:|in Kennedy's concurrence. I'm not saying that Bryan is some sort of
>:|legal genius, who without any knowledge of the law has managed to guess
>:|what the state of current constitutional law is. But I am saying that
>:|his is presenting fairly straightforward arguments about what should be
>:|permissible, and what should not, and what sort of distinctions make
>:|sense, and that these arguments are really what is at the core of
>:|constitutional law. Refusing to seriously address these arguments
>:|simply because they are not dressed up as analysis of the defunct
>:|three-prong _Lemon_ test, or a highly unclear and tenatively adopted
>:|endorsement analysis, hardly seems like a tenable position.
>:|
---------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting that you have mixed your case names. Bowers v. Hardwick
is a completely different case - not related to church/state separation;
it's the sodomy case. Bowen v. Kendrick is the name of the case. In Bowen,
the Court looked at the statute itself to determine its constitutionality,
and then proclaimed that application of the statute might raise other
constitutional concerns. Bowen uses the Lemon Test. Bowen says that
funding to religious organizations will be for the purely secular
counseling services they could provide. And Bowen states, once again, that
state funds which flowed to parochial schools was not constitutional. Not
much to hang your hat on there . . . . .
Rosenberger was about the public forum free speech issue. Because the
school activity fee support all manner of different organizations, the
Court found that a Christian group could have access to part of the money
collected from the activity to put its Christian magazine into the
marketplace of ideas along with all the other ideas. This case doesn't seem
to help out vouchers either. A religious school is only putting one opinion
out in the school halls - one consistent with its religious mission.
S. Batte, Esq.
===============================================================
Now there is more if you would like. These two set of discussions probably
takes up about 40 pages of material. obvioulsy not all pertained to food
stamps, etc but there is more on that subject as well if you need it.
=======================================================================
This particular exchange took place in early 1997:
----------- ---------- ---------- ------- --
>:|> 6. Feeding the poor, nursing the sick, teaching children to read are
>:|> religious activities.
>:|
>:|Teaching children to read can be secular or profane. The question is,
>:|will the children be taught using (as extreme examples of various genre)
>:|Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Bible, the Koran, or the DNC platform?
________________________________________________________________________
S. Batte, Esq says:
"How do the above impune the integrity of the public schools. If the
course is high school comparative religion, then the Bible and the Koran
would be appropriate for the classroom. Of a high school history class
studying WWII or development of world economic systems ....
--------------------------------------------------------------
>:|Feeding the poor and nursing the sick are activities which many religions
>:|engage in for a variety of reasons. Whatever agencies do these things
>:|obtain benefits in terms of "goodwill" and obtain some opportunity to
>:|promogulate their point of view. In the case of the government, the
>:|point of view appears to be the premises underlying the "Great Society",
>:|which at best have been a mixture of success and failure.
>:|x>
________________________________________________________________________
S.Batte, Esq says:
"How can it profit society to condition obtaining food and shelter on
religious persuasion? What kind of freedom exists if the destitute must be
forced to listen to and/or support the tenets of a particular religion in
order to obtain basic necessities. The pact made at the beginning of what
is the United States of America included religious liberty - freedom of
conscience. Therefore, poverty is not the result of a failure to believe
in God; homelessness is not a punishment alleviated by attending religious
lectures."
__________________________________________________________________________
>:|> 7. People who live on welfare (or food stamps) would not be allowed to
>:|> give money to their church if government funds were strictly prohibited
>:|> from getting into the hands of churches; and you can't buy religious stuff
>:|> either - Easter eggs, etc.
>:|
>:|Yes, the is the logical extreme. Showing the absurdity of the extreme
>:|demonstrates that all points along the continuum are subject to question.
>:|
_________________________________________________________________________
S. Batte, Esq says:
"You need no extremes to evaluate public money programs. Nothing about our
government system was intended to be despotic. Conditioning a welfare
recipient's benefits on purchases that are non-religious in nature would
excessively entangle church and state and would prohibit the free exercise
of religion. the money is the object of the program.
Education is the object of the public school program. The recipient of the
money can make purchases based on the dictates of his own conscience, and
if he values supporting his local church over food, shelter, medicine,
etc., it is his right to do so. The recipient of free education is also
free to use his education for any purpose he chooses: to become a priest,
to teach at a religious school, etc.
_________________________________________________________________________
>:|
>:|This defective thinking is the hallmark of a leftist who thinks that all
>:|money really belongs to the government, not the people who earn it.
>:|
>:|
>:|Only as an alternative if the left keeps obstructing freedom of choice.
>:|(Why is it that the only time the left supports freedom of choice is when it
>:|involves killing the unwanted?)
Nice biased misrepresentation.
I notice how you lie
Choice was settled back in the 1920s. You didn't know that?
It's not about choice, it's about who pays for those choices
The person making the choice or the taxpayers.
>:|
>:|> They don't care about kids, only their pocketbooks.
>:|
>:|Those are the teachers unions who only care for their pocketbooks. The
>:|parents care about their kids. They want vouchers.
This doesn't support your claim:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PAROCHIAID REFERENDA
STATE YEAR- AGAINST- FOR
New York 1967 72% 28%
Michigan 1970 57% 43%
Nebraska 1970 57% 43%
Oregon 1972 61% 39%
Idaho 1972 57% 43%
Maryland 1972 55% 45%
Maryland 1974 57% 43%
Washington 1975 61% 39%
Missouri 1976 60% 40%
Alaska 1976 54% 46%
Michigan 1978 74% 26%
D C 1981 89% 11%
California 1982 61% 39%
Massachusetts 1982 62% 38%
South Dakota 1986 46% 54%*
Massachusetts 1986 70% 30%
Utah 1988 70% 30%
Oregon 1990 67% 33%
Colorado 1992 67% 33%
California 1993 70% 30%
California 2000 71% 29%
Michigan 2000 69% 31%
--------------------------------------------------------
* The S Dakota vote was for a bill for funds to purchase books only for
k-12 private religious schools. (Something already found to be
constitutional nationally)
You might find this of interest as well:
VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN OVERWHELMINGLY
REJECT SCHOOL VOUCHERS
http://www.au.org/press/pr118002.htm
Dana
news:ur509vgblas6hl7ka...@4ax.com...
> Are you going to mention that groups and amounts of money that was
expended
> in Wis. as they "BOUGHT " a State Supreme Court Justice?
As jailbird lies again.
Why not do us all a favor and become a human shield.
--
The hostility of the "anti-war" protestors is not toward war, nor even
toward war with Iraq--but toward America and its philosophy of
individualism.
Dana
news:74709v07mio5lrl2j...@4ax.com...
> "Founding Father" <f...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Do we get to vote where everyone shops, what houses people buy, what
clothes
> >:|they put on their children? Even people on welfare get to pick the
kind of
> >:|foods they want to eat. And some, believe it or not, actually tithe
their
> >:|welfare check (horrors! government money going to churches).
>
> >:|they've paid?
>
> Some of what they have paid where?
What do you not understand by the word "TAXPAYERS".
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:02m88v0nu92ohhd5m...@4ax.com...
>:|
>:|This is one of the most moronic arguments I have heard. Must be an NEA
>:|officer.
Disprove it dippy. LOL
>:|>
>:|>
>:|
