| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 03:02:05 AM |
| Object: |
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
For 25 of more years the other side has had a monopoly on word games and no
one has called them on it, effectively challenged them on it. They have
managed to turn liberal into a bad word, even moderate has been made
suspicious. Managed to make Democrat a bad word. Managed to turn equal
rights for a minority group into gay rights or special rights. Those are
just a few examples.
Now they are doing the same thing with the courts. They are using words
again to mislead, misrepresent and lie.
Make no mistake about it, judicial activism means any court ruling they do
not like. It has absolutely no other meaning and it appears once more that
no one has the balls to call them on it and keep calling them on it until
that fact finally cancels their dishonest word playing.
Case in point. Last night on Lou Dobbs I heard, either Dobbs or one of his
talking heads use judicial activism in reference to the District Court
pledge ruling. Dobbs also tossed the usual ***** zinger at the 9th
Circuit as he ended that segment of his show by saying the 9th Circuit, the
most liberal Circuit in the country and also the most overturned Circuit
on the country.
I never realized Dobs was a talking head for the right, he should be on Fox
instead of CNN or maybe CNN is in their pocket as well.
Another example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/14cnd-pledge.html
But it had immediate emotional impact. "This is an extraordinary and
blatant display of judicial activism," Kay Daly, president of the Coalition
for a Fair Judiciary, said in a statement issued here.
The American Center for Law and Justice had a similar reaction. "The pledge
clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from
God, not government, and we're hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately
be rejected," said Jay Sekulow, the organization's chief counsel.
The fact of the mater is the original 9th Circuit ruling is the correct
ruling. Absolutely no Judges or ruling handed down since then has honestly
and in detail refuted that ruling, not even the recent 4th Circuit ruling
upholding the pledge in schools
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 01:47:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:41:32 -0500, MichaelC wrote:
And so is economic liberty, which is the rather simple point that if the
goverment removes ten bucks from a person's possession in the form of taxes,
that's ten bucks less that he or she gets to spend as he or she wishes. Now,
like the "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cite, we agree that the
secession of a certain level of rights is necessary for a functioning
society. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, a secession
of natural rights.
And your definition of "natural rights" is?
++ gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 02:20:08 PM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF54720300080D1713569F60@news.giganews.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:41:32 -0500, MichaelC wrote:
And so is economic liberty, which is the rather simple point that if the
goverment removes ten bucks from a person's possession in the form of
taxes,
that's ten bucks less that he or she gets to spend as he or she wishes.
Now,
like the "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cite, we agree that the
secession of a certain level of rights is necessary for a functioning
society. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, a
secession
of natural rights.
And your definition of "natural rights" is?
Freedom of self-determination to the extent that said rights do not infringe
on the rights of others.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 01:46:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:20:08 -0500, MichaelC
wrote
(in article
<IbEXe.1082$Ba2.327@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>):
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF54720300080D1713569F60@news.giganews.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:41:32 -0500, MichaelC wrote:
And so is economic liberty, which is the rather simple point that if the
goverment removes ten bucks from a person's possession in the form of
taxes,
that's ten bucks less that he or she gets to spend as he or she wishes.
Now,
like the "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cite, we agree that the
secession of a certain level of rights is necessary for a functioning
society. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, a
secession
of natural rights.
And your definition of "natural rights" is?
Freedom of self-determination to the extent that said rights do not infringe
on the rights of others.
Mike
In other words, whatever you say it is?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 02:13:03 PM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF55C349000930DD15977B30@news.giganews.com...
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:20:08 -0500, MichaelC
wrote
(in article
<IbEXe.1082$Ba2.327@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>):
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF54720300080D1713569F60@news.giganews.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:41:32 -0500, MichaelC wrote:
And so is economic liberty, which is the rather simple point that if
the
goverment removes ten bucks from a person's possession in the form of
taxes,
that's ten bucks less that he or she gets to spend as he or she
wishes.
Now,
like the "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cite, we agree that
the
secession of a certain level of rights is necessary for a functioning
society. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, a
secession
of natural rights.
And your definition of "natural rights" is?
Freedom of self-determination to the extent that said rights do not
infringe
on the rights of others.
Mike
In other words, whatever you say it is?
Evidently you're finding some very simple concepts confusing, Mr. Shockley.
Would you care to pose a more broad question?
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MaryAnn Dalton" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 11:33:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:20:08 -0500, MichaelC wrote
:
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF54720300080D1713569F60@news.giganews.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:41:32 -0500, MichaelC wrote:
And so is economic liberty, which is the rather simple point that if the
goverment removes ten bucks from a person's possession in the form of
taxes,
that's ten bucks less that he or she gets to spend as he or she wishes.
Now,
like the "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cite, we agree that the
secession of a certain level of rights is necessary for a functioning
society. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, a
secession
of natural rights.
And your definition of "natural rights" is?
Freedom of self-determination to the extent that said rights do not infringe
on the rights of others.
Mike
And your definition of "natural rights" is?
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEASE |
20 Sep 2005 01:03:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:08:58 -0500, MichaelC wrote
(in article <_YYWe.2903$5n4.573@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>):
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:h8boi1tjuh11c8ga10126e9v2rfpqmfigp@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:tfani1985r5sm2hoe8eqtir3v6eu3h0ne7@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Vouchers are much more defendable across the board when tied to
philosophical matters of liberty.
In other words, they are purely an ideological construct, having
nothing to do with reality.
You think liberty is just an ideological construct? :-)
You're a scary guy.
It is when you refer to "philosophical matters of liberty".
"Philosophical matters" are the bane of "real life".
Your opinion stated as fact. Morals and ethics are also "philosophical
matters."
Not for most people. For most people, they are pragmatic rather than
philosophical.
I'll have to disagree. The fact that people sometimes (as you point out with
your speed limit example) fail to live up to their personal ethical
standards does not negate the philosophical underpinings of their world
view -- it just means that people are sometimes crappy at living up to their
own expectations.
Like people who support upholding the laws, but who violate the speed
limit.
"Liberty" as a philosophical matter leads to libertarian idiocy, just
as philosophical emphasis on any other ideal leads to ideological
idiocy.
That's why I asked you if you were a nihlist, which you apparently are. I'll
have to disagree. Nihilsts have yet to leave their mark on the world in any
significant way, as far as I can see.
Mike
Goodness! "nihilist" certainly covers a rather large field of different
fields. This is from _The American Heritage Dictionary/1994_:
---------------------------------------
Nihilism:
1. Philosophy. a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. b.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known
or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a
willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious
belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions
is necessary for future improvement.
4. Also Nihilism. A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century
Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason,
materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism
and assassination.
5. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the
world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
---------------------------------------
Which definition are you using?
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.
The real world requires us to balance many competing ideals, and too
many situations are far too complex to be subject to philosophical
analysis. Those who choose the philosophical path oversimplify, and
let one ideal take precedence, like the aforementioned libertarians.
But most people just muddle along, with any philosophical reflection
undertaken afterwards in the "I wish I had done that instead" stage,
(or alternatively in the rationalization stage). In making actual
decisions, we rely on instincts, and given a little time some will
indulge in prayer or meditation to give those instincts maximal chance
to make themselves clear.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEASE |
20 Sep 2005 01:11:22 PM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF55B9130006CAF715977B30@news.giganews.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:08:58 -0500, MichaelC wrote
(in article <_YYWe.2903$5n4.573@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>):
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:h8boi1tjuh11c8ga10126e9v2rfpqmfigp@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:tfani1985r5sm2hoe8eqtir3v6eu3h0ne7@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Vouchers are much more defendable across the board when tied to
philosophical matters of liberty.
In other words, they are purely an ideological construct, having
nothing to do with reality.
You think liberty is just an ideological construct? :-)
You're a scary guy.
It is when you refer to "philosophical matters of liberty".
"Philosophical matters" are the bane of "real life".
Your opinion stated as fact. Morals and ethics are also "philosophical
matters."
Not for most people. For most people, they are pragmatic rather than
philosophical.
I'll have to disagree. The fact that people sometimes (as you point out
with
your speed limit example) fail to live up to their personal ethical
standards does not negate the philosophical underpinings of their world
view -- it just means that people are sometimes crappy at living up to
their
own expectations.
Like people who support upholding the laws, but who violate the speed
limit.
"Liberty" as a philosophical matter leads to libertarian idiocy, just
as philosophical emphasis on any other ideal leads to ideological
idiocy.
That's why I asked you if you were a nihlist, which you apparently are.
I'll
have to disagree. Nihilsts have yet to leave their mark on the world in
any
significant way, as far as I can see.
Mike
Goodness! "nihilist" certainly covers a rather large field of different
fields. This is from _The American Heritage Dictionary/1994_:
---------------------------------------
Nihilism:
1. Philosophy. a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be
known
or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a
willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious
belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social
institutions
is necessary for future improvement.
4. Also Nihilism. A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century
Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason,
materialism, and radical change in society and government through
terrorism
and assassination.
5. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the
world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.
---------------------------------------
Which definition are you using?
Gray Shockley
1b, which is the one used primarily by Beaudrillard, if memory serves.
However, (2) tends naturally to proceed from 1b, I'd note.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 05:39:19 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:h8boi1tjuh11c8ga10126e9v2rfpqmfigp@4ax.com...
Not for most people. For most people, they are pragmatic rather than
philosophical.
Like people who support upholding the laws, but who violate the speed
limit.
There is such a serious disconnect between posted speed limits and how
people actually drive that there are times and places where driving the
posted limit can be a much greater threat to safety than breaking it. The
real problem is that the American people have lost faith in government's
ability and willingness to set speed limits that make sense. Indeed, the
situation has gotten so bad that government sometimes (often?) deliberately
sets speed limits unnecessarily low so that when people break the limits,
they will still be going a safe speed. The people, in turn, recognize that
the posted limits aren't credible and are therefore quite willling to break
them. Unfortunately, when people get in a habit of breaking speed limits,
they can easily end up ignoring the important ones and not just the ones
that were set deliberately low.
The whole situation is a big mess. But trying to explain it as nothing more
than a triumph of pragmatism over philosophy misses a huge amount of
complexity, much of which itself has philosophical elements involved.
On a more general level, pragmatism itself often has a major philosophical
element involved. Consider Jesus' words, "The sabbath was made for man, not
man for the sabbath." When a rule is not serving its intended purpose, and
may even be working against its intended purpose, there is a philosophical
basis for the pragmatic decision to ignore or bend the rule. Similarly,
when a situation arises that a rule was never intended to cover, there is a
philosophical basis supporting the idea that blind obedience to the rule is
not necessarily a good thing. The general philosophical idea that we ought
to obey rules and laws is often not the only philosophical concept in play,
and depending on the situation, other philosophical concepts may take
precedence.
I don't know how many people ever think of the situation in those terms on a
conscious level. But the philosophical aspect of the situation certainly
does often come into play on a subconscious level even if people don't think
enough about their thought processes enough to recognize it in those terms.
"Liberty" as a philosophical matter leads to libertarian idiocy, just
as philosophical emphasis on any other ideal leads to ideological
idiocy.
Or like the idiocy of people's getting so caught up in concerns about
"separation of church and state" in an organizational sense that they end up
supporting deliberate discrimination by government against religious
choices - and refuse to even take a close enough look at the practical
effects to recognize the discrimination for what it is.
The real world requires us to balance many competing ideals, and too
many situations are far too complex to be subject to philosophical
analysis. Those who choose the philosophical path oversimplify, and
let one ideal take precedence, like the aforementioned libertarians.
What leads to extremism is when people get so caught up in their own
philosophical views and priorities that they refuse to give any serious
consideration to the possiibility that other people's philosophical views
and priorrities might have merit. Extreme Libertarians, for example, get so
caught up in people's individual right to do whatever they want to with
their own money and property that they ignore the fact that limiting
government's role too much destroys opportunities for valuable economies of
scale. Thus, in trying to protect their own freedom, they insist on
policies that would make other people worse off than they would be if
government engages in projects where major economies of scale are possible
(such as public roads and public libraries).
In my view, the best way for me to protect myself against falling into such
extremism is to try to look at issues other people raise from their
perspective, setting aside my philosophical biases as much as is possible.
Sometimes I reject the other person's arguments as being based on a horribly
flawed philosophy - for example, the communist-style philosophy that
government should guarantee equal outcomes even if doing so requires
deliberately hurting or limiting people's opportunities. Sometimes I accept
other people's arguments as being matters of legitimate theoretical concern
but view them as being outweighed by other issues - for example, I don't
like the idea of using what can be regarded from certian perspectives as
other people's tax money for reliigous schools, but the alternative of
denying families benefits worth thousands of dollars per year per child if
they choose a religious school instead of a nonreligious one is many, many
times more unfair than merely spending people's tax dollars in a way they
don't like. And sometimes I modify my views to try to protect other
people's concerns - for example, the voucher plan I'm working on
incorporates a 10% higher voucher amount for poor children than for other
children and includes a provision that if non-poor families supplement tax
dollars with tuition beyond just making up for the 10% differential, their
voucher amount would be reduced by 25% of the excess tuition in order to
help make sure their being allowed to pay tuition won't hurt poor children.
I say this not in an attempt to claim that I am perfect in setting ideology
aside, but merely to illustrate how it is possible for a person who starts
off with an ideology to listen to others and take their views and concerns
into consideration. Unfortunately, my experience is that a lot of people on
Usenet are so caught up in a particular ideology that they don't even try to
make an honest effort to look at issues from other people's perspectives and
take other people's concerns into consideration. Or if they do try, they
don't know how to set their own iphilosophical preconceptions far enough
aside to really succeed in understanding the people they disagree with.
I would also point out that it is possible for people who claim to adopt a
"pragmatic" approach to get so caught up in their own ideas of what is
"pragmatic" that they refuse to pay any attention to other people's
concerns. Pragmatism cannot be divorced from philosophy because what looks
pragmatic from one philosophical perspective can look highly unfair or
destructive from another.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 11:29:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:50:32 -0500, MichaelC wrote
(in article <I6HWe.2487$3V6.507@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>):
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:b9ami1t5are9mhsaivtacvg4nt5dhl8jcq@4ax.com...
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways.
A viable voucher system is nothing more than a partial property tax
rebate
earmarked for school use.
No it isn't, since the bulk of parents don't pay nearly as much in
taxes as it would cost to send their kids to a private school. It
would amount to a complete tax exemption PLUS welfare subsidy for
those parents who choose a voucher school.
I said "partial", Bob. We're on the same page. Nothing I said inferred that
a property tax rebate would cover private school tuition in toto..
Only for the extremely property-rich - the ones who pay more than
around $7000 (for each school age kid they have) would a voucher be
merely a rebate.
Vouchers are much more defendable across the board when tied to
philosophical matters of liberty.
In other words, they are purely an ideological construct, having
nothing to do with reality.
You think liberty is just an ideological construct? :-)
Where did you get "just"?
++ gray
You're a scary guy.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:24 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:44:41 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:hdrli1honq4mfsbochtqfdoqlicoquf5lg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:8vgki1lbcu8bpssbkm3eoh90d8msrgivuc@4ax.com...
snip
One of the big problems with the public schools' monopoly as providers of
tax-funded education is that they can always blame a lack of performance
on
the taxpayers by claiming that we aren't giving them enough money.
The problem is depending on local property taxes to pay for schools.
That is obviously guaranteed to result in very unequal schools.
With a
competitive system, we could measure how well the public schools are
spending our money by comparing their performance with that of their
private
competitors, and if both public and privately operated schools prove
unwilling or unable to educate children with particular types of needs
with
the available funding, that would provide a clear indication that funding
is
inadequate or priorities need to be changed. But with the current
structure, how do we know whether the problem is that public schools need
more money or that they're making poor use of what they already have?
By comparing all well-funded schools with all poorly-funded schools.
A little common sense and honesty might help too. An extremely
well-equipped school with highly qualified and adequately paid
teachers is obviously going to do better than a run-down school with
underpaid and (therefore) ill-qualified teachers in over-crowded
classroooms.
Not obviously. The larger issue is parental involvement. The Kansas City
debacle of a decade ago proved what teachers have known forever - that
facilities don't matter much. Teacher quality and parental invovement do.
Give me a room, a couple of old books, and paper and pen, together with
motivated parents, and my kids will perform circles around the kids with the
new school, computers, and parents that don't give a damn whether their kid
passes or fails, even if the teachers in both situations are of equal
quality.
All you have demonstrated is that there are many factors involved.
Compare two schools, one with lots of money one with little, both with
parents who care. Which one will produce better results?
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 05:35:18 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:qefni11g3p9m5e5460tnhg0ma7dcjtn73r@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:44:41 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:hdrli1honq4mfsbochtqfdoqlicoquf5lg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:8vgki1lbcu8bpssbkm3eoh90d8msrgivuc@4ax.com...
snip
One of the big problems with the public schools' monopoly as providers
of
tax-funded education is that they can always blame a lack of
performance
on
the taxpayers by claiming that we aren't giving them enough money.
The problem is depending on local property taxes to pay for schools.
That is obviously guaranteed to result in very unequal schools.
With a
competitive system, we could measure how well the public schools are
spending our money by comparing their performance with that of their
private
competitors, and if both public and privately operated schools prove
unwilling or unable to educate children with particular types of needs
with
the available funding, that would provide a clear indication that
funding
is
inadequate or priorities need to be changed. But with the current
structure, how do we know whether the problem is that public schools
need
more money or that they're making poor use of what they already have?
By comparing all well-funded schools with all poorly-funded schools.
A little common sense and honesty might help too. An extremely
well-equipped school with highly qualified and adequately paid
teachers is obviously going to do better than a run-down school with
underpaid and (therefore) ill-qualified teachers in over-crowded
classroooms.
Not obviously. The larger issue is parental involvement. The Kansas City
debacle of a decade ago proved what teachers have known forever - that
facilities don't matter much. Teacher quality and parental invovement do.
Give me a room, a couple of old books, and paper and pen, together with
motivated parents, and my kids will perform circles around the kids with
the
new school, computers, and parents that don't give a damn whether their
kid
passes or fails, even if the teachers in both situations are of equal
quality.
All you have demonstrated is that there are many factors involved.
Compare two schools, one with lots of money one with little, both with
parents who care. Which one will produce better results?
"All things being equal"? Suffice to say I wouldn't make the assumption that
the moneyed school would produce better results.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 05:38:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:35:18 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:qefni11g3p9m5e5460tnhg0ma7dcjtn73r@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:44:41 GMT, "MichaelC"
<mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:hdrli1honq4mfsbochtqfdoqlicoquf5lg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:8vgki1lbcu8bpssbkm3eoh90d8msrgivuc@4ax.com...
snip
One of the big problems with the public schools' monopoly as providers
of
tax-funded education is that they can always blame a lack of
performance
on
the taxpayers by claiming that we aren't giving them enough money.
The problem is depending on local property taxes to pay for schools.
That is obviously guaranteed to result in very unequal schools.
With a
competitive system, we could measure how well the public schools are
spending our money by comparing their performance with that of their
private
competitors, and if both public and privately operated schools prove
unwilling or unable to educate children with particular types of needs
with
the available funding, that would provide a clear indication that
funding
is
inadequate or priorities need to be changed. But with the current
structure, how do we know whether the problem is that public schools
need
more money or that they're making poor use of what they already have?
By comparing all well-funded schools with all poorly-funded schools.
A little common sense and honesty might help too. An extremely
well-equipped school with highly qualified and adequately paid
teachers is obviously going to do better than a run-down school with
underpaid and (therefore) ill-qualified teachers in over-crowded
classroooms.
Not obviously. The larger issue is parental involvement. The Kansas City
debacle of a decade ago proved what teachers have known forever - that
facilities don't matter much. Teacher quality and parental invovement do.
Give me a room, a couple of old books, and paper and pen, together with
motivated parents, and my kids will perform circles around the kids with
the
new school, computers, and parents that don't give a damn whether their
kid
passes or fails, even if the teachers in both situations are of equal
quality.
All you have demonstrated is that there are many factors involved.
Compare two schools, one with lots of money one with little, both with
parents who care. Which one will produce better results?
"All things being equal"? Suffice to say I wouldn't make the assumption that
the moneyed school would produce better results.
I see. Have a very nice day - suffice it to say.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 05:28:53 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:hdrli1honq4mfsbochtqfdoqlicoquf5lg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
inadequate or priorities need to be changed. But with the current
structure, how do we know whether the problem is that public schools
need more money or that they're making poor use of what they
already have?
By comparing all well-funded schools with all poorly-funded schools.
A little common sense and honesty might help too. An extremely
well-equipped school with highly qualified and adequately paid
teachers is obviously going to do better than a run-down school with
underpaid and (therefore) ill-qualified teachers in over-crowded
classroooms.
I'll agree that there are serious problems of inequity in government
spending, and that there are school systems that are seriously underfunded
as a result. The point I was trying to make was not that money is
irrelevant (indeed, I explicitly said, "All else being equal, having more
money very definitely helps). But the idea that if funding were more
equitable, most of our problems would magically disappear, does not stand up
to scrutiny. Too many well-funded systems aren't performing well.
Washington D.C. is perhaps the most prominent example of a system with high
per-student funding but poor results.
The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways. The result will be a
large number of inferior schools depending completely on voucher
money and a few elite schools with even more money than they
had before - social help for the rich, which, of course, is the
whole point.
What you're working from here is a communist-style concept of equality that
seeks to deliberately limit opportunity in an attempt to equalize outcomes,
not the American constitutional principle of the equal protection of the
laws. Laws that seek to improve equality by improving opportunities for the
disadvantaged can be defended as compatible with the equal protection of the
laws. But I see no possible way to defend laws that deliberately limit
people's opportunities lest they get something better than someone else gets
as compatible with the equal protection of the laws.
The remainder of this message is quoting a passage from a book I'm writing
on the voucher issue. Note that this is copyrighted material and is not to
be republished without my permission (although I don't mind its being
archived). Also note that it's still a draft. The this particular
subsection is titled, "A Dream or a Nightmare?"
By the way, another subsection directly addresses the inequities of the
public system and the hypocrisy of condemning the privately financed
inequities of a voucher system when the public system uses tax money to
finance and government power to enforce inequities within the public system.
----
Ironically, one of the arguments supporting the public school monopoly
system that looks most beautiful in theory is also one of the ugliest in
practice. On the surface, the idea that all children should have access to
the same quality of education without regard to whether their families are
rich or poor, caring or uncaring sounds marvelous. But beneath the surface,
the idea is a vicious monster that devours opportunity in children's lives.
The dream of elevating all children's education to match what is possible
with wealthy, caring parents is as beautiful as it is impossible. In the
real world, there are limits to what taxpayers are willing to pay to educate
other people's children, and there are limits to the time and effort
volunteers are willing to invest in helping other people's children. Thus,
we can achieve only a limited amount of equality by building up
opportunities for the disadvantaged. Beyond that point, the only way we can
possibly achieve higher levels of "equality" is to deliberately limit or
tear down opportunities for the advantaged.
It is self-evident that public resources and private resources together can
accomplish more than public resources can alone. When families are willing
and able to invest extra money in their children's education, or to invest
time and effort, or to invest trust and cooperation in support of teachers'
efforts (as long as the teachers prove worthy of that trust), they create a
potential for opportunities that cannot exist in the absence of those
investments. The only way "equality" of education can be enforced is to
prevent families from obtaining the benefits that their willingness to
invest could make possible, and thus to arbitrarily and unnecessarily limit
children's opportunities.
If life were a zero-sum game in which some could benefit only at the expense
of others, there might be some logic in limiting opportunities for the
advantaged as a way to help the disadvantaged. But life is not a zero-sum
game, and advantages that benefit one person directly often also benefit
others indirectly. Nowhere is that more true than with education.
We all recognize that improving education for the poor and disadvantaged
benefits the rich and advantaged. Indeed, that recognition is the single
most basic and fundamental justification for using tax money for education:
the people who pay the taxes get their money's worth in indirect benefits.
We need doctors who save lives, businessmen who create products and jobs,
teachers who pass on knowledge to the next generation, and skilled people in
many other positions. We need for children to be able to earn an honest
living when they grow up rather than resorting to crime. And we need
educated, informed politicians and voters. A good education system helps us
meet those needs.
But what receives far less attention is the fact that better education for
the rich and advantaged also benefits the poor and disadvantaged. Everyone,
rich and poor alike, benefits when our society has more good doctors,
teachers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Not only do we not help
poor and disadvantaged children when we raise unnecessary obstacles in the
path of educational excellence for the wealthy and advantaged, but we
ultimately hurt them.
Denying a wealthy child an opportunity for superior education might satisfy
a poor family's petty jealousy in the short term. But consider the price
that such jealousy can carry in the loss of a doctor who might save a family
member's life, or the loss of a good teacher for the family's next
generation, or the loss of a businessperson who could provide family members
with better jobs or better, cheaper products. We are all interconnected,
and the reasons why poor families should want wealthy children to have the
best education possible are essentially the same as the reasons why the
wealthy should want poor children to have the best education possible.
To show just how absurd the idea of limiting opportunity in the name of
government-enforced equality is, imagine if we would blind everyone who can
see to make them "equal" with blind people, and destroy people's hearing so
everyone will be "equal" with the deaf, and cut off everyone's arms and legs
so everyone will be "equal" to those who have lost arms or legs. We would
be a society of blind, deaf, armless, legless people. When circumstances
outside government's control result in some people's having advantages over
others, the concept of equal protection does not even begin justify, much
less require, government to pass laws that damage the advantaged just so
they will no longer be better off than people who do not share their
advantages. On the contrary, laws that deliberately victimize a particular
group in such a fashion are directly contrary to equal protection.
To the extent that we can make education more equal by increasing
opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged, we are pursuing a beautiful
dream. But to the extent that trying to make the system more "equal"
requires deliberately working against families' efforts to get education
that will serve their children better, what we are creating is a nightmare,
not a dream. If laws pursue the dream by trying to lift up opportunities
for the disadvantaged without raising any unnecessary obstacles against
opportunities for the advantaged, they are compatible with equal protection.
But if laws pursue the nightmare of deliberately hurting people in the name
of government-enforced equality, they must be rejected as directly contrary
to the concept that laws should protect everyone equally.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 02:02:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:28:53 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:hdrli1honq4mfsbochtqfdoqlicoquf5lg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
inadequate or priorities need to be changed. But with the current
structure, how do we know whether the problem is that public schools
need more money or that they're making poor use of what they
already have?
By comparing all well-funded schools with all poorly-funded schools.
A little common sense and honesty might help too. An extremely
well-equipped school with highly qualified and adequately paid
teachers is obviously going to do better than a run-down school with
underpaid and (therefore) ill-qualified teachers in over-crowded
classroooms.
I'll agree that there are serious problems of inequity in government
spending, and that there are school systems that are seriously underfunded
as a result. The point I was trying to make was not that money is
irrelevant (indeed, I explicitly said, "All else being equal, having more
money very definitely helps). But the idea that if funding were more
equitable, most of our problems would magically disappear, does not stand up
to scrutiny.
And nobody has made that claim. Why do you keep arguing against
strawmen?
Too many well-funded systems aren't performing well.
Washington D.C. is perhaps the most prominent example of a system with high
per-student funding but poor results.
The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways. The result will be a
large number of inferior schools depending completely on voucher
money and a few elite schools with even more money than they
had before - social help for the rich, which, of course, is the
whole point.
What you're working from here is a communist-style concept of equality that
seeks to deliberately limit opportunity in an attempt to equalize outcomes,
That is complete nonsense. I said absolutely nothing like that.
not the American constitutional principle of the equal protection of the
laws. Laws that seek to improve equality by improving opportunities for the
disadvantaged can be defended as compatible with the equal protection of the
laws. But I see no possible way to defend laws that deliberately limit
people's opportunities lest they get something better than someone else gets
as compatible with the equal protection of the laws.
And I made no such argument. Who are you responding to? It certainly
isn't me.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 07:04:17 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:kffni15al8tgpce36pj8vvf0s87f93f9k5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:28:53 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'll agree that there are serious problems of inequity in government
spending, and that there are school systems that are seriously underfunded
as a result. The point I was trying to make was not that money is
irrelevant (indeed, I explicitly said, "All else being equal, having more
money very definitely helps). But the idea that if funding were more
equitable, most of our problems would magically disappear, does not stand
up
to scrutiny.
And nobody has made that claim. Why do you keep arguing against
strawmen?
1896 Dead wrote a message defending public schools and singling out
inequities in tax funding in explaining why they aren't better. I
challenged that view, acknowledging that money provides an advantage all
else being equal but arguing that the correlation between money and outcomes
is relatively weak and thus that we can't just dismiss the system's problems
as a matter of money. You then responded to me with a message that focused
entirely on money and that seemed to attack me for daring to suggest that
other problems could be more important. When, instead of acknowledging that
other factors besides money are important, you seemed to be attacking me for
daring to suggest such a thing, what was I supposed to think your position
was? I'm sorry if I significantly mischaracterized your view, but if you
don't want to be misunderstood, you might want to think about being more
careful regarding how other people - especially people who don't know you -
might interpret what you write.
The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways. The result will be a
large number of inferior schools depending completely on voucher
money and a few elite schools with even more money than they
had before - social help for the rich, which, of course, is the
whole point.
What you're working from here is a communist-style concept of equality
that
seeks to deliberately limit opportunity in an attempt to equalize
outcomes,
That is complete nonsense. I said absolutely nothing like that.
How do you expliain your words, "unless (very unlikely) the schools are not
permitted to charge tuitions or raise money in other ways"? Disparities in
tax funding for children's education, unless justified by differences in the
children's needs, pose a serious equal protection issue because people pay
the same taxes but do not receive equitable benefits in return. But money
collected from tuition or other private sources of funding poses no such
problem. Such sources of funding can provide greater funding for some
children's education without any inequity in the distribution of tax funds.
So aside from a communist-style philosophy that is perfectly happy to limit
opportunity in the interest of government-enforced equality, or perhaps a
desire to hold children's education hostage in the hope of manipulating
their parents into voting for higher taxes for education, I can't figure out
an explanation for why you raised the isuse of private sources of funding.
Is there some other explanation for your raising that issue that never
occurred to me? Or is my characteerization of your philosophy in regard to
education closer to the mark than you realized it was?
.
|
|
|
| User: "1899 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
17 Sep 2005 07:18:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:04:17 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:kffni15al8tgpce36pj8vvf0s87f93f9k5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:28:53 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'll agree that there are serious problems of inequity in government
spending, and that there are school systems that are seriously underfunded
as a result. The point I was trying to make was not that money is
irrelevant (indeed, I explicitly said, "All else being equal, having more
money very definitely helps). But the idea that if funding were more
equitable, most of our problems would magically disappear, does not stand
up
to scrutiny.
And nobody has made that claim. Why do you keep arguing against
strawmen?
1896 Dead wrote a message defending public schools and singling out
inequities in tax funding in explaining why they aren't better.
I can verify that.
I note, however that there is a very strong correlation between SES
(Socio-economic status) of a district and the funding a school gets.
Further, there is a strong correlation between the SES of a child's
home environment and his or her academic performance. Indeed, SES is
a much stronger predictor of how a child will do than gender, race, or
even intelligence test results.
So "all things being equal" money is the great de-equalizer.
Incidently someone finally thought to compare academic achievement
between public school students and private school students, broken
down by SES. Private school students, unsurprisingly, averaged a
higher SES. But when results between studends of the same SES groups
were compared, public school students actually had a slightly higher
academic achievement.
I
challenged that view, acknowledging that money provides an advantage all
else being equal but arguing that the correlation between money and outcomes
is relatively weak and thus that we can't just dismiss the system's problems
as a matter of money. You then responded to me with a message that focused
entirely on money and that seemed to attack me for daring to suggest that
other problems could be more important. When, instead of acknowledging that
other factors besides money are important, you seemed to be attacking me for
daring to suggest such a thing, what was I supposed to think your position
was? I'm sorry if I significantly mischaracterized your view, but if you
don't want to be misunderstood, you might want to think about being more
careful regarding how other people - especially people who don't know you -
might interpret what you write.
The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways. The result will be a
large number of inferior schools depending completely on voucher
money and a few elite schools with even more money than they
had before - social help for the rich, which, of course, is the
whole point.
What you're working from here is a communist-style concept of equality
that
seeks to deliberately limit opportunity in an attempt to equalize
outcomes,
That is complete nonsense. I said absolutely nothing like that.
How do you expliain your words, "unless (very unlikely) the schools are not
permitted to charge tuitions or raise money in other ways"? Disparities in
tax funding for children's education, unless justified by differences in the
children's needs, pose a serious equal protection issue because people pay
the same taxes but do not receive equitable benefits in return. But money
collected from tuition or other private sources of funding poses no such
problem. Such sources of funding can provide greater funding for some
children's education without any inequity in the distribution of tax funds.
So aside from a communist-style philosophy that is perfectly happy to limit
opportunity in the interest of government-enforced equality, or perhaps a
desire to hold children's education hostage in the hope of manipulating
their parents into voting for higher taxes for education, I can't figure out
an explanation for why you raised the isuse of private sources of funding.
Is there some other explanation for your raising that issue that never
occurred to me? Or is my characteerization of your philosophy in regard to
education closer to the mark than you realized it was?
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 05:14:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:04:17 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:kffni15al8tgpce36pj8vvf0s87f93f9k5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:28:53 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'll agree that there are serious problems of inequity in government
spending, and that there are school systems that are seriously underfunded
as a result. The point I was trying to make was not that money is
irrelevant (indeed, I explicitly said, "All else being equal, having more
money very definitely helps). But the idea that if funding were more
equitable, most of our problems would magically disappear, does not stand
up
to scrutiny.
And nobody has made that claim. Why do you keep arguing against
strawmen?
1896 Dead wrote a message defending public schools and singling out
inequities in tax funding in explaining why they aren't better. I
challenged that view, acknowledging that money provides an advantage all
else being equal but arguing that the correlation between money and outcomes
is relatively weak and thus that we can't just dismiss the system's problems
as a matter of money.
And nobody suggested that you could.
You then responded to me with a message that focused
entirely on money and that seemed to attack me for daring to suggest that
other problems could be more important.
No, that would be another of your ludicrous distortions.
When, instead of acknowledging that
other factors besides money are important, you seemed to be attacking me for
daring to suggest such a thing, what was I supposed to think your position
was?
You could actually read what people are saying and stop adding
whatever fantasies are running through your head.
I'm sorry if I significantly mischaracterized your view, but if you
don't want to be misunderstood, you might want to think about being more
careful regarding how other people - especially people who don't know you -
might interpret what you write.
I cannot help that some people wildly distort what they hear or read
in an attempt to make their position seem reasonable.
The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways. The result will be a
large number of inferior schools depending completely on voucher
money and a few elite schools with even more money than they
had before - social help for the rich, which, of course, is the
whole point.
What you're working from here is a communist-style concept of equality
that
seeks to deliberately limit opportunity in an attempt to equalize
outcomes,
That is complete nonsense. I said absolutely nothing like that.
How do you expliain your words, "unless (very unlikely) the schools are not
permitted to charge tuitions or raise money in other ways"? Disparities in
tax funding for children's education, unless justified by differences in the
children's needs, pose a serious equal protection issue because people pay
the same taxes but do not receive equitable benefits in return. But money
collected from tuition or other private sources of funding poses no such
problem. Such sources of funding can provide greater funding for some
children's education without any inequity in the distribution of tax funds.
So aside from a communist-style philosophy that is perfectly happy to limit
opportunity in the interest of government-enforced equality, or perhaps a
desire to hold children's education hostage in the hope of manipulating
their parents into voting for higher taxes for education, I can't figure out
an explanation for why you raised the isuse of private sources of funding.
Is there some other explanation for your raising that issue that never
occurred to me? Or is my characteerization of your philosophy in regard to
education closer to the mark than you realized it was?
It is hard for me to know if you are insane or delibrately distorting
other people's posts for your amusement. In the final analysis it
makes no difference. There is simply no point in trying to discuss
anything with someone who insists on arguing with strawmen.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 11:00:10 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:6daqi1puff44gr90rp5asknobqv02hcf73@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:04:17 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
When, instead of acknowledging that
other factors besides money are important, you seemed to be attacking me
for
daring to suggest such a thing, what was I supposed to think your position
was?
You could actually read what people are saying and stop adding
whatever fantasies are running through your head.
At the end of this message, I'm including a copy of the message in
question.. Show me where in it you acknowledge anything other than money
(and what it can purchase) as important to the quality of children's
education. Explain why I should not have viewed your words, "A little
common sense and honesty might help too," as an attack on me for daring to
think that factors other than money can be more important than money.
I am not a mind reader. Looking back and re-analyzing your message for at
least about the fourth or fifth time, I'm starting to think your message may
have been based on the assumption that the number of private schools would
remain essentially the same with vouchers as without. But if so, you never
bothered to mention that your analysis relied on that assumption, and since
I strongly reject that assumption (as long as the voucher amount is
adequate), I had no reason to read that assumption into what you actually
did write.
What really bothers me is your attitude of assuming that if I don't
understand what point you are trying to make, it must be all my fault and
not at all yours for failing to make yourself sufficiently clear. I've long
recognized that when I write something, it is my job as a writer to make my
reasoning sufficiently clear that I will not be misunderstood, not a
reader's job to guess at what I meant but failed to adequately explain. I
can't count on readers to catch every clue to my intent, or to understand
assumptions that my reasoning is based on but that I didn't bother to
explain. So I make allowances for the fact that honest misunderstandings
can occur, and that some portion of the responsibility for the
misunderstandings may rest with me as a writer for not making myself as
clear as I could have. That's why I resisted my impulse to bite your head
off when I wrote a message arguing that money isn't the most important
determining factor in the quality of children's education and you responded
as if I were saying that money doesn't matter at all, even though a
sufficiently careful reading of what I'd written would have made it clear
that I do understand that money makes a difference. But your approach seems
to involve the attitude that it's okay for you to be careless in not makiing
your meaning clear and then blame and attack me if I interpret your messages
as meaning something other than what you intended - and never mind that my
interpretation is not unreasonable in light of what you actually wrote.
Here's the message in question:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:hdrli1honq4mfsbochtqfdoqlicoquf5lg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:8vgki1lbcu8bpssbkm3eoh90d8msrgivuc@4ax.com...
snip
One of the big problems with the public schools' monopoly as providers of
tax-funded education is that they can always blame a lack of performance
on
the taxpayers by claiming that we aren't giving them enough money.
The problem is depending on local property taxes to pay for schools.
That is obviously guaranteed to result in very unequal schools.
With a
competitive system, we could measure how well the public schools are
spending our money by comparing their performance with that of their
private
competitors, and if both public and privately operated schools prove
unwilling or unable to educate children with particular types of needs
with
the available funding, that would provide a clear indication that funding
is
inadequate or priorities need to be changed. But with the current
structure, how do we know whether the problem is that public schools need
more money or that they're making poor use of what they already have?
By comparing all well-funded schools with all poorly-funded schools.
A little common sense and honesty might help too. An extremely
well-equipped school with highly qualified and adequately paid
teachers is obviously going to do better than a run-down school with
underpaid and (therefore) ill-qualified teachers in over-crowded
classroooms. The voucher system is not going to remove those
inequalities, unless (very unlikely) the schools are not permitted to
charge tuitions or raise money in other ways. The result will be a
large number of inferior schools depending completely on voucher money
and a few elite schools with even more money than they had before -
social help for the rich, which, of course, is the whole point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 03:10:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:00:10 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
His usual insane rant.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 03:26:22 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:4vcri158978th8b1p3qvv5o20vv8tpc8tp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:00:10 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
His usual insane rant.
So you cannot refute his well thought points.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 02:22:16 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
In point of fact, all developed countries realized that if
they wanted an educational system that worked, it had
to be taken out of the hands of the churches and the
profiteers and made a public program. People are fond
of pointing out that America is only Xth in the world in
educational quality, but ignore the back that the X-1
countries ahead of America all have public school
systems too.
There's a simpler explanation. Governments like power,
so when governments have the kind of wealth necessary
to compete in the top X, they have a habit of spending
the money on schools they can control themselves
instead of letting families choose. As long as no one
breaks the pattern by adopting a strong system based on
choice and competition, public schools can cling to an
illusion of success. But if comparisons between
government monopolies and competitive markets in other
fields of endeavor are any indication, public school
monopolies can't even begin to match what a competitive
marketplace could accomplish over time.
Children aren't commodities. The belief that they can and
should be treated as commodities is a lethal poison at the
heart of such thinking. I hold to a lot of very radical notions
regarding education. The notion of children-as-commodities,
however, is a non-starter; dead from conception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 08:25:53 AM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in
message news:0dqki1h3ku56gi8k5m6fepnonhhenrmtde@4ax.com...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:19:54 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
In point of fact, all developed countries realized that
if
they wanted an educational system that worked, it had
to be taken out of the hands of the churches and the
profiteers and made a public program. People are fond
of pointing out that America is only Xth in the world in
educational quality, but ignore the back that the X-1
countries ahead of America all have public school
systems too.
There's a simpler explanation. Governments like power,
so when governments have the kind of wealth necessary
to compete in the top X, they have a habit of spending
the money on schools they can control themselves
instead of letting families choose. As long as no one
breaks the pattern by adopting a strong system based on
choice and competition, public schools can cling to an
illusion of success. But if comparisons between
government monopolies and competitive markets in other
fields of endeavor are any indication, public school
monopolies can't even begin to match what a competitive
marketplace could accomplish over time.
Children aren't commodities.
In a competitive education marketplace, children
aren't the commodities, the educational services
are, classicalstalinist2. The children, via their
parents, are the buyers. The schools offering the
educational services are the sellers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 06:12:11 AM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:0dqki1h3ku56gi8k5m6fepnonhhenrmtde@4ax.com...
Children aren't commodities. The belief that they can and
should be treated as commodities is a lethal poison at the
heart of such thinking. I hold to a lot of very radical notions
regarding education. The notion of children-as-commodities,
however, is a non-starter; dead from conception.
If you don't believe in treating children like commodities, you should
strongly oppose our public education structure, because a central office in
a large public school system has no real choice but to treat the vast
majority of children like commodities. "Child, normal, quantity one."
The reason why choice in a free market is so effective is that consumers can
seek whatever provider can fit their needs and interests AS INDIVIDUALS
best. If you don't like what Wal-Mart offers, you can try K-Mart or Target
or a specialty store in the mall, with choices limited only by what it is
practical to provide in the area where you live. The magic of the system is
that it turns millions of individuals, both producers and consumers, into
pieces of a gigantic supercomputer that is far more capable than any team of
central planners could possibly be. Each individual needs to know only his
or her role in solving a particular piece of the problem. But when the
solutions to all the little pieces are put together, we get a system that
satisfies diverse needs and desires very well.
In a choice-based education structure, we could bring the same kind of
distributed supercomputing power to our education problems. Good parents
would put in their expertise as the world's foremost experts on their own
children, often discussing the matter with their children to gain additional
information. Teachers and education theorists would develop different types
of schools that fit different types of children better, focusing on their
own students' needs without trying to be all things to all children, and
would provide information to help parents decide whether their schools are a
good fit for particular children. Government would focus special attention
on children whose needs are not being met well elsewhere. Everyone would do
what they do best, and no one would be required to understand everything
throughout the entire system in order to make it work. The idea might seem
like impossible magic except for one thing: the same basic principle works
over and over throughout our economy.
I recognize that the reality would fall somewhat short of the ideal. But
even allowing for the inevitable flaws in implementation, the system would
be vastly better for addressing children's abilities, personalities, needs,
and interests as unique individuals than is possible in a large, centrally
planned monopoly. No central office can possibly match the distributed
mental supercomputing power of hundreds or thousands of teachers and
thousands or tens of thousands of families. Nor can a central office devote
nearly the time and attention to overseeing any one child's education that
the child's parents can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 08:51:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:12:11 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Children aren't commodities. The belief that they can and
should be treated as commodities is a lethal poison at the
heart of such thinking. I hold to a lot of very radical
notions regarding education. The notion of
children-as-commodities, however, is a non-starter; dead
from conception.
If you don't believe in treating children like commodities,
you should strongly oppose our public education structure,
because a central office in a large public school system
has no real choice but to treat the vast majority of
children like commodities. "Child, normal, quantity one."
All levels of government have their fingers in the present American
public education system, to some degree, but to portray it as some
sort of centralized bureacracy is extremely misleading--it is, in
reality, *the* most decentralized level of government, with virtually
every decision of any significance being made by localities. What
the--in my view--wretched state of American education proves, among
other things, is that decentralization is no panacea.
An educated populace is THE critical element of a democratic society.
Unfortunately, American society is rapidly becoming a very poorly
educated, uninformed (or--far more dangerously--misinformed), and
unconcerned mass, bred and trained only for the purpose of serving as
units in an economy, and good for little else. This is one of the
reasons why the decentralized structure of American public education
has actually done a great deal of harm--it's decentralized into the
hands of people who increasingly have no idea what to do with it. You
get idiots wanting "creationism" taught as science, reactionaries
complaining that history courses aren't Patriotically Correct,
Puritans objecting to their children reading four-letter-words,
sociopaths complaining about "magic" and "hidden homosexual themes" in
assigned texts, and so on. There's persistent pressure to use the
system to train the next-generation work-force, instead of to educate
them. The goal of education--to produce well-rounded citizens--is
lost, and "education" becomes just another battleground for uneducated
adults to squabble over.
(This shouldn't be taken as an argument for further
centralization--it's merely a statement of the reality of the present
process.)
The reason why choice in a free market is so effective
| | | |
