To : measl@mfn.org

...

Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?).

Actually, I think the currently "hip" term would be "twit" :-)

Dunno, I've seen both recently. Just trying to live up to my slave training and conform.

...

Look at the part you snipped :

I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out but you should at least think about the implications a bit.

Which, in context, is clearly a justification of what follows it.

...

All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences.

No, you did not. Nowhere was this said or implied. What you said is above, so there is no need to <QUOTE> it here as well.

Here's the original :

Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on the society as a whole. I know the masses are a bit thick but do you want them to be even thicker? And not all bright people come from priviledged backgrounds. Do you want to limit the opportunities for some of the brightest kids in the country before they've even had a chance? I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out but you should at least think about the implications a bit.

I would summarize this paragraph, poorly written as it may be, as follows : 1) Some people wish to remove their monies from the public schools and make their own choices. 2) Here are some possible negative effects of that action. 3) I'm not against it but at least think about the implications before acting. Looks pretty simple to me. Doesn't really take a position other than "fine, measure twice, cut once if you want my vote."

I am not endowed with any expertise on this topic, so I cannot make any considered judgement on the example. Having thrown out the required caveat, it seems to me that the deregulation was only a small part of the problem. Of course, I am truly talking out of my ass on this topic, so I will leave it here...

I'm no expert on the details either but it looks like a chant of "deregulate" didn't work out so well. Expect to hear more chants of "deregulate" and "privatize" when it comes to things like power and water. I'm not sure which I prefer, a corporate dictatorship or a police state.

The fact that you consider this a "knee jerk" response does not make it so: you have no way of knowing how much or little I have looked into this topic. As someone who has had 4 kids in various public and private schools, as well as person who has personally attended two private and three public schools, I have had ample incentive to look at homeschooling when it began to cross my radar about three years ago.

My beliefs regarding homeschooling are very definitely _not_ knee-jerk reactions. And my statements regarding the state of the public schools is from personal first hand experience, both as a student, and as a parent.

...

Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.

What "right wing war chants"? Where the hell do you get the idea I'm a right wing type of guy? Just because I believe that home schooling is a Good Thing and that the public schools are a life threatening repository of brainwashing and bad karma? Last I heard, it took a LOT more than this to qualify as "right wing".

I know the masses are a bit thick but do you want them to be even thicker?

...

To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring* that they become "thick", merely in order to _survive_.

This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

Again with the knee jerk label. If it's a view you disagree with, it's a knee-jerk reaction, huh?

...

Sounds like the sort of foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.

I wouldn't know, I don't have much use for Rush, and have only heard *about* his show. However, we again see the disparaging of view with which you disagree as terms such as "foolishness". This "position" is hardly persuasive. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to WHY it is so "foolish"? Perhaps you can trade some FIRST HAND information you have on the state of the public schools, so that we may more readily examine the ISSUES before us, and not your assertions that all positions you disfavor are "knee jerk reactions"?

I would say that I use the term knee-jerk and right-wing war chants as labels for the idea that all public schools are somehow seriously inferior to private schools or home schooling. Maybe the term knee-jerk is as poor as the idea of lumping all public schools into a single assessment. Furthermore, I think if you read what I've said you would not find that I flat out disagree with your attitudes about education but rather try to point out that maybe things are a little more tricky than you suggest.

...

...

...

I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw.

While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices should not be available.

Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals and beneficial to the community.

No. Your post did make several statements which claimed to favor proposals that were fair to the community, but NOT to individuals. Personally, I think the Good Of The Many depends totally upon the Good Of The Few. The macrocosmic must fail if the microcosmic is broken.

...

Again, the two goals are neither completely compatible nor mutually exclusive.

While I actually agree with this assertion to a degree, I would also caveat it with (1) I can only supply a very weak degree of "confidence" in the truth of this assertion, and (2) I am unable to compellingly argue either for or against it. This type of conundrum should lead the more analytic amongst us to examine these issues on a much deeper basis, hopefully to determine what properties are impeding the discovery of the actual truth or flasity of the above premises...

...

Make up your mind.

I see no reason that I'm obligated to make up my mind until I choose to.

...

I have : good ideas, thumbs up, bad ideas, thumbs down.

The ideas expressed above, namely the Good Of The Many outweighs the Good Of The Few: Thumbs Down.

Ah, I apoligize, you missed the point. If you knew me you would know that as far as I am concerned the the rights of the individual should NEVER be forcefully compromised for the good of the many. IOW, if I have the last freshwater spring on earth, unless I'm feeling generous today, if I don't like you and don't need you and can successfully fight you off, you're fucked brother. The point you miss is that we don't live in isolation. It may very well be that in order to optimize our quality of life as individuals we have to ( preferably voluntarily ) make some ( preferably minimal ) sacrifices that improve the lot of others. I find it to be a very simple and obvious concept. Yes it does sound like you have to pay protection money to reduce the degree to which you must fight to keep what you have but rather than beat your head against a wall and complain about how unfair life is, optimize. Mike