Re: Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
measl@mfn.org wrote : <zap> my old stuff :
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.
So I must educate my children according to the public good, and not the good of the kids themselves? Fuck you.
Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?). 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. All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.
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. Sounds like the sort of foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.
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. Again, the two goals are neither completely compatible nor mutually exclusive.
Make up your mind.
I have : good ideas, thumbs up, bad ideas, thumbs down.
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org
Fuck you back, Mike
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
measl@mfn.org wrote :
<zap> my old stuff :
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.
So I must educate my children according to the public good, and not the good of the kids themselves? Fuck you.
Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?).
Actually, I think the currently "hip" term would be "twit" :-)
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.
Make well considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too much, too quickly and poorly crafted.
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...
By all means let's improve the educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid knee-jerk approach.
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 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 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.
Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org
Fuck you back, Mike
Taken from you as an honor, and with a smile (which was much needed tonight! Thanks!). -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.
Since we don't depend on the government for food, steel, concrete, or medical care (60% private money not much actual government acre delivery); why would we think that teaching by government employees would be efficient. We can argue about payment later (although taxing the poor to pay for the college education of the rich seems unfair), but no rational person can argue that socialist provision of services is superior to market provision in case like this.
This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Sounds like the sort of foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.
I can pick any public school teacher at random and cross ex them on the stand and establish that they don't know diddly squat. The concept that one should institutionalize one's children for 8 hours a day so that public officials can attempt to modify their knowledge, understanding, and physical and psychological deportment is the worst kind of child abuse. At future war crimes trials America's parents will have to answer for their crimes. (For those of you who attended slave schools, that last is a joke.) Can you seriously argue that governments do a better job of education or that it's safe to trust them with the souls (in the religious and non-religious sense) of the innocent. Apart from everything else one can say, attending slave schools subjects the child and the family to the full force of government record keeping. If you are not on the dole and you have no children in slave schools, your chances of having any sort of interaction with the minions of the coercive state apparatus are very substantially reduced. Much safer.
While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices should not be available.
Yes, just like the employment choice of "slavery" should not be available because it's wrong (at least within my proprietary community).
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. Again, the two goals are neither completely compatible nor mutually exclusive.
What's the community got to do with it? I should give up money and children because people who are demonstrably stupider than I am think it would be a good idea? I don't give barbers who can't cut my hair the way I want my money or my hair. Why on earth should I do it to my children? The slave school teachers of those making that argument did at least that part of their work well. DCF
Duncan Frissell wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.
Since we don't depend on the government for food, steel, concrete, or medical care (60% private money not much actual government acre delivery); why would we think that teaching by government employees would be efficient.
First, you depend more than you think on government actions for essentials even though they have private brand labels. Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's irrational. I've talked with several friends about pooling efforts and creating a small private school. It ain't easy. It is something I would like to do. The financial reform part is probably hopeless in the short term. Once the hooks are into the green they don't like to let go.
We can argue about payment later (although taxing the poor to pay for the college education of the rich seems unfair), but no rational person can argue that socialist provision of services is superior to market provision in case like this.
What the fuck do I care how the services are provided? Show me the services and I'll rate them myself without the benefit of your ideological prerating system. That's what rational means. I do resent the financial handcuffs.
This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Sounds like the sort of foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.
I can pick any public school teacher at random and cross ex them on the stand and establish that they don't know diddly squat. The concept that one should institutionalize one's children for 8 hours a day so that public officials can attempt to modify their knowledge, understanding, and physical and psychological deportment is the worst kind of child abuse. At future war crimes trials America's parents will have to answer for their crimes. (For those of you who attended slave schools, that last is a joke.)
Big challenge, most people don't know diddly squat. It may be just as difficult to find or create alternative schools that are affordable ( even with financial reforms ) and provide a good education as it is to improve what we have. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. And not everyone has the ability to home-school for various reasons. All I said was that I don't think the solution to the problem is as simple as throwing it all away.
Can you seriously argue that governments do a better job of education or that it's safe to trust them with the souls (in the religious and non-religious sense) of the innocent.
Do a better job of education than ...? As for the religious bit, they're easily as dangerous as governments. I usually get the new car before I get rid of the old one. All I said is that before you dismantle what you don't like start building the replacement, get a few prototypes to the working stage.
Apart from everything else one can say, attending slave schools subjects the child and the family to the full force of government record keeping. If you are not on the dole and you have no children in slave schools, your chances of having any sort of interaction with the minions of the coercive state apparatus are very substantially reduced. Much safer.
Moderately interesting point.
While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices should not be available.
Yes, just like the employment choice of "slavery" should not be available because it's wrong (at least within my proprietary community).
Your point?
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. Again, the two goals are neither completely compatible nor mutually exclusive.
What's the community got to do with it? I should give up money and children because people who are demonstrably stupider than I am think it would be a good idea? I don't give barbers who can't cut my hair the way I want my money or my hair. Why on earth should I do it to my children?
You live in a community. Been to a third world country? I don't really want to see that here. In some ways we have progressed in that direction over the past few decades... One thing I disliked about CA's recent attempt at the voucher system is that it would let some people take out more than they put in. It was still a socialist program. Funny that, coming from a generally right-wing angle. In addition there are very limited choices for private schools where I live. The voucher proposal SMBTAHS.
The slave school teachers of those making that argument did at least that part of their work well.
Wee bit bitter, eh?
DCF
Happy, happy, happy, all of the time, Mike
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:59:04AM -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's irrational.
Right. Folks in the policy arms of the federal government can be quite bright. I was in a White House office less than an hour ago meeting with two WH staffers and they were, as you might expect, smart and educated and well-spoken. Not sure how this observation translates to state governments or law enforcement types. -Declan
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:59:04AM -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's irrational.
Right. Folks in the policy arms of the federal government can be quite bright. I was in a White House office less than an hour ago meeting with two WH staffers and they were, as you might expect, smart and educated and well-spoken.
Not sure how this observation translates to state governments or law enforcement types.
-Declan
Some jobs do not attract the best and brightest but I think it's safe to assume that even in what you might consider the least likely places you will find some very sharp people. Your example of the Bush WH staffers is proof ;) A low blow but I couldn't resist! Mike
At 02:29 PM 8/31/01 -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Some jobs do not attract the best and brightest but I think it's safe to assume that even in what you might consider the least likely places you will find some very sharp people. Your example of the Bush WH staffers is proof ;)
More seriously, this isn't a partisan thing. The Clinton WH folks I dealt on a day-to-day basis were just as sharp. -Declan
-- On 31 Aug 2001, at 11:59, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
First, you depend more than you think on government actions for essentials even though they have private brand labels.
Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's irrational.
If someone in the private sector fails to please the customer, he does not get any money. If someone in the government sector fails to please the customer, tough luck for the customer. If the customer tries to do anything about it, he has the customer beaten up. Unsurprisingly, you get better service and products from the private sector. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG a21eN5yt4PeF/lTnRV4tQl5qv2vdpoch9zmrNw3H 4hJPCdOanWvOU31Y5QoQl0j0qowqJFwBL1WN8WEr7
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
measl＠mfn.org -
mmotyka＠lsil.com