> Kirby writes: > >A typical logical fallacy Haim: you deliberately > >confuse mission with army. > > > >The mission is to educate today's children to > >competently carry on. > > > >The army is whatever we've managed to cobble > together > >to accomplish this mission, however unsatisfactory. > > > "However unsatisfactory"? Sorry, but I cannot go > go there.
> While the failure of our public schools is not as > as dramatic as a cavalry charge, in terms of personal > disasters and the decline of our culture, the results > may not be too different in the end.
I think you went there. You agreed with me that when the weaponry changes, basic training needs to be revamped.
Until then, heroic gestures remain possible, plus Hitler was so good at making enemies pretty soon there'd be more than just horses to play with.
We're ready to start with the new weaponry. That doesn't need to mean anyone starves while we wait for a personnel change. Any personnel will do, when it comes to pretty much starting over (that's why they like Scheme: "levels the playing field").
> Tell us, Kirby, do you think the Poles might have > helped themselves had they spent less money on > horses, and the men who ride them, and more money on, > oh, tanks? In other words, they would not be > spending less money on defense, but they would be > shifting it around quite a bit. > > Similarly, I do not want to spend less money on > on public education, but I sure do want to take it
OK, that's important to get on the record. You're at least for holding funding levels constant. So now how would you feel about a small increase, to keep pace with inflation?
> away from the education cavalry.
> >carry around in your own head and identify > >as "mathematics". > > From which I conclude that you are far too > too self-absorbed. The last thing my side wants is > to force our agenda on anybody else. You see, the
OK, another important point for the record. On the other hand, you're not good at pointing to websites where said "agenda" is defined. So you can force all you want, and then claim that wasn't your agenda ("*they* did it" -- those fascists in power).
In the interests of public debate, you should make your policies known. Otherwise, don't waster our time.
My policy: military academies absorb a lot of the gnu math stuff I'm been strutting out and field testing around here.
Why not? Ain't it robust? No one's been able to shoot it down. The A & B modules remain dent free, ready for more action (more play). T & E modules. Not so sure we need those S modules -- yeah sure, why not.
> whole point of School Choice is --- how can I put it > delicately? --- CHOICE. If you and your friends want > to charter a school where the students can kick > around bucky-balls all day, we wish you godspeed. > Some of us plan to do something different. > > Haim
Not that simple. If you're planning to use public resources for your choicey schools, then you need to be up front about this fact: strings attach. The USA was never neutral when it comes to ideology. It's NOT: let's just have this machine that collects taxes, and then pours it in whatever molds, regardless of democratic principles and other values enshrined in our public documents. We have an ideology to uphold. If you're not planning to help, don't come begging at the public trough.
If it's USA funded, it has to contribute to the future success and survival of the USA. That's a tautology, I realize, but that doesn't let you off the hook if you're really trying to steer.
You haven't explained where you're leading us yet. Why do you want your special brand of school and what will you teach in them.
No evolution didn't you say? And no algebra above the 4th grade level. How will an education like that help a future president of the United States? Curious readers want to know.