> The only reason you think so, Kirby, is because, > like every good socialist, you have the heart of > an accountant. That is, you cannot abide > uncertainty. You want everything guaranteed, > everything cut and dried, every "t" crossed, every > "i" dotted, everything spelled out just so. >
I want some accountability when parties such as yourself wade in here with a lot of inflaming rhetoric. You use fear-mongering techniques, sketching the dire consequences of letting the in-powers stay in power, but don't like to be pinned down around how your army would be any different, once you'd won.
You'd like to be in power first I think, rather than trying to spell it out ahead of time. That saves you from really having to think.
> In my vision of education, there is uncertainty,
Oh, tra la. Very clear (sneer). We're supposed to be satisfied with this? As if you're the only realist among us?
> hence an inherent difficulty with details. The
At least you admit that details have not been provided.
> only certain thing about it is that there should be > no Education Tsar who will dictate what every one of > the 50+ million children will or will not do. There
And who is our Tsar now? How many of these 50+ million know his or her name?
> will be --- gasp! --- differences. (If people have > choices, there will be differences; you will have to > take my word for it.) >
And we don't have any differences now? Really, I'm having trouble distinguishing your brave new world from the status quo.
> >He has no credentials, no credibility, no real name > >in these parts, just a plaintive voice and a > >willingness to defame others. > > Some people defame themselves and sometimes I help > them do it. As for the rest of your comment, you > are perfectly correct. My arguments have to stand, > or fall, on their merits, and you should take them, > or leave them, on their merits, and not because of > any credentials I may or may not have. Things are > much better this way.
I think I'll leave them. You're intentionally vague as to your agenda (cry "socialism" if anyone tries to pin you down), plus you have very little in the way of mathematics to offer. All I glean from your posts is you're very unsatisfied with the status quo, and believe in Socratic dialog. But it's not clear how your army would make it all better. Evolution might go away (to pacify the IDers), and math above the 4th or 8th grade level would become an elective.
> > And when did you stop beating your wife? >
There are wife beaters out there. You did cast aspersions on this guy.
> But, I digress. I am touched by the interest you > you and Richard express in my opinions. However, > please let me remind you that this thread is about > the "vast underfunding" of public education (about > which I provided lots of details). I would like to
No, all you said was fire and police cost less (no surprise there), and that you're not really trying to cut funding anyway (see above). Any agenda you might have is apparently too boring to trouble us with, and anyway, agendas are for socialist sissies or something.
> keep it reserve to that purpose (although I am not > sure how much longer I can hold my breath waiting for > MPG to respond). Please give me a little time to > collect my thoughts and I will start a new thread. > > Haim
I'll be looking for some explicit reforms you'd like to introduce, beyond anything you've said so far.