Kirby Posted: Feb 11, 2007 11:57 PM I'll read this as a warning that you're inexpert to follow or something like that.
Would a desire to keep the discussion focused on education be "something like that"? This forum is supposed to be about math education and I am as guilty as anyone, and more guilty than most, in insisting that math education does not happen in a vacuum. I.e., we have to discuss, to some extent, the environment in which math education takes place. But when it comes to "extent", even I have some shame, which is why I have reminded correspondents, at least a few times, that I am not the one who first raised the subject of school funding, even though funding most certainly does contribute to the educational environment.
>But the "overfunded military versus underfunded >schools" is deeply engrained in our culture, as >any "when the Air Force needs a bake sale" pin owner >might attest.
Many ideas are "deeply ingrained in our culture" that do not deserve the light of day, even if we could debate them with some intelligence. I am skeptical that we can debate military funding with any intelligence, even if it were pertinent to the focus of this forum.
>To bring up and decry the corruption in public schools, >while staying silent on military funding, is what I >thought you might do (plead ignorance). I find your >posture disingenuous, but that's nothing new.
Please do not doubt that at least one person in this forum recognizes this rhetorical device as sabotage. The theory behind this device is that we cannot investigate one problem unless we investigate all problems. This is obviously impossible, so debate halts. One popular variant is that we cannot investigate one problem unless we first investigate the interlocutor's favorite problem. Either way, debate comes to a halt---which is, of course, the original intent of the saboteur. (Another famous device for rhetorical sabotage is Godwin's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law which also works to short-circuit debate.)
>It's not appropriate (to repeat a phrase) to contract >out every function of government. That's called >"privatization of everything" and begs the question why >we need a government in the first place.
Ah yes, the All Or Nothing Fallacy. Are you not even a little abashed making this kind of argument in this forum?
>Your arguments along these lines were never in the least >convincing. We're talking about the education of little >children, on into young adulthood at the very least. Do >they learn about their rights and responsibilities in a >democracy or don't they? What's to keep some private >academy from ensuring they don't?
Parents? State school inspectors? The law?
>You think the education of young impressionables should >be contracted out to the lowest bidder. I think that's >a lazy-ass cop out way to go, for reasons I've also >stated in very clear terms (which you've so far avoided >grappling with, saying others are more adept at pushing >the vouchers solution than you are).
Clear term?? I never intentional avoid or ignore your arguments, but it is not easy ploughing through GRUNCHES and LAWCAPS, paring away irrelevancies like military funding, and generally trying to make sense of your idiosyncratic English.
>Or subsidizes principals going to conferences in >Argentina? Supplementing is different from gutting >completely.
And for a minute there I was starting to take you seriously.