> I am not the one who first > raised the subject of school funding, even though > funding most certainly does contribute to the > educational environment.
You're proud of that aren't you, that you didn't first raise the subject. You just keep coming back to it and resurrecting this otherwise dead thread.
> >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.
I am skeptical that *you* have anything to say on the matter, given the number of words you've already wasted on worthless meta-discourse about what we should and/or should not be discussing on this list.
> Please do not doubt that at least one person in > 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.)
What do you care? This notion of school funding isn't something you brought up in the first place right? And it's already pretty far afield.
I think discussing the military is highly relevant, in part because it *is* a public education venue, says so right on the advertising (join us and we'll teach you, is what a lot of the propaganda says -- your tax dollars teaching your fellow citizens (even teaching them some math believe it or not)).
We could discuss *only* how the military teaches math to its own and not be off topic, if public education and math teaching is really your focus.
> >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 > not even a little abashed making this kind of > argument in this forum?
I'm saying it's *not* "all or nothing" if you're able to actually read my words. Government has legitimate duties to perform, for which it collects taxes. Ah but what are those duties?
Gee, maybe it takes an educated citizenry to figure that out.
So could education then be one of those duties? A way to level the playing field, keep voters conscious and aware of their role (as way more than just voters)?
What a concept! We could even share American Heritage like Bucky Fuller's concentric hierarchy of polyhedra, (but nooooo, that'd mean changing the curriculum to reflect stuff that's happened since the 1970s and who wants to rock the boat -- not those cowardly military brass surely).
> >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 don't seem very sure. What law are we talking about? What forces a private academy to teach about the civil rights movement or the voting machine fiasco, or earlier failed attempts by alien ideologies to hijack the public school system? They're private academies goddammit, free to teach bowing down to some religious icons while exposing our ideal of a secular democracy as a sin against God.
> > 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.
Another stoopid dodge by a not so clever man.
> >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 > you seriously. > > Haim > Je me souviens
Did you read that article I linked to? The LAWCAP puppet ships the soldier son home with the other luggage and tells the dad to collect the casket in oversized. When you tell the puppet that's inappropriate, it looks at you cross-eyed and says it's legal, so how can it be wrong? Maybe it's OK with you that an insidious moron (aka a great satan) is at the controls in this country (or was until recently), but my feeling is if we had a decent public education system we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. I blame the math teachers, cuz they're too spineless to teach any Bucky, same as the history teachers, who don't know what LAWCAP means (kinda like you -- too lazy, too much of a loser).