PeterDavid.net

I wonder if his testicles will be tied tightly to get a better show.

You can't tie something that doesn't exist. Silly PAD.

Cindy Sheehan, arrested outside? I can't wait to hear this...

Thanks for doing this. It means I don't have to see the chimp's smirking face for another day.

State of the Union drinking game
http://www.drinkinggame.us/

Is it just me, or did the 'Axis of Evil' list just get significantly longer?

1>
Not a 'holding cell'?

Has he had a full ovation yet, or just the Rebublicans????

Wouldn;t it be cool if the Democrats just started booing??

Oooh ohh, there's his full ovation just now!

Hmmmm. Hearing the Speech is making me sick.

Who is the geek in the Dr Who scarf?

Rich Drees: Who is the geek in the Dr Who scarf?

I was wondering that myself. We can only hope Bush introduces him, so that he can get a thorough poking at on the Daily Show tonight.

Hey, what about OUR union???

Hey, my fiance is trainig our dog (Thor) to bark at Alfred E Newman's (oops, I mean Bush's) voice.

When did the Democrats (or any Americans for that matter) claim that we should be “Isolationist”?

Compassion for a village with HIV? Well, so long as she isn't a prostitue. Those sinners get what they deserve.

I wanna know who in the audience is applauding to reaffirm the Patriot Act.

Terrorist surveilance act = bullsh*t

Hillary Clinton totally just smirked at this guys crap ;-)

Luigi: "I wanna know who in the audience is applauding to reaffirm the Patriot Act."
Looks like just the Repubs. I love the split shots with the Repubs going apeshit and the Dems sitting around looking bored.

I'm finding the timing of his new counterterrorist act more than slightly suspicious, given the timing of Alito's confirmation.

Cindy Sheehan wasn't arrested. She "allegedly" was trying to unfold a banner of some sorts and was "removed". Kinda funny that the one person that would point to a MASSIVE failure by this administration was now no longer a part of the equation. After all, can't have the media flashing her across the screen. Might take away from Shrub's speech.

This guy and his party make me sick.

Mrs. Clinton has had plenty of practice perfeccting her "you are so full of !@#$%^&* #@$%^&*(" look, I'm happy that she now has a job where she can fully use it.

Brian: "Cindy Sheehan wasn't arrested."
Really? I thought I heard Brian Williams use the word 'arrested.' I probably misheard it. We shall see, I guess.

Jeez, he's like a hacky comic just going for the easy applause breaks. No real content here.

Details! We don't need no stinking details!

You know, I didn't want to listen to Bush, but with Peter's read-a-long, it's actually quite tolerable! Even funny!

Dude, did he just show us his "O" face??

Had to stop by...hey, some of you should just skip tot he Democrats "response" (I mean, it was posted at 6 PM...how do you respond to something before it's even...oh, nevermind. This stuff is all theater for the rubes.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101246.html

Out of curiosity--does the president hand out copies to his speech to the opposition so they can actually fashion a response or do they just guess what he will say?

On the whole, I'd recommend you watch Korean horror movies next year.

Santorum, they just showed Santorum!!!!

hee hee hee

if you dont get the joke

www.spreadingsantorum.com/

Yes, pass the line item veto, so we can veto out all the crap in the Patriot Act.

My god, it's turning into a pep rally.

In a brief moment of insanity I saw the beginning of this on Fox news. Shep Smith was thrilled to report that she had been arrested but the reporter on the scene stated that she wasn't arrested, only detained

Still rather interesting that the Republican Party did not want her there and now she isn't.

Nice to see the Dems going apeshit for a change...

Brak: "Nice to see the Dems going apeshit for a change..."

ISn't this the first time that they have shown Hilary smile! I almost stood up and cheered myself!

Jesus, guys, you think maybe we can all stop with the pep rally clapping EVERY OTHER PHRASE so that maybe Bush can get through his speech? Even Bush is starting to look a little miffed at getting cut short every fourth word!

9:11: Four minutes of applause and counting.
9:11: And they applaud AGAIN? Just for being introduced?

According to Think Progress, "Without applause, practice runs have taken about 36 minutes." requiring 24 minutes of applause to stretch it to the scheduled hour.

Yes, pass the line item veto, so we can veto out all the crap in the Patriot Act."

I don't think that that's how the 'line item veto' works.

Its there so that the President can veto just a part of a bill he doesn't like, instead of the whole bill.

PS, on something he jsut said: My fiance calls Shenanigans!! (no idea how to spell that)

If we can out produce every one, then how come all our jobs are being outsourced?

9:42: Right, right. Line item veto. Notice the hypocrisy of the GOP applauding when they screamed over Clinton trying the same thing.

Really? Wow, that really would have been hypocritical considering the Line Item Veto was one of the Contract With America planks. So, did they scream over it before or after they GAVE IT TO HIM in 1996?

The problem wasn't the GOP screaming, it was the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional. Not quite sure how W intends to get around that little hurdle.

"Addicted to oil?" Hey, is he trying to introduce the flying car? ...no, sounds like he's talking up technology. Nice to hear somebody talk it, though I have doubts that it'll get done.
Now, how about slapping the Big Oil companies on the wrist so we can get gas prices back down, eh?

Firm grounding in math and science? Is that why he's cut research grants? And put limits on what they can use those grants for?

I buy from Hess, personally. The 5% rebate card is better than nothing, and a lot of their oil comes from Venezuela.

David, it would be interesting to see how the Court came down on the decision. Clearly the easiest way would be for a sitting President to stack the court with his own people. What's that? Bush has done this? Great...

Brak, please tell me you've seen Kevin Smith's short"the Flying Car".

Interesting education initiatives. Does he plan on funding them this time?

I haven't seen it, Jay, but I got the Reader's Digest version. Oh, here comes the marriage debate...

9:43: YES! YES! YES! THEY GOT OFF THEIR ASSES!

What? Where? What paragraph? Please?

I'm needing blood pressure medicine just reading the text and these comments, I don't dare listen to the parade of lies....

I buy from Hess, personally.

And according to BuyBlue.org, they donate 100% to the Carpeting Party, which I guess is better than donating like all the rest of the oil companies.

I can't stomach watching this, but what did he say about calculators (and AP classes) ?

Um, isn't one of the arguments against gay marriage that it will unravel the American culture?

He mentioned O'Connor. Too bad he didn't say what he wanted to: "That damn swing-voter..."

Peter David: 9:48: "Clean safe nuclear energy." There's a contradiction in terms.
Luigi Novi: I'm not sure I agree. I think the stigma associated with it is may be mostly a matter of scare-mongering.

Peter David: 9:52: We don't need more advanced math courses. We need more remedial courses. We've got a population that can't do the most basic functions.
Luigi Novi: What we need is to totally change the education system, because it's not working as it should. It's not just a matter of remedialism. We have to implement teaching methods that are successful, and the system should be privatized.

Darrik, here's a quote from the text as printed at ThinkProgress:

Third: We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We have made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science … bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms … and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.

"We will encourage more young people to stay in school"

Why do I have a bad feeling that this plan will involve the draft and student deferrals?

Luigi: "What we need is to totally change the education system, because it's not working as it should."
Right f***ing on!

Instead of a waiting list for AIDs medicine, he's going to instate a do-not-give-medicine list. It will include prostitues, gays, and drug users.

WAS HE DROPPED ON HIS HEAD AS A CHILD?

that would explain alot...

Peter David: 10:02: And now he obliquely compares himself to Lincoln and MLK. How does he find trousers that hang right with balls that big?
Luigi Novi: I don't think he was "comparing" himself to them, just using them as a metaphor to explain why he should "not stop."

So incredibly short, and he still said almost nothing.

IT'S OVER!!!!!!!!!!!! the state of the union drinking game.....I got drunk quickly

Hey, did he say anything??

No one can outproduce the American worker. Except, y'know, maybe Japan.

And China. And Korea. And...

From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Productivity.html

Now the United States faces two productivity problems. First, its productivity growth has slowed sharply since 1973, part of a puzzling worldwide productivity slow-down. Second, although U.S. productivity is still the highest in the world by a wide margin—$45,918 of GNP per worker in 1990, 25 percent ahead of Japan and 35 percent ahead of Germany—its productivity growth trailed that of other nations in most years since World War II.

Another statistic I ran across said that "they (american workers) will produce 30% of global output this year with only 5% of the world's labor force."

So yeah, I think he was on pretty safe ground there. With all the easy targets to pick why go after a statistic you aren't sure about?

And what the hell is up with Bush mentioning BOOKS near the end of this speech? BUSH mentioning BOOKS? That's like Pat Robertson mentioning porn. Hasn't Bush stated that he's not much of a reader?

Luigi Novi: What we need is to totally change the education system, because it's not working as it should. It's not just a matter of remedialism. We have to implement teaching methods that are successful, and the system should be privatized.

What we need is for politicians to say what they won't dare say. It doesn't matter what schools do; until parents start acting like parents taking an active part in their children's education. We're going to continue to slide. Privatization will not help, throwing more money at it will not help, and, God help us, more standardized testing will not help until that is widespread, and right now it most certainly is NOT.

Oh btw, during his war against terrorism speech, I kept expecting him to say: "In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the United States will be reorganized into the first American Empire...for a safe and secure society!"

Math and science classes?! Tell me he didn't say that. The guy who thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in Biology classes wants more science taught? I don't believe it.

Master Windu, I have just learned some shocking news!

Master Windu: "Bush is a sith lord?"

JAC

I noticed that Bush referenced Reagan's "Evil Empire" bit early on in the speech. I'm surprised that they dragged that hoary old chestnut out. It's a bit worn, to my mind.

9:01: Here come members of the Supreme Court. I think it'd be cooler if they all entered in one shoulder to shoulder line in slo-mo, like in "The Right Stuff." Or "Monsters Inc."
Or like the original opening to Justice League...oh, wait, Harvey Birdman did that already...

9:09: Caroline has offered her commentary in advance: The moment Bush was introduced, she farted and dropped a load in her diaper.
10:03: Fifty one minutes. Hunh. I have to think that Caroline's commentary at the beginning was the most succinct.
Good call. That's about an hour of my life I'll never get back.
Last night I got real drunk, tonight I watched the State of the Union address. Ironically, I felt more like throwing up tonight.

Sorry, the last half of my post should've read like this:

9:09: Caroline has offered her commentary in advance: The moment Bush was introduced, she farted and dropped a load in her diaper.
10:03: Fifty one minutes. Hunh. I have to think that Caroline's commentary at the beginning was the most succinct.
Good call. That's about an hour of my life I'll never get back.
Last night I got real drunk, tonight I watched the State of the Union address. Ironically, I felt more like throwing up tonight.

Luigi is 100% right about education. And although NCLB is pretty much a clusterf***, if it's done right it would be a start. The tragedy is, the biggest obstacle to changing anything fundamental about education is the teachers' unions themselves (and, for what it's worth, I am a member of the NEA). As long as the education establishment does its level best to stand in the way of any form of progress (charter schools, vouchers, accountability), ain't nothing gonna help out.

The color commentary was a triumph!!! Must make this an annual event.

Lee: Definitely. Am I the only one who thinks it'd be interesting to see PAD's commentary on the Democratic response, too?

"Out of curiosity--does the president hand out copies to his speech to the opposition so they can actually fashion a response or do they just guess what he will say?"

My understanding is, yes, it's passed out ahead of time, to the Dems and GOP, to the press, etc.

PAD

Just got here, will try to catch up.
===================

When did the Democrats (or any Americans for that matter) claim that we should be “Isolationist”?

Back in the 1930's & early 40's, until Pearl Harbor was attacked. But not since then.

But, hey, when has truth honesty, or accuracy ever been a part of the bush administration?

================

Cindy Sheehan news here, about 2/3 down the page:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/bush.sotu/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
============

Out of curiosity--does the president hand out copies to his speech to the opposition so they can actually fashion a response or do they just guess what he will say?

With bush, it's easy to know what he's going to say. He just keeps repeating the same thing over & over. You know, "Pushing the propaganda" I think was the term bush used.

it was the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional. Not quite sure how W intends to get around that little hurdle

Same way he does everything else. He's just going to do what he wants because he knows that no one will even try to stop him.

9:09: Caroline has offered her commentary in advance: The moment Bush was introduced, she farted and dropped a load in her diaper

Funniest thing I heard today.

And although NCLB is pretty much a clusterf***,

That's because the only part of it that's supported is the part that gives the military full almost unrestricted access to student records.

Hey, Peter
I just wanted to thank you for this forum. It made this crappy hour of television a lot easier to handle. Well, that and I led in with "The Gilmore Girls" and that made me happy too.

GHERU

PS: you also make me happy with some of the best comic writing out there today and I can't wait to buy your how-to book...

Posted by arizonateach--As long as the education establishment does its level best to stand in the way of any form of progress (charter schools, vouchers, accountability), ain't nothing gonna help out.

Vouchers would be the final nail in the notion that education should be freely available to every child in the country. Why should you or I have to subsidize the tuition for sending a student to a school that may tell us that our children aren't eligible to go to for religious or other reasons? And that's what would happen, unless the private schools became accountable to the same regulations that they foist on the public schools.

I know of dozens of people who send their kids to private Catholic schools around here that do NOT want vouchers because they are afraid that that will mean an influx of students they will not be allowed to turn away. And when a private school cannot pick and choose its students, you'll find that the differences between their output and that of the public schools more or less on a equal footing.

Anybody watching the Dem response?

I'm liking this Kaine guy, but his eyebrows remind me of Eugene Levy.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm in the NEA as well, and I've been a registered Republican since I turned eighteen in 1982.

9:15: Who had three minutes into the speech for 9/11?

What took him so long?

9:27: All right. Who had eighteen minutes until he singled out one soldier and his family to hold up as a symbol of his wonderful war

Between this & the above, bush must be slowing down in his old age.

9:30: Oh...my God...he's talking about attacking Iran

Hate to break it to you, but he's been doing so for a couple of months now. Using most of the same lies he used to get us into Iraq, too.

9:38: Whenever Bush speaks of "Natural disasters" I keep thinking I'm looking at the biggest one to hit the US in years.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bush_disaster.jpg

Having George Bush lecture the American people about their addiction to oil is like a crack dealer lecturing his customers about their dependence on opium-based narcotics.

Thanks for the play-by-play, Peter. Faced with the prospect of seeing Bush on all the major networks tonight, I did the only sensible thing: I taped Supernatural and went out for a late dinner with a friend. But thanks to Caroline, I'm pretty sure I got the gist of what President Smirky Smirkeson had to say,

Joe: "...I'm pretty sure I got the gist of what President Smirky Smirkeson had to say..."
Sorry, but I just got the image of Christopher Walken coming at Bush with a tire iron, saying something about how he hates Smirky Smirkersons. I know it's a hoax, but the whole "Walken For President" idea gets better and better the more I think about it. Maybe I need to lay off the SNL Best Of collections.

Yahoo has a fact check article up right now for Bush's propoganda speech.

This is a fun quote from Bush:

"...every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending."

In laymans terms, it means everything but defense/military spending is being gutted, while we spill our blood for Iraq and guarantee that future generations are completely fucked.

9:17: Oh. Bin Laden is serious about mass murder. Funny. A few years ago, he said he wasn't thinking about bin Laden much.

I glad he mentioned Bin Laden. WE HAVE ONLY BEEN LOOKING FOR HIM FOR 4 YEARS. How is it we can find Saddam, who had more duplicates than Madrox, in a little spider hole in the middle of a desert, but we cannot find a 6'6" Arab on dialysis?

9:30: Oh...my God...he's talking about attacking Iran.

We are going to reduce the size of our reserves, who have been picking up the slack in Afghanistan and Iraq, while at the same time, we are going to pick a fight with Iran.

9:49: I'm all for making dependence on ME oil a thing of the past. Certainly invading them to try and take it by force isn't working.

Are you implying that we would invade a country to take their oil? That would never happen again.

10:01: By all means, let's do whatever we can to eliminate AIDS. So how's that condom in schools program working out?

I'm all for curing AIDS, but can we not cure things that already kill more people, you know cancer, flu, etc.. Why does AIDS get the most money and attention?

10:03: Interesting that of the four major political/historical figures he compared himself to, three of them were assassinated.

Watch out for the NSA for that comment, PAD.

Oh let's endorse a technology that won't be ready till 2020! Shrub isn't interested in reducing our dependency on oil, he just wants to deflect the argument until he can run for cover and hide in retirement. Flex engines already exist, Shrub! Polution neutral engines that run on renewable resources...

Peter thanks for the commentary, if I had had to watch this travesty of hypocrisy I would probably have put my fist thru the tv screen.

Did I hear Bush say he was against human/animal hybrids? Since when has this been going on? Is this a threat large enough to mention in a SOTU address? Did I miss something? First we fight terrorists and now we have to stare down The Island of Dr. Moreau?

WE HAVE ONLY BEEN LOOKING FOR HIM FOR 4 YEARS.

130,000 troops in Iraq

vs

25,000 troops in Afghanistan. Quotes from the Chimp in Chief saying bin Laden was "no longer important".

Yeah, we're really working our asses off trying to get bin Laden. Maybe if, you know, we'd put 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to get bin Laden first, actually caught him, then went after Saddam, Bush's desired legacy would have actually come true.

We are going to reduce the size of our reserves, who have been picking up the slack in Afghanistan and Iraq, while at the same time, we are going to pick a fight with Iran.

While Bush avoids every bit of evidence that says our forces are extended too thin. I mean, why not? He already ignored every bit of evidence & intelligence regarding Iraq. What harm will that cause us with Iran?

That would never happen again.

I suppose after we'd had our way with the Native Americans, people said we'd never put people on reservations or in camps again either. Unfortunately, the Japanese learned otherwise. And Gitmo should qualify, just the same.

Why does AIDS get the most money and attention?

I don't know about the most money, but it gets attention because it deserves attention. That, and the fact that AIDS is more or less 100% preventable, yet too many morons in this country won't let us use the methods at our disposal to increase prevention (such as condoms).

Watch out for the NSA for that comment, PAD.

Meh. We've probably all been flagged already. The government obviously doesn't have any better things to do than spy on ordinary Americans.

First we fight terrorists and now we have to stare down The Island of Dr. Moreau?

Human/animal hybrid? We've been staring at the primate example for 5 years now.

rrlane: What we need is for politicians to say what they won't dare say. It doesn't matter what schools do; until parents start acting like parents taking an active part in their children's education. We're going to continue to slide. Privatization will not help...
Luigi Novi: OF COURSE it'll help. Companies that have to compete for your dollar find newer and better ways of doing things, which is why private industry almost always does things better than government agencies, which are a monopoly, and accountable to no one.

"...every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending."

In laymans terms, it means everything but defense/military spending is being gutted, while we spill our blood for Iraq and guarantee that future generations are completely fucked.

Only in Washington DC could reducing the growth of a program be something to brag about. Or be considered "gutting". Geeze, what would you call it if they actualy REDUCED the amount of money being spent?

In truth, Bush has spent money like a drunken sailor. A drunken Democratic sailor. Ted Kennedy in a sailor suit.

I watched this thing at the gym on the treadmill reading CNN's pour attempt at closed captioning. The thing was, I couldn't be sure if the occaisonal typo was the fault of the transcriber or the speaker. Sigh.

which is why private industry almost always does things better than government agencies, which are a monopoly, and accountable to no one.

*chuckle* And corporations have been accountable to who lately?

Halliburton anyone?

Let's see, here are a few points I caught that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

-Bush says that half the world's population lives in totalitarian regimes and goes on to single out places like Sirya and Burma but strangely leaves out China which has over 1.2 billion people; could this be because we're so financially indebted to them? I guess he's ready to overlook some peccadilloes so long as we're getting something from them.

-When Bush mentioned "clean, safe nuclear energy" was I the only one who immediately flashed to the West Wing debate where Alan Alda's character said the same, only to have it come back to bite him in the latest episode when a meltdown was narrowly averted? I know that West Wing is fiction, but nuclear energy has a huge risk associated to it (as evidenced by Chernobyl) and it certainly isn't clean; tons of new nuclear waste have to be dealt with each year, at great cost both financially and potentially environmentally.

-Bush claims that he wants to make Ethanol practical and competitive, but makes no mention of emulating Brazil's model, which has had a highly viable Sugar Cane Ethanol program for over 20 years. If he's serious, then why not go with what works already? I remember reading a NY Times Op-Ed by Thomas L. Friedman from August 5 2005, about the then new energy bill, that touched on this point; here's the most relevant paragraph:

"The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil."

The Times will charge you to view the full piece but I found a PDF of it at the following link: http://www.setamericafree.org/nyt080505.pdf

-And not a single word regarding the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Can't say I'm surprised but I sure am disappointed, thought it might at least warrant a throwaway line, since he claims he's so dedicated to protecting the innocents on the World.

Corgi, regarding your question as to what got the Democrats of their asses, it was their cheering to the following line: "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security." If you ask me, that was the high point of the night.

Raphy

Craig J. Ries: *chuckle* And corporations have been accountable to who lately? Halliburton anyone?
Luigi Novi: Please read for context, Craig. Vis a vis what Peter, rrlane and myself were discussing, it's the CONSUMER we're talking about. Companies, when they have to compete for your dollar, are accountable to the consumer insofar as who buys their product. I'm not talking about accountability regarding their illegal activities. If schools are privatized, they will each compete to make themselves look more attractive than the other, which they do by finding newer, better, and/or cheaper means of accomplishing the task you want them too. The way it is now, you have to send your kid to whatever school your kid lives in, or else pay for private school with money OTHER than the taxes you're already paying to the government anyway.

Companies, when they have to compete for your dollar, are accountable to the consumer insofar as who buys their product.

Yes, and did that stop Enron, WorldCom, or Qwest from cheating consumers (buying stock is pretty equal to buying a phone line these days)?

No, it didn't.

Privitization of schools doesn't do anything but guarantee that only those with money get the best education. Some would say that's the case now, but I don't entirely agree.

Everybody should be able to have at least an equal education, and privitization wouldn't do that.

In the end, the consumer really doesn't matter, only the bottom line does.

Its there so that the President can veto just a part of a bill he doesn't like, instead of the whole bill.

Why bother when we have president who just declares that he's going to ignore the entire bill anyway?

When did the Democrats (or any Americans for that matter) claim that we should be “Isolationist”?

Back in the 1930's & early 40's, until Pearl Harbor was attacked. But not since then.

And oddly enough, it was the GOP that was the strongly isolationist party during that time period.

-Bush claims that he wants to make Ethanol practical and competitive, but makes no mention of emulating Brazil's model, which has had a highly viable Sugar Cane Ethanol program for over 20 years. If he's serious, then why not go with what works already?
----------------------------------------

That's the Flex Engine! History channel ran a very interesting special on Brazil and their reliance on Flex Engines and Sugar Ethanol about 4 months ago. Until very recently the big 3 American motors companies had pissed away the market. They refused to produce a car with a flex engine and lost the Brazil market. They finally capitulated and recently started building cars for the Brazilian market.

Follow the Money...
The big three do not want to invest in sugar fuel because it just won't generate the revenues that they want from the pie in the sky hydrogen solution. Over the next 15 years they can generate millions in research grants and government subsidies to research Hydrogen fuel cells. Sugar cane is established and sensible and there is no money in the research, plus you would be shifting a large chunk of money into farmers' pockets, away from the normal receivers. In the mean time they can along with the sisters make a fortune in oil based cars and the selling of that oil.

If the reasons thgey don't do something makes no sense, then look at the cash and where it's coming/going from.

Craig: Yes, and did that stop Enron, WorldCom, or Qwest from cheating consumers (buying stock is pretty equal to buying a phone line these days)?
Luigi Novi: One more time: We aren't talking about breaking the law. We're talking about the PRODUCT that consumers CHOOSE. When you go to the supermarket, you can buy whichever brand of soup, peanut butter, or whatever you want. Would you prefer that all such products came from the government, which would only offer one brand, and being a monopoly, give you no choice? Consumers get to choose which brand they prefer. Mentioning Enron or Worldcom ignores the fact that those companies make the news precisely because they're the exception.

When a company that makes a consumer product that is found to substandard, like say, Goodyear tires, then the customers go elsewhere, and the company suffers, which is why companies compete to make their product better. Governments are monopolies, and don't have to do this, and thus, customers can't go "elsewhere" if it's a government monopoly, which U.S. education is, except for those who can afford private schools.

Are you honestly saying that you think that government does things better than private industry?

Craig: Privitization of schools doesn't do anything but guarantee that only those with money get the best education.
Luigi Novi: EVERYONE has money. They're called taxes. And most everyone pays their taxes. With privatization, you should be able to take your money where you want, and spend it on the school of your choice. Right now, you can only do that if you're well-to-do.

Craig: In the end, the consumer really doesn't matter, only the bottom line does.
Luigi Novi: LOL! And what do you think the bottom line is made of? Money given to the company by............consumers! If the company makes a lousy product, and a competitor makes a better one or a cheaper one, then those customers will go there, and that lousy company's bottom line suffers as a result.

Ted Kennedy in a sailor suit.

Who told you, who did you tell, and do you still have the photographs?

Seriously, though... Right, wrong, left, right, up, down... No doubt about it Peter: you're definitely a solid member of the liberal Democratic party: you didn't post a single thing you liked about the speech.

I heard a few things I'd place in the "good idea, let's do it" department.. but Dems just sat there with a "That sucks. You're an idiot." look on their face. (Not a totally unfamiliar look from their everyday face that they put on.)

I'm all for sitting down if you disagree. But I think the Dems came off as more embarrasing than anything else. Then again, a leapord and it's spots are rarely seperated. I think we're seeing Dems as they truly are: mad that they lost power, are only now truly realizing just how much they've lost (i.e. Alito confirmation).

And as for Cindy Sheehan. God bless her heart. Just wanting to give her two cents, and they won't let her in the door. If only she'd dressed up for the occasion, as dress code dictates, as opposed to just wearing anti-war t-shirt.

Oh well. There's always her new best friend, that buddy of ol' U S of A, Hugo Chavez.

RLR

Leapord?

Obviously, I meant leopard. Just another reason why not to make comments at 1AM. Oh well.

Say la vee.

RLR

Can someone please clarify what caused this:

"9:44: I have NEVER seen a president look THAT PISSED OFF during the SOTU!"

If I look at full coverage of the speech to find out I think the stupidity of it all will make my brain ooze out my nose and ears.

c.s.

all i'm going to say is ...

WAY TO GO CAROLINE !!

Does comic timing run in the family ?

Robert; it's easy to remember how to spell leopard. Just rmember the sage quote from Al Gore: "A leopard never changes his stripes."

Craig, didn't watch the speech but I'll bet PAD was referring to the moment where the Democrats gave a standing ovation to his admission that his Social Security Plan went down in flames.

"Seriously, though... Right, wrong, left, right, up, down... No doubt about it Peter: you're definitely a solid member of the liberal Democratic party: you didn't post a single thing you liked about the speech."

Then you missed the 9:47 entry. I agreed with him that medical liability needs to be reformed. If he has a way of equitably resolving the problem so that good doctors aren't being driven out of practice because they can't afford the insurance, I'm happy to listen with an open mind.

"I heard a few things I'd place in the "good idea, let's do it" department.. but Dems just sat there with a "That sucks. You're an idiot." look on their face."

Isn't it possible that that's because it sucks that the leader of the free world is an idiot, and worse, that the free world knows it?

PAD

"Just rmember the sage quote from Al Gore: "A leopard never changes his stripes."

Well, if Gore did say that, one could always be charitable and say he simply misspoke and assume nothing beyond that...you know, just as I would assume that you know how to spell "remember" and not figure that you're illiterate.

But if you insist, we can always suppose that Gore was making a point. A leopard indeed never changes his stripes...because a leopard doesn't have stripes. It's just like saying Bush never changes his mind...

PAD

Posted by Luigi Novi at January 31, 2006 09:59 PM

Peter David: 9:48: "Clean safe nuclear energy." There's a contradiction in terms.

Luigi Novi: I'm not sure I agree. I think the stigma associated with it is may be mostly a matter of scare-mongering.

"Mostly" is hardly the word. Try "almost entirely".

In ractical fact, on a per-installation basis, coal-fired power plants in normal operation routinely release more radiation into the atmsophere than do nuclear plants, and the environmental dangers and costs of coal plants far exceed those of properly-designed nuclear plants.

Posted by Raphael Sutton at February 1, 2006 12:20 AM

nuclear energy has a huge risk associated to it (as evidenced by Chernobyl) and it certainly isn't clean; tons of new nuclear waste have to be dealt with each year, at great cost both financially and potentially environmentally.

Citing Chernobyl in a discussion of the safety of newly-designed and -built nuclear plants is like citing Shiloh in a discussion of tactics appropriate for current-day operations in Baghdad -- irrelevant.

Chernobyl was a design that was considered a Bad Idea even at the time it was built, but was built because the Soviet government (as was the case throughout the USSR and its satellites for far too long, leaving the former Soviet bloc with a hideous legacy of environmental horrors to clean up) ignored such considerations and did things the fast and dirty way, looking for short-term payoff and ignoring long-term consequence.

Posted by Brian P at February 1, 2006 12:51 AM

Until very recently the big 3 American motors companies had pissed away the market. They refused to produce a car with a flex engine and lost the Brazil market. They finally capitulated and recently started building cars for the Brazilian market.

As a matter of fact, for some time the Big Three have been selling flex engines in this country -- without mentioning it.

A piece i heard recently on NPS (wish i could recall when/where, though it was almost certaionly "All Things Considered") talked about the fact that thousands of US auto owners don't even know that their cars have such engines -- and, even if they did, couldn't get alternative fuels to burn in them.

The idiocy of what the president has said seems to have been covered so I will just comment on the education theme.
As a parent it is my job to make sure my daughter is prepared to live in this world and make a living after I am gone. The only reason I have her in public school is because I need her to learn social skills. I am working on keeping her mind active and teaching her things I think she is ready for.
I am wondering how long it will be until game designers and corporations get together to create games that teach real world skills. Would not be that difficult to create an online game that teaches how to repair appliances. Or any other trade skill. I am not saying you could master it online but you could get to the point where an employer could hire you and you would master it while getting paid something.

Or maybe I just need to take my meds lol. Either way I liked the commentary Peter.

Well, if Gore did say that, one could always be charitable and say he simply misspoke and assume nothing beyond that...you know, just as I would assume that you know how to spell "remember" and not figure that you're illiterate

Well of course he misspoke, No big deal, just an amusing thing. I'm not one of those who pretend that every verbal error is a sign of someone's intellectual weakness. Losing an election by 60,000 votes in the state of Ohio when one still has 10 million dollars to spend...now THAT'S stupidity.

And anyone who would assume someone is illiterate because of a spelling error would 1- be using an amazingly broad definition of the word, to the point where one could doubt that they truly understand its meaning (which could bring their own literacy into question) and 2- create a standard that they themselves might have a difficult time living up to.

>Luigi Novi: One more time: We aren't talking about breaking the law. We're talking about the PRODUCT that consumers CHOOSE. When you go to the supermarket, you can buy whichever brand of soup, peanut butter, or whatever you want

One word: Microsoft.

As for the private sector being inherently better than government, this is by no means necessarily true. Read MISFORTUNES 500 to see copious examples of screwups and blunders by the private sector.

Consider that taxpayers insist that government be accountable and that it avoids waste at all costs. Trouble is, this necessitates a bureaucracy which is in itself inherently wasteful. Spending $75 to track a $6 petty cash expenditure? But, hey, at least we know the $6 wasn't spent frivolously. Taxpayers have no one to blame but themselves for that sort of thing.

Too, I work in a computer/informatics section in the Canadian government, and, though I admit we aren't perfect, we've had a lot fewer problems with internal screwups than we have had with our dealing with private sector.

Item - Two months spent trying to get a new computer fax system (purchased from an American company) going and then, on the same day we received a 442-page 'help' manual from them - with no page numbers! - we get a call from their sales rep admitting that the main function for which we'd bought it ... doesn't work. They hope to have a patch for it sometime by the end of March. Maybe.

Item - A Montreal company had contracted to provide us with an update to their data base system. They were three months late delivering, and then the install CD had a virus on it.

Item - A wonderful program to back-up data gets bought out by a big company which does little but buy out smaller ones. The last time we tried to get through to their help desk, it took FOUR DAYS of calling morning, afternoon and evenings (the latter from home out of desperation) before I could reach a human being.

Item - Our outside telecom link was bought out by AT&T (Canada). When I needed help with a problem connection, it took most of a day just to find someone there who had their act together sufficiently as to be able to tell me who was now handling our account.

Item ...

And so on. So, don't give me that "private sector is so much better than government" nonsense. Maybe it is, sometimes, but certainly not all the time and, from our experience, not even most of the time.

Atomic power is much like an automobile.

A well-designed auto, put together with emphasis on quality control, and then driven responsibly by a careful driver, will not have the insurance companies staying up nights worrying.

A badly designed one, with shoddy assembly techniques and driven by a drunken teeny-bopper, on the other paw ...

Same thing with nuclear reactors. Chernobyl is often trotted out to show the horrors of nuclear power. Well, yes, if you use an obsolete, unsafe design, and then have people operating it who ignore safety protocols, you'll probably regret it.

Go with a newer Canadian design, which has safety features up the wazoo, and whose outer containment shell is built to withstand a fully-loaded jetliner slamming into it and is backed by an inner shell around the reactor proper, and you don't tend to have so much to worry about.

Nuclear power plants can be built and operated safely, but as someone who grow up a stone's throw away from Three Mile Island, I have serious doubts whether any American power company can be trusted to do so.

Just this past month, TMI got caught (again!) with having "inattentive" (that's nuclear industry speak for "asleep on the job") workers and security guards.

The real problem with nuclear power, though, is not so much the design and operation of a modern plant, it's the fact that we started building power plants 50 years ago and only within the past ten years started seriously building a disposal site for the waste. The delays in getting Yucca Mountain online has added billions to the cost of operating a power plant in the US.

Coal still produces over half the electricity in the country, with nuclear power hovering around 20% and the main reason isn't safety. It's the fact that coal burning powers are simply cheaper to operate.

EVERYONE has money.

Ever been poor, Luigi?

What you want to do is increase the gap between rich and poor, by making sure that the poor DO NOT have the ability to choose, because they cannot afford to choose.

If you privatize education, you're only ensuring that lower income families do not have a choice, if they can even afford ANY choice.

It'll ensure that only higher cost schools have the better education, while everybody else has to 'make do'. There will be no guarantees.

And my point about the Enrons and so forth is that there is no guarantee that privatization won't screw everybody over, because you'll have the government being pushed around by those in charge of the schools. Which is a worse situation than what we have know.

If you think the public education system is bad now, go ahead, throw more private schools and voucher bs into the equation.

Luigi Novi: One more time: We aren't talking about breaking the law. We're talking about the PRODUCT that consumers CHOOSE.

ME: Children aren't a product, and that's where most of these types of analogies break down. A business can stay profitable only if it has the option of changing its product, reducing (or increasing) its output, and/or shifting its focus to suit the needs of the consumer. In other words, you can phase out an unprofitable product, but how do you phase out a line of students that aren't performing up the standards?

Merit pay is a joke for the same reason. We are comparing apples to oranges when we try to force education into molds that work for the private sector. If my pay is based on how my students perform, then I'm going to do better or worse year to year based on the attitude not only of the students themselves but on how seriously education is taken in the households of the students.

I have nothing against private schools teachers. They went to the same universities, had the same courses and got the same grades as most public school teachers. The difference is in (ahem) the product. You have, by and large, students enrolled in private schools because, if nothing else, the parents cared enough to go the financial extra mile in order to get their kids in their. If their kids start messing up, the schools have the option of dropping them. Where do the expelled kids go?

Public schools.

If you have privatization, are you going to allow the owners of the schools to drop the students that aren't performing well? Where do they go? If you aren't going to let them drop them, then you'll be in the same situation you have with public schools.

What we need is to hold the students and parents more accountable. I think we ought to revamp the compulsory education model in this country. Education should remain a right, but it should be a right that can be lost, or at least modified.

You know the classes I have the least problems with? Summer school. You know why? Because there, I, the teacher, am the law. Summer school is not compulsory. If a kid acts up, I can boot them and there is no appeal. They fail and they have are held back and repeat the class the next school year. I've been teaching Summer School for over a decade and I can count on one hand how many students I've booted(and I'd have fingers left over). They know in Summer school the onus is on them to do the work and behave or they lose their chance at progressing and they lose the tuition they paid for the class. Personal responsibility at its finest.

Yes, you would have to create a system in which expulsion wouldn't be abused by the individual districts or schools, and yes you would have to have a system in place that deals with the students that are booted so they are still getting some form of training and aren't wandering the streets. But I think more than anything else that would be impetus to getting education on track.

You will never see that come from either side of the aisle though. That would require looking voters straight in the eye and saying "We don't have a wonder pill that will make education better with no effort. YOU need to pay attention to what your kids are doing, and YOU need to make sure they get to school and YOU need to make sure they are doing their homework, and when they act up in school, YOU need to make certain their are consquences at home that are appropriate."

No one wants to hear that; it would mean that the fault lies not in our schools but in ourselves.

And another thing on the "Business vs. Government" arguments...

The government is SUPPOSED to exist to help the citizens of the country.

Businesses exist to make a profit at the expense of everyone else, especially the consumer.

And as far as "choice" for consumers, what a load of crap. How many actual different, for example, banks are there anymore? They all keep merging or buying each other out, smae with phone companies.

And even at the grocery stores, you may see 10 different "Brands" of a product, but if you trace them all back, you see maybe 2-3 ultimate companies that own/produce those 10 brands. You have no real choice anymore....

"Luigi Novi: Companies, when they have to compete for your dollar, are accountable to the consumer insofar as who buys their product. I'm not talking about accountability regarding their illegal activities. If schools are privatized, they will each compete to make themselves look more attractive than the other, which they do by finding newer, better, and/or cheaper means of accomplishing the task you want them too. The way it is now, you have to send your kid to whatever school your kid lives in, or else pay for private school with money OTHER than the taxes you're already paying to the government anyway."

The flaw in this logic is that it assumes the best way to make money in private education is to give the best education to a child. Whereas in actual fact, the best way to make money in private education is to spend the least amount of money educating the child, while extracting the most amount of money from the parent--in other words, giving the worst education parents will tolerate while charging them the most amount of money they are willing to pay.

You're right in believing that competition will, to some extent, keep companies honest about what those minimum and maximum amounts are. A private school that spends too little to effectively educate the child will find parents removing their children from its enrollment. However, this isn't like buying cereal at the grocery store. If your child's education is messed up by the educational equivalent of the Edsel, you can't just chalk it up to "caveat emptor" and resolve to do better with your next kid. The problems created by an over-reliance on privatization and the "free market" could have a profound effect on society as we know it.

In short, this is the shaping of the minds of the next generation of doctors, scientists, lawyers, and politicians, and it is far too vital to be left in the hands of people just trying to make a buck.

but Dems just sat there with a "That sucks. You're an idiot." look on their face.

As opposed to when the Republicans had the same look during Clinton's SOTU?

And as for Cindy Sheehan. ... If only she'd dressed up for the occasion, as dress code dictates, ...

There was no dress code. She was arrested while removing her jacket. Her version of the story here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml

Sheehan wasn't the only one removed. A Republican congressman's wife was also removed for "protesting". Her 'offense' a t-shirt that said "support the troops - defending our freedoms"

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/02/01/Worldandnation/T_shirt_earns_exit_fr.shtml

Democracy is on the march

I watched "Overhaulin'" on TLC. I was afraid that if I watched the SOTU, I'd start screaming at the TV.

Paul

Posted by Den at February 1, 2006 09:23 AM

Just this past month, TMI got caught (again!) with having "inattentive" (that's nuclear industry speak for "asleep on the job") workers and security guards.

Consider the consequences of similar circumstances at most conventional coal plants or even at some hydro plants; i'm not sure about retro-fits at TMI, but the newer nuclear designs would probably d less damage in anything short of a total and complete disaster scenario, and likely even then.

The real problem with nuclear power, though, is not so much the design and operation of a modern plant, it's the fact that we started building power plants 50 years ago and only within the past ten years started seriously building a disposal site for the waste. The delays in getting Yucca Mountain online has added billions to the cost of operating a power plant in the US.

We shouldn't have to build such a facility.

Nature has already provided us with two much better -- shoot it into space, or fuse it in cearamacrete and drop it into a subduction zone.

Of course, the same sort of Naderite fear-mongering that has people convinced that the mere presence of a nucular power plant in the next state will cause their grandchildren to have two heads and the lack of understanding of the basics of plate tectonics among the general public make those a hard sell.

And then there's Pournelle's idea.

For all that people talk about "tons of nuclear wastes", the total volume is actually relatively low. And we have a lot of land that no-one is going to need anytime soon on this continent.

So you seal it in fused ceramacrete (or whetever the actual name for the stuff i'm thinking of is), and you pile it all up in the middle of the desert somewhere tectonically-stable, and you build fences around it at 5-mile intervals (or whatever) with progressively-sterner warning signs in eleventeen different languages, and the signs on the innermost fence say "If you pass this fence you will die."

9:25: "Second guessing isn't a strategy." Considering the lack of strategy going into Iraq in the first place...

Gonna have to disagree with you there, PAD. Although there was no specific strategy for going into Iraq, the war was an offshoot of Bush's plan for the entire war on terror, which is based on the beloved children's game, "Marco Polo."

Which is why I'm not so hard on the guy for not finding Osama... I mean, have you ever played "Marco Polo?" Finding someone while wearing a blindfold is pretty hard...

shoot it into space

Ack! Terrible idea. The Shuttle has about a 1% failure rate. Hate to see, in addition to astronauts, nuclear waste scattered over Florida.

Democracy is on the march

It's common knowledge, and common sense, that it's illegal to protest within the chamber. Some guy got the same treatment a fe years ago for a CLINTON SUCKS T-shirt.

Not to go all Dr Phil but both Sheehan and the Republican wife should get over themselves. It's not ABOUT you!`

The Washington Post reports that she was also "vocal". Don't know what that means. She denies it...but her blog on the incident is a bit confused. She says that she did not mean to make a scene but also says that she wore the shirt to get attention. I don't know...between this and her threat to run against a liberal Senator, it kind of seems like she's having a hard time staying out of the spotlight.

And in case anyone wonders, I'd have felt the same way if someone had invited Junaita Broderick or Jennifer Flowers to a Bill Clinton SOTU and they had shown up in T-shirts expressing their opinions of the president.

It's common knowledge, and common sense, that it's illegal to protest within the chamber

If they're actively protesting, i.e. shouting, jumping up & down, or otherwise drawing attention to themselves, then I agree with you. However, both women were sitting quietly doing no more than wearing t-shirts.

As for the Congressman's wife, what part of ""support the troops - defending our freedoms"
is a protest?

The Washington Post reports that she was also "vocal".

According to her statement in the above article, she was "vocal" 1) in the hallway, not the Congressional chamber, & 2) only after some twit with a badge insisted that she was protesting.

shoot it into space

Ack! Terrible idea. The Shuttle has about a 1% failure rate. Hate to see, in addition to astronauts, nuclear waste scattered over Florida.

No need to use the shuttle or astronauts. Just load the waste onto an unmanned rocket like cargo, set a course for either deep space or the sun, and launch. And hope that in a thousand years from now that it doesn't return like NY City's garbage did.

PAD,

I appreciate your willingness to not only watch the State of the Union, but also to provide a running commentary on it.

Myself, I watched _Supernatural_, followed by the two extant episodes of the _Doctor Who_ story, “The Wheel in Space.” Then I did some work on a novella and some reading.

Somehow, I think I got more out of the evening than you.

On another note, I recently came across an editorial cartoon that shows a sign painter working on a huge sign mounted atop the White House. The sign reads, “Support the Truth.” An agitated Bush is down on the lawn, waving frantically, and shouting, “that’s troops!”

This morning I taped it to the wall next to my desk, directly beneath Bush’s “They never stop thinking of ways to harm America, and neither do we” quote.

Rick

Yes we need more and more people to work in our country, but at the same time we are always doing mass lay offs.

My sister lives in Poughkeepsie, NY, 2 hours north of NYC on the river. since 9-11 houses went crazy. The problem is the mid hundson railraod bridge burned in the 70's, if you don't work retail, you work office. It already is a 300 year old city, with almost the same amount of people as 1900(see wiki) There is little construction, but there really is no factory work. The house here boyfriend bought for 200+K was bought by a lady within a year and a half for 100+K, his house is worth 300+k. That's all great, but even with a job at the post office or home depoe for 12 dollars doesn't get you that house. I don't see anyone staying in that area, that's why the Poughkeepsie has become a run down dump.

He DANCED around illegals. The problem is i can make up a social number on my computer and by LAW they can't tell me it's fake. It's TOO much trouble to report it. My wife can see 3 to 8 a day. You can only not offer them work.

The government doesn't want illegals to leave, they take to low jobs, pay in cash in the area they live and live paycheck to paycheck. If the government didn't want them all they would need to do is go to a factory with temp workers and wait for them to apply for work...

i just wish his days where done so he could write his stupid book and begone ...

Hate to see, in addition to astronauts, nuclear waste scattered over Florida.

NASA recently launched a plutonium(?) powered rocket into space.

So, it can be done, and probably very safely. I guess the question is whether blasting it into space and something happening to the rocket is any worse than burying it in the ground.

It's common knowledge, and common sense, that it's illegal to protest within the chamber.

Ahh. So this is why the Republicans want to get rid of the judicial filibuster. Damn those protestors! :)

I'd still be worried about an unmanned rocket blowing up on its way to space. Now, if the space elevator idea takes off, THAT would be a cool idea. Let's get cracking on those nano-tubes!

Using subduction might work...I'd want to study it first before we start throwing cannisters of radioactivity into the ocean, just in case the result was 200 foot tall dinosaurs with radioactive breath. Though that would be awesome.

"However, both women were sitting quietly doing no more than wearing t-shirts."

As if the Bushites wanted to risk the TV camera finding them and focusing on them. I will bet you that if Bush could have found a way to focus only on the GOP side, and never once allow a shot of the Democrats sitting on their hands, he would have done so in a heartbeat.

PAD

thanks that was amusing

Having worked on the Yucca Flats project in my life as a geologist (which was a loooooonnnnggg time ago), I can say that there ain't no such thing as safety---but that there's a bigger chance of leakage from an accident to the site, than for leakage when it gets there.

Not that this will ever happen; there's too much baggage attached to anything that wreaks of "nuclear" for it to happen (see some of the more braindead criticism of deep space probes like Cassini).

Hate to see, in addition to astronauts, nuclear waste scattered over Florida.

What an asshole thing to say.

I should like to see it???

The fun thing with Sheehan & Young will be seeing how the two sides play it and how it works out in the end. Sheehan has played it up a bit but in the normal (for her) way. The Youngs are pulling strings.

From the ST. Pete Times:

** Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police could not provide details about the incident but said, "She was not ejected from the gallery. She did leave on her own."

Young's husband, a Republican who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee on defense, was unaware she was removed until after the speech. He said he was furious about the incident.

"I just called for the chief of police and asked him to get his little tail over here," Rep. Young said late Tuesday. "This is not acceptable."

Beverly Young said, "Wait until the president finds out." **

"And as for Cindy Sheehan. ... If only she'd dressed up for the occasion, as dress code dictates, ...

There was no dress code. She was arrested while removing her jacket."

No, they both got removed for protesting in the chambers. The shirts were seen as an act of protest and the DC Capitol Police made the right call in both cases. It was just them asking the ladies to have followed the common sense code.

When did T-Shirts become the kind of thing you would wear when going to a State of the Union Address? It boggles the mind.

Of course, I've seen how badly people dress up when they are going to court, so I shouldn't be surprised. I remember cringing when I saw a former student walk in with his cap on backwards and a Beavis & Butthead T-Shirt. The judge gave him a hard time. Meanwhile, I was dressed in a clean shirt and slacks and people were asking me for legal advice.

Now THAT'S wierd: just now on The Simpsons, Marge says "I like T-shirts with nice sayings like 'Support Our Troops'".

Anyway, it looks like all charges against Ms Sheehan have been dropped. There is actually no specific ruling against T-Shirts. I guess the Clinton Sucks guy will get an apology as well.

It was just them asking the ladies to have followed the common sense code.

Sheehan was removed from the building, handcuffed, put into a squad car, taken to a police station, fingerprinted, questioned, & held for several hours.

'just asking someone to do something', would be the officer asking Sheehan to put her jacket back on. Arresting someone is not the same as 'asking someone to do something'.

So you seal it in fused ceramacrete (or whetever the actual name for the stuff i'm thinking of is), and you pile it all up in the middle of the desert somewhere tectonically-stable, and you build fences around it at 5-mile intervals (or whatever) with progressively-sterner warning signs in eleventeen different languages, and the signs on the innermost fence say "If you pass this fence you will die."

One example I use for my students to consider on this issue is the fact that languages change over time. The waste is going to be hot for thousands of years. Consider that 1500 years ago, various Germanic dialectics were only coming together to form Old English, which is completely unintelligible to speakers of modern English. Also, consider the fact that until the Rosetta Stone was found, no one alive knew how to read hieroglyphs. There really is no way to guarantee that 3-5000 years from now, those signs will mean anything to some future civilization.

And you'd have to define "tectonically stable". There's been no volcanic activity at Yucca Mountain for about 5000 years, but that is no guarantee that there won't be any for another 5000.

Fire it into space? It can be done, but not within any margin of error that the public would find acceptable, ie, zero chance of failure. Consider that the Cassini probe only had a few pounds of plutonium and people freaked over finding out about that. Multiple that amount by a few tons and there's no way the public will ever support it.

Subductions zones are something that could be done, but it would require a much larger investment then anyone is willing to pay.

I really think Cindy Sheehan has burned through her 15 minutes by now, but the T-shirt thing is ridiculous. I'd agree that a T-shirt isn't appropriate attire for the occassion, but haul someone out in cuffs and charge them with a crime is stupid beyond words. And yes, it was done to someone during one of Clinton's SOTU addresses and it was wrong then.

Den, actually I think the guy who got hauled off for the anti-Clinton shirt was there during the impeachment hearing not the SOTU. But your point is correct.

Sheehan isn't leaving the spotlight any time soon. She's mulling a run against Dianne Feinstein. I don't get it either.

Consider that 1500 years ago, various Germanic dialectics were only coming together to form Old English, which is completely unintelligible to speakers of modern English. Also, consider the fact that until the Rosetta Stone was found, no one alive knew how to read hieroglyphs. There really is no way to guarantee that 3-5000 years from now, those signs will mean anything to some future civilization.

Do you remember a Discovery Channel piece a few years back that addressed this very issue? They hired poets and artists and linguists to try to come up with some kind of universal symbols that would convey danger in some far flung post English speaking world. They had a tough job because what scares one group--skeletons, for example--might cause an entirely different group to go "Hey cool! Skeletons!"

I think they came up with some kind of weird barbed wire nasty sharp pointy teeth thing. Which for all we know will be the future corporate symbol for Dunkin Donuts.

But is it really likely that our civilization and language will vanish without a trace? The examples of the past may not apply--never before have common languages and symbols been able to be found on every corner of the globe. Anything that destroys Western Civilization to the point where it is forgotten would have to be so catastrophic as to defy imagination.

Then again, 10,000 years is a long time...

"Arresting someone is not the same as 'asking someone to do something'."

No kidding.

You really need to go back to "Light Sarcasm 101" and take a refresher course.

The ladies are free....

As for the speach itself:

Misstatement of the Union
http://www.factcheck.org/article376.html

A couple of updates:

Administration backs away from bush's mideast oil withdrawl:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally

=================

Charges vs. Sheehan dropped

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts,” (Capitol Police Chief Terrance) Gainer’s statement said.

Yes, languages change drastically over time and that could be a problem, but if we haven't come up with a better way to deal with reactor wastes in the next 150-200 years than piling it up behind fences in the desert, it will probably be because we have a lot worse things to worry about.

As if the Bushites wanted to risk the TV camera finding them and focusing on them. I will bet you that if Bush could have found a way to focus only on the GOP side, and never once allow a shot of the Democrats sitting on their hands, he would have done so in a heartbeat.

I'm sure any President would love to have only his supporters in the public eye.

But is it really likely that our civilization and language will vanish without a trace?

There are lots of things that could do it: nuclear holocaust, asteroid hitting the planet, bird flue mutating into an uncontrollable strain, another Bush getting elected.

It's true that technology allows for greater continuity of language and record keeping, but that will only hold up so long as there are people who understand how to build and maintain the technology. A global disaster could wipe out all of that knowledge. Think about how much classical knowledge Europe lost when the Roman Empire fell and only rediscovered it 1,000 years later.

Do you remember a Discovery Channel piece a few years back that addressed this very issue? They hired poets and artists and linguists to try to come up with some kind of universal symbols that would convey danger in some far flung post English speaking world. They had a tough job because what scares one group--skeletons, for example--might cause an entirely different group to go "Hey cool! Skeletons!"

Years ago, a well-known astronomer (Can't remember which right now) came up with a symbol that he thought should be included on one of the Voyager missions. He thought it was a perfectly obvious design to convey why kind of species launched the probe in case it was ever found by aliens. He based it around a group of astronomers. These were his peers, people with the same educational and cultural background as he had.

None of them could figure out what the symbol stood for.

Yes, languages change drastically over time and that could be a problem, but if we haven't come up with a better way to deal with reactor wastes in the next 150-200 years than piling it up behind fences in the desert, it will probably be because we have a lot worse things to worry about.

Perhaps, but for now, the only viable method is deep burial in the bedrock. Everything else is too risky or too expensive or both.

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

So let's recap Dubya's SOTU addresses over the years:

He didn't mean it literally when he said that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were the "axis of evil."

He didn't mean it literally when he said that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

He didn't mean it literally when he said that we will drastically reduce our dependence on ME oil.

Why are they still people on this planet that don't realize the man is full of sh!t whenever he talks?

Ten bucks says Dick's office got a call from ExxonMobile before the speech was even over.

Administration backs away from bush's mideast oil withdrawl:

Well, that's a shocker.

To date, going back to Nixon, we haven't had a president yet who actually had the balls to reduce our depencency on foreign oil (and nobody's really tried in 25 years).

I read something that said only 20% of our oil comes from the Middle East? You'd think we could do something about that rather quickly, even with Venezuela's stupidity.

BTW, if you think expanding nuclear power will have a major impact on our consumption of ME oil, take at look at these statistics from the DOE:

Percentage of each source of electricity generated in the US:

Coal: 49.8%
Nuclear: 19.9%
Natural Gas: 17.9%
Hydroelectric 6.5%
Petroleum: 3.0%
Other Renewables: 2.3%
Other Gases: 0.4%
Other: 0.2%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

Usage of petroleum products by percentage:

Transportation: 67%
Industrial: 23%
Residential/Commercial and Electricy Utility Sectors: 8%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproducts.htm

Note that 8% includes both electrical generation and home/commercial heating.

So, we already generate nearly 7 times as much of our electricity from nuclear power as we do from oil. With coal producing nearly half of our electricity, any expansion of nuclear will greatly impact coal consumption. And coal is entirely a domestic resource. We already get more than twice as much electricity from hydropower! "Other renewables", which includes wind power, already accounts for almost as much electricity as we get from oil. Petroleum is a tiny percentage of our electricity generation.

On the flip side, oil is primarily a transportation energy resource which nuclear power has no transportation application outside of the US Navy. So until nuclear powered cars become a reality, the impact any expansion in nuclear power would have on oil imports would be negligible.

I read something that said only 20% of our oil comes from the Middle East? You'd think we could do something about that rather quickly, even with Venezuela's stupidity.

Here's a chart from the Air Force:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602chart.pdf

Odd that the biggest percentage source in 2001 is listed as "other," but our biggest single source of imporated oil is Canada, followed by Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and then Mexico.

So overall, we get more from the Western Hemisphere then we do the ME, but they are still a significant chunk.

Odd that the biggest percentage source in 2001 is listed as "other," but our biggest single source of imporated oil is Canada, followed by Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and then Mexico.

An article I found, for Nov '05 imports, listed the same lot, but in the order of Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

Still, the fact remains that our government doesn't want to get rid of Middle East oil, even though that oil comes from some of the most repressive governments in the world.

Nigeria being high on the list doesn't help any either, as most of Africa needs to get their act together too.

It's not surprising that Venezuela dropped, since Chavez had announced that he was selling more to China last year.

Bush's family ties to the House of Saud is well documented, so it's not shocking that when push comes to shove, he isn't going to really do anything concrete to end our dependence on foreign oil.

Chavez may be a nutjob and a socialist, but he was elected to his job (before the military coup to oust him backfired, that is). Is it telling that Bush prefers to do business with absolute monarchs and dictators rather then an elected government?

I sat through this sad,sad, attempt at the STATE OF GEORGE BUSH'S MIND - is what it must be called, his fantasy world. The real SATE OF THE UNION could have impeached him; the biggest deficit ever, the lack of rapid response to our natural disasters and yet we run to other countries, sad,sad, I won't even get into his Supreme Court issues-puppets, Condi Rice, so faithful - is there a dental plan that can help her?? Cheney - Fat Cat, Heart Attack-bound, money-hungry monger... We will be paying $5.00 a gallon for gas before the end of 2007. I think I like Robin Williams take on what Bush should do, 1/ Bring all service men home from ALL countries - let them seal off our borders and stop the infiltration of drug, illegal aliens and criminals from entering the US - and what about those new tunnels?? 2/ Make all non-citizens either become citizens or deport them fast. 3/ No foreign student over 21 yrs old - let the potential bombers go elsewhere. 4/ Offer Saudi Arabia $10 a barrel for their oil, if they don't like it we can purchase oil from other countries, and after about a week of their wells and storqage sites filling up and sitting idle, they will compromise to unload the oil. Do you know what many Texans who are not George W. Bush supporters have named him? They call him SHRUB - the lesser of the Bush family.... WE NEED A CHANGE

I sat through this sad,sad, attempt at the STATE OF GEORGE BUSH'S MIND - is what it must be called, his fantasy world. The real STATE OF THE UNION could have impeached him; the biggest deficit ever, the lack of rapid response to our natural disasters and yet we run to other countries, sad,sad, I won't even get into his Supreme Court issues-puppets, Condi Rice, so faithful - is there a dental plan that can help her?? Cheney - Fat Cat, Heart Attack-bound, money-hungry monger... We will be paying $5.00 a gallon for gas before the end of 2007. I think I like Robin Williams take on what Bush should do, 1/ Bring all service men home from ALL countries - let them seal off our borders and stop the infiltration of drugs, illegal aliens and criminals from entering the US - and what about those new tunnels?? 2/ Make all non-citizens either become citizens or deport them fast. 3/ No foreign student over 21 yrs old - let the potential bombers go elsewhere. 4/ Offer Saudi Arabia $10 a barrel for their oil, if they don't like it we can purchase oil from other countries, and after about a week of their wells and storage sites filling up and sitting idle, they will compromise to unload the oil. Do you know what many Texans who are not George W. Bush supporters have named him? They call him SHRUB - the lesser of the Bush family.... WE NEED A CHANGE

Transportation: 67%
Industrial: 23%
Residential/Commercial and Electricy Utility Sectors: 8%

If we increasingly go to rechargeable electric vehicles for short-range travel, having greater nuclear capacity will also affect the transport sector.

As for Industrial, does this mean fuel to run the machines, or does it also count for plastics and other products for which petroleum is a key ingredient?

PAD writes:9:48: "Clean safe nuclear energy." There's a contradiction in terms.

Well, no. It's vastly safer and cleaner than any other form of power generation in widespread use.

If we increasingly go to rechargeable electric vehicles for short-range travel, having greater nuclear capacity will also affect the transport sector.

True, but until manufacturers can make them cheaper with a shorter recharge time, they aren't going to be practical for anything other than very short range travel.

As for Industrial, does this mean fuel to run the machines, or does it also count for plastics and other products for which petroleum is a key ingredient?

Mostly plastics, pesticides, lubricants, and other such products. Most assembly line machines are electrical anyway.

Sure, nuclear power is cleaner than god knows what else as long as everything and everyone works the way they're supposed to. It's that LAST part that scares the living crap out of people. And as far as the whole oil addiction that we all seem to have, here's a thought for the government. Stop flying people around to different places around the country for photo ops! THERE's a thought, huh? "I'm doing my part to reduce our oil dependence by staying in DC and, you know, doing the job you elected me to." Can you see any politicians doing that? Seriously, the difference between most politicians and most entertainers is the entertainers at least have some talent....

1

What a bunch of drivel.

Posted by Den at February 2, 2006 09:52 AM

On the flip side, oil is primarily a transportation energy resource which nuclear power has no transportation application outside of the US Navy. So until nuclear powered cars become a reality, the impact any expansion in nuclear power would have on oil imports would be negligible.

Actually, once nuclear energy comes really online, then we can actually go to hydrogen-powered vehicles (whether Internal Combustion or fuel cell); with conventional-fuel p[ower sources, such "solutions" to pollution/fuel cost problems actually makes things worse in some waways as they make it better in others -- gebnerating the power to make the hydrogen to run the car, using fossil-fuel plants, will produce more pollution than burning petroleum directly, due to inefficiencies in conversion, and will concentrate it more.

Actually, if we could switch the railroads to either electric power (given nuclear plants) or could build some of the high-efficiency coal fired steam designs that have been proposed (don't laugh -- look for the engineering reports on the ACE3000 project -- a coal-fired modern steam design that at current fuel prices would cost less per ton-mile to operate than most diesel designs AND produce less pollution), it would freee up a fair amount of oil fo Other Purposes, right there.

Den, you seem to be pretty up to date on this stuff. So you're suggesting that instead of one big fix we need to look at various solutions, none of which will solve the problem all at once but in total add up to something significant? That sounds a lot more practical.

Since you brought it up earlier, what exactly is the problem with using subduction plates to dispose of waste? Is it that the containers would be destroyed in the process, releasing the waste or is it that it would take too long?

It's frustrating that we are sitting on a planet that has a virtually unlimited supply of heat in it's interior and can't figure out a way to harness it. Geothermal energy may be impossible to utilize due to purely physical constraints but if so what a shame. Wouldn't it be great to have gigantic FORBIDDEN PLANET type underground energy factories? Then again, it didn't work out so hot for the Krell.

Basically, yeah, there is never going to be one single source of energy that is going to be meet our needs. We still have about 400 years worth of coal in the ground, so even though people tend to associate it with the past, it's going to be a big part of our energy production for a long time. Fortunately, there are technologies coming into play to make it cleaner.

A lot of states are starting to look seriously at wind power, so expect the percentage of our electricity coming from that to increase in the coming decade. Biofuels are also considered "in vogue", particularly biodiesel (diesel derived from used cooking oil - yes your truck will smell like french/freedom fries!).

Ethanol, mentioned in Bush's SOTU, is currently used in many places as a fuel additive. The problem is, we use corn-derived ethanol, which actually consumes more petroleum products to grow then it displaces at the gas pump. Brazil has had a successful program since the 70s using ethanol derived from sugarcane, but our obscenely high tariffs on sugarcane has keeped it out of the USA market. The new technique touted now is deriving it from corn stalks and switch grass. As these are essentially waste products of agriculture, it's possible that this could actually reduce our petroleum consumption.

Hydropower has already been maxed out. There are only so many places where you can build a Hoover dam. Geothermal is an underutilized source of energy and we will probably see more of it used for heating homes and offices in the future.

Hydrogen is either the fuel of the future or a huge boondogle, depending on who you talk to. It burns cleaner then any of the fossil fuels and does not generate carbon dioxide. Plus, homes heated by natural gas can be easily switched to accepting hydrogen. But it does have some drawbacks, including the expense and energy required for electrolysis. Using petroleum products or natural gas to free hydrogen from water does nothing to reduce our air pollution or our consumption of fossil fuels. Using nuclear power is one option. Another possibility being looked at is setting up solar power plants in southern California, where it's sunny most of the year to produce the hydrogen. Either way, they'd need to compress it to a liquid for transport across the country, which further adds to the expense. But, if oil prices continue their upward crawl, hydrogen may become more competitive.

Once these details are worked out, the only remaining obstacle would be to convert all of the gas stations in the country to hydrogen stations.

Of course, if we can convert more of our transportation infrastructure to electricity or hydrogen, our need for imported oil would be drastically reduced.

The obstacles for subduction disposal are twofold: 1) Getting the waste to the ocean floor near the subduction zone. Currently, ocean disposal of nuclear waste is banned by international treaty; 2) Drilling deep enough in the crust. As one plate slides under another, often the a large portion of the lower plate gets scraped off and doesn't go under the upper plate. Currently, the capability to drill deep enough into the plate to avoid this is not feasible, but may be in the future. Of course, the nice thing about it, is that once the waste enters the mantle, it will take longer for it to return to the surface then it will for it to decay.

"On the flip side, oil is primarily a transportation energy resource which nuclear power has no transportation application outside of the US Navy."

Anyone else remember the Air Force experiments in nuclear-powered aircraft involving a modified B-36 back in the 50s? Not surprisingly, given up as impractical.

As for nuclear-powered cars ...

Space probes have long used radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), SNAP-3s for example, for long-term power sources. The original ones only supplied a couple of watts - albeit over a very long term, but more recent designs churn our hundreds of watts. Given the weight and space restrictions in a space probe, these should be able to fit in a conventional car. The question then becomes, how much more efficient can they be made to be, and how many would be needed to power a small electric vehicle?

OK, we won't talk about cost ... ;-)

Anyone else remember the Air Force experiments in nuclear-powered aircraft involving a modified B-36 back in the 50s? Not surprisingly, given up as impractical.

Yep. I've often wondered if the true story behind Roswell didn't involve some kind of experiment with a nuclear powered aircraft or an aircraft carrying some kind of (nonexplosive) nuclear device.

The question then becomes, how much more efficient can they be made to be, and how many would be needed to power a small electric vehicle?

Yeah, because if there's anything the public would be willing to buy, is a car with 70 pounds of plutonium (even if you told them it was non-fissionable Pu-238) under the hood.

And for more wonderful shits & giggles, I give you the latest from Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld likens Chavez of Venezuela to Hitler

Excuse me while I go find a mirror large enough to encompass the collective ego of the White House and put it on the front lawn.

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added.

Rumsfeld later added, "And we can't figure out how to divert into Haliburton's coffers."

I'm guessing the PNAC invasion list goes like this: Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

BTW, remember when we were told the reconstruction of Iraq would pay for itself?

Posted by Craig J. Ries at February 3, 2006 02:57 PM

And for more wonderful shits & giggles, I give you the latest from Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld likens Chavez of Venezuela to Hitler

I was going to roast them over that on my own blog, and then i went to Wikipedia for the exact wording of Godwin's Law...

And what i found there pretty much furnished my rant's text for me.

And what i found there pretty much furnished my rant's text for me.

While I always find that Law amusing, I think it doesn't always apply.

I mean, Milosevic has kind of earned the right to be compared to Hitler - giving the thumbs up to genocide tends to do that.

What boggles me about this one is that Rumsfeld makes the comparison on the fact that Chavez was legally elected to office.

Now, let that one sink in a bit...

Chavez hasn't gone off killing anybody, hasn't started any wars. Sure, he's a bit looney, but he seems to enjoy taking US money for his oil.

So... has that bit about being elected to office legally sunk in yet?

Unfortunately for Rummie, this has invited a far better comparision between Bush and Hitler than Chavez will ever achieve.

Spying, torture, rendition, starting wars, not caring how many innocents are killed along the way, threatening those that don't step in line or speak out against the government and war.

Sure, it isn't Nazi Germany, but it's a few small steps closer.

Unfortunately for Rummie, this has invited a far better comparision between Bush and Hitler than Chavez will ever achieve.

Well, except for the part about Hitler being legally elected... :-)

The analogy to Hitler is always unnecessary. It has no purpose but to inflame. The actions of world leaders speak for themselves. They do not need to be compared to Nazi, or even come close, to be wrong.

Sorry, PAD, but your SotU commentary has been outdone:

Link of the Day!

:)

Sorry for the delayed response, but work precluded an earlier one.

Luigi Novi: One more time: We aren't talking about breaking the law. We're talking about the PRODUCT that consumers CHOOSE. When you go to the supermarket, you can buy whichever brand of soup, peanut butter, or whatever you want…

StarWolf: One word: Microsoft.
Luigi Novi: You don’t have to buy Microsoft if another company makes a better product. No one is forcing you to buy Microsoft. But if you insist on using this as an example, me ask you: Would you prefer if the only maker of computer products was the government? Yeah, that’d really be great for the industry, wouldn’t it? If the government fell behind the cutting edge, the consumer would be able to…….well, do nothing, really, since the government is a monopoly itself. The French government, which was one of the first governments to embrace computer technology, tried this with the Minitel computer in the 80s, giving a free e-phonebook to each citizen, which would allow them to do banking at home, and so forth. Guess what? They fell behind on the times. Because it was controlled by the government, its growth was stunted. Officials in charge couldn’t keep up with the countless experiments done in the U.S., where the Internet, not controlled by the govt. or anyone, flourished. The French government still offers the Minitel, but it’s considered a dinosaur, and they’ve lost the race.

StarWolf: As for the private sector being inherently better than government, this is by no means necessarily true.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I don’t recall saying it was. I recall saying that it does things better than the government, which is true. As economist Walter Williams argues, look at the areas in which consumers tend to be the happiest: Supermarkets. Computers. FedEx.

Now look at the areas in which people tend to be mostly dissatisfied: The post office. Garbage collection. Public housing. Public schools. Police services. The DMV.

Notice any pattern?

The former tend to be private companies, whereas the latter are government-controlled. (And please spare me counterarguments based solely on isolated, non-representative examples like, “Well, I had a bad experience with a supermarket once,” or “I’m perfectly satisfied with my garbage collection…” The issue is where people are GENERALLY satisfied or not.)

Another example of how private companies do things better than the government was what Jersey City, NJ (next door to my hometown of Union City) did with its water supply. As with many American cities, Jersey City’s water pipes were rusted, the water tasted bad, it failed the government’s own tests, and grew increasingly more expensive. City workers told Mayor Brett Schundler that there was nothing they could do, and couldn’t even slow the price increase. So Schundler did something unusual: He put the water contract out for bid. A for-profit company, United Water won it, and within months, they fixed the pipes, the water became cleaner and safer, meeting the highest standards for the first time in years, and became cheaper too, saving the city $35 million. Why? Because the company that gets the contract from the city wants to keep it. So it makes sure that it does the job better than anyone else. When interviewed, the United Water workers, who used to work for Jersey City Water before the privatization, stated that they work harder, and goof off and take coffee breaks far less than they did under the government. It’s not surprising why.

A similar example is what Ellis County, Florida did with their EMS service. It was slow (one headline mentioned a widow’s five hour wait after dialing 911!), and the costs for it kept going up. So like Jersey City, they privatized it, and it improved. Paramedics, not dispatchers, answer the phones. They give the callers medical advice while you’re waiting. And they the ambulances got to callers sooner thanks to a satellite tracking system telling the dispatchers which ambulances were closer (a system that few government-controlled EMS services use). And as a result of the reduced cost, taxes went down eight years in a row.

Letting a company care about the bottom line is far better for society than having the government step in and controlling or seizing everything, when what the government does best is secure and protect our lives and our rights.

StarWolf: Consider that taxpayers insist that government be accountable and that it avoids waste at all costs. Trouble is, this necessitates a bureaucracy which is in itself inherently wasteful. Spending $75 to track a $6 petty cash expenditure? But, hey, at least we know the $6 wasn't spent frivolously. Taxpayers have no one to blame but themselves for that sort of thing.
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry, were you trying to help my argument, or refute it? Because it seems that you started off (and ended, for that matter), saying that the argument that the private sector does not do things more efficiently than the government, yet the example you use here is one that illustrates how it is the government that is bureaucratic and financially inefficient and irresponsible.

StarWolf: Too, I work in a computer/informatics section in the Canadian government, and, though I admit we aren't perfect, we've had a lot fewer problems with internal screwups than we have had with our dealing with private sector.
Luigi Novi: Obviously, this is an extremely silly example to use, because whereas the question is whether private companies do things better and more efficiently than the government, the example you use is one in which the customer is the government itself, which muddles the argument.

If my position is that the government does not do things as well as the private sector because it has no profit motive, is slow to innovate or modernize, and is not accountable to anyone because it cannot be “fired” (which is all true, of course), then the exact same problem will be present when the government is the customer, for the exact same reasons. If a government housing projects, post offices, schools, etc., are inefficient, slow, run-down, etc., why would the situation be any different when the government is the customer? A private citizen who orders stuff from AT&T can, if they’re dissatisfied, return it, complain to the company, sue the company, go elsewhere, call the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, the local news, etc. But when the customer is the government, it will be less likely to do this for the exact same reason it is less likely to improve when it is dealing directly with its own citizens.

Far from disproving my, point, you just proved it!

Again!

Seriously, perhaps it would behoove to you argue in a more objective fashion, without arbitrarily picking examples simply because you yourself happen to be in them. A better example, since you brought up Canada, is air traffic control. The US. System is a joke. At the time of the aforementioned special, the FAA still used antiquated vacuum tubes in its AIC consoles, which were taken of out TV’s years ago. Flights are often late or delayed. An FAA report admitted that it was largely to blame. But in Canada, they privatized ATC system, and the difference was astonishing. Whereas AI controllers used to write info down on little pieces of paper and slide them around (as they were still doing in the U.S.), they switched over to a computerized system. Delays are down. They ended up saving $250 million.

Craig: Ever been poor, Luigi?
Luigi Novi: Ever use an ad hominem argument, Craig? Or deliberately quote someone out of context?

The real exchange (as you well know) was this:

Craig: Privitization of schools doesn't do anything but guarantee that only those with money get the best education.

Luigi Novi: EVERYONE has money. They're called taxes. And most everyone pays their taxes. With privatization, you should be able to take your money where you want, and spend it on the school of your choice. Right now, you can only do that if you're well-to-do.

The point I was clearly making was that it’s ridiculous to argue that privatization will only work for those who have money, when the money in question can be the TAX MONEY that citizens are ALREADY PAYING. You know, and I know it. But you blatantly chopped out the rest of the statement that clearly provided that context. Nice little attempt at a lie, Craig.

But no cigar.

If citizens were allowed to send their children where they wanted, and use their tax money for the schools they wanted, they could use it to pay whatever schools they want. They can’t do that now. You have to pay your taxes, and are forced to send your kids to the public schools where you live. If you want to send them to a private school, you can’t ask the government to give you back the taxes you spent on education to be put to a different school. You’d have to pay for that private school in addition to the taxes you spend, rather than by using those taxes. If you’re well-to-do, you can do that. But if you’re not well-to-do, you can’t.

But since you ask, I am poor.

But I pay my taxes.

Does that answer your question? :-)

Craig: What you want to do is increase the gap between rich and poor, by making sure that the poor DO NOT have the ability to choose, because they cannot afford to choose.
Luigi Novi: Are you implying that they have the ability to choose now? Because right now, they don’t have the right to choose. But if the government would “attach” the money to each child regardless of where that child went to school, or implemented a voucher system, or just let parents use their money the way they wanted, they’d have more of a chance to do so. How such systems would increase the gap between rich and poor, I don’t know.

In Belgium, for example, the money is attached to each student, so they can go wherever they want (a Catholic school, A Muslim school, a state school), and they do better, even though it’s less than what’s spent on American children. Because of this, there is a lot of pressure on each school and their teachers to please the parents. So consequently, the do a better job.

Craig: If you privatize education, you're only ensuring that lower income families do not have a choice, if they can even afford ANY choice.
Luigi Novi: Right, because right now, they really have that choice, right? Surrrre.

Craig: And my point about the Enrons and so forth is that there is no guarantee that privatization won't screw everybody over…
Luigi Novi: Funny, I didn’t say there was. But you seem to be arguing that the entire system doesn’t work as long as there are exceptional cases of companies breaking the law. Obviously, this a fallacious argument, because most companies play by the rules, and if they don’t, their actions will be exposed and they’ll pay for it. Using Enron to condemn private industry is stupid, and roughty equivalent to using the regimes of Castro or Stalin to condemn ALL forms of government control or regulation, or arguing that you can’t “guarantee” that airplanes or cars won’t be involved in accidents, so therefore, we should not have those things. The point is, in our country, people are generally willing to take the risks associated with living in a free society. The idea that you can condemn entire systems based solely on rare exceptions is a fallacy.

Craig: because you'll have the government being pushed around by those in charge of the schools.
Luigi Novi: Huh? What are you talking about? What do you mean “pushed around”? In what way? How? Explain yourself.

Craig: If you think the public education system is bad now, go ahead, throw more private schools and voucher bs into the equation.
Luigi Novi: Interesting argument. “The situation’s bad, so let’s NOT change it, even though other countries that do it this other way have it better!” Really solid logic ya got going there.

Luigi Novi: One more time: We aren't talking about breaking the law. We're talking about the PRODUCT that consumers CHOOSE.

rrlane: Children aren't a product, and that's where most of these types of analogies break down.
Luigi Novi: I agree, which is why I never said children are a product.

If you actually read the statement carefully, you’d see I couldn’t have possibly have been referring to children. Look closely at it, rrlane. What do you see? Well, when I look over it, I see mention of consumers CHOOSING the product. Please explain to me how this could have been a reference to children. Do parents “choose” their children? Um, nope.

The product that they’re choosing is the SCHOOL.

“That school has an innovative way to teach history!”

“That over there is less expensive!”

“This other one’s teachers are the top rated!”

“And that school has a great performing arts program!”

“Gee, which one do we choose for our child?”

The product is the school. Not the kids.

rrlane: A business can stay profitable only if it has the option of changing its product, reducing (or increasing) its output, and/or shifting its focus to suit the needs of the consumer. In other words, you can phase out an unprofitable product, but how do you phase out a line of students that aren't performing up the standards?
Luigi Novi: Again, students are not the product. The school and the education it offers is. Schools have to meet a certain standards in order to impress prospective parents (test scores, class sizes, industry ratings, teacher reputations, school safety, tuition costs, maybe some bells and whistles like how pretty their campus is, how clean or new the school is, etc.) So long as it meets those standards, the parents will want to send their kids there. If competing schools are neck and neck with one another in meeting them, the schools will try to top one another by building newer wings, offering more programs, etc. Private industry, when it has to compete, finds out how to do what it does better than its competitors. The government doesn’t have to do this, and as a result, the U.S. public education system is poor.

And why ask this question only as it pertains to privatization? Aren’t there private schools operating now? Isn’t it generally accepted that private schools do better than public ones? Why do you suppose that is? What do those private schools do when a student doesn’t perform well? Do they “phase them out”? The fact of the matter is, students generally do better because the school is private. Because the school has a profit motive, they have incentive to do better than public ones, because they have to find a way to persuade parents to choose them over the public one.

Even if they did “phase out,” they can go to another school. You can do that when you have a CHOICE. Insofar as their taxpayer money, American parents do not have this.

rrlane: Merit pay is a joke for the same reason. We are comparing apples to oranges when we try to force education into molds that work for the private sector. If my pay is based on how my students perform, then I'm going to do better or worse year to year based on the attitude not only of the students themselves but on how seriously education is taken in the households of the students.
Luigi Novi: And the problem with this is……………?

If parents care enough about their kids to send them to private schools, wouldn’t that indicate that they take their kids’ education pretty damn seriously? Are you implying that lack of such seriousness would really be an epidemic problem among parents? It almost sounds as if you’re blaming the parents.

rrlane: I have nothing against private schools teachers. They went to the same universities, had the same courses and got the same grades as most public school teachers. The difference is in (ahem) the product. You have, by and large, students enrolled in private schools because, if nothing else, the parents cared enough to go the financial extra mile in order to get their kids in their. If their kids start messing up, the schools have the option of dropping them. Where do the expelled kids go? Public schools. If you have privatization, are you going to allow the owners of the schools to drop the students that aren't performing well? Where do they go? If you aren't going to let them drop them, then you'll be in the same situation you have with public schools.
Luigi Novi: Reductio ad absurdum.

You envision an absurd scenario, and use that to argue against privatization, without ever even bothering to try establishing that the scenario in question would follow from it. For example, how does one assume a situation in which “their kids start messing up?” What exactly does this mean? What exactly does “messing up” mean? Having problems with a particular portion of the curriculum? Getting wrong answers? Failing a test? Failing many tests? Having difficulty with a particular subject? An entire group of students experiencing this? What?

These things sometimes happen with students to one degree or another, in all schools. It is specious to argue that this is somehow inherent only to private schools, and even dumber to argue that it is something specific only to the proposal of further or total privatization. What happens when it happens in public schools? Do the schools “expel” students for failing tests or having difficulty there? If not, why would it happen at a private school? Why would it occur with enough of a wide swath of students to make it a problem? For that matter, is this a problem now with private schools? How do such schools address such problems now? It’s such a silly argument that it barely qualifies as caricature. It almost sounds as if you’re arguing that it doesn’t matter how lousy a group of kids is doing in a public school, just so as long as the school isn’t kicking them out, as if the kids’ mere presence there is somehow more important than how well they’re doing. I know that’s not what you intended, but the way you argue this point, it certainly comes off sounding that way.

Obviously, private schools are better than public schools, by and large. Private companies find ways to do things better than their competitors, which is how they stay in business. They find new and innovative teaching methods to keep students interested, they make sure teachers spend more time with students, including ones having difficulty. They make sure class sizes are small. The bottom line is, they know they won’t get more parents paying them tuition if they don’t persuade those parents to do so by showing them why they’re better than the other guy. Because of this, large numbers of students aren’t going to “mess up” or be “dropped,” so the question is entirely moot.

rrlane: What we need is to hold the students and parents more accountable. I think we ought to revamp the compulsory education model in this country. Education should remain a right, but it should be a right that can be lost, or at least modified.
Luigi Novi: That students and parents need to be made accountable is not something I would disagree with, but why would you remove teachers from this equation? Are you saying that teachers don’t need an incentive to make sure they do their jobs well? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Bladestar: The government is SUPPOSED to exist to help the citizens of the country.
Luigi Novi: Which does not mean that it does so better than private companies.

Which is more important to you, Bladestar? That the job actually gets done? Or the continued adherence to a pro-government principle, even in the face of evidence that it doesn’t do the job as well as a private company? Me, when I want to get something done, I want it done. I’m not going to pour more time, money and whatever else into the government’s mullet just to support an invalid ideology.

To use another example, let’s use the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Wal-Mart’s relief efforts for New Orelans were so much more better organized than FEMA’s that in some cases, Wal-Mart arrived at locations before FEMA, and some are suggesting studying how Wal-Mart runs things. Someone asked why can’t the government do things like Wal-Mart, and all I could think was, “DUH! Because governments don’t have an incentive to do so! Private organizations DO. They have the profit motive that forces them to innovate, to be efficient, organized, cost-effective, and so forth. If they don’t, they cease to exist, lose contracts, lose customers, etc. But the government can’t lose customers or be fired because it’s………a MONOPOLY! It keeps getting your tax dollars regardless of whether it does things well because it has the force of law. In capitalism, private companies have to persuade you to give them your money. Now granted, Wal-Mart wasn’t making profit from its Katrina relief efforts, because this was part of its charity work, but arguably, the procedures and protocols by which it runs things was presumably the same ones it uses in running its stores. Asking if governments should study how Wal-Mart does things is pointless, because governments simply do not modernize or innovate well. Because a government has no incentive, it tends to be bureaucratic, slow, incompetent, and wasteful. Yeah, you could say someone was held accountable because Mike Brown was fired, but so what? Did that keep all those people from dying and suffering? Did it get those relief supplies there faster than WM?

You can pine all you want for some pie-in-the-sky principle that says that government should do this and that better than the private guy.

But the bottom line is, it DOESN’T.

To confuse the prescriptive (the way you think it should be) with the descriptive (the way it is), much as right-wingers do when they refuse to let kids learn about birth control in school, arguing that they shouldn’t be having sex (thus ignoring the fact that they are having it), is naïve, arrogant, and leads to disaster.

Bladestar: Businesses exist to make a profit at the expense of everyone else, especially the consumer.
Luigi Novi: Of course they do. That’s the whole point. In a free market society, businesses make sense at the expense of the consumer because they persuade the customer that their product is worth that expense.

Bladestar: And as far as "choice" for consumers, what a load of crap. How many actual different, for example, banks are there anymore? They all keep merging or buying each other out, smae with phone companies. And even at the grocery stores, you may see 10 different "Brands" of a product, but if you trace them all back, you see maybe 2-3 ultimate companies that own/produce those 10 brands. You have no real choice anymore....
Luigi Novi: So in other words, you’re complaining that we don’t have choice, right? Does that mean that you……….want choice? So if you want choice, who is going to provide it to you? The government? Or private industry?

Complaining when companies merge or when a certain product isn’t offered in enough varieties by a enough different companies is certainly a valid complaint, but is entirely separate from the issue of which system in general is set up to offer such choice. The issue is not whether you happen to be experiencing a problem with a private company or a certain product. The issue (particular as it goes back to the original topic on education), is which is better: The government, or private companies? When you stick to that issue, the answer is simple: Private companies. Whatever problems you have with a given company or product, in general, it would be worse if the government offered the only version. Complaining about specific examples where the free market is being violated by mergers or broken monopoly laws is fallacious, because if such laws are broken, the violators should be addressed. If the regulations are being repealed, we should vote to have them reinstated. Arguing about this bank or that supermarket product or this phone company is akin to saying, “Well, I’m against the auto industry being private, because I just bought an Edsel/Goodyear tire/gas-guzzling SUV (fill in the blank), and it sucks! Let’s have the government nationalize the auto industry! Then cars will be really swell! After all, a government monopoly is so much better than a private monopoly!”

I hope you see the flaw in this logic.

You mentioned the phone company. Honestly, would you rather that the phone company be controlled by the government? Because guess what, Bladestar? Once upon a time, it was. And it sucked.

All the phones were black. All the calls were expensive. It was illegal to plug in an answering machine, which was called a “foreign device.” Now, there are different companies to buy cell phones from, dozens of different plans to choose, different styles of phone, different features, etc.

You also mentioned the supermarket. When I go to the supermarket, I usually buy the store brand, which is cheaper, and the same product. Thus, I have choice. Would you prefer that there were only one version of a product and that it was offered by the government? Just how good do you think that product would be? How well do you think the government would respond to customer complaints if they didn’t like it? And how much choice do you think you’d have in not continuing to pay for it, given that that’s what you do every April, regardless of how shitty that product is?

Luigi Novi: Companies, when they have to compete for your dollar, are accountable to the consumer insofar as who buys their product. I'm not talking about accountability regarding their illegal activities. If schools are privatized, they will each compete to make themselves look more attractive than the other, which they do by finding newer, better, and/or cheaper means of accomplishing the task you want them too. The way it is now, you have to send your kid to whatever school your kid lives in, or else pay for private school with money OTHER than the taxes you're already paying to the government anyway.

John Seavey: The flaw in this logic is that it assumes the best way to make money in private education is to give the best education to a child.
Luigi Novi: No it does not.

It asserts (not assumes) that private institutions provide better education than public ones, and opines (not assumes) that because of this, citizens should have the right to do what they want with their own education money, rather than being forced to give it to the government, which does an inferior job. The central point of this thread has been the quality of education, who gives a better one, and proposals as to what parents should be permitted to do about it. It has not been about the best way to make money, only what citizens should do with it.

John Seavey: Whereas in actual fact, the best way to make money in private education is to spend the least amount of money educating the child, while extracting the most amount of money from the parent--in other words, giving the worst education parents will tolerate while charging them the most amount of money they are willing to pay.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but I agree that throwing money at the education problem doesn’t solve it.

A Kansas City judge tried improving that school district by throwing $2 billion at it. They built schools with indoor Olympic swimming pools, indoor tracks, state-of-the-art gyms and computer labs. They had so much money that when they wanted to bring in more white kids into the school, they didn’t merely bus, them but got about 120 taxis to transport them. The result?

It got worse.

By 2000, failed Kansas City schools to meet any of state’s standards, and they lost their accreditation. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jay P. Greene, author of Education Myths (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742549771/qid=1139194408/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1163192-8668756?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) points out, the idea that spending more money on students necessarily improves their education is a myth, as we’ve doubled the amount we spend on each student over the last 30 years (adjusted for inflation), spening $10G on each student per year, and schools aren’t better.

As profiled on 20/20, Ben Chafeds, who used to be a principal in a public school, and now runs an alternative middle school in Oakland, and spends far LESS on students. To save money, he has the kids pick up garbage around the school, set up the tables for lunch, etc. His school does not have a full-time janitor, security guards, a pool, or even a gym, a cafeteria staff, or computers. During gym, they simply have the kids run laps around the block. This means there’s more money for teaching, and indeed, Chafeds pays his teachers more. He himself also gets involved, visiting every class regular, and uses other gimmicks, like small cash payments for perfect attendance. And guess what the result is?

Since he took over the school four years ago, his school went from being one of the worst in Oakland, to being the BEST. His school has the highest test scores in the city.

Another example is Theresa Middleton, who spends only $3,000 per child in her South Carolina school. She makes the classes fun, and the kids are enthusiastic to learn. And yet, her first graders can read. They could go to a public school (where they spend $9,000 on each child) and make the honor roll.

John Seavey: However, this isn't like buying cereal at the grocery store. If your child's education is messed up by the educational equivalent of the Edsel, you can't just chalk it up to “caveat emptor” and resolve to do better with your next kid.
Luigi Novi: No, you can complain to the school (if you determine that it’s their fault, and not yours or your kid’s), and they can address the problem with extra tutoring time, remedial work, etc. If they don’t offer this, or you don’t feel they’re addressing the problem sufficiently, you can threaten to take your kid (and the tuition you’re paying for his education), to another institution.

In any case, just how much of your kid’s education can be “messed up” before the problem comes to light and it is addressed by both the school and the kid’s parents? This is one of the strengths of a free market system: It can compensate for changes in the market place in days, minutes, or even seconds. Governments do not. If they ever do, they take years, or decades.

When you talk about your kid’s education being “messed up”, and mention the “next kid,” it almost sounds as if you’re alluding to the idea that the first kid’s education is completely and irreparably ruined. How the hell is this? What talk about the next child? What’s wrong with the first one? Exactly what kind of situation would cause this to happen in such a way that his entire education, from K-12, is ruined, and cannot be helped? When a kid does badly on a test, or does badly over a enough of a period of time that he begins experiencing an overall general decline in his grades, the school and the parents tend to notice, and do something about it, and this will be especially the case in the private sector. You make it sound as if an isolated period of poor performance means the kid’s entire school career is ruined, which, much like many other of the pro-govt., anti-free market arguments in this thread, is just plain mind-bogglingly silly.

To illustrate how profit motive encourages companies to find new and better ways of doing things, look at Dorian Cane, who was also profiled on 20/20. At 18, he could barely read. He wanted to, and the school, tried to meet with Dorian and his mom, with the school principal, resource teacher, school counselor, gym teacher, the Director of the Programs for Exceptional Children, and the District Special Ed Coordinator all attending the meeting. But they didn’t go much for him. During the 45-minute meeting, the principal insisted he was during well, and his mother kept bringing up the same issue: the fact that he was not reading. So 20/20 sent Dorian to the Sylvan Learning Center, a private institution.

And guess what?

After just 72 hours of instruction, Dorian’s reading was up more than two grade levels. By comparison, South Carolina spent $100,000 on Dorian over 12 years, and he was still left behind.

John Seavey: In short, this is the shaping of the minds of the next generation of doctors, scientists, lawyers, and politicians, and it is far too vital to be left in the hands of people just trying to make a buck.
Luigi Novi: There’s that idea again that principles or motives are more important than results.

They’re not.

Results count.

Private institutions get better results than public ones. Period.

This argument also ignores the fact that EVERYONE is “trying to make a buck”, including the employees of both government and private institutions. If you think a government worker gets up to do his job because he “cares” about you, then you’re woefully naïve. He does it to put food on his table, just as much as his private industry counterpart. The idea that the people who work in private industry somehow work for motives other than those who work in the government (as if every single teacher in the public system necessarily went into that profession solely for altruistic reasons, and not for health benefits, free summers, etc.) is just flat-out stupid. The bottom line is, things get done in a free market economy with a low-to-moderate amount of regulation. They do not get done as well with more government control.

Mike Weber: So you seal it in fused ceramacrete (or whetever the actual name for the stuff i'm thinking of is)…
Luigi Novi: I think you might be talking about cermet, which is ceramic and metal.

Rat: Sure, nuclear power is cleaner than god knows what else as long as everything and everyone works the way they're supposed to. It's that LAST part that scares the living crap out of people.
Luigi Novi: Replace “nuclear power” with “cars,” “natural gas,” “airplanes,” “swimming pools,” “bicycles,” or “five gallon buckets”, and the statement works just as well, except for the fact that each one of those things have killed far more people than nuclear power ever has.

Raise your hand, everyone who wants to outlaw any of those things.

Anyone? Anyone?

:-)

Luigi, there is something inherently wrong with the system if someone as smart as you is poor. Unless you deliberately chose a profession where poverty is Just The Way It Is.

I wouldn't underestimate the value of being able to kick students out. My two daughters go to a private school. They have seen several students expelled in just one year, for disciplinary violations. Result? While the remaining students may not be angels, you can walk from one end to the other without once encountering the kind of loser that exists at my school, the kids who are there only because it is part of their parole requirements. They poison the atmosphere. I'd say about 2-5% of our school population is terminally criminal. Which gives us a vast majority of good kids, sure, but we have around 2000 kids. That works out to 40-100 delinquents, no small number. If they ever organized...

It's a rare teacher who can't say that there aren't one or two kids whose absence makes the entire class run more smoothly. We can't remove them without serious provocation and the potential consequences often make that too risky, unless they do something so over the top that no other choice is possible. Meanwhile, when my darling daughters got involved in a minor bit of mischief we heard about it and gave them Holy Hell. The possibility of having them removed from the school with no refund is a powerful motivator for change.

All that said, where are we gonna send the kids we remove from a public school? The streets?

Bill, thank you for the very kind compliment.

To be perfectly candid, my situation is more a result of my own being side-tracked after graduating college, not only by the piece-of-crap job I have, but with other problems that I feel I only myself to blame as well. But I'm hoping to put some pages together, and make it to the convention at the end of this month, and maybe catch a break, something I should've done a long time ago.

Thanks again.

Nice little attempt at a lie, Craig.

Nice attempt at bullshit, Luigi.

Do you realize how many people in this country cannot pay their heating bills each winter? And, last I checked, most energy companies were not government owned & maintained, like you complain about so badly with schools.

But people still don't have the money to pay their bills.

So how the hell am I lying when I say people wouldn't have the money to pay for schools, either?

Really solid logic ya got going there.

Funny, considering I never said we shouldn't try and improve things. But then, I'm not calling you a liar for what you've said, either.

You generally make some great arguments, Luigi. But this time, you're falling flat on your face.

Luigi, there is something inherently wrong with the system if someone as smart as you is poor. Unless you deliberately chose a profession where poverty is Just The Way It Is.

Bingo! There's something inherently wrong with ANY system that involves a human factor, and particularly in a system where police, teachers, firemen, and our friend Luigi here barely scrape by, but (just as an example) an individual whose sole skill is beating people half to death makes millions.

But that's a totally different rant altogether...

-Rex Hondo-

Not to step into the line of fire here, but there seems to be a slight disconnect.

Craig, if I understand Luigi's comments, then your comparison of schools and heating companies does not entirely hold up. People's tax money is not already partially allocated for heating and cooling as it is for education. A simple re-allocation of the taxes people are already paying for education would not add extra financial strain.

Also, as harsh as it sounds, people DO have choices available to them to reduce their heating bills, such as turning the thermostat down a couple of degrees, building a fire, or just putting on a sweater. Such a choice simply does not currently exist where public schools are concerned.

-Rex Hondo-

A simple re-allocation of the taxes people are already paying for education would not add extra financial strain.

My point is that privatizing schools does not automatically mean everybody is going to benefit.

Maybe a better example would have been college, compared to the local school district.

I just don't see how handing over the education of kids to businesses who are in it for the bottom line is going to improve things for everybody.

Yeah, government may be slow and inefficient, but I wonder how many would truly be interested in a Wal-Mart running public education.

Craig: Nice attempt at bullshit, Luigi. Do you realize how many people in this country cannot pay their heating bills each winter?
Luigi Novi: Do you realize that that wasn’t the point?

Sure you do.

But you still won’t admit that you deliberately de-contextualized a comment I made to make its meaning/intent sound completely different.

The fact remains that I clearly opined that people should be allowed to send their kids to the school of their choice, and that they should be able to direct their tax money to that school, and not to the public school they’re forced to go to based on where they live, and that you deliberately chopped out the relevant portions of that passage to make it sound as if I was saying that no one has money problems, which was a deliberate and knowing lie on your part.

I explained this in my subsequent post above, and rather than address this point DIRECTLY, you simply decided to continue with the lie by not mentioning it at all (even if to disagree with my explanation), and instead focusing on power companies (which was not the point of my argument), and implying that my accusation of lying on your part referred to your statement that people don’t have the money to pay to power companies (even though it clearly did not, and even though I explained that further above).

The fact remains that my comment was that the taxes that people are already are paying should be given to pay for the school of their choice. I made that clear in my first post on this point. I made it clear again in my subsequent one, after you deliberate misquoted me.

But you can’t refute this, because you know that that’s what you did.

Craig: So how the hell am I lying when I say people wouldn't have the money to pay for schools, either?
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say you were lying when you said that, and you very well know it.

I said you lied when you quoted me out of context, deliberately choosing not to cut-and-paste the entire quote, thus changing it.

Craig: Funny, considering I never said we shouldn't try and improve things. But then, I'm not calling you a liar for what you've said, either.
Luigi Novi: That’s because you can’t. Unlike you, I never took your words out of context, deliberately omitting portions of it that helped convey their true meaning.

You, on the other hand, did.

Craig: You generally make some great arguments, Luigi.
Luigi Novi: In other words, when I’m criticizing your dishonest behavior. Yeah, I hear ya loud and clear.

Craig: But this time, you're falling flat on your face.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you chickened out of responding directly to my clarification of what I had said previously, and how your deliberate distortion of it changed its meaning, by responding only rhetorically, and by pretending the accusation was in reference to something else.

Nice try.

Craig: My point is that privatizing schools does not automatically mean everybody is going to benefit.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, that’s not the only thing you said, as you deliberately implied a falsehood about something I had said.

Second, of course people benefit. If you can take the X amount of money you paid to the government, and instead use it to send your kid to the school of your choice, how would that not benefit you and your kid?

Your argument that “there will be no guarantees” is ignorant, because it uses an unrealistic standard. It presumes that ANY kind of system exists that provides guarantees, when no system does. In life, there are no guarantees anywhere. To make this point solely in response to the idea of privatization, makes it sound as if there are guarantees in the system we have now. Well, are there? Of course not. Only children think of things in such absolute terms as guarantees. But adults should know better. They know that it’s not about “Which system is guaranteed?”, because that’s the wrong question to ask. The proper question is “Which system is BETTER?” And the answer to that question is simple, as the evidence for the superiority of private schools, attaching taxes, and/or vouchers clearly shows.

Craig: I just don't see how handing over the education of kids to businesses who are in it for the bottom line is going to improve things for everybody.
Luigi Novi: Despite the fact that I provided numerous examples of how being in it for the bottom line produces better results, to say nothing of the debunked idea that government workers are somehow inherently more altruistic than their private counterparts. You responded to none of these points.

I wonder why?

Craig: Yeah, government may be slow and inefficient, but I wonder how many would truly be interested in a Wal-Mart running public education.
Luigi Novi: If “Wal-Mart” is a metaphor for “private company”, then my previous posts would seem to answer that question insofar as I’m concerned. Those who would disagree are willfully ignorant and naïve, and cannot provide a single refutation of my arguments above.

The phrase above, "criticizing your dishonest behavior" should have the word "not" in front of it.

Sorry about that, but I went to a public high school. :-)

You, on the other hand, did.

You know what, Luigi. You're better off not having a discussion with me in the future if you're going to call me a liar.

Just because somebody doesn't respond to every single thing you say doesn't make them a liar.

Those who would disagree are willfully ignorant and naïve, and cannot provide a single refutation of my arguments above.

No, you just call them a liar and act all smug about it. Naive? That's pretty rich.

If your reasoning is the bottom line is all that matters, well, then your argument really isn't about the best education, it's merely about throwing the future away.

I used Wal-Mart as an example of a company who cares only about the bottom line to show exactly why we shouldn't privatize public education.

Wal-Mart cares nothing for it's employees, nor their customers. They drive out competition by offering cut-rate crap.

You're also willfully ignoring the fact that, in many areas, it WILL be a one-trick pony, such as the more rural states of the midwest.

I would imagine it's also possible that in some areas, *nobody* would take over from public school districts anyways, leaving you with a hodgepodge of systems even more fractured than what we have now.

I suppose the big thing here is that I don't believe public education is the real problem: government obviously has something to do with it, and simply replacing government for some corporate entity doesn't solve everything.

We have a real problem with responsibility in this country, and for public schools, it's the fact that parents don't want to be parents, and teachers & school districts have no power. That won't change no matter who's in charge of the schools.

But as I said, if you're merely going to call me a liar again, don't bother responding.

Oh, another thing I have issue with: I think, flat out, that schools in this country are underfunded.

They don't have enough staff & resources, and they staff they do have are, for the most part, under paid.

This is NOT the same as saying that we need to throw more money at schools for the sake of thinking money solves everything.

But it's hard to know what money will solve if you're not spending enough in the first place.

Luigi Novi: That students and parents need to be made accountable is not something I would disagree with, but why would you remove teachers from this equation? Are you saying that teachers don’t need an incentive to make sure they do their jobs well? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Me: I'm saying teachers already have incentives to do their jobs right--it's called a paycheck. There are already checks built into the system designed to keep teachers on task and proficient. You might argue that those aren't always used correctly, and I would agree, but that doesn't validate adding an additional inherently unfair layer onto a system that is already burgeoning with unneeded paperwork.

I'm not going counter you point by point, so if you want to take it that that means you win the argument go ahead and take it that way. You're a combative little cuss, and I don't have the energy. I lost all desire to discuss anything with you when you start to get rude, and I deal with childish rudeness every day as it is.

Current spending WOULD be enough for education in this country if they'd cut the bullshit:

No "political correctness" in schools. Get rid of all this "touchy/feely" shit about kids should have self-steem even they are screw-ups who never accomplish anything.

Quit rewriting textbooks and history books out of fear of offending some group.

Quit molly-coddling these kids and treating them like fragile Faberge Eggs.

There should some standards to the ciriculum and some sort of standard test counmtry wide that confirms students can read/write/do at least basic math. Ban calculators from schools and homework for the basics.

Stop letting parents off the hook and making schools baby-setters.

Return the right to punish and expel trouble-makers.

Make Band, Chorus, and all sports fund themselves, not paid for by any tax-payer dollars.

Eliminate the teachers' union so bad teachers can be fired and replaced.

Oh and Den, I don't have a fioreplace in my house, where do you suggest I build this fire? And what do I do after I throw on the sweater, sweatshirt and a coat?

Why are the oil companies reporting billions in RECORD profits yet gas and heating oil prices are through the roof? Privatization is no better than the government, but according to Luigihis isolated examples are the norm, but others are just their personal experiences...

Bladestar, I don't think Den is in this fight.

And I'm not sure we can legally outlaw a teacher's Union. I'm no fan of the NEA (though I am a member)but people have the right to organize. Now
if you want to argue that we need politicians willing to stand up to the union when it goes too far in protecting its interests at the expence of the students, I'm with you.

The only thing I can say for sure is that there are no easy solutions. With the thousands of schools we have in this country such a solution would have probably been found by now. That isn't an argument against our trying out new ideas, though.

Craig: You know what, Luigi. You're better off not having a discussion with me in the future if you're going to call me a liar.
Luigi Novi: And you’re better off not quoting me out of context, because if you do, I’m going to call you on it.

Moreover, I never called you a liar. I merely pointed out that you lied. Slight difference.

Craig: Just because somebody doesn't respond to every single thing you say doesn't make them a liar.
Luigi Novi: No, but deliberately quoting someone out of context, and failing to refute them when they clearly illustrate how you did so does.

If my explanation of what you did doesn’t clearly show how you deliberately chopped out portions of my statement in order to knowingly give it a different meaning, then why don’t you just explain how? You keep posting here, aren’t you? You have the opportunity to completely refute my arguments, don’t you? Why continue posting back and forth, yet not showing how my explanation is wrong? To continue posting, yet not refute this charge, but then say “this and that doesn’t mean I’m lying…” is just a cop-out.

Do you or you do you not deny the manner in which you quoted me changed the meaning of the passage?

Yes or no?

Luigi Novi: Those who would disagree are willfully ignorant and naïve, and cannot provide a single refutation of my arguments above.

Craig: No, you just call them a liar and act all smug about it.
Luigi Novi: You are now deliberately confusing two different things that have nothing to do with each other.

The issue of attaching parents’ taxes to each child, using vouchers, and/or privatization is completely separate from the issue of how you quoted me out of context. I never accused you of lying for attempting to refute my arguments. I accused you of lying for quoting me out of context.

On the actual topic of privatization, however, I responded to your counterarguments, never once accusing you of lying (much less calling you a liar).

Two different things.

Try again.

Craig: If your reasoning is the bottom line is all that matters, well, then your argument really isn't about the best education, it's merely about throwing the future away.
Luigi Novi: Rhetoric.

Reasoning is the “bottom line” when it comes to the validity of a claim or argument. The reasoning/evidence employed in an argument or counterargument is the substance on which that argument’s validity is determined. It certainly isn’t Straw Men, out-of-context misquotes, rhetoric, the deliberate confusion of different elements or fronts in a discussion, or any of the other dishonest tactics employed by people such as yourself.

But hey, if you can show how any portion of my arguments are about “throwing the future away” (whatever that means), please, do so.

Craig: I used Wal-Mart as an example of a company who cares only about the bottom line to show exactly why we shouldn't privatize public education.
Luigi Novi: All companies care about their bottom line. That’s what companies are for. Similarly, all employees, whether of Wal-Mart, any other private company, or for that matter the government, care only about their personal “bottom line,” because that’s why they get up in the morning. The may be able to feel pride in that their work is helping others, but the bottom line insofar as getting and working in any kind of job is the ability to put food on your table. It’s idiotic to think that this is not the case for either sector. But in a free market capitalist society, it’s enough to get things done. In a society run solely by altruism/government control, things would not get done. Read a history book, perhaps beginning with the Soviet Union.

I pointed this out above, and again, you were unable to respond to it. All you’ve done is repeat the fallacy.

Craig: You're also willfully ignoring the fact that, in many areas, it WILL be a one-trick pony, such as the more rural states of the midwest.
Luigi Novi: No, you simply haven’t established that it is a fact. You simply arbitrarily declare it as such, without even bothering to try establishing why it is one. If I’m ignorant, why not educate me by elaborating on your point of view by explaining why you think your prediction will be borne out? I did that with numerous examples above, didn’t I? Who knows, maybe you’ll have a valid point that I’ll have to incorporate into my p.o.v.?

Craig: I would imagine it's also possible that in some areas, *nobody* would take over from public school districts anyways, leaving you with a hodgepodge of systems even more fractured than what we have now. I suppose the big thing here is that I don't believe public education is the real problem: government obviously has something to do with it, and simply replacing government for some corporate entity doesn't solve everything.
Luigi Novi: There’s that silly absolute standard again. Who said everything about solving “everything”? The issue is whether by and large, privatization is generally superior. And when you look at schools abroad that have those systems in place, you see that it clearly is. Life is not about “guarantees” and solving “everything”. You’re applying a fantastic standard that does not exist.

I made this point above, and once again, you’ve simply repeated the fallacy, without actually responding to my addressing of it.

Craig: We have a real problem with responsibility in this country, and for public schools, it's the fact that parents don't want to be parents, and teachers & school districts have no power. That won't change no matter who's in charge of the schools.
Luigi Novi: I disagree. Yes, parents and students who don’t care might be part of the problem. But by and large, evidence clearly shows that any system controlled by the government suffers, and improves when there is competition between the schools.

Read my post above. In it, I provided examples of students with defeated attitudes who prospered under the care of private institutions, without lots of money being thrown at them.

Craig: But as I said, if you're merely going to call me a liar again, don't bother responding.
Luigi Novi: Again, as you can see, where it concerns your actual arguments regarding privatization/vouchers/attaching taxes to students, I respond using arguments of my own, and not by calling you a liar.

The problem is not that I call you a liar in areas of this thread involving actual substance. The problem is that I’m merely repeating what I’ve already said above, because rather than responding to my statements directly, you merely keep repeating yourself.

Craig: Oh, another thing I have issue with: I think, flat out, that schools in this country are underfunded. This is NOT the same as saying that we need to throw more money at schools for the sake of thinking money solves everything. But it's hard to know what money will solve if you're not spending enough in the first place.
Luigi Novi: Read my mention above of schools that prosper without spending lots of money on kids, but who spend it on the right things.

Luigi Novi: That students and parents need to be made accountable is not something I would disagree with, but why would you remove teachers from this equation? Are you saying that teachers don’t need an incentive to make sure they do their jobs well? Why does it have to be one or the other?

rrlane: I'm saying teachers already have incentives to do their jobs right--it's called a paycheck.
Luigi Novi: That depends on where that paycheck is coming from. If it’s coming from a government, then it’s not enough, as I’ve shown above. If it’s coming from a institution that hires only the best teachers, which means those teachers have to compete with one another to get a job there, then I would agree.

rrlane: There are already checks built into the system designed to keep teachers on task and proficient. You might argue that those aren't always used correctly, and I would agree, but that doesn't validate adding an additional inherently unfair layer onto a system that is already burgeoning with unneeded paperwork.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how privatization, vouchers, or attaching parents’ taxes to their kids adds an additional layer; I think it would simply be a change in the way things are done, and the proof that that system works lies in the schools that actually do this, as in our friends abroad.

rrlane: I'm not going counter you point by point, so if you want to take it that that means you win the argument go ahead and take it that way. You're a combative little cuss, and I don't have the energy. I lost all desire to discuss anything with you when you start to get rude, and I deal with childish rudeness every day as it is.
Luigi Novi: If that involves one kid attacking another kid in some way, and you punishing both the aggressor and the victim equally without actually discerning (or caring) if one kid was merely defending himself, then yeah, I can see where you get your high-and-mighty judgmental philosophy, since any literate reader who actually reads the exchange between Craig and I can see that he deliberately misquoted me out of context, and that I was the one forced to defend myself against it, and that even in doing so, I maintained a far more polite attitude with him, even responding to his other points separately with reason.

But hey, if I’m just a “combative little cuss” (very polite way you have of dealing with rudeness, btw), please tell Bill Mulligan. He’s under the impression that my posts are actually intelligent.

Toodles!

Oh and Den, I don't have a fioreplace in my house, where do you suggest I build this fire? And what do I do after I throw on the sweater, sweatshirt and a coat?

Um, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here. Jeez, I take the weekend off around here and suddenly I'm accused of inciting arson! LOL

I'm not going to get too deep in the public vs. private education debate because I think both arguments have some merit. I think the future is going to be everyone going to some kind of virtual school and that's going to come pretty soon. Already, kids living in Pittsburgh (or Vigrinia, if you're the children of a US Senator) can "attend" a cyber charter school based in Philly. It may make the whole idea of local public schools obsolete.

Moreover, I never called you a liar. I merely pointed out that you lied. Slight difference.

It's good to see you enjoyed Semantics 101 in high school as well.

There are no semantics. The two things are clearly different, as you well know.

Bill, you're right, it was Rex that brought up the fireplace, I was trying to keep everything in one post and misplaced the right -E- three letter name :)

I like the idea of the "Virtual School", but where is the money for all these computers and fast enough I-net connections going to come from?

Plus, that means the dual-income families are going to have to give up a job and really tighten that belt since Jr. and Jr-ette are staying home and need supervision.

Plus it does nothing to solve the problems of kids who need a bit more 1 on 1 help from the teacher, as I'm sure this sort of "school" will end up with an even higher Student-to-Teacher ratio since physical space becomes less of an issue on the school's side.

The two things are clearly different, as you well know.

Oh, well, yes, of course. I forgot that I had the brain of Einstein transplanted in me several years back. I "well know" everything.

But then, I thought the simple definition of a liar was somebody who lied. So you claim I lie, but I'm not a liar.

And Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman.

The problem with your argument, Luigi, is that you assume anything that you don't agree with is a strawman, or some other ridiculous notion... whatever suits your fancy, apparently.

But, seeing as how you don't allow for "what ifs", or anything like that, you might want to see if Bush has a job for you in planning his next war.

Your "my way or the highway" method of handling this debate flies in the face of reality. A reality which you conveniently disregard on a whim without actually addressing what are real questions and concerns on the notion of privatizing everything government does.

But, you're not interested in all that garbage, so I suppose it's best to let it drop.

Okay, so I'm a liar. I confess you got under my skin, and I can't leave this alone. That is so much inane crap, I don't know where to start. Let's go with:

What do those private schools do when a student doesn’t perform well? Do they “phase them out”?

Well…yes, they do. I have have a number of kids over the years who show up in class half way through the year because they got the boot from private school for one reason or another.

They find new and innovative teaching methods to keep students interested, they make sure teachers spend more time with students, including ones having difficulty.

What are these innovative methods that work so well? Name some that have been proven to work that aren't also being tried in public schools?

They make sure class sizes are small.

Gee, what a great idea! Why didn't we think of that for the public schools? Here I thought thirty general ninth graders in class was conducive to a quality education!

Now tell me, how will this work if schools are privatized when ALL students have to go there?

The bottom line is, they know they won’t get more parents paying them tuition if they don’t persuade those parents to do so by showing them why they’re better than the other guy. Because of this, large numbers of students aren’t going to “mess up” or be “dropped,” so the question is entirely moot.

Oh, my sweet Lord, it is so freakin' obvious you've never worked with kids and parents in the general population.

Isn’t it generally accepted that private schools do better than public ones? Why do you suppose that is?

Private schools are exempt from having to take the standardized tests to prove competence. Why do you suppose that is?

But to answer your question, it's because they can pick and choose their clientele in a way that public schools cannot. That's so obvious I can think of no reason for you to bring it up other than to bolster a weak argument.

It is specious to argue that this is somehow inherent only to private schools, and even dumber to argue that it is something specific only to the proposal of further or total privatization. What happens when it happens in public schools? Do the schools “expel” students for failing tests or having difficulty there? If not, why would it happen at a private school?

Why? Because they are, as you said, competing for your dollar, so they will remove the students who absolutely refuse to learn (and throw spackle on that all you want, but there are some kids who absolutely refuse to learn…period) so that their reputation isn’t brought down because of them. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence here by saying it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen in public schools legally. How hard is it to understand that private schools have the option of saying your child cannot attend here? Every thing you’ve written avoids that single most important point.

If parents care enough about their kids to send them to private schools, wouldn’t that indicate that they take their kids’ education pretty damn seriously?

It certainly does. If I said it didn’t somewhere, please be kind enough to point it out. In fact, I think that you are actually reinforcing my point. Most private school students have the benefit of parents who are at least somewhat active in their education, whereas many public school students do not. Now, how are private schools going to work with those kids who say, “You can’t make me do anything, and my parents don’t give a crap”?

Right now, they kick them out and back to public education. Where do they go under a fully privatized system?

Are you implying that lack of such seriousness would really be an epidemic problem among parents? It almost sounds as if you’re blaming the parents.

Almost? It IS an epidemic and I AM blaming the parents. (geez, you need a 2x4 across the eyes for some people). Most of those who are screaming for vouchers and/or privatized education are looking for a quick fix (likewise with those who want to throw money at education willy-nilly), when the fact is that nothing is going to work until parents by and large take a more active role in their children’s lives.

Now I have a question: I am honestly asking as I don’t see it in your posts, but I truly don’t want to accuse you of something if I simply missed it. I asked, Why should you or I have to subsidize the tuition for sending a student to a school that may tell us that our children aren't eligible to go to for religious or other reasons? , and I don’t see you addressing that one crucial aspect.

Interestingly, I read something just the other day that even I hadn't realized. When people complain that public education has gotten worse over the years, they aren't taking into consideration how much the goal posts have been moved. According to studies done by the Manhattan Institute (www.manhattan-institute.org), the number of students graduating at proficient levels has actually increased over the years. They state that in the 1950s, public schools graduated an average of about 50% of their student body, and in the 1900s, it was amazingly less than 10%. What has changed is the ability to get a job that pays well enough to support a family without the benefit of a diploma, thus the stress to get all students to graduate, a feat that has never been accomplished in the history of our country.

Craig J. Ries: Oh, another thing I have issue with: I think, flat out, that schools in this country are underfunded.

They don't have enough staff & resources, and they staff they do have are, for the most part, under paid.

This is NOT the same as saying that we need to throw more money at schools for the sake of thinking money solves everything.

But it's hard to know what money will solve if you're not spending enough in the first place.

I concur.

I like the idea of the "Virtual School", but where is the money for all these computers and fast enough I-net connections going to come from?

I can't speak for other states, but in Pennsylvania, the current law has the money follow the student. Therefore, a kid living in Pittsburgh but enrolled in a cyberschool chartered in Philly gets his computer and ISP paid for by the school district in which he resides. Of course, as Rick Santorum found out, few people are going to swallow that a US senator, his wife and five kids live in a two-bedroom townhouse in suburban Pittsburgh.

Plus, that means the dual-income families are going to have to give up a job and really tighten that belt since Jr. and Jr-ette are staying home and need supervision.

Perhaps, or maybe more people will be able to work out of the home as well. Or, they could create Wi-Fi daycare centers for the kids of single or dual working parents to go to. These would look like classrooms but every kid would be working idividually on their own projects at their own pace.

Plus it does nothing to solve the problems of kids who need a bit more 1 on 1 help from the teacher, as I'm sure this sort of "school" will end up with an even higher Student-to-Teacher ratio since physical space becomes less of an issue on the school's side.

Actually, it might solve that problem as the kids who don't need as much 1 on 1 time would be free to work independently, allowing teachers to focus on those kids that do need special attention.

Or maybe I'm just spinning a fantasy here.

But hey, if I’m just a “combative little cuss” (very polite way you have of dealing with rudeness, btw), please tell Bill Mulligan. He’s under the impression that my posts are actually intelligent.

Rude doesn't equate with unintelligent (an intelligent person would understand that. :p )

As for my own politeness or lack thereof, yes, I do have a habit of tit-for-tat. It's a personal failing, I admit.

Perhaps, or maybe more people will be able to work out of the home as well.

Unfortunately, I doubt it.

At least, from what I've seen, if you're working for somebody el0se from home, employers are not going to pay you to work from home *while* having your kids there.

It's one of the major conditions of being able to work from home for the company I'm employed with (I don't have kids, but several coworkers do) - they still have to find babysitters.

Working at home right now isn't even an option for where I work right now. But there was also a time where I couldn't have gotten my current job without a letter of recommendation from my state rep, which you could only get after working as a volunteer for his campaign.

Times do change.

Not really Den,

On the first, I see a big problem with most taxpayers (especially those without children) on paying to give computers and fast internet access to people's home. Especially those with a lot of kids...

The "Wi-Fi Daycare Center" still needs adults to supervise all those kids. And the legal liability issues. Might as well just go to school and classroom.

It'd be nice, but I see the districts/private companies seeing this an an excuse to hire even fewer teachers, and the impersonal environment of the "Internet Home School" will probably show that more kids need the help than not.

I don't believe much of what you list will actually happen (corporate America likes to keep too close of an eye on the workforce, plus too many jobs aren't really efficient or possible to do from home for most workers).

Still, it's a nice dream, and a great theory, but communism and socialism work great, in theory, too...it's when you add in the organic compnents that it gets messy.

It may not work for everyone, but it's a possibility for some kids.

And of course the Wi-fi daycare centers would never adult supervision. Never said it wouldn't.

Didn't say you didn't, just pointing out that there would still be expenses to worry about there too.

If it only helps "some kids", then it's kind of as broken and screwed up the current system...

If it only helps "some kids", then it's kind of as broken and screwed up the current system...

I'm not so sure--it will be impossible to find a "one size fits all" solution to the problem. Something that may work great in an urban system may be inappropriate in a rural one. It's like fighting cancer--we will probably never find "the cure" but we have come up with many different cures for different kinds of cancer.

My stepson is applying to get into a special school, The North Carolina School of Math and Science. It's a public high school but only open to top students. It's designed to address only one issue; giving the best education to AIG students. It doesn't help anyone else. But it's a start. There should also be similar creative plans for limited English students, "average" kids, underachievers, etc.

Fix enough parts of a problem and you cease to have a problem.

(Keep in mind I have no idea how this will best be done. If I did I'd surely share it.)

Craig J. Ries: Oh, well, yes, of course. I forgot that I had the brain of Einstein transplanted in me several years back. I "well know" everything. But then, I thought the simple definition of a liar was somebody who lied.
Luigi Novi: Given that every human being who has ever lived has lied at some point in their lives (you and me included), that would mean, therefore, that everyone who has ever lived is a liar, and that you consider both yourself a liar and me as well.

But I’m guessing (correct me if I’m wrong) that you don’t really think that.

The word “liar” is generally reserved by more discriminating speakers for people who lie habitually or pathologically.

You did lie when you deliberately quoted me out of context (a point you still haven’t refuted). You also subsequently claimed that the accusation was in reference to a different comment you made. But because I have not observed this as a habit of yours one way or the other, I have not called you a liar. That is a serious word I generally reserve for people who demonstrate that habit.

Craig J. Ries: The problem with your argument, Luigi, is that you assume anything that you don't agree with is a strawman, or some other ridiculous notion... whatever suits your fancy, apparently.
Luigi Novi: No, I argue that a Straw Man is a distorted version of something that I said, which it is, and that logical fallacies like ad hominem arguments, non sequiturs, etc., are such if I can demonstrate them as such. What’s important to remember is that I always back up such assertions by illustrating them with reason and/or evidence.

You, apparently, do not.

Craig J. Ries: Your "my way or the highway" method of handling this debate flies in the face of reality. A reality which you conveniently disregard on a whim without actually addressing what are real questions and concerns on the notion of privatizing everything government does. But, you're not interested in all that garbage, so I suppose it's best to let it drop.
Luigi Novi: I addressed various aspects of privatization/vouchers/attaching tax money to kids, as well as criticisms of those ideas in my January 31, 9:59pm and February 5, 10:38pm. So this accusation of yours is obviously unfounded to anyone who actually reads the thread.

“On a whim” implies a position that is taken arbitrarily, without any foundation in logic, reason or facts. Because I have provided those things, and, as aforementioned, generally back up my arguments, they could hardly be called “whimsical.”

You, on the other hand, have employed falsehoods and out-of-context quotes, have deliberately ignored my detailed responses to your statements by merely repeating the original statement over and over, use language indiscriminately, assert that comments on my part were in reference to things other than what they really were, and fail to address my accusation of dishonesty on your part by merely offering the anemic excuse about how not responding to “every single thing”—apparently ignoring the point that you should at least respond to the most serious ones. Whereas I stick to details and specifics, you bob and weave around, answering only indirectly. Thus, your words are most certainly arbitrary, and are whimsical.

rrlane: Okay, so I'm a liar.
Luigi Novi: Who here called you a liar? I’ve gone through the thread with my browser’s Find feature, and that word shows up for the first time in one of Craig’s posts, and then only reference to that point. I couldn’t find it reference to you.

rrlane: Well…yes, they do. I have have a number of kids over the years who show up in class half way through the year because they got the boot from private school for one reason or another.
Luigi Novi: Which happens in all schools when kids don’t do well. As I stated earlier, there’s no reason to pretend that this is a problem specific to private schools only. The fact that private education is a better system isn’t going to change the fact some kids are poor students, truant, disruptive, have apathetic parents, or what have you.

Again, this argument appears to use perfection as a standard, as if privatization advocates contend that no kids will ever be kicked out of a private school. This is fallacious standard to use, which is why such advocates don’t use it. For the umpteenth time, the question is which system is generally better.

rrlane: What are these innovative methods that work so well? Name some that have been proven to work that aren't also being tried in public schools?
Luigi Novi: I provided some above in my earlier posts.

rrlane: Gee, what a great idea! Why didn't we think of that for the public schools? Here I thought thirty general ninth graders in class was conducive to a quality education! Now tell me, how will this work if schools are privatized when ALL students have to go there?
Luigi Novi: Indigent students “have” to go to public schools. They don’t “have” to go to private ones. In privatization, they can choose among different schools.

Luigi Novi: The bottom line is, they know they won’t get more parents paying them tuition if they don’t persuade those parents to do so by showing them why they’re better than the other guy. Because of this, large numbers of students aren’t going to “mess up” or be “dropped,” so the question is entirely moot.

rrlane: Oh, my sweet Lord, it is so freakin' obvious you've never worked with kids and parents in the general population.
Luigi Novi: About as obvious as your ignorance of the concept of argumentum ad hominem.

rrlane: Private schools are exempt from having to take the standardized tests to prove competence. Why do you suppose that is?
Luigi Novi: Which standardized tests are you referring to?

rrlane: But to answer your question, it's because they can pick and choose their clientele in a way that public schools cannot. That's so obvious I can think of no reason for you to bring it up other than to bolster a weak argument.
Luigi Novi: Private schools do not pick and choose their clientele. Their clientele chooses them. Private schools merely accept their clientele, and if this is an allusion on your part to the exclusivity of some schools, that merely underscores how good that school is.

But most private institutions are not this exclusive. Again, refer to the examples I cited above.

rrlane: Why? Because they are, as you said, competing for your dollar, so they will remove the students who absolutely refuse to learn (and throw spackle on that all you want, but there are some kids who absolutely refuse to learn…period)…so that their reputation isn’t brought down because of them. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence here by saying it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen in public schools legally.
Luigi Novi: Again, how is this specific to the type of school????

If some obnoxious kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, how is that the school’s fault?

Again, this issue is not specific to the issue of public vs. private. There are always going to be some disruptive kids who cause problems for schools. This occurs in both private schools and public ones. Why you think this is specific to the issue of privatization, I don’t know. If some kid acts this way, it’s not the school’s fault. Using this logic, you could just as easily condemn all public education on the basis of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

And of course it can happen legally in a public school. If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, the kid can be left back, suspended, or expelled. Legally.

rrlane: How hard is it to understand that private schools have the option of saying your child cannot attend here? Every thing you’ve written avoids that single most important point.
Luigi Novi: And if the basis of they’re saying that is a kid’s “absolute refusal to learn”, then I’d say good for them. Why should a school be forced to take some miscreant who doesn’t want to be there? You’re basing your position on the issue of private vs. public schools on some hypothetical delinquent?

rrlane: It certainly does. If I said it didn’t somewhere, please be kind enough to point it out. In fact, I think that you are actually reinforcing my point. Most private school students have the benefit of parents who are at least somewhat active in their education, whereas many public school students do not. Now, how are private schools going to work with those kids who say, “You can’t make me do anything, and my parents don’t give a crap”?
Luigi Novi: Expel them. Schools have to come half way, with the parent/child coming the other half. If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, then it falls to the parent to take care of that problem. If the parent chooses not to, that’s their fault. A school is supposed to provide a service that someone wants. Not be forced to provide one to someone who doesn’t want it. This is like arguing that Burger King should be controlled by the government, because what happens if someone waltzes in and says that they absolutely refuse to eat their food?

rrlane: Almost? It IS an epidemic and I AM blaming the parents.
Luigi Novi: You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? All of them? On what basis have you made this determination?

The problem is clearly the system, and I’ve pointed to evidence/examples that show that.

rrlane: Most of those who are screaming for vouchers and/or privatized education are looking for a quick fix (likewise with those who want to throw money at education willy-nilly), when the fact is that nothing is going to work until parents by and large take a more active role in their children’s lives.
Luigi Novi: These measures would not be “quick fixes.” But they would work.

rrlane: Now I have a question: I am honestly asking as I don’t see it in your posts, but I truly don’t want to accuse you of something if I simply missed it. I asked, Why should you or I have to subsidize the tuition for sending a student to a school that may tell us that our children aren't eligible to go to for religious or other reasons?
Luigi Novi: We shouldn’t. And since you have not established that that would happen, the question is moot anyway. For one thing, we shouldn’t “subsidize” private businesses, whether it’s the tobacco industry, farmers, or whatever. Second, even if this were an actual scenario, for-profit institutions want customers. They’re not going to arbitrarily refuse to accept them. Even if God-forbid they did, the parents could go elsewhere. That’s the nature of the free marketplace. Even if some stupid institution refused to admit people on the basis of religion, it would result in bad publicity for that school.

rrlane: Rude doesn't equate with unintelligent
Luigi Novi: True. But when your entire response to my in-depth earlier post (aside from your statement about a check) consists of rhetoric and unsupported insults and accusations, and you choose not to respond in more depth, it comes off as highly dismissive. Mind you, you could’ve chosen to respond to the specific points I made in order to refute them (much as I did and continue to do with you), but alas, you chose not to.

rrlane: an intelligent person would understand that. :p )
Luigi Novi: How would you know? :p

Luigi Novi: Who here called you a liar? I’ve gone through the thread with my browser’s Find feature, and that word shows up for the first time in one of Craig’s posts, and then only reference to that point. I couldn’t find it reference to you.

Calm down, sparky. I was talking about the fact I said I was walking away from the conversation, but then I came back.

You need to calm down. I declare, you're going to give yourself the vapors.

Well, the Iranians are showing once again that They Just Don't Get It.

Iranian paper to hold contest for Holocaust cartoons

Already their pea-brained "president" said the Holocaust never occured, now they think they can compare the murder of millions to a cartoon about a prophet who, last I checked, wasn't advocating genocide.

Should Godwin's Law apply here as well?

Absolutely this is a case for Goodwin's law.

$100 says that no one sets fire to the Iranian embassay in any country over this.

Craig: Well, the Iranians are showing once again that They Just Don't Get It.

Iranian paper to hold contest for Holocaust cartoons

This is so out of character, saying something so inflammatory about the Jews, too.

I've heard the expression many times, and have a general idea of what it means, but what, exactly, are "the vapors"?

according to what I found on the web, the vapors are:

"A name for hypochondriasis, spleen, or depression of spirits. [Thomas1875] Archaic - 1. Exhalations within a bodily organ, especially the stomach, supposed to affect the mental or physical condition. 2. A nervous disorder such as depression or hysteria. [Heritage]"

Getting here a bit late, but thank you, Luigi, for your thoughtful comments regarding education. You GET it.

Four people were killed by Afghan police today in a protest over the Danish protest.

Number of people likely to be killed in a protest over Iran's "contest": 0.

Thanks rrlane, I always figured it was like when a child gets over-excited and hyper-ventilates...

Okay, one last shot at clarification before this disappears off the front page of the site:

Me: Well…yes, they do. I have have a number of kids over the years who show up in class half way through the year because they got the boot from private school for one reason or another.
Luigi Novi: Which happens in all schools when kids don’t do well. As I stated earlier, there’s no reason to pretend that this is a problem specific to private schools only.

I'm sorry, but you either don't understand how public school works, you live in an area of the U.S. that has completely different ways of governing, or you are purposely being misleading. It does NOT happen in "all schools when kids don't do well." That is a flat out untruth. Public schools do NOT have the option of saying, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, but your son Johnny failed five of his classes this year. You must find another school for him next year." Nope, uh-uh, no way, no how. It. Does. Not. Happen.

It DOES happen in private schools. Not all of them, but it happens--and frequently.

Luigi: his argument appears to use perfection as a standard, as if privatization advocates contend that no kids will ever be kicked out of a private school.

Then your eyes deceive you, as no one said anything about perfection. Please enlighten us as to how "not failing" equates to "perfection," I'd be happy to hear how I might improve my communication skills. For one who cries that you are taken out of context so frequently, you certainly do it with relish.

And if you are saying that kids will be kicked out of private schools, where do you intend they go if you remove public schools from the equation?

Luigi Novi: You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? All of them? On what basis have you made this determination?

So, in an flu epidemic, EVERY human being gets the virus? Again, for someone who pounces on people for playing fast and loose with words, you have have a knack for the same. "epidemic" does NOT equal "all." It does not even mean "most." Don't waste my time with nonsensical straw man arguments.

rrlane: Why should you or I have to subsidize the tuition for sending a student to a school that may tell us that our children aren't eligible to go to for religious or other reasons?

Luigi Novi: We shouldn’t. And since you have not established that that would happen, the question is moot anyway...the parents could go elsewhere.

Where do the children of parents who cannot afford to pay tuition go? Bush said "No Child Left Behind," remember? So either the government DOES leave some behind or the government is going to HAVE to subsidize. It's an either/or proposition only. And if you DO subsidize, then you have to figure if you will subsidize education at a Catholic school or a Jewish school or any other schools that can turn away people because of their religious beliefs, ethnicity or any other number of reasons beyond their control.

Luigi Novi: Expel them. Schools have to come half way, with the parent/child coming the other half. If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, then it falls to the parent to take care of that problem. If the parent chooses not to, that’s their fault. A school is supposed to provide a service that someone wants. Not be forced to provide one to someone who doesn’t want it.

Here we agree. As I said in an earlier post, I am for abolishing compulsory education, but even I say we aren’t ready yet because there is no place for those that get removed from the regular schools to go, and booting teenagers and having them wander the street is just a recipe for disaster for the country.

Luigi: This is like arguing that Burger King should be controlled by the government, because what happens if someone waltzes in and says that they absolutely refuse to eat their food?

That is what’s called a poor analogy. They may not eat what Burger King is serving, but they will eat.

rrlane: Why? Because they are, as you said, competing for your dollar, so they will remove the students who absolutely refuse to learn (and throw spackle on that all you want, but there are some kids who absolutely refuse to learn…period)…so that their reputation isn’t brought down because of them. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence here by saying it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen in public schools legally.

Luigi Novi: Again, how is this specific to the type of school????

If some obnoxious kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, how is that the school’s fault?

Show me where I said it was, please. Honestly, I’m arguing the exact opposite, so this point (to use one of your favorite words) is moot.

What I am stating is that you will have these types of kids, and these types of kids have issues that no school can alleviate. Now, here’s where my point comes up. AGAIN.

>Pay attention—I’ve said it several times but apparently it’s not getting through.

The difference between private and public schools is that in a private school, you can remove those kids so they don’t affect the school’s overall academic standing. Public schools cannot

If you are going to take a haughty tone with me, please make certain you are arguing against what I am saying.

Luigi: If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, the kid can be left back, suspended, or expelled. Legally.
Left back? Yes. but they still appear on the school’s academic standing.

Suspended? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. Hell, if a kid has an IEP (Individualized Education Program), you can’t even suspend him more that ten days in a school year, no matter what he does.

Expelled? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. They cannot expel anyone anymore for anything other than the most grievous actions (example: bomb threats or worse) Please check your “facts” before you spout things that waste our time.

rrlane: Private schools are exempt from having to take the standardized tests to prove competence. Why do you suppose that is?
Luigi Novi: Which standardized tests are you referring to?

Since private schools do not take federal funds, they are not obligated to conform to the No Child Left Behind program. Since I think NCLB is the biggest turd foisted on education in the time I’ve been a teacher, good for them. But it also means that any comparisons that evoke NCLB are not apples to apples.

Luigi Novi: Indigent students “have” to go to public schools. They don’t “have” to go to private ones. In privatization, they can choose among different schools.

Okay. Got it. So how does that keep classrooms small? Feel free to call me dense (like you need permission), but I don’t see how that answers the question.

Off my soapbox—

I find this type of bickering tiresome. I’d much rather discuss things with you and everyone else in a friendly give and take manner. I confess that I have been acerbic here, more acerbic than I am proud of. As I am new here as a poster (though a long time reader), I feel that this actually was a poor way to jump in.

I apologize for my combative responses to everybody here, and I'll make a deal with you, Luigi--let's make an attempt to listen to each other without the haughty tones or airs of moral and rhetorical superiority from now on. And as it would be disingenuous for me to call a halt to it after I've had the parting shots, you can make your next points however you want, get the last word in in whatever tone you wish without snide or acerbic response from me.

You are intelligent, and I freely admit that the only way to create an informed opinion is to look at both sides of an issue. But nobody does that well when their blood pressure is shooting through the roof.

Number of people likely to be killed in a protest over Iran's "contest": 0.

Right on, Den. I wrote a letter to the editor of another such exercise, some Islamic-Euro group that published a cartoon of Hitler having sex with Anne frank. I said something to the effect that when it becomes obvious that Jews and their allies are NOT rioting in the streets and killing and burning over this affront, it will once again make the Muslim fanatics look like the less civilized ones in this fight. Which, in point of fact, they are.

I'm glad to see some of the more liberal and more conservative contributers to this blog finding common ground on this issue. I've read a few liberal columnists who are trying to make this out to be Americ's fault and I'm sure that Pat Buchanan will somehow blame Israel but by and large this has been something where the good and bad guys are obvious to even the most partisan pundits.

I do wish more of our newspapers and magazines had the guts of the Philly paper in terms of showing the actual cartoons (which are mostly so innocous that the radicals have had to resort to faking at least 3 new ones to inflame people--one of them isn't even a real cartoon, but a photoshopped photo of a man in a pig costume.)

This would qualify as a clash of civilizations if it weren't one civilization short.

Hmm. Ok, the editor of that Danish newspaper doesn't get it either.

Now he says he wants to work with the Iranian newspaper to also publish any Holocaust cartoons the Iranian publish.

Not that any Jews are likely to go burn anything down (still). But I think it'll generate a big "how f*cking stupid are you?" parade for the editor.

I also think this shows that the editor isn't being bold or anything, he's merely out for sensationalism and attention. He's probably lucky his 15 minutes hasn't gotten him murdered already.

"I also think this shows that the editor isn't being bold or anything, he's merely out for sensationalism and attention. He's probably lucky his 15 minutes hasn't gotten him murdered already."

Pretty sad that the world is so pathetic that he would have to fear for his life just for PUBLISHING something, and it's not even something he created.

Sorry, but the more I see in the news about these people, the more I'm convinced they're a bunch of rabid dogs that need to be put down permanently.

At least he's willing to publish them unlike most of the pathetically cowardly America "Free Press" and media...

A few media outlets, such as ABC and the Philly Inquirer did run or at least partially run the cartoons, but by and large, most US media outlets have been too cowardly to run them.

The irony now is that most of those newspapers and networks are more likely to run Iran's holocaust-denying cartoons than Europe because no one in the US expects Jewish people to try to burn down an embassy and denying the holocaust is a crime in many European nations.

Weird.

But this also illustrates a central disconnect in the thinking between us and radical Islam. We can complain about how the far religious right often seems to feel that the government needs to subsidize images of their faith or that the secular left seems to want to completely sanitize religion out of the public forum, but at least we can debate the issue in a civilized manner rather then resorting to violence.

It is clear that people in the radical camp of Islam want all people to accord their religious views a level of respect that they do not grant other religions. Try putting up a Christmas tree or even owning a Bible in Saudi Arabia. So I say, piss on them.

Sadly, instead of defending freedom of speech as the bulwark of a free society, our government and our media have failed us.

If the editor of the Danish paper wants to publish cartoons critical of Muhammond, that should be his right. If he wants to run cartoons denying the holocaust, that should also be his right.

Freedom of speech that doesn't protect people's right to be offensive is no freedom at all.

rrlane: Calm down, sparky. I was talking about the fact I said I was walking away from the conversation, but then I came back. You need to calm down. I declare, you're going to give yourself the vapors.
Luigi Novi: Sorry, was just trying to understand what you were saying. Because I had pointed that Craig had lied, I was afraid that perhaps I had been less-than-careful in my posts, and that I had accidentally worded them in such a way to make it sound as if it was directed towards you, so I went double-checking. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Jerome Maida: Getting here a bit late, but thank you, Luigi, for your thoughtful comments regarding education. You GET it.
Luigi Novi: Thanks, Jermoe. :)

rrlane: I'm sorry, but you either don't understand how public school works, you live in an area of the U.S. that has completely different ways of governing, or you are purposely being misleading. It does NOT happen in "all schools when kids don't do well." That is a flat out untruth. Public schools do NOT have the option of saying, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, but your son Johnny failed five of his classes this year. You must find another school for him next year." Nope, uh-uh, no way, no how. It. Does. Not. Happen.
Luigi Novi: I’m willing to concede that I don’t have the nation-wide knowledge of how schools work and that I may be wrong on this to one degree or another, but for the record, I do not ever attempt to be “purposefully misleading.” And for the record, I live in Union City, NJ. I don’t know if how it’s done around here (or how it was done when I was in school) differs or differed from how it’s done elsewhere.

But let’s assume that this is true. Why would it be a bad thing in privatization? Why should a school be forced to keep a kid who absolutely refuses to learn? If some kid or his parents don’t care enough to uphold their responsibilities, what should the school do? Be forced to keep the kid there as a substitute for a prison or daycare center? That’s not the job of schools, or the government, and is not a problem whose answer is the same answer as the privatization/voucher/attached taxes VS. public school question. It is the job of educators to make choices clear for students. It is not their job to make the choices for them.

rrlane: Then your eyes deceive you, as no one said anything about perfection.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say you did. Hence the word “appears.” It was the idea that seemed to be implicit in the argument.

rrlane: Please enlighten us as to how "not failing" equates to "perfection,"
Luigi Novi: Pretending that every student will not fail equates to perfection. Your idea is that privatization is bad because some kids will get “phased out” ignores the fact that such kids will exist in any such system. Such is the nature of human beings. There will always be some bad apples. Their existence is not necessarily a condemnation of which particular educational system is in place, but of themselves. The implicit idea here is that under the right system, no such children will exist (i.e.: a perfect system), which is obviously not true, and privatization advocates do not claim this under their proposals.

rrlane: And if you are saying that kids will be kicked out of private schools, where do you intend they go if you remove public schools from the equation?
Luigi Novi: If they “absolutely refuse to learn”, they can go nowhere. Why should they go anywhere if they “absolutely refuse to learn?” If a given kid and/or his parents have some problem with his refusal to learn, then obviously, that’s a problem with the kid, and not the school, or the system.

rrlane: Almost? It IS an epidemic and I AM blaming the parents.

Luigi Novi: You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? All of them? On what basis have you made this determination?

rrlane: So, in an flu epidemic, EVERY human being gets the virus? Again, for someone who pounces on people for playing fast and loose with words, you have have a knack for the same. "epidemic" does NOT equal "all." It does not even mean "most." Don't waste my time with nonsensical straw man arguments.
Luigi Novi: There is no Straw Man argument. You used the word “epidemic”, and I chose the wording of my response in good faith, so there is not Straw Man argument. No, the word epidemic doesn’t mean “all,” but you could’ve read my statement for its clear intent, which was to question how you made the determination that a significant percentage of the children whose education is not going well are attributable to their parents’ lack of seriousness, even if you felt that word wasn’t as precise as it could’ve been. Instead of placing undue emphasis on this one choice of word on my part, you could’ve responded to the question. But if you insist on making this exchange about one word, fine, I’ll rephrase it:

You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? That many? On what basis have you made this determination?

You can either answer the question, or complain that I’m not perfect in choosing one word.

rrlane: Where do the children of parents who cannot afford to pay tuition go?
Luigi Novi: If they can afford to pay their taxes, they can afford to send their kids to school, because that’s what their taxes are paying for. As mentioned earlier, a school’s effectiveness is not predicated on how much money it spends on the students.

rrlane: Here we agree. As I said in an earlier post, I am for abolishing compulsory education, but even I say we aren’t ready yet because there is no place for those that get removed from the regular schools to go, and booting teenagers and having them wander the street is just a recipe for disaster for the country.
Luigi Novi: But it’s not a problem for the education system. And yes, we’re not ready yet, because if we did change the system, it would take time to implement.

rrlane: That is what’s called a poor analogy. They may not eat what Burger King is serving, but they will eat.
Luigi Novi: How?

Luigi Novi: Again, how is this specific to the type of school???? If some obnoxious kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, how is that the school’s fault?

rrlane: Show me where I said it was, please.
Luigi Novi: Your position against privatization/vouchers/attached taxes uses this argument over and over. My response is that these kids are not the fault of the school or the system under which the school works, and is therefore completely irrelevant to the public vs. private issue. If public schools cannot expel the kids, then I’d say that that’s one more reason why we should abolish them.

rrlane: Left back? Yes. but they still appear on the school’s academic standing.
Suspended? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. Hell, if a kid has an IEP (Individualized Education Program), you can’t even suspend him more that ten days in a school year, no matter what he does. Expelled? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. They cannot expel anyone anymore for anything other than the most grievous actions (example: bomb threats or worse) Please check your “facts” before you spout things that waste our time.
Luigi Novi: Again, if I was misinformed, mistaken, or ignorant of differences across geographic or between my time and today, then mea culpa. But again, if this is true, then see answer above. If I was wrong about my “facts,” then I haven’t wasted anyone’s time, because you had the opportunity to inform me otherwise. To me, that’s one of the reasons I come to discussion boards.

Luigi Novi: Indigent students “have” to go to public schools. They don’t “have” to go to private ones. In privatization, they can choose among different schools.

rrlane: Okay. Got it. So how does that keep classrooms small? Feel free to call me dense (like you need permission), but I don’t see how that answers the question.
Luigi Novi: First, I have no interest in calling you dense, or any other insult. Second, I never said that choosing among different schools, in and of itself, keeps classrooms small.

rrlane: I apologize for my combative responses to everybody here, and I'll make a deal with you, Luigi--let's make an attempt to listen to each other without the haughty tones or airs of moral and rhetorical superiority from now on. And as it would be disingenuous for me to call a halt to it after I've had the parting shots, you can make your next points however you want, get the last word in in whatever tone you wish without snide or acerbic response from me. You are intelligent, and I freely admit that the only way to create an informed opinion is to look at both sides of an issue. But nobody does that well when their blood pressure is shooting through the roof.
Luigi Novi:

1. Apology accepted.

2. No thanks, I can do this without insults. If someone disagrees with me in good faith, I try to respond in the same spirit. If one takes a “parting shot” just because they think they’ve “earned” the right to do so (even if their opponent gives them “permission”), then they’re no better. (Mild sarcasm intended humorously, sure, but not insults.)

3. Thank you.

4. True.

:-)

First, my apologies to Jerome for misspelling his name above.

Second, in looking over my post again after I posted it, I think the first sentence of the fifth quote-and-response exchange has the potentional of coming off like a Straw Man argument. I say this since we're all feeling the love right now, so let me apologize and say that the 11th exchange is a better response on my part to that point.

:-)

Luigi Novi: If they “absolutely refuse to learn”, they can go nowhere. Why should they go anywhere if they “absolutely refuse to learn?” If a given kid and/or his parents have some problem with his refusal to learn, then obviously, that’s a problem with the kid, and not the school, or the system.

The problem is, once they've been tossed out, these kids won't just disappear into nothingness. They'll be out wandering the streets with no skills and no prospects. If you take a "three strikes and you're out" approach to education under privitization, then you might as well reserve a prison cell for any kid who starts getting Ds in elementary school because that's where they're going to end up.

And that runs entirely counter to the intent of the No Child Left Behind Law.

Now, maybe many of the kids who are failing in public schools will probably end up there anyway, but at least under the current system, there are people who are at least trying to turn some of these kids around.

The point rrlane and others have been trying to make is that the difference between public and private schools is that public schools are required -by law- to at least try to educate everyone. If you live in the school district, the district has to make a seat available for you in the classroom. That includes kids with severe mental disabilities. That includes kids with dyslexia or other learning disabilities. That includes kids who have emotional/psychological problems. That includes kids who had the unfortuate luck of being born to parents who just don't give a shit.

Expelling a kid for getting bad grades is not an option for public schools. Not in Union City, NJ. Not in Harrisburg, PA. Not in Los Angelos, CA. They have to try and make the kid learn. In fact, under NCLB, they are penalized for not trying to boost that kid's performance.

The problem with the argument for privitization is that the underlining assumption is that the problem is always with the school and that teachers are inherantly lazy and need to be cattleproded into do their jobs. That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing. Rrlane is right in that many times the root cause is lack of parental involvement. We have become a very narcissistic society with a "me first" attitude towards life in general. It shouldn't be shocking to think that this attitude also affects the way that many people raise their kids.

Well, it was only a matter of time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_142

Remond me again why so many people have a negative veiw is Islam and it's practitioners again?

Oh yeah...that's right...

I do not ever attempt to be "purposefully misleading."

Funny, I would say the same things of my comments here, yet you say I'm lying.

But, I suppose you're always right, Luigi; you would never be wrong when making accusations against others. Nah, no way.

That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing.

Yep. There's more to this than simply saying "this is what we must do", when one won't recognize possibilities and "what ifs" that could completely throw everything out of what. And it's something Luigi apparently refuses to recognize in this conversation.

"Mock my religion as prone to violence??? For that I will KILL you!"

Here's another really bad thing coming out from all this; the lesson learned is that if you want to get your way, be violent. Christians and jews have protested and written angry letters about portrayals in the media but the most they get is a lousy apology or maybe the cancellation of a low rated show. But Muslims! Man, the media has been absolutely cowed. Don't believe it? Look at the New York Times, where an article the other day not only refused to show the cartoons but instead showed a photo of the Virgin Mary made from dung. Hysterical. (they wanted to illustrate how art can cause anger but they sure as hell made sure the ones who would get angry were not followers of Islam. They may be liberals but they sure ain't stupid!)

Sarah Silverman put it best:
"...it's not right to make fun of midgets, but we do it anyways, because we don't fear them.

I had a joke with the "n" word in it, and I thought it was so hip and so edgy and I was doing a show at Caroline's and their was a table of black people...actually I think they were African American, and I didn't do the joke... because I feared them. I was afraid, so I changed it to "chinks"

So if one were a fanatical Christian or Jew the lesson is that you have to become more fanatical and violent and then you will get your way. Nice.

Oh yeah? Just wait until we really piss off the midgets! You don't want them to get organized and fanatical.

Imagine all the places that a midget suicide bomber could hide.

Pretty chilling, isn't it Bill?

Imagine all the places that a midget suicide bomber could hide.

I have this image of Adam West's Batman running around with a Midget held high over his head, desperately looking for a place to throw him.

Ok, where are the midget activists, coming here to tell us that teh proper term is "little people" (Which, as Ms Silverman points out, is the only time where the politically correct term is actually more offensive than the common one)?

Ok, all kidding aside, this is just bone chilling:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060209/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_eu_dc

EU mulls media code after cartoon protests

The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

..."The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."

Oh. My. God.

Meanwhile, take a gander at how sensitive to the religions of others our Middle Eastern friends have been: http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b080206

Gee, you think those governments will "self-regulate" their right to portray Jews as blood sucking rats, snakes, demons, etc?

But ignoring all that, how the hell can the EU even contemplate this appeasement? Well, it's a good thing all those folks who were thinking about moving to Europe after the Bush election didn't do so--looks like you might end up having more freedom of expression in the good old US of A after all. (Not that the media here has shown much in the way of balls but at least there is no talk of codifying the cowardice).

Just incredible.

Well, it's a good thing all those folks who were thinking about moving to Europe after the Bush election didn't do so

Who said all of us were considering Europe? :)

But I don't put it past some politician here to suggest doing the same thing (especially if it's in the name of the war on terror).

In the end, it's not like our government hasn't pushed this notion before on some level. Anybody remember the "people need to watch what they say" comment after 9/11?

"The press will give the Muslim world the message:

That Europe is filled with pussies who can be pushed around by the whims of religious fanatics.

If the EU does this, it'll empower the fanatics even more.

Fuck it. Let's just hand them the world on a silver platter already.

Oh, and Bill, that article at least says the code would not have legal status.

But your point still stands.

EU mulls media code after cartoon protests

Exactly the wrong response. Yeah, we're letting all the radicals know that they can get whatever they want if they trigger riots.

But ignoring all that, how the hell can the EU even contemplate this appeasement?

Two words: Neville Chamberlain.

Seriously, I am still waiting for someone in government or the media with the balls to stand up and say, "It's called freedom of speech. Fuck you if you don't get it."

Well, it's a good thing all those folks who were thinking about moving to Europe after the Bush election didn't do so--looks like you might end up having more freedom of expression in the good old US of A after all.

I for one chose to stay and fight. We will have a competent government again someday.

(Not that the media here has shown much in the way of balls but at least there is no talk of codifying the cowardice).

Absolutely disgusting. Freedoms mean nothing if they're not fought for.

Den: The problem is, once they've been tossed out, these kids won't just disappear into nothingness. They'll be out wandering the streets with no skills and no prospects. If you take a "three strikes and you're out" approach to education under privitization, then you might as well reserve a prison cell for any kid who starts getting Ds in elementary school because that's where they're going to end up.
Luigi Novi: If parents really care about their kids, then they will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure they learn. If the kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, that is entirely out of the school’s hands, and has nothing to do with the private vs. pubic school issue. You can’t “turn these kids around” if they don’t want to be turned around.

Den: The point rrlane and others have been trying to make is that the difference between public and private schools is that public schools are required -by law- to at least try to educate everyone.
Luigi Novi: And I believe that’s wrong, because education should be about choice and responsibility. The government shouldn’t be forced to give it to someone. In my opinion, that is outside the role of government.

Den: Expelling a kid for getting bad grades is not an option for public schools. Not in Union City, NJ. Not in Harrisburg, PA. Not in Los Angelos, CA. They have to try and make the kid learn. In fact, under NCLB, they are penalized for not trying to boost that kid's performance.
Luigi Novi: A student can be left back for getting sufficiently lousy grades, and he can be expelled for being disruptive or rebellious, which the phrase “absolutely refuses to learn” sounds like.

Den: The problem with the argument for privitization is that the underlining assumption is that the problem is always with the school and that teachers are inherantly lazy and need to be cattleproded into do their jobs. That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing. Rrlane is right in that many times the root cause is lack of parental involvement.
Luigi Novi: Rrlane’s use of the word “epidemic” seems a bit more serious than just “many times.” Me, I think that sometimes a student has a less-than-caring teacher, and sometimes he has apathetic parents. But privatization does not assume teachers are “inherently lazy.” It knows that profit motive and competition makes cream rise to the top, and that government monopolies reward mediocrity.

Craig J. Ries: Funny, I would say the same things of my comments here, yet you say I'm lying.
Luigi Novi: And I elaborated the accusation by pointing out and explaining in detail why what you did was clearly mendacious. The fact that you never once responded to my arguments directly to explain why they were wrong (offering only the anemic excuse of not having to respond to everything), and continue to do so goes a long way to showing that you know you can’t refute them.

Craig J. Ries: But, I suppose you're always right, Luigi; you would never be wrong when making accusations against others. Nah, no way.
Luigi Novi: Sure I can. But only if you back up your response by refuting them on the same merits, which you did not do, and which you continue to refuse to do.

Den: That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing.

Craig J. Ries: Yep. There's more to this than simply saying "this is what we must do", when one won't recognize possibilities and "what ifs" that could completely throw everything out of what. And it's something Luigi apparently refuses to recognize in this conversation.
Luigi Novi: And yet, I just stated above that a student’s poor performance can be caused by different things.

Thus, once again your statements are exposed as rhetorical and arbitrary, and deliberately ignorant of the actual content of my posts.

Yeah, I read the part about the lack of legal status but to me this is just the first step. I've seen how "speech codes" at the totalitarian institutions we call Universities eventually become bludgeons to punish anyone who says something contrary to the official opinion. These are very dangerous steps to take.

(Didn't Britain just narrowly avoid passing a speech code law that would have made it a crime to mock religion?)

Who said all of us were considering Europe? :)

True. It seems to me that if free speech was of major importance to someone they would have a hard time finding a place where their situation would be improved. Canada sure ain't it. Nor Europe. Pretty much the whole middle east is out (I'm not sure about Israel). Africa and Asia aren't very promising except for Japan (interesting that Japan, a culture that not terribly long ago was a total dictatorship is now one of the freest cultures on Earth, so far as I can tell). (Though they aren't exactly immigrant friendly, so that might not be a viable option.)

What's left? Denmark? Norway?

Luigi Novi: If parents really care about their kids, then they will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure they learn. If the kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, that is entirely out of the school’s hands, and has nothing to do with the private vs. pubic school issue. You can’t “turn these kids around” if they don’t want to be turned around.

Which may true, but doesn't address the question of what society is supposed to do once the schools have given up on them.

Luigi Novi: And I believe that’s wrong, because education should be about choice and responsibility. The government shouldn’t be forced to give it to someone. In my opinion, that is outside the role of government.

Then you should start to campaign for the repeal of the No Child Left Behind Law, because the intent of it is to give every child at least a chance for an education.

Luigi Novi: A student can be left back for getting sufficiently lousy grades, and he can be expelled for being disruptive or rebellious, which the phrase “absolutely refuses to learn” sounds like.

Or it could mean that the kid never shows up for class or sleeps in every class. Neither of which are disruptive, but will result in the kid never learning anything.

Luigi Novi: Rrlane’s use of the word “epidemic” seems a bit more serious than just “many times.”

I don't have any hard numbers, but in my encounters with people who are public school teachers, it would a appear that apathetic parents are common enough to make the use of the "epidemic" appropriate.

Me, I think that sometimes a student has a less-than-caring teacher, and sometimes he has apathetic parents.

And you won't get any arguments from me in favor of retaing the less-than-caring teachers, but I think you're overstating the incidence of one and minimizing the instance of the latter.

But privatization does not assume teachers are “inherently lazy.” It knows that profit motive and competition makes cream rise to the top, and that government monopolies reward mediocrity.

Jeez, test drive a GM car lately? My point is that privitization doesn't always mean more efficiency or a better way. The PA Department of Health experimented with privitizing some its services a few years ago. A few county offices were closed and contractors were hired to perform functions like TB and STD screenings. In all three of the pilot programs, the contractors failed to perform the services and the Department ended up doing the work anyway. Of course, the offices were never reopened, so we had to do the work with fewer personnel while still paying the contractors even though they weren't doing the work.

There's an easy way out of this. We tell the radical Muslims to knock it off ot we will broadcast this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week into their homes:

http://www.mohammeddance.com/

I know that this is harsh and I feel a lot like what Harry S Truman must have felt like when he thought about using the atomic bomb. But sometimes hard choices must be made.

My God man, have you no humanity!?!?

On a .... well, not lighter note, but equally stupid but not as destructive note,

The Red Cross has begun sending threatening letters to... can you guess who?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VIDEO GAME COMPANIES!

Too many video games use red crosses on health packs, and now, over ten years since Doom, Return toi Castle Wolfenstein, and other video games have used red crosses for health packs, NOW the Red Cross wants to cry foul?

Shouldn't they loose that "Trademark" since they've failed to enforce it for so long?

Bah, I'm glad I can't give blood anymore...

But only if you back up your response by refuting them on the same merits, which you did not do, and which you continue to refuse to do.

Let's see: I supposed lied, but didn't; I also use nothing but strawmen arguments, yet you admit to doing the same. Go fig.

Hard to refute that when you've repeated it ad nauseum in the hopes that you can get yourself to believe it.

The funny part about your refutation regarding taxes & schooling that if you're poor a) you're not paying nearly as much in taxes as everybody else to begin with, b) you're far more likely to get all your tax money back.

So, the fact that they're paying taxes (that they get back, if they pay any at all) doesn't change anything about how badly privitization would royally fuck them over.

And if you still think that's quoting you out of context, well, you're on your own.

Hell, even your own damn comment says "most people" pay taxes.

So, you outright fail to acknowledge the fact that some don't pay taxes at all, and still can't afford jack shit, and *I'm* lying here?

Like I said, Luigi, you've fallen flat from the start, and your only defense was to try and make me look bad. Not to mention the fact that others have done the same by pointing out serious flaws in your thinking (which we all have, but some of us can admit to without accusing others of lying).

Den: Which may true, but doesn't address the question of what society is supposed to do once the schools have given up on them.
Luigi Novi: True. That’s because it’s not pertinent, IMO, to the issue that I first brought up about the school system.

Den: Then you should start to campaign for the repeal of the No Child Left Behind Law, because the intent of it is to give every child at least a chance for an education.
Luigi Novi: There are many laws I’d like to see repealed, and many fundamental policies I’d like to change, those implemented among George W. Bush being only some of them.

Den: And you won't get any arguments from me in favor of retaing the less-than-caring teachers, but I think you're overstating the incidence of one and minimizing the instance of the latter.
Luigi Novi: ?????????? I don’t see how or why you perceive this on my part, because I never offered any opinion on which was more, since I have no way of doing so. If I have given this impression, then allow me to make it clear that I have no conclusion on the proportion of one to the other.

Den: Jeez, test drive a GM car lately? My point is that privitization doesn't always mean more efficiency or a better way. The PA Department of Health experimented with privitizing some its services a few years ago. A few county offices were closed and contractors were hired to perform functions like TB and STD screenings. In all three of the pilot programs, the contractors failed to perform the services and the Department ended up doing the work anyway. Of course, the offices were never reopened, so we had to do the work with fewer personnel while still paying the contractors even though they weren't doing the work.
Luigi Novi: I’d like to see a detailed examination of that experiment, and solicit opinions on why it failed, but pursuant to your statement that privatization “doesn’t always mean more efficiency,” I would respond by pointing yet again, that my position is that privatization is generally better than a government monopoly. I’ve made this point more than once on this board.

Craig: Let's see: I supposed lied, but didn't; I also use nothing but strawmen arguments, yet you admit to doing the same. Go fig.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, I never said you use “nothing but” Straw Man arguments. That is simply yet another exaggeration on your part, which is ironic, because it functions itself as yet another distortion of my words (i.e.: a Straw Man). But hey, if you can point to where I ever said that you use “nothing but” Straw Man arguments, then I challenge you to do so.

The fact remains that I only point out Straw Man or other logical fallacies when people actually use them, and unlike you, when I make such an assertion I always back it up. You, on the hand, are completely arbitrary in many of your statements, this being the latest example.

Craig: Hard to refute that when you've repeated it ad nauseum in the hopes that you can get yourself to believe it.
Luigi Novi: It’s hard to refute someone’s position merely because they repeat it often?

Nope, sorry, but that’s nonsensical.

If a claim, idea or argument uses some logical fallacy or flaw in its reasoning, then all you have to do is point it out. The idea that repetition makes this impossible is obviously false.

Try again.

Craig: The funny part about your refutation regarding taxes & schooling that if you're poor a) you're not paying nearly as much in taxes as everybody else to begin with, b) you're far more likely to get all your tax money back. So, the fact that they're paying taxes (that they get back, if they pay any at all) doesn't change anything about how badly privitization would royally fuck them over.
Luigi Novi: And as I pointed out numerous times above, you don’t have to spend large sums of money on each student in privatization.

Craig: Hell, even your own damn comment says "most people" pay taxes.
Luigi Novi: Don’t they?

Craig: So, you outright fail to acknowledge the fact that some don't pay taxes at all, and still can't afford jack shit, and *I'm* lying here?
Luigi Novi: I’m failing to see the connection between the two halves of this statement. In the first place, if you acknowledge right above that I stated that “most people” pay taxes, then how can you say, in the very next breath, that I “fail to acknowledge that some don’t”? This is a contradiction.

Second, even if I “failed to acknowledge” something, how does that constitute a lie?

Lastly, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I lied, as you allude to here. How precisely does that refute the idea that you did so yourself earlier? The notion that I lied somehow precludes the idea that you did? Seriously, do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy? This one is called the You, Also Fallacy. The idea that criticism of your behavior is mitigated, in and of itself, by pointing out the same behavior on the part of someone else, is false.

Craig: Like I said, Luigi, you've fallen flat from the start, and your only defense was to try and make me look bad.
Luigi Novi: Actually, you did that. I just held up a mirror.

The fact of the matter is that I argue my points with logic and reason, keep my statements internally consistent, and try to avoid logical fallacies and other behavior like deliberately quoting someone out of context, and then failing to respond to the specifics of the accusation. You, on the other hand, cannot say the same.

Craig: Not to mention the fact that others have done the same by pointing out serious flaws in your thinking (which we all have, but some of us can admit to without accusing others of lying).
Luigi Novi: Den and rrlane have disagreed with me, but I don’t see where they pointed out “flaws in my reasoning.” That you cannot form a distinction between these two things is the precise sort of thing I’m talking about. There is no selectivity or calm in your words. You just haphazardly sling whatever words sound damning, regardless of whether a careful reading of the thread corroborates them. If you can point to instances where they pointed out such flaws, did so, then please do so.

What I see, despite your rhetoric about my falling flat, is that others here have complimented me on my posts, including, incidentally, the aforementioned rrlane, who actually apologized for some of his/her behavior, and said that I was intelligent.

By contrast, I can’t find anyone doing the same in your direction.

What I see, despite your rhetoric about my falling flat, is that others here have complimented me on my posts, including, incidentally, the aforementioned rrlane, who actually apologized for some of his/her behavior, and said that I was intelligent.

By contrast, I can’t find anyone doing the same in your direction.

But Craig has also intelligent and eloquent, and more, I agree with him on his points about public vs private education. Where I'm bowing out is in the notion of the name calling and the "dancing in the end zone" several parties (myself not least among them) have been doing when they feel they have scored a palpable hit on their rhetorical opponents.

Make no mistake, sir; I firmly feel that you are in the wrong, and nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. I do believe there are glaring holes in your logic which I and others have pointed out, that I do not believe you have seen. You feel otherwise, no doubt, as is your purview.

My hats off to Craig, then, for actually garnering the compliment. :-)

But can you point out the flaws in my logic? You've explained where you've disagreed with me, but I don't recall any flaws in logic.

Moreover, what is your opinion on the ones I've pointed out in Craig's behavior, just out of curiosity? You say he's "intelligent" and "eloquent." Do you deny that he quoted me out of context? That he has failed to respond directly to my explanation of how that quote was a deliberate lie on his part? That he has put words in my mouth that I never said? That many of his statements, like the one above about some people not paying taxes, make absolutely no sense?

Luigi Novi: And as I pointed out numerous times above, you don't have to spend large sums of money on each student in privatization.

I still fail to see how this would be the case if every student is under the same system. Same with the notion that if every kid were under a privatized system, the class sizes would stay small.

The only reason they're small now, and it's presuambly costing less now, is because not every kid in America is involved.

I mean, let's look at it this way: you mentioned how a postmaster in a town outsource the mail service.

We have privatized interests out there like FedEx and UPS compared to government USPS.

Yet, do I think that FedEx and UPS are lightyears better than USPS (when talking about the same services they offer, ie dealing with packages and such)?

No.

In fact, I think FedEx's service around here is far crappier than USPS, and UPS's is only better when the regular driver for my area is handling things.

Am I saving any money by using FedEx or UPS over USPS? For what I usally deal with, no.

And in the end, how my money is spent on services as a consumer is what takes precedent over how these businesses end up spending their money.

This is a contradiction.

On your part, because you have made the assumption that everybody can pay for privatized schooling based on the money they pay to taxes.

Yet, if not everybody is paying taxes to begin with, you're not explaining what those that do not pay taxes and cannot afford it are supposed to do, or what options they're supposed to have.

So, no, I can't see why you're failing to make the connection, nor can I see how this doesn't make sense to you.

Seriously, do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy?

Yes, I do.

The problem is there is no lie.

Den and rrlane have disagreed with me, but I don't see where they pointed out "flaws in my reasoning."

See above.

I believe plenty of problems have been presented from several people, but you've shown an interest in only taking into account those things that best serve your argument, rather than taking into account all those things that could easily cause your "generally better" assumption on privatization to become generally worse.

And no, I don't consider completely denying educational opportunities as a viable option, regardless of how problematic the child is. Imo, every child *can* be taught, it's just a matter of finding the right method. And that's something I don't see private schools guaranteeing any more than public schools do when, as it stands, private schools don't necessarily follow the same rules, laws, and standards as public schools.

Den: Which may true, but doesn't address the question of what society is supposed to do once the schools have given up on them.
Luigi Novi: True. That’s because it’s not pertinent, IMO, to the issue that I first brought up about the school system.

But it is a question that I asked and would appreciate a response on. If your position is that some kids can't or won't be taught (Like Craig, I don't really agree with that premise, it's just a matter of finding a way to reach before it's too late) and that schools should simply kick them out, then what happens? One way or another society will have to deal with them, whether as convicts or welfare recipients. Quite frankly, I don't see declaring a certain percentage of citizens as failures before they're 18 and washing your hands of them is a viable option.

Luigi Novi: ?????????? I don’t see how or why you perceive this on my part, because I never offered any opinion on which was more, since I have no way of doing so. If I have given this impression, then allow me to make it clear that I have no conclusion on the proportion of one to the other.

By arguing with rrlane over the use of the word "epidemic", that is the impression you were creating, at least to me it was.

Luigi Novi: I’d like to see a detailed examination of that experiment, and solicit opinions on why it failed, but pursuant to your statement that privatization “doesn’t always mean more efficiency,” I would respond by pointing yet again, that my position is that privatization is generally better than a government monopoly. I’ve made this point more than once on this board.

But again, your previous statement about "the cream rising to the top" gave more of an absolutist impression.

I consider myself a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I go with what appears to work. There are some things that the private sector is better at doing then the government. There are also some things that the government is better suited for. No one would seriously suggest we allow private companies to build competing highway systems because that would make travel a nightmare. Also, no one would suggest that we turn over the defense of country to a private mercenary army (Okay, well maybe Bush would since he seems to be sending us down that road anyway).

Now, while it's clear that private schools do on average better than public schools, as numerous people have pointed out, that's in large part due to the fact that private schools have the right to pick and choose their schools. There isn't much data out there to support the idea that a privatized school system, under the same mandate to educate all citizens, would do any better.

In fact, I know of one school district where the opposite has happened: Edison, a private comppany, was hired to run one of the most distressed school districts in Pennsylvania: Chester-Upland. After years of privatization, test scores continued to drop and the contract was terminated.

Now, maybe if you privatized all schools and allowed them to do what private schools do: ignore the mentally disabled, the learning disabled, the kids with psychological problems, kids with neglectful parents, and the chronic under-achievers, maybe they'd have a higher test score level, but I don't see how it achieves the overall goal of a better educated citizenry.

No one would seriously suggest we allow private companies to build competing highway systems because that would make travel a nightmare.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if more are considering it than we realize.

One of the big issues here in Colorado recently was the fight over a private toll road and eminent domain.

The idea was to built a toll road that would be parallel to I-25, although a little further east out on the plains. This of course meant allowing a private company to use eminent domain on hundreds of miles of farmland and homes.

The state Senate eventually approved a bill that would eliminate a 19th century law that gave developers the right to condemn private property to build roads.

So while this doesn't totally kill the potential for a private toll road, it does say that CDOT has to be involved.

That's interesting, Craig. While I knew of some private companies building roads in the 19th century, I didn't know of any cases of it being considered today. Aside from it being an horrendous abuse of eminant domain, what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?

Ugh, and my last post should have read, "Private schools have the right to pick and choose their students.

Damn.

"That's interesting, Craig. While I knew of some private companies building roads in the 19th century, I didn't know of any cases of it being considered today. Aside from it being an horrendous abuse of eminant domain, what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?"

Chicago has two access points east, through Indiana. US 94, a Federal Highway, and 80/90, the Indiana toll road. Chicago recently leased an 8 mile section of toll road called the Skyway that, when it's not under construction, saves 30-60 minutes on that trip east. It directly connects to the Indiana toll road. Indiana is currenlty contemplating leasing the Indiana toll road to the same European company that now manages the Skyway toll road. The State will get a big influx of cash now, and the lease runs for 99 years. The idea being that the private company will be better able to maintain and operate the toll road, and at a profit, providing a better level of service than the state can.

I don't know that I agree that such is possible, but I hear it works in Europe.

I also don't know that a simple good/service model translates once you get to something more complex, like education. We're not talking about delivering mail, or providing a road, both of which I would classify as simple good/services. You either deliver the mail in a timely fashion, or you don't. You either maintain a road in servicable condition, or you don't.

Education is much more complex, and the metrics of successfully delivering a product are harder to measure. GPA? Graduation Rate? Need for continuing/higher education? Placement in prestigious higher education institutions. Salary post graduation. Applicability of education provided. How do you measure what a successful school is? We can't answer this question now, so how is a private company going to be able to do so?

Simply tossing the whoel ball of yarn to the private industry with a note saying "you guys figure this mess out" is not the solution we need. Before we farm out the work, we need to determine what the goal is, and that's going to need a fundamental restart of the Federal Education system.

Chicago has two access points east, through Indiana. US 94, a Federal Highway, and 80/90, the Indiana toll road. Chicago recently leased an 8 mile section of toll road called the Skyway that, when it's not under construction, saves 30-60 minutes on that trip east. It directly connects to the Indiana toll road. Indiana is currenlty contemplating leasing the Indiana toll road to the same European company that now manages the Skyway toll road. The State will get a big influx of cash now, and the lease runs for 99 years. The idea being that the private company will be better able to maintain and operate the toll road, and at a profit, providing a better level of service than the state can.

But that's hiring a contractor to run an existing toll road. There's no real competition there is it? Or is another private company building a competing parallel toll road?

A 99 year lease? That's sweet deal for the contractor. Does it have an option for the state to cancel the contract if they aren't maintaining the road?

"But that's hiring a contractor to run an existing toll road. There's no real competition there is it? Or is another private company building a competing parallel toll road?

A 99 year lease? That's sweet deal for the contractor. Does it have an option for the state to cancel the contract if they aren't maintaining the road?"

Correct, there's no other private competition...yet. But there is a public option, that's less convienent for more people, running a parallel path for about 30 miles.

It is a sweet deal. I see it as fiscal irresponsibility. The state's going to get some stupid some of money, like $3.4 billion or something. If they think the tollway is going to produce more than that over the next 100 years, why doesn't the state find a way to cut through the beaurocratic costs to capture that money?

Not sure if they have any options to cancel. I'm guessing, since it's a lease, there are restrictions and requirements for continuance of the lease. That's what I'd do, and I have to assume (maybe wrongly) that they have lawyers at least as thoughtful as I am.

Craig: I still fail to see how this would be the case if every student is under the same system.
Luigi Novi: Why it not be the case if they were?

Craig: Same with the notion that if every kid were under a privatized system, the class sizes would stay small.
Luigi Novi: Good thing I never said they would be. If you actually read my posts, instead of just clipping the parts you wanted, you see this exchange between rrlane and myself:

rrlane: Okay. Got it. So how does that keep classrooms small?

Luigi Novi: I never said that choosing among different schools, in and of itself, keeps classrooms small.

Craig: I mean, let's look at it this way: you mentioned how a postmaster in a town outsource the mail service.
Luigi Novi: No I didn’t.

Craig: On your part, because you have made the assumption that everybody can pay for privatized schooling based on the money they pay to taxes. Yet, if not everybody is paying taxes to begin with, you're not explaining what those that do not pay taxes and cannot afford it are supposed to do, or what options they're supposed to have. So, no, I can't see why you're failing to make the connection, nor can I see how this doesn't make sense to you.
Luigi Novi: You stated in the first half of the original statement that I acknowledged that most people pay taxes, and then in the second, stated that I failed to acknowledge that some don’t. If, as you admit, I stated that most people paid taxes, the use of the word “most” automatically carries with it the virtually synonymous notion that some don’t. Thus, there is no contradiction on my part.

As far as those who don’t pay their taxes, are you suggesting the discussion of the educational system should be geared towards tax evaders? And how many of those people don’t pay their taxes?

Luigi Novi: Seriously, do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy?

Craig: Yes, I do. The problem is there is no lie.
Luigi Novi: No, the problem is that the specific counterargument you used in your post above was that the notion that I somehow lied in some way mitigated the accusation that you did. That is called the You, Also Fallacy, as I stated above, and it’s completely false. Any given idea must be either accepted or refuted on its own merits. Accusing the accuser of the same act does not do this, nor does merely saying, “There is no lie” do anything to refute my pointing out this fallacy on your part. That there is no lie on your part has been your position; it does not, on the other hand, have anything to do with the You, Also Fallacy that you used, which is now another point that you are deliberately evading. Now, you’re just repeating your original denial, while deliberately ignoring the point about the You, Also tactic you just used, and the fact that I just pointed it out.

Do you deny that you accused me of lying, in order to mitigate that charge against you?

Do you deny that this is an example of the You, Also Fallacy?

Do you agree that that tactic is veridically worthless, because whether I lied in no way mitigates the charge that you did?

The only way to refute this, is to argue that you did not use such a fallacy. Not to simply say, “There is no lie,” which only goes to the original accusation, and not to this newest tactic that you employed.

Craig: I believe plenty of problems have been presented from several people, but you've shown an interest in only taking into account those things that best serve your argument, rather than taking into account all those things that could easily cause your "generally better" assumption on privatization to become generally worse.
Luigi Novi: Obviously, that isn’t true, because I’ve responded to every single counterargument that you and the others have voiced, and done so directly and in detail, explaining why they did not refute the ideas about a change of the educational system, even pointing out how those different systems work both in parts of this country and abroad. When I do this, I tend to “take them into account.”

You, on the other hand, have not done this, often responding indirectly and rhetorically, with accusations that do not bear any correlation to the actual content of my posts, often requiring me to repeat various things I have said because it appeared you either didn’t read them the first time or were deliberately ignoring them (as you did the taxes quote), and repeatedly quoting me incorrectly, or just making things up that I never said, the most recent example being this idea about the outsourced postal work (which I never stated), and your use of your original denial of your life in response to the You, Also Fallacy (which does not address it).

Craig: And no, I don't consider completely denying educational opportunities as a viable option, regardless of how problematic the child is. Imo, every child *can* be taught, it's just a matter of finding the right method.
Luigi Novi: If the child “absolutely refuses to learn”, then it isn’t a matter of finding the right child. It’s a matter of the child’s family’s need to resolve some problem with the child that exists entirely outside the purview of the school.

But for those students who do need “the right method,” private institutions are best adept to do so, because they have the incentive to find them.

Den: But it is a question that I asked and would appreciate a response on.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

Den: If your position is that some kids can't or won't be taught (Like Craig, I don't really agree with that premise, it's just a matter of finding a way to reach before it's too late)…
Luigi Novi: It wasn’t my position. It was rrlane’s position. I merely responded to it.

Den: …and that schools should simply kick them out, then what happens? One way or another society will have to deal with them, whether as convicts or welfare recipients. Quite frankly, I don't see declaring a certain percentage of citizens as failures before they're 18 and washing your hands of them is a viable option.
Luigi Novi: Just how many kids do you think are going to be so unruly, that in rrlane’s words, they “absolutely refuse to learn”? Why is it that discussion of a major system is being opposed on the grounds of what is certainly an extreme minority? This is akin to those who oppose gay marriage because supposedly, two male friends who are not gay and not in love can just get married in order to pull off an insurance scheme, or something. My question for both situations is, “Is this truly representational of the typical person or persons for whom the idea is designed?”

People are often frightened of change, even when the evidence suggests the change would be for the better. Opponents of change will often employ the Scary Scenario to explain why the change would be bad, and this question about all these delinquents who would “absolutely refuse to learn,” and

In my opinion, if you allowed parents’ taxes to be attached to their kids, or allowed vouchers, or privatization, then there wouldn’t be any large number kids as you describe. I believe that’s just Chicken Little paranoia.

Den: By arguing with rrlane over the use of the word "epidemic", that is the impression you were creating, at least to me it was…But again, your previous statement about "the cream rising to the top" gave more of an absolutist impression.
Luigi Novi: Again, I don’t know how or why it has this effect on you, but let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that these passages have this effect on you. Doesn’t it stand to reason that all the previous instances where I stated otherwise would have the effect of the opposite impression? How do you explain this, in light of these previous comments by me:

February 5, 2006 10:37 PM
The former tend to be private companies, whereas the latter are government-controlled. (And please spare me counterarguments based solely on isolated, non-representative examples like, “Well, I had a bad experience with a supermarket once,” or “I’m perfectly satisfied with my garbage collection…” The issue is where people are GENERALLY satisfied or not.)
February 5, 2006 10:37 PM
Using Enron to condemn private industry is stupid, and roughty equivalent to using the regimes of Castro or Stalin to condemn ALL forms of government control or regulation, or arguing that you can’t “guarantee” that airplanes or cars won’t be involved in accidents, so therefore, we should not have those things. The point is, in our country, people are generally willing to take the risks associated with living in a free society. The idea that you can condemn entire systems based solely on rare exceptions is a fallacy.
February 5, 2006 10:37 PM
The fact of the matter is, students generally do better because the school is private.
February 6, 2006 11:42 AM
There’s that silly absolute standard again. Who said everything about solving “everything”? The issue is whether by and large, privatization is generally superior.
February 7, 2006 01:10 AM
Again, this argument appears to use perfection as a standard, as if privatization advocates contend that no kids will ever be kicked out of a private school. This is fallacious standard to use, which is why such advocates don’t use it. For the umpteenth time, the question is which system is generally better.
February 9, 2006 10:36 PM
I’d like to see a detailed examination of that experiment, and solicit opinions on why it failed, but pursuant to your statement that privatization “doesn’t always mean more efficiency,” I would respond by pointing yet again, that my position is that privatization is generally better than a government monopoly. I’ve made this point more than once on this board.

Hell, even CRAIG referenced this long-stated position of mine:

all those things that could easily cause your "generally better" assumption on privatization to become generally worse.

So how do you explain this “impression”? Did you take these things into account?

Den: I consider myself a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I go with what appears to work. There are some things that the private sector is better at doing then the government. There are also some things that the government is better suited for. No one would seriously suggest we allow private companies to build competing highway systems because that would make travel a nightmare.
Luigi Novi: The evidence would suggest otherwise. A private company rented the empty space in the middle of the 91 Freeway in California, and built a toll road that functioned better than the public one. It takes about 45 minutes off the rush hour commute, and there are no toll booths, because scanners in the scaffolding bill people electronically as cars pass by, so that the cars don’t even have to slow down. If you’re car breaks down, they see you with their cameras, and will come to help you. If you run out gas, they’ll give you a free gallon. Seeing footage of the private road next to the public road is dramatic.

Den Aside from it being an horrendous abuse of eminant domain, what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?
Luigi Novi: The fact that they’re better (see above).

As far as being an abuse of eminent domain, that occurs even now, with things like Ikea stores that are not akin to roads or schools. It’s not something specific to private roads, which already exist in the U.S. now, and are much better than public ones.

Den: Now, while it's clear that private schools do on average better than public schools, as numerous people have pointed out, that's in large part due to the fact that private schools have the right to pick and choose their schools. There isn't much data out there to support the idea that a privatized school system, under the same mandate to educate all citizens, would do any better.
Luigi Novi: One more time: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them

Den: Now, maybe if you privatized all schools and allowed them to do what private schools do: ignore the mentally disabled, the learning disabled, the kids with psychological problems, kids with neglectful parents, and the chronic under-achievers, maybe they'd have a higher test score level, but I don't see how it achieves the overall goal of a better educated citizenry.
Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

Bobb: Simply tossing the whoel ball of yarn to the private industry with a note saying "you guys figure this mess out" is not the solution we need. Before we farm out the work, we need to determine what the goal is, and that's going to need a fundamental restart of the Federal Education system.
Luigi Novi: Obviously, the “ball of yarn” and “you figure this mess out” metaphors are not accurate characterizations of the suggestions for privatization, vouchers or attached taxes, and obviously, determination of goals is central to any such proposal. Who here has suggested otherwise?

Den: There's no real competition there is it? Or is another private company building a competing parallel toll road?

Bobb: Does it have an option for the state to cancel the contract if they aren't maintaining the road?…Correct, there's no other private competition...yet. But there is a public option, that's less convienent for more people, running a parallel path for about 30 miles….Not sure if they have any options to cancel.
Luigi Novi: As far as not maintaining the road, that would presumably be a requisite part of the contract. If they don’t meet certain standards, yes, people can choose a public road, and/or the contract can be put back up for bid, and that’s where the competition is.

Bobb: The state's going to get some stupid some of money, like $3.4 billion or something. If they think the tollway is going to produce more than that over the next 100 years, why doesn't the state find a way to cut through the beaurocratic costs to capture that money?
Luigi Novi: Because governments don’t do that as well as private industry. Governments by their very nature are incompetent, bureaucratic, inefficient, and slow to modernize and innovate. If they do a bad job, it doesn’t matter to them, because you can’t “fire” the government. But this is not true of private industry.

Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

Short answer-yes, you are correct.

Longer answer--yes, there are schools designed exclusively with special needs children, and they function, for the most part, very well and help many special needs children achieve a good measure of independence in the workaday world (I am talking about schools for those with mental and emotional disabilities here, not those that work with those with physical disabilities...that needs to be clear).

But do you think the kids in those schools are measured by the same academic yardsticks that the academically oriented private schools are? Of course they aren't. That wouldn't be fair to them because if they were, they'd obviously place at the bottom of all school rankings.

But these same students, when they attend public school, are bunched in with the rest of the student population. It's called "mainstreaming" and I would venture to say it's not an exageration, that a good 1 out of 7 of my students have Individual Education Plans (IEPs).

I certainly won't say that there are not private, academically oriented schools that mainstream students with mental and emotional special needs, but I'd be willing to bet you'll have to look long and hard before you find one, and if you do, I'd also bet they don't stress how they're at the top of the heap academically in their brochures.

Den: …and that schools should simply kick them out, then what happens? One way or another society will have to deal with them, whether as convicts or welfare recipients. Quite frankly, I don't see declaring a certain percentage of citizens as failures before they're 18 and washing your hands of them is a viable option.

Luigi Novi: Just how many kids do you think are going to be so unruly, that in rrlane’s words, they “absolutely refuse to learn”? Why is it that discussion of a major system is being opposed on the grounds of what is certainly an extreme minority?

Define "extreme." I have two classes of ninth grade general students. One with twenty eight kids, the other with thirty. Of those 58 kids, I would say ten work to their potential, about fifteen will do average work, but could accomplish more if they applied themselves, fifteen will do only enough work to get by with a passing grade, ten more will squeak past with me riding their butts the whole time, and the other eight will not do squat no matter what I try.

I personally find 33/58 functioning far below what they are capable of to be an extreme number.

Luigi Novi: If the child “absolutely refuses to learn”, then it isn’t a matter of finding the right child. It’s a matter of the child’s family’s need to resolve some problem with the child that exists entirely outside the purview of the school.

Public schools don't have that option. We are mandated to make it our problem. That is the crux of the argument I am making. A private school can say to a parent, "This is your problem, not ours." I have been in parent/teacher meetings where the exact same thing is said to the teachers BY THE PARENTS.

Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

Again, tell that to the Bush Administration. NCLB stipulates that ALL students will test out to be proficient by the year 2014. Failure to do so will put schools into "school improvement" and eventually lead to a federal take over of the school, pushing local control completely out of the picture.

All.

100 Percent of the student body.

That guy that's nineteen and still in the ninth grade because he won't do anything but refuses to drop out because he doesn't want to get a job (we can't boot him until he's twenty one)? Yeah, that includes him.

The special needs girl who tries her absolute best, but can barely write at the sixth grade level, yet has been mainstreamed into the eleventh grade? Yeah, her too.

All of them.

All.

And you want to know what the measuring stick for achievement is? The standardized tests that the private schools are not mandated to participate in.

Luigi: As far as those who don’t pay their taxes, are you suggesting the discussion of the educational system should be geared towards tax evaders? And how many of those people don’t pay their taxes?

How many unemployed automotive workers are there now? Are they tax evaders now?

Also, I'm not wealthy by any stretch, but my wife and I own a nice, comfy home. We are paying approximately $2,200/year in property taxes, which is where the school taxes are taken from here in Pennsylvania. Now, even if we assume that all of that goes to support education (for the record, it doesn't), I have two kids at home now. Where do I find a good private school with tuition of $1100/year per kid?

And I'm doing a heckuva lot better than a lot of people in this town.

Luigi Novi: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them

I dunno. What countries are you talking about? In Japan, I know that they do NOT mainstream their special needs children, AND many, many parents send their children to ADDITIONAL "cram schools" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cram_school) on top of their regular schooling to help them prepare for the standardized tests.

And yes,you are correct that parents "pick" private schools, but private schools do not ACCEPT everyone that "picks" them.

rrlane: Longer answer--yes, there are schools designed exclusively with special needs children, and they function, for the most part, very well and help many special needs children achieve a good measure of independence in the workaday world (I am talking about schools for those with mental and emotional disabilities here, not those that work with those with physical disabilities...that needs to be clear).
Luigi Novi: Okay, to clarify, are you and Den one and the same? Because the original point was made by him, not you, but now you’re claiming the point was your own, and later stated that you’re a Pennsylvania teacher, as Den mentioned.

Den/you indeed specified kids who were mentally disabled, learning disabled, and kids with psychological problems. Not just physical disabilities. (Again, I’m a bit confused here, because if you and he are the same person, you’d know this. If you are not the same person, you’d still know it if you read his last posts.)

If you are the same, could you please stick to one username, particularly if you’re going to continue the same thread and the same points with me? Thanks. :-)

rrlane: I certainly won't say that there are not private, academically oriented schools that mainstream students with mental and emotional special needs, but I'd be willing to bet you'll have to look long and hard before you find one, and if you do, I'd also bet they don't stress how they're at the top of the heap academically in their brochures.
Luigi Novi: If privatization were more widespread, don’t you think there would be more such schools? The same principle of competition that drives private institutions to solicit “mainstream” students for enrollment will do the same for kids with special needs.

rrlane: Define "extreme." I have two classes of ninth grade general students. One with twenty eight kids, the other with thirty. Of those 58 kids, I would say ten work to their potential, about fifteen will do average work, but could accomplish more if they applied themselves, fifteen will do only enough work to get by with a passing grade, ten more will squeak past with me riding their butts the whole time, and the other eight will not do squat no matter what I try. I personally find 33/58 functioning far below what they are capable of to be an extreme number.
Luigi Novi: “Functioning far below what they are capable of” hardly sounds like “absolutely refuse to learn.” The segment of that 58 that would seem best describes by that latter phrase would be those last eight, which is less than one seventh of the total 58. If those eight “will not do squat”, then that’s their fault, and they should be expelled. If a public school wont’ do that, then that’s all the more reason why the system needs to be changed. As for the rest, private institutions will be more motivated to help the remaining 40 who do not refuse to learn, but do not work to their full potential. In any case, one must acknowledge the law of averages. In any given group of people, some will have the talent or aptitude toward a given skill, like formal education, but others not as much so. Not everyone can be class valedictorian.

rrlane: Public schools don't have that option. We are mandated to make it our problem. That is the crux of the argument I am making. A private school can say to a parent, "This is your problem, not ours." I have been in parent/teacher meetings where the exact same thing is said to the teachers BY THE PARENTS.
Luigi Novi: Same answer as above: This is one reason why the system needs changing.

rrlane: Again, tell that to the Bush Administration. NCLB stipulates that ALL students will test out to be proficient by the year 2014.
Luigi Novi: And like much of the other “ideas” that W. puts forward, that’s not gonna work. As for the rest of this passage, same answer as above.

rrlane: How many unemployed automotive workers are there now? Are they tax evaders now?
Luigi Novi: I don’t see what being unemployed has to do with tax evasion. Most people have taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically. The unemployed aren’t tax evaders, because at the time of their unemployment, they’re not being paid a wage in the first place.

rrlane: Also, I'm not wealthy by any stretch, but my wife and I own a nice, comfy home. We are paying approximately $2,200/year in property taxes, which is where the school taxes are taken from here in Pennsylvania. Now, even if we assume that all of that goes to support education (for the record, it doesn't), I have two kids at home now. Where do I find a good private school with tuition of $1100/year per kid?
Luigi Novi: If you read my February 5, 2006 10:38pm post, you wouldn’t have to ask that question, nor would I have to respond yet one more time that schools have succeeded who have not had to spend that much on each kid.

rrlane: I dunno. What countries are you talking about?
Luigi Novi: The one(s) I mentioned earlier.

Den -
what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?

Presumably, faster travel times compared to going through the much-crowded I-25 corridor which goes right through Denver.

In the end, however, nothing changes in the long run: with the way the Denver Metro is expanding, in 25 years any such parallel road to the east will also become crowded as development encroaches upon the road.

Bobb -
You either maintain a road in servicable condition, or you don't.

And we have far too many roads to maintain. But handing over the rights to build more roads to private companies doesn't solve anything either - alternative methods of transportation in this country is what's really needed.

And in that case, the Denver Metro is unfortunately very much behind the times. Still, we just approved a major construction project that will add tons of miles of light rail to the Metro, but it won't be complete for like 10-15 years. :P

Luigi -
As far as those who don’t pay their taxes, are you suggesting the discussion of the educational system should be geared towards tax evaders? And how many of those people don’t pay their taxes?

Well, I guess it's my turn to saying you're taking my comments out of context, and thus you're lying, because I said nothing about tax evaders.

It's very simple, Luigi: your whole argument is based on a simple, straightfoward set of circumstances that you think will cover everybody.

That isn't reality.

rrlane: How many unemployed automotive workers are there now? Are they tax evaders now?
Luigi Novi: I don’t see what being unemployed has to do with tax evasion. Most people have taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically. The unemployed aren’t tax evaders, because at the time of their unemployment, they’re not being paid a wage in the first place.

Of course they aren't. It was a rhetorical question. What I was trying to point out is there are a vast number of people who don't pay taxes who aren't tax evaders. Public education means that these people don't have to choose between their children going to school and their family eating.

rrlane: Public schools don't have that option. We are mandated to make it our problem. That is the crux of the argument I am making. A private school can say to a parent, "This is your problem, not ours." I have been in parent/teacher meetings where the exact same thing is said to the teachers BY THE PARENTS.
Luigi Novi: Same answer as above: This is one reason why the system needs changing.

Where we agree-the system needs changing.

Where your argument falls flat--thinking that a privatized system will have one whit of effect on the parents and children I describe above. And you are fooling yourself if you think that you can simply say, "tough cookies, lady--you and your brat are on your own."

I'm really sorry, but nothing you have said has made one tiny dent in that armor of that beast.

rrlane: Also, I'm not wealthy by any stretch, but my wife and I own a nice, comfy home. We are paying approximately $2,200/year in property taxes, which is where the school taxes are taken from here in Pennsylvania. Now, even if we assume that all of that goes to support education (for the record, it doesn't), I have two kids at home now. Where do I find a good private school with tuition of $1100/year per kid?

Luigi Novi: If you read my February 5, 2006 10:38pm post, you wouldn’t have to ask that question, nor would I have to respond yet one more time that schools have succeeded who have not had to spend that much on each kid.

Looking over that particular post, the only numbers I see you mention:

Theresa Middleton, who spends only $3,000 per child in her South Carolina school.

$3,000/year is a bit more than $1,100/year. Would a private school in my town be willing to work at a $1,900/year loss per kid?

If you mentioned other figures in that post, I may have missed them.

After this post, I'm done with this thread (for real this time) because we are all beginning to repeat ourselves, and I don't see the point of finding yet another way to type the same thing again. To sum up my points:

Privatization does not take into account those who cannot pay the tuition needed, and would lead to a class of people for whom a basic education is a pipe dream.

Arguments stating that private education is superior to public education fail to factor in the CRUCIAL fact that, despite any Clintonian semantic juggling, private schools are able to select what students attend their institutions, whereas public schools cannot, making any comparisons between the two using test scores, graduation rates or damn near any other objective criteria ridiculous.

I have truly enjoyed this give and take, and wish to thank all those who participated. This is the first time I've joined in the discussion on this particular site and it has been memorable.

Craig: Well, I guess it's my turn to saying you're taking my comments out of context, and thus you're lying, because I said nothing about tax evaders.
Luigi Novi: The difference between your lie and the fictional one you attribute to me, of course, is that you quoted me selectively, but deliberately not including surrounding text that provided a different meaning from one provided by your chopped-up version of it. Again, I pointed this out to you, and you still haven’t directly addressed it. You merely denied the lie, without offering any opinion on the how the quote looked as you presented it.

By contrast, if I misunderstood what you were referring to, that is easily attributable to the normal miscommunication that sometimes happens in online discussions such as this, and has nothing to do with “taking things out of context.” In this latter instance, there was no additional material that I chopped out of your quote that would’ve given it a different meaning.

Of course, you cannot comprehend or admit the simple distinction between these two things, and thus, in the true spirit of relativism, you lump them together as the same intellectual dishonesty.

But then again, you would.

Craig: It's very simple, Luigi: your whole argument is based on a simple, straightfoward set of circumstances that you think will cover everybody.
Luigi Novi: Despite the numerous instances I listed in which I made clear that a different system would be generally better, and not absolutely so.

But if you can point me to the passage where I said that any system would cover “everybody”, please feel free to do so. I feel I’ve already pointed sufficiently to the numerous instances in which I stated my suggestion as a generalization.

rrlane: Of course they aren't. It was a rhetorical question. What I was trying to point out is there are a vast number of people who don't pay taxes who aren't tax evaders. Public education means that these people don't have to choose between their children going to school and their family eating.
Luigi Novi: I do not believe that under a change of the system, that parents would have to make that choice. I pointed out before how schools do not have to spend that much on kids, but even if parents couldn’t afford that, you could keep some public schools open for those ones if you wanted. But we could still give a far greater modicum of choice for the general public.

rrlane: Where we agree-the system needs changing. Where your argument falls flat--thinking that a privatized system will have one whit of effect on the parents and children I describe above. And you are fooling yourself if you think that you can simply say, "tough cookies, lady--you and your brat are on your own."
Luigi Novi: And what about those for whom it would help? Shouldn’t those people have a greater choice, if they can afford it. Even if the taxes parents pay isn’t enough to send all their kids to a given school, what about those for whom it is?

rrlane: Looking over that particular post, the only numbers I see you mention: “Theresa Middleton, who spends only $3,000 per child in her South Carolina school.” $3,000/year is a bit more than $1,100/year. Would a private school in my town be willing to work at a $1,900/year loss per kid?
Luigi Novi: I apologize; I misread the $1100 you gave. Mea culpa. In answer to your original question, see above.

My own summing up:

Parents should be allowed to take the tax money they pay that’s earmarked for education, and spend it where they want. Whether this means vouchers, attaching the taxes to the child, or more privatization, I believe that this would generally lead to a better system.

Thos who cannot pay for private schools can continue going to public ones if they wish.

Under privatization, schools do not choose their students. It is the students (or their parents) who choose the schools. Discriminating against students for arbitrary reasons would be counterproductive to the schools, would lead to bad publicity, and it has not been proven that this scenario would come to pass. Schools exist in this country, and school systems exist abroad, that suggest that this scenario is little more than a Scare Tactic. Comparison between private and public is neither necessary for any reason, nor relevant to the issue of greater privatization, and therefore, in my opinion, moot.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion as well.

Shouldn’t those people have a greater choice, if they can afford it.

And apparently anybody that cannot afford it just gets left behind.

I'm sure there's some wonderful data that can be inferred regarding cost vs quality, numbers, and so forth of public colleges/universities vs private.

Flat out: private colleges are more expensive. And the only thing that will happen if there were fewer public colleges? Well, it wouldn't be more students going to private college, it would just be fewer people going to college.

What you propose, Luigi, is making supposedly better education the province of the more fortunate and less accessible for the poor.

Thankfully, Bush & Kerry prove that an Ivy League education really doesn't mean a whole helluva alot anyways.

Of course, you cannot comprehend or admit the simple distinction between these two things, and thus, in the true spirit of relativism, you lump them together as the same intellectual dishonesty.

Uhuh, and I'm the one that supposedly throws out lines of complete bs as a way of avoiding the topic of conversation.

Like I've said, Luigi, quit accusing people of lying when you've done the same.

Craig: And apparently anybody that cannot afford it just gets left behind.
Luigi Novi: I already answered this above when I wrote:

I pointed out before how schools do not have to spend that much on kids, but even if parents couldn’t afford that, you could keep some public schools open for those ones if you wanted.

Pretend all you want not to have read it. I’ll just point it out, so we can again see how you deliberate ignore the content of my posts.

Craig: Flat out: private colleges are more expensive. And the only thing that will happen if there were fewer public colleges? Well, it wouldn't be more students going to private college, it would just be fewer people going to college
Luigi Novi: I never said anything about colleges, nor did I ever suggest making “fewer public colleges.” There are plenty of private universities that students can choose between them, or go to public colleges if they can’t afford it. The same can occur with the lower grade levels.

Craig: What you propose, Luigi, is making supposedly better education the province of the more fortunate and less accessible for the poor.
Luigi Novi: No, I just propose giving parents the freedom of choice.

Luigi Novi: Of course, you cannot comprehend or admit the simple distinction between these two things, and thus, in the true spirit of relativism, you lump them together as the same intellectual dishonesty.

Craig: Uhuh, and I'm the one that supposedly throws out lines of complete bs as a way of avoiding the topic of conversation.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you don’t seem to be able to actually to refute the distinction I pointed out, preferring instead to restrict yourself to vague, indirect denials and rhetoric.

Craig: Like I've said, Luigi, quit accusing people of lying when you've done the same.
Luigi Novi: When you can point out where I’ve “lied,” using the same fidelity to detail, logic and internally consistency that I have in doing so with you, you let me know, okay? :-)

No, I just propose giving parents the freedom of choice.

No, you are allowing a segment of the population to get bent over.

Who's going to pay for the public education of the remainder of the population that cannot afford to send their kids to private schools? Or the group who is not allowed in, for whatever reason?

You've already taken the funding away from public education, along with the facilities, teachers, and so forth.

Yet you maintain that there will still be public schools for "everybody else".

Have you paid attention to what has happened to public universities lately? Tuition costs are skyrocketing, meaning more people either have to borrow money to go (and we all know how great it is to be in debt), or aren't going at all.

You seem to be going with "well, youre less fortunate, now suffere further because of it" as your reason behind this.

When you can point out where I’ve “lied,” using the same fidelity to detail, logic and internally consistency that I have in doing so with you, you let me know, okay? :-)

Your Honor, I submit to you the "Luigi Defense":

Accuse somebody of lying and using logical fallacies, and then when they do the same, simply dismiss them out of hand, while never admitting to your own lies and logical fallacies.

Craig: Yet you maintain that there will still be public schools for "everybody else".
Luigi Novi: Yeah. Why wouldn’t there be, if that’s how we enact the change?

Craig: Have you paid attention to what has happened to public universities lately? Tuition costs are skyrocketing, meaning more people either have to borrow money to go (and we all know how great it is to be in debt), or aren't going at all.
Luigi Novi: In other words……..inflation?

Luigi Novi: When you can point out where I’ve “lied,” using the same fidelity to detail, logic and internally consistency that I have in doing so with you, you let me know, okay? :-)

Craig: Your Honor, I submit to you the "Luigi Defense": Accuse somebody of lying and using logical fallacies, and then when they do the same, simply dismiss them out of hand, while never admitting to your own lies and logical fallacies.
Luigi Novi: This does not answer the above challenge at all. It merely makes the accusation, without ever illustrating it any detail with examples or reason.

Yes, I accused you of lying and employing logical fallacies. Rather than refute any one of those instances on the basis of the assertions’ merit, you simply denied them, without any elaboration.

By contrast, I’ve responded to each one of your statements, including your irrational and unfounded accusations, explaining why they don’t hold up, which is pretty much the opposite of “dismissing them out of hand,” which actually describes your responses exactly. What you hypocritically accuse me of is actually descriptive of your own behavior. The reasoning I use to argue both the former and the latter is why my accusations hold up, and yours do not. You say these things, but you do not back them up, even when I challenge you to do so. I’ve given you numerous opportunities to refute the logic of these many instances, and you’ve consistently failed to do so, preferring to merely repeat the accusation/denial, without any elaboration.

But again, when you can point out any lies or logical fallacies on my part, and when you can directly answer my various illustrations of the same on your part, using the same detail, let me know.

Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

No. My point is, once you declare these kids to be "uneducatable" and dump them on the street, they are going to be somebody's problem. Without even a high school education, they will be virtually unemployable in the modern economy. That means they will most likely end living a life of crime and/or drug abuse. Now, granted, a lot of them are ending up that way anyhow, but at least the intent of NCLB is stem that tide.

If you think it's perfectly acceptable to just dump them in the streets and wait for the penal system to pick them, please just say so.

Luigi Novi: The evidence would suggest otherwise. A private company rented the empty space in the middle of the 91 Freeway in California, and built a toll road that functioned better than the public one. It takes about 45 minutes off the rush hour commute, and there are no toll booths, because scanners in the scaffolding bill people electronically as cars pass by, so that the cars don’t even have to slow down. If you’re car breaks down, they see you with their cameras, and will come to help you. If you run out gas, they’ll give you a free gallon. Seeing footage of the private road next to the public road is dramatic.

That's one example by itself. My original point, though, was no one envisions dozens of competing privat toll roads all going in the same direction. A few isolated roads contracted to private entities is not the same thing.

Luigi Novi: Just how many kids do you think are going to be so unruly, that in rrlane’s words, they “absolutely refuse to learn”? Why is it that discussion of a major system is being opposed on the grounds of what is certainly an extreme minority? This is akin to those who oppose gay marriage because supposedly, two male friends who are not gay and not in love can just get married in order to pull off an insurance scheme, or something. My question for both situations is, “Is this truly representational of the typical person or persons for whom the idea is designed?”

Pile on the strawmen! First of all, I already said that "absolutely refuses to learn" does not necessarily equal "unruly" and gave two examples of how it wouldn't be. Please debate honestly.

Second, since the entire issue of how to reform education does revolve around what to with those at risk, this is not an example of the "extreme minority" but those for whom the reform is actually needed.

People are often frightened of change, even when the evidence suggests the change would be for the better. Opponents of change will often employ the Scary Scenario to explain why the change would be bad, and this question about all these delinquents who would “absolutely refuse to learn,” and

Not all what I'm saying. I'm asking for details on how you would deal with certain situations. If again, you feel this system is the fix for all kids or the "extreme majority" (sic), then tell us how you would deal with the bumps in the road.

In my opinion, if you allowed parents’ taxes to be attached to their kids, or allowed vouchers, or privatization, then there wouldn’t be any large number kids as you describe. I believe that’s just Chicken Little paranoia.

You may believe that. But I want details and numbers to support it, not just the "privatization is better" mantra.

Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

The ones that are cited in studies that show private schools do better do. Yes, there are private special needs schools, but they aren't being compared to public schools. Most of these comparisons are of private schools that cater to kids w/o special needs to public schools that are mandated to accomodate everyone. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Luigi Novi: Again, I don’t know how or why it has this effect on you, but let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that these passages have this effect on you. Doesn’t it stand to reason that all the previous instances where I stated otherwise would have the effect of the opposite impression? How do you explain this, in light of these previous comments by me:

Look, you can pull all of the comments out of context you want, but the fact that more than one person has had this impression towards your statement should be a sign that maybe your word choice is not conveying the point you want to make.

As far as being an abuse of eminent domain, that occurs even now, with things like Ikea stores that are not akin to roads or schools. It’s not something specific to private roads, which already exist in the U.S. now, and are much better than public ones.

Which is wrong, but that's a completely separate debate.

Luigi Novi: One more time: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them.

You're mixing arguments. I was talking about how private schools pick and choose students in the US today, not how the schools operate in other countries in some future scenario.

Now, do these other countries have a mandate that these kids have to go to one school or another? Is there a "default" school that those with learning disabilities or other problems (and no, we're not talking just about kids who are "unruly") are sent? Or do the schools, as you have plainly advocated, have to right to simply kick the problem kids out and let them be someone else's problem?

And no, rrlane and I are two different people. I teach at the community college level.

I think every Bush speech should be taken off the record and put into a brown paperbag in the bathroom.

Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

Den: No. My point is, once you declare these kids to be "uneducatable" and dump them on the street, they are going to be somebody's problem. Without even a high school education, they will be virtually unemployable in the modern economy. That means they will most likely end living a life of crime and/or drug abuse. Now, granted, a lot of them are ending up that way anyhow, but at least the intent of NCLB is stem that tide.
Luigi Novi: Intent does not equal results. The government always claims good intentions when enacting supposedly “new” programs and approaches to problems, whether it’s the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, public housing, etc. But there’s no reason to think that just because that’s the intent of NCLB that it will be the result. The only intent that will keep a kid off the streets and out of a life of crime will be if it’s the intent of the kid and his parents.

Den: If you think it's perfectly acceptable to just dump them in the streets and wait for the penal system to pick them, please just say so.
Luigi Novi: I think it’s acceptable to own up to one’s own sense of personal responsibility, both for oneself, and for one’s family, instead of assuming a system where it’s the government’s job, especially since most things that the government tries to police, regulate or run that’s outside of the narrow purview set forth by the Founding Fathers often is done poorly.

Den: That's one example by itself. My original point, though, was no one envisions dozens of competing privat toll roads all going in the same direction. A few isolated roads contracted to private entities is not the same thing.
Luigi Novi: Who says there have to be “dozens”? The range of competition is obviously limited by logistics and practicality. You can only have as many brands of peanut butter or bread as the supermarket has shelf space to give to them. Similarly, the amount of different roads is limited by how many roads there are, and/or how much space there is to build more. The fact that the private road functions so much better than the government one illustrates why it does things better than the government. You also seem to have missed this statement I previously made:

yes, people can choose a public road, and/or the contract can be put back up for bid, and that’s where the competition is.

Den: Pile on the strawmen! First of all, I already said that "absolutely refuses to learn" does not necessarily equal "unruly" and gave two examples of how it wouldn't be. Please debate honestly. Second, since the entire issue of how to reform education does revolve around what to with those at risk, this is not an example of the "extreme minority" but those for whom the reform is actually needed.
Luigi Novi: There is no Straw Man. I have not distorted your words nor your argument, but merely believe that this is what is implied or entailed by your suggestion, even if not intentionally on your part. “Absolutely refuses to learn” is most certainly a description of a rebellious delinquent. Not someone who is “needed.” “Unable to learn” or “having difficulty learning” is not the same thing as “absolutely refuses to learn.” In my opinion, the entire issue does not revolve around the “absolutely refuses to learn” demographic. “Refuse” indicates a clear choice, not difficulty, impairment, neglect, or lack of aptitude. As for those who do fall into that latter category of needing help, I provided examples above, such as the one about Dorian Cane. Please read it.

Den: Not all what I'm saying. I'm asking for details on how you would deal with certain situations. If again, you feel this system is the fix for all kids or the "extreme majority" (sic), then tell us how you would deal with the bumps in the road.
Luigi Novi: See last part of above answer.

Den: You may believe that. But I want details and numbers to support it, not just the "privatization is better" mantra.
Luigi Novi: One more time for the cheap seats: See my prior examples of how such those methods are successfully employed by other countries. That’s your data. By contrast, where’s your data that my suggestions will lead to significant numbers of kids in the streets leading lives of crime?

Den: The ones that are cited in studies that show private schools do better do. Yes, there are private special needs schools, but they aren't being compared to public schools. Most of these comparisons are of private schools that cater to kids w/o special needs to public schools that are mandated to accomodate everyone. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure if I’m following here. What exactly is the relevance of a comparison? Compare for what purposes? Aren’t results that count? If any of my suggestions are implemented, then why would anyone compare private schools to public ones? (I apologize for not understanding.)

Den: Look, you can pull all of the comments out of context you want…
Luigi Novi: Now I’m pulling my own comments out of context? Wow, how exactly does one do that? And if I pulled them out of context, then please explain how they are out of context. You didn’t specify this. It seems to me, from looking at all those passages, that their meaning was fairly clear. Are you saying that there was a different context in which they were originally made, and that therefore, they had a different meaning? What meaning was that?

Den: …but the fact that more than one person has had this impression towards your statement should be a sign that maybe your word choice is not conveying the point you want to make.
Luigi Novi: Wrong.

First of all, the fact more than one person is having this reaction, does not, and of itself, meaning that the miscommunication lies with my choice of words. The number of people have difficulty understanding me may theoretically be one thing to consider and it is certainly possible, but it is not the sole barometer by which to measure this.

Moreover, at least two people, Bill Mulligan and Jerome Maida, have praised my posts, with neither of them chiming in to inform me that they got this “impression” as well. All other posters have this point abandoned the thread, or simply not been interested enough to chime in. So using your numerical logic, we have three people who get what I’m saying, and three who don’t. What should we make of this?

Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes it is wrong. The way to tell which it is is with the reasoning you use to explain why the context is different.

After the initial days of the thread waned, the thread only continued with about four people speaking about the education issue (you, me, Craig and rrlane), three of which are opposed to my position (or aspects of it), and since it is an issue about which people are sensitive, it is possible that these three are simply not able to respond as objectively as possible. Now mind you, I’m not saying that this is automatically the case just because you three feel passionately about this subject (by virtue of the same reasoning). But let’s look at the facts: Craig regularly and deliberately ignores the substance of my responses that clearly refute his statements. Rrlane admitted that some of her behavior did not meet the ideal level of civil, intelligent discourse, and was very gracious and honorable in apologizing about it. Numerous times I pointed out that they (and you) ignored things that I have said. It seemed, therefore, that the problem was that Craig and (initially) rrlane were simply poor debaters who did not want to even consider my arguments, or at least were employing less-than-civil and intelligent argumentation tactics, which I have pointed to time and time again.

If my numerous passages in which I stated clearly that the changes I propose would be generally better did not suffice to make this point clearly enough, then why did Craig and rrlane and you not respond to them at all? You said these comments were made in a different context, but not only did you not elaborate on what this “different context” was, you ignore the fact that Craig, for example, didn’t even acknowledge the comments. What kind of context would there be that would preclude you from explaining why those comments didn’t convey what I intended? This strongly suggests not that the context in which I originally said these things was different, but that they were simply being ignored. If not, then why did they continue to ignore them every time I pointed out that I had said them over and over, before I ultimately made a list of them? Can you answer that?

Sorry Den, but as I stated to Craig, Bold Statements not backed up with any elaboration do nothing to prove your point. It is clear that you simply believed about my position what you wanted to believe, and when I present clear evidence that refutes it, the only thing you can come up with is some theoretical argument about context that you refuse to back up.

Luigi Novi: As far as being an abuse of eminent domain, that occurs even now, with things like Ikea stores that are not akin to roads or schools. It’s not something specific to private roads, which already exist in the U.S. now, and are much better than public ones.

Den: Which is wrong, but that's a completely separate debate.
Luigi Novi: In what way is it wrong? I showed that private roads are better than public ones. You claimed that my example wasn’t sufficient by itself (and ignored where I showed competition in the scenario), but you didn’t show how it was “wrong.”

Luigi Novi: One more time: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them.

Den: You're mixing arguments. I was talking about how private schools pick and choose students in the US today, not how the schools operate in other countries in some future scenario.
Luigi Novi: There is no “mixed” argument. Those schools in other countries do not operate that way in a “future scenario.” They operate that way now, and successfully so, leaving our best public school students in the dust. If we operated the same way, we’d do better.

Den: Now, do these other countries have a mandate that these kids have to go to one school or another?
Luigi Novi: I answered that point directly in my February 5, 2006 10:37pm post. Thanks for once again proving that you’re not really reading my posts before responding to them. So much for me not arguing “honestly.”

Is there a "default" school that those with learning disabilities or other problems (and no, we're not talking just about kids who are "unruly") are sent? Or do the schools, as you have plainly advocated, have to right to simply kick the problem kids out and let them be someone else's problem?
Luigi Novi:

Den: And no, rrlane and I are two different people. I teach at the community college level.
Luigi Novi: And where does she teach? How do you know she doesn’t also teach at the community college level? Do you know each other? (I find it interesting that not only are you both Pennsylvania teachers, but you both used an accusation of a Straw Man argument against me, and that in both cases, it was made incorrectly, as well as the fact that both of you got into a quibble with me as to the scale involved in the word “epidemic.”)

And if you’re two different people, then I’d be very curious to ask her:

A. Why she indicated that a point that had originally been made by you had somehow been made by her.

B. Why she didn’t respond to this point in her 2/10, 9:27pm post, after I had brought it up in my 2/10, 8:27pm post.

Ack. I forgot to answer the point about disabled students in foreign countries. I do not know what precisely happens in such countries, but I would imagine that those students have schools to go to that address their needs. If you have any information or insight into this, I would welcome it. I doubt that in this day and age, that such kids in Europe get "kicked out" to be someone's else's problem.

Luigi Novi wrote: "So using your numerical logic, we have three people who get what I’m saying, and three who don’t."

Luigi,

For what it's worth, I also get what you're saying. Your arguments are well-reasoned, as is the defense of said arguments. That's one thing I like reading about your posts. You will not only state your position on an issue, but also back it up with _why_ you feel that position is correct- building on a logical argument. If A, then B, then C, etc.

Of course, that doesn't mean your arguments are always right- just that they're based on careful thought, and not the "just because" position, which argues that "just because" is all the explanation that's needed.

On another website, I participate in weekly discussions analysing episodes of an old TV show to which the website is dedicated. One particular episode generated a great deal of debate between myself and another over whether particular "rules" of that "universe" applied throughout the series. I maintain that they do, while my fellow poster maintains they only applied in special circumstances that existed in an episode which preceded the one under discussion. We each argued our respective cases, and cited certain dialogue and/or events from the run of the series as "evidence" supporting our respective positions.

We respect each other's positions, but we each believe the evidence supports our argument. The truth, however, is that until or unless the man who wrote the episode in which this "rule" was first introduced steps forward and says definitively whether it was a one-time deal or not, we won't _know_ for certain which of us is right.

But at least we had a nice, friendly debate based on reasoning and logic, with neither of us subscribing to the "just because" school of debate.

For the record, however, I think your comments with regard to changing the education system make sense. The system _does_ need changes and improvements.

Rick

P.S. on a completly unrelated matter, it's now Feb. 14. And that can mean only one thing.

Happy Jack Benny's birthday, everyone.

Thanks, Rick.

Interestingly, the site you mention sounds a lot like www.nitcentral, which began as a nitpicking/discussion board site devoted to the various Star Treks, and which by now has topics from Politics to Religion, Humor, Novels, Movies, etc.

Luigi Novi: In what way is it wrong? I showed that private roads are better than public ones.

I was talking about the abuse of eminent domain re: the Kelo case. That's what was wrong and a separate debate.

Luigi, I've never met rrlane. I have no idea where she teaches or even if she's actually a woman. (for the record, I'm a guy) I don't know what she looks like or what her real name is. I wouldn't know her if I saw her on the street. You are, quite frankly, started to sound a little paranoid on this point, which means it's time for me to pull out of this debate.

"Bobb: Simply tossing the whoel ball of yarn to the private industry with a note saying "you guys figure this mess out" is not the solution we need. Before we farm out the work, we need to determine what the goal is, and that's going to need a fundamental restart of the Federal Education system."

"Luigi Novi: Obviously, the “ball of yarn” and “you figure this mess out” metaphors are not accurate characterizations of the suggestions for privatization, vouchers or attached taxes, and obviously, determination of goals is central to any such proposal. Who here has suggested otherwise?"

I think the idea of privatizing education, especially through the use of vouchers, is exactly tossing the ball of yarn to private industry. As a society, we don't have any clear idea of what we want our primary education system to be. It's not a way to teach important life skills. Aside from English and basic math....both skills students have pretty much all the tools they need before they enter high school...there's precious little essential curriculum in our schooling system that's actually of use to people. We have this idea that school is supposed to help prepare people for an independant live as an adult. If that's the goal, we're highly ineffecient at it. So, rather than try and make the effort to examine the system, decide what we want to get out of it, and then implement changes, the current solution is to throw money at the problem, let people go to the private sector and use the market to determine what our education system is going to do, be and produce.

The education of our next generations is essential to the continued success of our country. It's far too important to leave to an unregulated system like the free market. As a society, we've demonstrated nothing if not that, when faced with free choice, we don't always make the best, or even a good one. Education is something that cannot be left to private interests. It's too important, and only a centralized government can be situated to guide it. So what if it operates at a loss? If you focus the system on really teaching the next generations the skills they truly need to be productive, independant, successful people, you'll make up that loss with a populace that depends less on adult programs like welfare, unemployment, and the penal system.

But if all you do is hand out money to people to spend on private school, you really are tossing the whole tangled ball of yarn to someone else. Before we can farm a program out, we need to untangle that mess, and figure out what we want it to be.

Den: And no, rrlane and I are two different people. I teach at the community college level.
Luigi Novi: And where does she teach? How do you know she doesn’t also teach at the community college level? Do you know each other? (I find it interesting that not only are you both Pennsylvania teachers, but you both used an accusation of a Straw Man argument against me, and that in both cases, it was made incorrectly, as well as the fact that both of you got into a quibble with me as to the scale involved in the word “epidemic.”)

And if you’re two different people, then I’d be very curious to ask her:

A. Why she indicated that a point that had originally been made by you had somehow been made by her.

B. Why she didn’t respond to this point in her 2/10, 9:27pm post, after I had brought it up in my 2/10, 8:27pm post.

Oh, Good Lord.

First of all, my wife of the eighteen years would be very surprised to find out that I'm a "she" all of the sudden.

Second, I'm fuzzy on how you are getting that I am claiming any point as "my own." If I wrote something that was similar to something Den wrote, it was because we both believe he same thing, nothing more.

Finally, I didn't respond to it because I didn't see it until Den brought it up yesterday and put it to bed. The notion that after he said we were not the same person, you continue to harp on it is taking this to new lows. My real name is Rich Lane, and I teach ninth grade and twelfth grade English in a rural Pennsylvania town.

Bobb: I think the idea of privatizing education, especially through the use of vouchers, is exactly tossing the ball of yarn to private industry. As a society, we don't have any clear idea of what we want our primary education system to be.
Luigi Novi: I think there are parents who do. All I’m saying is that we should give them a choice. If they want to throw their persona ball of yarn into a private institution because they feel that institution has a solid reputation for knitting those balls into nice little sweaters (if you’ll pardon my extending this metaphor), who are we to gainsay them?

Bobb: It's not a way to teach important life skills. Aside from English and basic math....both skills students have pretty much all the tools they need before they enter high school...
Luigi Novi: This is obviously not true to anyone who has ever tried having a conversation on the Internet with people who are essentially illiterate and illiterate in the ways of doing research, proofreading their posts, spelling, etc.

Bobb: We have this idea that school is supposed to help prepare people for an independant live as an adult. If that's the goal, we're highly ineffecient at it. So, rather than try and make the effort to examine the system, decide what we want to get out of it, and then implement changes, the current solution is to throw money at the problem, let people go to the private sector and use the market to determine what our education system is going to do, be and produce.
Luigi Novi: First of all, why do you present “implementing changes” and private schools are somehow contradictory? Why the use of the word “rather”? If we examine the system, and decide that parents should be allowed to use their tax dollars to send their kids where they want to, isn’t that a “change” to be implemented? Exactly how is it that you see making an effort to examine the system, deciding what one wants to get out of it, and then implementing changes as mutually exclusive from allowing parents to use the money that they earned on a private school? What if their decision to do so is the result of examining the system, deciding what they want out of it, and implementing changes? Don’t you think these solutions I’ve suggested are the result of “examining” the situation? What if what they “want to get out of it” is a better education than a public institution can provide?

And why do you mention “deciding what we want out of it” as somehow a new idea? Don’t you think it’s fairly obvious that we all already know what we “want to get out of it”?

And how exactly is a private school “throwing money at the problem”? Did you even read this thread? Throwing money at a problem is what the government does, not what a private institution does. Governments are wasteful and inefficient precisely because they think they can solve a problem by throwing money at a problem, which makes taxes goes up. I showed above examples of how public schools that spend billions more on kids do not end up with better grades, and how conversely, private schools that spend less can do better.

Yes, parents should be able, if they want, to go to the private sector and determine what education they should get for their their kids.

This entire above passage of yours makes absolutely not logical sense.

Bobb: The education of our next generations is essential to the continued success of our country. It's far too important to leave to an unregulated system like the free market. …Education is something that cannot be left to private interests.
Luigi Novi: There’s that Ideology Over Results idea again.

Can you please explain to me, how you’ve established a negative correlation between the importance of something, and its care under a private, less regulated system? Why do you assume that importance automatically = “government”? (I am reminded of one panelist on an episode of Politically Incorrect, maybe it was Maria Conchita Alonso, who, when asked why the government should fund the arts, as with the NEA, responded by saying that “It’s important!”) Can you please explain to me what is wrong with hiring private institutions to take care of something that is “important”? The vast majority of the things we do in life are things we hire private companies for! If you have an insect or mouse problem in your home, and you need to get rid of it, isn’t that “important”? Do you call the government? Or do you call a private extermination company, because you know/believe that they’re professionals? Is the fact that they’re a for-profit company concerned with the bottom line make the service they offer questionable? You talk about importance. Let’s talk about the three basic necessities in our society: Food. Clothing Shelter. Now please tell me that these things are not “vital” or “important”. Now tell me that you look to Big Daddy Government to take care of these things. If you’re like me, and for that matter, everyone else, you don’t. You go to supermarkets and corner bodegas for food, you go to clothing stores for clothes, and you rely on architects, constructions firms, real estate agents, and newspaper ads for buying a new house or renting a new apartment. What do all these people you rely on have in common? They’re PRIVATE!

If you could somehow establish that governments do things like education better than private institutions, then you’d have a legitimate line of argument you could provide. But nowhere in your post do you do this. I debunked this idea when Bladestar proposed it way back in my February 5th post. Rather than read it, and respond to it to show me where I’m wrong or where my reasoning is flawed, you simply didn’t read it/or ignored it.

Again.

Bobb: As a society, we've demonstrated nothing if not that, when faced with free choice, we don't always make the best, or even a good one.
Luigi Novi: LOL! So now you’re saying we citizens shouldn’t have power of choice????!!! That we need Big Brother to make it for us? Just what country are you living in? Maybe you’re too incompetent or have no faith in your abilities as an adult to make your own choices, and want Uncle Sam to diaper your ass and spoon-feed you, but me, I’m an American, and if I have kids, I want the choice to do with my education dollars as I please. I don’t want to be forced to give it to Uncle Sam to teach my kids, as if he thinks he somehow knows better than I, when he’s proven time and time again to do a much shittier job than the private guys.

You can decide your kids’ education based on an invalid ideology all you want.

Me? I prefer RESULTS. Private institutions give those. Public ones don’t.

Bobb: It's too important, and only a centralized government can be situated to guide it So what if it operates at a loss?
Luigi Novi: What do you mean “at a loss”? Well, in the first place, it shouldn’t operate that way, and second, the problem is not that it merely “operates at a loss,” but the fact that it doesn’t get the job as well as a private place.

Bobb: If you focus the system on really teaching the next generations the skills they truly need to be productive, independant, successful people, you'll make up that loss with a populace that depends less on adult programs like welfare, unemployment, and the penal system.
Luigi Novi: Again, how is this a new or insightful idea? In theory, haven’t the public schools been “focusing the system” on doing this since forever? If so, then how come there are not les people on such programs now?

Your solution is to avoid adult government programs by forcing a childhood one on us. Sorry if that doesn’t make sense to me.

Bobb: But if all you do is hand out money to people to spend on private school…
Luigi Novi: Allowing parents to use their own tax dollars as they please does not constitute “handing out money”. It’s giving people the choice they are entitled to as Americans to do as they please with what’s already theirs.

Bobb: …you really are tossing the whole tangled ball of yarn to someone else.
Luigi Novi: And if that “someone else” knows how to do the job, I say do it. I’m sorry if you feel the only competent professionals among us are those working for the government.

Bobb Before we can farm a program out, we need to untangle that mess, and figure out what we want it to be.
Luigi Novi: If you admit it’s a tangled mess, why do you argue, a priori, it seems, that we should continue using the same system? And again, what does this “what we want it to be” comment mean? What if some of us already know what we want it to be for our own kids?

rrlane: First of all, my wife of the eighteen years would be very surprised to find out that I'm a "she" all of the sudden.
Luigi Novi: Sorry. For most of the thread I didn’t know which gender you were, but then when I read this passage by you:

Where your argument falls flat--thinking that a privatized system will have one whit of effect on the parents and children I describe above. And you are fooling yourself if you think that you can simply say, "tough cookies, lady--you and your brat are on your own."

I though perhaps you were using yourself as a hypothetical example. It was all I had to go on, lest I resort to continuously using the phrase “he/she” when referring to you. Sorry ‘bout that.

rrlane: Second, I'm fuzzy on how you are getting that I am claiming any point as "my own." If I wrote something that was similar to something Den wrote, it was because we both believe he same thing, nothing more.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t mention anything about you writing anything “similar.” What I mentioned was an indication by you, in continuing an exchange between me and Den, that you were the one who had made the initial point that Den had made. Observe:

Den: Now, maybe if you privatized all schools and allowed them to do what private schools do: ignore the mentally disabled, the learning disabled, the kids with psychological problems, kids with neglectful parents, and the chronic under-achievers, maybe they'd have a higher test score level, but I don't see how it achieves the overall goal of a better educated citizenry.

Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

rrlane: Longer answer--yes, there are schools designed exclusively with special needs children, and they function, for the most part, very well and help many special needs children achieve a good measure of independence in the workaday world (I am talking about schools for those with mental and emotional disabilities here, not those that work with those with physical disabilities...that needs to be clear).

When you said “I am talking about,” it seemed that you were clarifying the initial point, as if I had not gotten it. But the initial point wasn’t made by you. It was made by Den. Why would you clarify to me what you were talking about, when you weren’t the one who made the original comment, but Den did? It just seems odd that you would phrase it this way.

rrlane: Finally, I didn't respond to it because I didn't see it until Den brought it up yesterday and put it to bed. The notion that after he said we were not the same person, you continue to harp on it is taking this to new lows. My real name is Rich Lane, and I teach ninth grade and twelfth grade English in a rural Pennsylvania town.
Luigi Novi: I apologize if you find this tiresome, but I’m simply trying to understand why you and he said these things. I’ve encountered people who’ve used sock puppets with me before, and slipped up in a way that made it obvious. I’m not saying it’s impossible that you’re two different people, but I hope you can understand, by my point of view, how this looks.

You say that you teach ninth and twelfth grades, right? But have you ever mentioned that before? If not, then why would Den state that he teaches at a community college, as if to distinguish himself from you, when the only way this fact could serve to do so would be if he already knew where you taught? Do you two know one another? (Again, I’m just asking.)

Luigi Novi:When you said “I am talking about,” it seemed that you were clarifying the initial point, as if I had not gotten it. But the initial point wasn’t made by you. It was made by Den. Why would you clarify to me what you were talking about, when you weren’t the one who made the original comment, but Den did? It just seems odd that you would phrase it this way.

What seems odd to me is why you don't see that I was talking about the paragraphs that immediately proceeded the one you pulled from.

You are making an assumption with nothing at all to back it up, so I shall make one as well. It seems to me that you are attempting to cast doubts on the credibilty of the people you are arguing with.

Luigi:You say that you teach ninth and twelfth grades, right? But have you ever mentioned that before? If not, then why would Den state that he teaches at a community college, as if to distinguish himself from you, when the only way this fact could serve to do so would be if he already knew where you taught? Do you two know one another? (Again, I’m just asking.)

I don't know him from Adam, and while I don't think I mentioned here that I teach English, but I have mentioned several times that I teach in public schools, that I am a reluctant member of the NEA and that I'm in Pennsylvania.

Luigi, I don't really care why Den said what he said. You can either take us for our respective words or not. It, like your use of the nome de place of Luigi Novi as opposed to your real name, is your choice.

To be quite honest, the way you are trying to get this conversation to jump to another track smacks not a little of the smear campaign politics that the GOP has been wallowing in of late. It seems like you are trying to cast aspersions on those that disagree with you rather than address the real issues.

Though, now that you mention it, Den and I don't ever seem to be in the room at the same time. Hmmmm.....

Okay, I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion; I don't have a strong opinion on the public/private issue - besides that I have little complaint with my own, public school, education - and I don't have the thought and possible research Luigi Novi has put into this, or the real world knowledge and experience which rrlane and Den have.

But, when - against my better judgement - I read the new posts on this thread, and read this from Luigi Novi - "...(initially) rrlane were simply poor debaters" - I had to say something. As someone who has read this entire thread, for better and worse - rrlane, in any sarcasm or snideness present, was simply responding in kind to the precedent for behavior set by Luigi Novi. He does have well-thought out posts, and has often been very informative and useful as a poster here over the years. But many of his posts on this thread have been sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and have frankly created an impression of self-worship on L.N.'s part. The tone of the conversation has largely improved in cordiality since rrlane made his very generous apology, realizing that he had been dragged down into behavior that was beneath him, and choosing to rise back to a higher level - taking blame for following a course of discourse which had already been laid out before him by someone else.

rrlane, I remember your post above in which you mentioned being a long-time lurker, new poster here. You should know - I probably should have posted at the time - that it was not YOUR behavior which had me dreading reading this thread, which actually had me thinking with disgust about this thread at work one morning (hours after I'd been on-line). I, for one, am gald to welcome you to the PAD community, and hope that this atypical experience with this thread won't put you off from posting here in the future.

All right, Luigi. I've really had it. I've said repeatedly that I'm not rrlane. He's said he's not me. I've said I've never met in him person.

I can only conclude that the fact you are still harping on this is that you think we're both lying. In which case, you can just piss off for all I care.

Yes, we've made some similar statements if for no other reason then we both think that privatizing schools is not the panecea you make it out to be. Yes, we both live in Pennsylvania. So do 12.5 million other people.

Is that really too hard for you wrap your mind around?

If I was going to use an alias or sock puppet, I would've claimed at least claimed to have been from another state. I also would not have claimed to have been a teacher in both identities.

Seriously, you've gone beyond my limit to tolerate this nonsense. What do you want? Both of us to drive out to Union City and introduce ourselves to you?

Crap,it should say "nom de plume" not "nome de place" above (oh, for the ability to edit!).

I thank you for the kind words, Luke. They are much appreciated. I'm sure I'll be sticking around. For the most part the people here are intelligent and well spoken and considerate, so I don't have any problems with the occasional bump in the road.

rrlane: What seems odd to me is why you don't see that I was talking about the paragraphs that immediately proceeded the one you pulled from.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see that because it’s not true. You were responding to my statement, “Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?. What paragraphs after that one were you referring to?

rrlane: You are making an assumption with nothing at all to back it up, so I shall make one as well. It seems to me that you are attempting to cast doubts on the credibilty of the people you are arguing with.
Luigi Novi: I am not making any assumption at all; I’m merely responding to the content of your posts. That you quoted the above statement by me before responding to it is not an “assumption.” It’s a fact. That one responds to the statement that quote right before it—well, I guess that’s an assumption, but it’s a fairly reasonable one. If you were responding to a different paragraph, why did you quote the one above?

I am not attempting to cast doubts on anyone’s credibility, regardless of whether that happens to be one of the emergent effects of this. I am merely responding to what I see, and asking you, “Why is this?” “Can you explain this to me?” Yes, I understand that even suggesting the possibility that someone is using multiple aliases is a sensitive question that may result in angered responses, but I attempted to make clear that I was asking because I was genuinely puzzled by these things, and as aforementioned, I’ve had to deal with people who used multiple aliases with me in debates before. Are you saying it was unreasonable of me to react this way by merely asking these questions?

rrlane: I don't know him from Adam, and while I don't think I mentioned here that I teach English, but I have mentioned several times that I teach in public schools, that I am a reluctant member of the NEA and that I'm in Pennsylvania.
Luigi Novi: Okay. I suppose it’s possible that he was referencing this. But I don’t think you mentioned this on this particular thread, so this would demonstrate an impressive memory for detail on his part; he didn’t even specify, when mentioning that he taught c.c., that you taught public. There’s nothing precluding one from remembering this point about you from some previous thread, but when you consider that he didn’t seem to be able to recall things that I myself said in this thread, this seems surprising to me.

rrlane: Luigi, I don't really care why Den said what he said. You can either take us for our respective words or not. It, like your use of the nome de place of Luigi Novi as opposed to your real name, is your choice.
Luigi Novi: Where have you established that this is a nom de plume? It isn’t. It’s my real name. It’s the same name I use at www.nitcentral.com, and the same name I’ve used when contributing material to the site of magician/skeptic/educator James Randi, at www.randi.org. You can do a search on my name there and find the two text pieces I’ve contributed, and you can see the two pieces of artwork I contributed at http://www.randi.org/jr/072905beenthere.html#9 and http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/122305hallelujah.html#i2. The latter pieces contains a credit to me, and since I’m still struggling to find my “big break” as it were, it wouldn’t make much sense for me to hide behind a pseudonym when I want people to see my work.

rrlane: To be quite honest, the way you are trying to get this conversation to jump to another track smacks not a little of the smear campaign politics that the GOP has been wallowing in of late. It seems like you are trying to cast aspersions on those that disagree with you rather than address the real issues.
Luigi Novi: False Either/Or Fallacy.

The fact that I raise questions about material in your posts that causes me to wonder if you’re one and the same does not preclude the ability to also continuing to discuss the education issue. It is utterly preposterous for anyone to suggest that I’m somehow not discussing the education issue, when I, along with you and a couple of others, are the only ones continuing to maintain this thread, long after the blog entry has left the main page, and when I always respond to each and every significant point that you guys bring up.

Luke K. Walsh: But, when - against my better judgement - I read the new posts on this thread, and read this from Luigi Novi - "...(initially) rrlane were simply poor debaters" - I had to say something. As someone who has read this entire thread, for better and worse - rrlane, in any sarcasm or snideness present, was simply responding in kind to the precedent for behavior set by Luigi Novi. He does have well-thought out posts, and has often been very informative and useful as a poster here over the years. But many of his posts on this thread have been sarcastic, condescending, insulting, and have frankly created an impression of self-worship on L.N.'s part.
Luigi Novi: Well, thanks for the ad hominem argument. I notice that nowhere in your post do you –surprise!—actually attempt to refute anything I’ve said, much less illustrate these accusations of yours.

Poor debaters? Yeah, what’s wrong with saying this? I’m not allowed to opine when someone’s debating technique is abysmal, or when the tactics they use are dishonest, troll-like, or incoherent? I’ve provided numerous examples where people like Craig exhibited behavior that was, to be kind, unintelligent. Since I confined my references to Rich with the qualifier (initially), since he was acting this way, what’s the problem? Do you dispute that Craig is a poor debater? Or that Den, Rich, Bladestar, or Bobb, have employed reasoning that exposed as flawed? That they have continuously repeated the same fallacies over and over again, even after I responded to them? That they continuously ignored my refutations by simply continuing to repeat the original argument? How is it wrong to point out that this displays an impoverished facility for discussion?

Sarcastic? Well, yeah, I’ve peppered some snide comments here and there. So what? They are only used for creative effect, in conjunction with the reasoning I provide as to why I have come to the conclusions I have, and why I feel the counterarguments by others are flawed. Obviously, sarcasm does not represent the bulk of my posts, as I’ve been polite and cordial to everyone here, including Rich, even when he offered, during his apology, to let me insult him. I tiny bit of spice in a few forkfuls, even if you don’t care for them, shouldn’t spoil the entire meal.

Condescending? Where? Can you provide an example?

As far as self-worship, I have been polite in my dealings with everyone here, stuck to facts and reasoning, have apologized where I made mistakes or misread what other people said, and so forth. I’d give this accusation greater accusation if you actually illustrated it with examples, but hey, you’re not interested in that sort of thing, right?

Den: I can only conclude that the fact you are still harping on this is that you think we're both lying. In which case, you can just piss off for all I care.
Luigi Novi: And I can only notice that:

A. Your post came just four minutes after Rich’s.
B. You used the same phrase (“harping on”) that he used.
C. You still haven’t answered the question of whether you knew what type of teacher Rich was from his prior posts, and if not, why merely stating you taught at a c.c. served to distinguish the two of you.
D. In your last post, you used the exact same fallacy about “similar statements” that Rich did. (See next exchange.)

Because of this, I have not concluded that you are lying, but have merely become a bit suspicious that you were the same person, and have been simply asking you, quite politely, mind you, to explain these coincidences. The funny thing is, when I first brought this up after Rich mentioned your point as his, I figured that the possibility was maybe 50/50 or less, but with each subsequent set of posts, other things popped up, the ones I just listed. One coincidence can be written off as such. But four?? They tend have a synergistic effect when taken together. For some reason, though, you have not answered these questions, but merely respond (shocker!) indirectly, and by deliberately watering down one thing (claiming someone else’s point was made by oneself) into a completely different one (“similar statements).

Den: Yes, we've made some similar statements if for no other reason then we both think that privatizing schools is not the panecea you make it out to be. Yes, we both live in Pennsylvania. So do 12.5 million other people. Is that really too hard for you wrap your mind around?
Luigi Novi: You have not made similar statements. Rich indicated that a point you had made was one that he had made. That is not a “similar statement.” I pointed this out above when Rich employed that same fallacy. Can you not wrap your mind around that? I’ve mentioned before that you and the others here have consistently repeated certain arguments, even after I refuted them. Here, you’ve done so again. Now why is this?

Den: Seriously, you've gone beyond my limit to tolerate this nonsense. What do you want?
Luigi Novi: Answers to two questions:

1. How do you explain the four points I listed above?
2. Why did you use the “similar arguments” bit when Rich had already done so, and after I had already pointed out that the issue was not one of similar arguments?

Since you asked. :-)

I take it back, Luigi. You are not an intelligent debater who simply has poor social skills. You are an intelligent troll with apparently vast experience at twisting otherwise polite conversations anyway you wish.

I will still be polite to you, but please understand that any comments you make on any topic from now on will be colored by that understanding. Your entire raison d'etre here seems to be to piss people off. You now share the rarified air with others who, when I somehow find I'm on the same side with them in a debate, will cause me to re-evaluate my own position.

Oh, I still don't think Luigi Novi is your real name.

A. Your post came just four minutes after Rich’s.

Actually, I started typing my post before his appeared. I got interrupted and he made his post first.

Of course now I see that Rish had post 20 minutes before I checked this website again and cite that as further "proof" that we're one and the same.

B. You used the same phrase (“harping on”) that he used.

Oh well, that clinches it. I probably also used similar words like "a", "an," and "the".

C. You still haven’t answered the question of whether you knew what type of teacher Rich was from his prior posts, and if not, why merely stating you taught at a c.c. served to distinguish the two of you.

I simply assumed that he taught in a public school system based on his previous posts. I had no idea what subject or grad level.

D. In your last post, you used the exact same fallacy about “similar statements” that Rich did. (See next exchange.)

First of all, it's only a fallacy in your warped little mind. Second, you cite the fact that we made similar statements as "proof" that we're the same person, then complain when we both call you on it as additional proof.

Goddamn you're a paranoid freak.

1. How do you explain the four points I listed above?

Simple, you're an insane freak who warps everything to conform to your silly little predetermined conclusions.

Oh, wait, I used "warped" which is similar to Rish's use of "twist" so we must be same person!

2. Why did you use the “similar arguments” bit when Rich had already done so, and after I had already pointed out that the issue was not one of similar arguments?

First of all, restating one of the four points above does not make it a new point. Second of all, bullshit. Here is one instance of where you accused of make similar statements: "(I find it interesting that not only are you both Pennsylvania teachers, but you both used an accusation of a Straw Man argument against me, and that in both cases, it was made incorrectly, as well as the fact that both of you got into a quibble with me as to the scale involved in the word “epidemic.”)"

But since in your sick, paranoid world, it's apparent that nothing either of us say to you is going to convince you that we're not the same person, I'll make it easier for you tell us apart. Rich says he's still going to be polite to you. I'm not even going to try anymore.

So, with all due respect (that is none, since you don't deserve any): Go fuck yourself, Luigi.

Please excuse the numerous typos in my last post. I'm just too pissed off now to adequate proof read.

Of course, I'm sure that's just further proof that I'm really Rich.

I've always hesitated to post the addresses of other sites I frequent out of respect for the site I'm on (I'm not a fan of site poaching), but since if Den and I are the same person, I've been using the pseudonym of "Rich Lane" for an awful long time. You can check out my post count at www.captaincomics.us.

rrlane: I take it back, Luigi. You are not an intelligent debater who simply has poor social skills. You are an intelligent troll with apparently vast experience at twisting otherwise polite conversations anyway you wish. I will still be polite to you, but please understand that any comments you make on any topic from now on will be colored by that understanding. Your entire raison d'etre here seems to be to piss people off.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because when one thinks of trolls, the content of my posts is really what they think of. You could just chalk up this last point about you and Den as a mistake on my part (I’m certainly able to), but I guess it’s just easier to insult someone by calling them a troll.

rrlane: Oh, I still don't think Luigi Novi is your real name.
Luigi Novi: Okay. When you can provide reasoning or evidence for this (you know, that stuff you hate), let me know. You can see me at myspace, btw. (I forgot to mention that previously.)

Den: Second, you cite the fact that we made similar statements as "proof" that we're the same person, then complain when we both call you on it as additional proof.
Luigi Novi: I did not cite any fact about “similar statements” as proof that you were the same person (those are your words, not mine), or for that matter, anything as “proof”, since I was not convinced that you were the same person, only that I had a suspicion of that I was asking you to clarify.

Den: First of all, restating one of the four points above does not make it a new point.
Luigi Novi: It was stated as one of the four as possible indications that you were the same person. My new question was about why you didn’t take my refutation into account when you repeated it, a recall of my long-made observation that you and others do not read my posts before responding to them (which is separate from the question of you two being the same person).

Den: So, with all due respect (that is none, since you don't deserve any): Go fuck yourself, Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Temper, temper, Den. :-)

Seriously, though, I’d like to apologize to you two for this point about Rich and Den supposedly being the same person. As I stated before, I’ve been burned in the past about people debating with me with separate identities simultaneously, and while I had no problem considering the possibility that these things I noticed were coincidences, I simply wanted to discuss them. I thought I had brought them up in a polite-enough way in order to convey that I was merely approaching the issue with a sense of dispassionate skepticism, but perhaps I was naïve in thinking that it would not result in angered responses, and accusations of paranoia on my part, regardless of how I phrased it, so I’m very sorry that this has made you two angry, since Rich was honorable enough to apologize earlier for behavior he felt was inappropriate. Inasmuch as I attempted to greet his apology in the same way I’d want someone to do so with me in the same situation, I hope you (and Den) can be understanding in this regard. Yes, perhaps at first you’ll still have this “understanding” about me, but maybe in time, I’ll be able show that I’m not a troll, and that pissing people off is not my intention, even if it’s sometimes the result. Trolls, after all, do not apologize.

And for the most ironic closing remark I’ve ever placed in one of my posts:

Happy Valentines Day, guys. :-)

YOu never see Luigi and X-Ray at the same time and place either...

but I hope you can understand, by my point of view, how this looks.

Wow, talk about hitting a new low, Luigi.

What it looks like is you've lose all capacity to take individual comments at face value, because I see no way for any of us to understand "how this looks" from your POV when your POV is completely nuts.

While I'm coming into this thread extraordinarily late, and I am in no way going to wade into the poop-flinging fest that it became for several days, I did want to respond to one sentence.

Luigi wrote:

Private schools do not pick and choose their clientele.

As someone who has worked at three different independent schools and served on the admissions committee for two of them, I'd point out that the above statement is absolutely and categorically wrong. Private schools don't get to pick and choose who applies to them, but they absodamnlutely get to pick their students from within that group.

(Oh, and as for having the ability to kick students out -- yes. It's a Big Deal. Anyone who thinks it's not a big deal has never experienced it.

Since I've no idea whether anyone's even going to read this, I'll save the rest of my innumerable to-privatize-or-not-to-privatize opinions for another time. (There was a discussion last summer that might be worth looking at, though; http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003197.html .)

TWL

I live at 77453 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?