Education Reform

[amicus]

Thank you Colleen for the time you took to lay it all out, I appreciate your effort and patience.

I am a bit aware of some things, I have wired a couple houses for 200 amp service, and did the internal telephone connections with the two copper wire connections and used to be a ham radio operator, so I know a little about electricity, electronics and wiring procedures.

But...I sense times are changing...my kids, now in their 20's, hardly use a 'landline' at all, copper is history to them, they are all cellular. My television system which used to be cable, either wire,copper wire, or fiber optics, is now satellite, only internal wires and even that is not necessary with a wireless router.

Although I do not fully understand the economics and politics behind the breakup of 'Ma Bell' to the baby bells, I do rather suspect this is all transitional.

Basic electric power, electricity, that runs our appliances, will, I think, for the foreseeable future still be conducted via copper or aluminum conduits, but the refined 'electronic' version, be it voice, or image or digital (both) will be, again, I think, wireless, without copper.

The economic forces that drive these things, as you spoke of and are obviously facile with, are beyond my grasp; how these individual companies will continue to operate on a profit basis, I do not have a clue.

I know that my next telephone will be a cell phone and I see no reason to duplicate the service with a copper land line, although I do recognize the value of dedicated land lines for essential services, I think those too, may fade away with time as 'wireless' becomes more accepted and reliable.

Out point of reference was the free market place, that I maintain it will suffice, you think otherwise. I can only suggest that you (in the Rand mold) check your premises, in terms of the alternative.

You suggest that the free market place cannot solve the problems and you suggest that a controlled market place, with hired bureaucrats can, I question that, as I always do, as hired managers, unknowing of the technology and disinterested, divested of connection, can ever do an adequate job.

amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

We do need mechanics who are content to work on american made cars, of japanese imports or even foreign vanity vehicles. We also need mechanics to service farm equipment, farmers to farm, dairymen to dairy, truck drivers to drive and a whole host of trade and service people to keep the engine of economy working.

I suggest they may need a different education that a student seeking a medical degree or a law degree; a different education from those seeking to do science or to teach; a different education than those who wish to sing or dance or write. The conveyor belt, warehousing system of manditory, public supported education simply cannot handle this diversity.

No doubt we need skilled tradesmen and technicians, but the need for education goes beyond the simple needs of a specific career. Those Mechanics, Tradesmen, Merchants, accountants, etc also vote, invest, file lawsuits, and out-number talk-show hosts about 500 million-to-one.

The public education system doesn't need to provide "diversity," it needs to provide a single common knowledge base to build diversity on top of.

The nation, and the world, needs that single common knowledge base AKA "Universal Literacy" to function, let alone progress.

A recent History Channel Classroom segment on the Belgian Congo's troubles when the Belgians simply gave them their independence without correcting the lack of education -- the deliberate lack of education dictated by the need to keep the population from rising up against the colonial governement -- is a graphic example of how the lack of general literacy is death to any organized civilization.

Your children and grandchildren may be exceptionally literate and I know that my granddaughters are exceptionally literate -- but the key word is exceptional. The exceptional students are surrrounded and outnumbered by other students who don't have parents/grandparents with the time or inclination to encourage them to learn and are in a system that is stuck in the past.

The current system is ignorant of and unresponsive to the needs of a modern and constantly changing society and caters to the prejudices and sensiivities of minorities and local intersts to the point where essential information for the protection of all of society is not only not offered, but actively suppressed -- Sex education is only one instance where that is the case, IMHO, although it's the one that presents the most direct threat to public health.

One reason the current system is ignorant and unresponsive is because it is in the hands of people who it failed to educate to a basic common information base that includes the importance of a good general education.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you Colleen for the time you took to lay it all out, I appreciate your effort and patience.

I am a bit aware of some things, I have wired a couple houses for 200 amp service, and did the internal telephone connections with the two copper wire connections and used to be a ham radio operator, so I know a little about electricity, electronics and wiring procedures.

But...I sense times are changing...my kids, now in their 20's, hardly use a 'landline' at all, copper is history to them, they are all cellular. My television system which used to be cable, either wire,copper wire, or fiber optics, is now satellite, only internal wires and even that is not necessary with a wireless router.

Although I do not fully understand the economics and politics behind the breakup of 'Ma Bell' to the baby bells, I do rather suspect this is all transitional.

Basic electric power, electricity, that runs our appliances, will, I think, for the foreseeable future still be conducted via copper or aluminum conduits, but the refined 'electronic' version, be it voice, or image or digital (both) will be, again, I think, wireless, without copper.

The economic forces that drive these things, as you spoke of and are obviously facile with, are beyond my grasp; how these individual companies will continue to operate on a profit basis, I do not have a clue.

I know that my next telephone will be a cell phone and I see no reason to duplicate the service with a copper land line, although I do recognize the value of dedicated land lines for essential services, I think those too, may fade away with time as 'wireless' becomes more accepted and reliable.

Out point of reference was the free market place, that I maintain it will suffice, you think otherwise. I can only suggest that you (in the Rand mold) check your premises, in terms of the alternative.

You suggest that the free market place cannot solve the problems and you suggest that a controlled market place, with hired bureaucrats can, I question that, as I always do, as hired managers, unknowing of the technology and disinterested, divested of connection, can ever do an adequate job.

amicus...

I doubt copper is ever replaced. It's just one of those things that works so incredibly well, and is so cheap, especially now that most of the infrastructure is in place.

I'm a big advocate of smaller government and with some reservations, endorse lazzie-fair capitalism. While the freemarket, in theory could make telco less expensive, I've seen the reality or it. I wouldn't advocatea return to a monolithic monoploy to run telco in the US. Espeically since, as I noted, in wireless and broadband, the free market works well. But I would favor regional monopolies on local service with a capped schedulae of fees that would allow them to be profitable, but would discourage abouse of their monoploy status.

The main thing is, inland line service, you might think you have a choice between providers, but you really dont. the compnay that owns the lines is your provider, and your choices are just illusionary middlemen beacuse one company owns all the copper. Every company stringing their own would be rediculously expensive and wasteful. that being the case, I think regional monopolies, who are bound by law to not abuse their monopoly status is the best way to go.

I don't see how the freemarket can solve this, because the actual servioce is still provided by one company and all companies give the exact same service beacuse of that.

 

[amicus]

"...the compnay that owns the lines is your provider, and your choices are just illusionary middlemen beacuse one company owns all the copper..."


"one company owns all the copper..."

I am not sure I know how to respond to that. I do understand the scenario you have laid out and I think it to be accurate.

I mentioned in another post, somewhere, about 'public utilities' as they have come to be known, regulated monopolies that provide electric, water, sewer and natural gas conduits, which could not economically be duplicated by competing companies.

Again, and I suppose, I fall back to my 'free enterprise' concepts, I envision better methods of transport, high speed rail, the 'Heinlein' concept of moving roads, microwave transmission of energy, futuristic things of which we can only dream; and I feel to 'lock them in' to the current system as 'legalized monopolies' is an error.

I admit or confess the conundrum, the dilemma, of the necessity of continuous service, but I also realize that if the gas light industry or the horse carriage industry of the 1870's had an unbreakable monopoly, then no progress would have ever been possible.

I have never pretended or implied that I had all the answers to all the questions, my main thrust has been to protect the concept of individual freedom of choice in all areas that do not violate the innate rights of others. These things are not always simple to comprehend or to impliment.

I want to write a science fiction story of a future society, aboard a huge space ship on a thousand year trip to a distant galaxy, with perhaps 10,000 people and try to imagine how they would manage their totally fabricated totally mechanized world. How would they live?

I have read most of the early attempts to portray such a venture,which has intimidated me from writing my own, but still, the urge tickles my curiosity from time to time.

That may not excite you, but, providing all necessary services to ten thousand people, would not be an easy task; should it be competitive or command, free or dictated?

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

"...the compnay that owns the lines is your provider, and your choices are just illusionary middlemen beacuse one company owns all the copper..."


"one company owns all the copper..."

I am not sure I know how to respond to that. I do understand the scenario you have laid out and I think it to be accurate.

I mentioned in another post, somewhere, about 'public utilities' as they have come to be known, regulated monopolies that provide electric, water, sewer and natural gas conduits, which could not economically be duplicated by competing companies.

Again, and I suppose, I fall back to my 'free enterprise' concepts, I envision better methods of transport, high speed rail, the 'Heinlein' concept of moving roads, microwave transmission of energy, futuristic things of which we can only dream; and I feel to 'lock them in' to the current system as 'legalized monopolies' is an error.

I admit or confess the conundrum, the dilemma, of the necessity of continuous service, but I also realize that if the gas light industry or the horse carriage industry of the 1870's had an unbreakable monopoly, then no progress would have ever been possible.

I have never pretended or implied that I had all the answers to all the questions, my main thrust has been to protect the concept of individual freedom of choice in all areas that do not violate the innate rights of others. These things are not always simple to comprehend or to impliment.

I want to write a science fiction story of a future society, aboard a huge space ship on a thousand year trip to a distant galaxy, with perhaps 10,000 people and try to imagine how they would manage their totally fabricated totally mechanized world. How would they live?

I have read most of the early attempts to portray such a venture,which has intimidated me from writing my own, but still, the urge tickles my curiosity from time to time.

That may not excite you, but, providing all necessary services to ten thousand people, would not be an easy task; should it be competitive or command, free or dictated?

amicus...

Ugh. I think in that scenario, you would have to go command, as much as I dislike a command economy. But I would have to preface that by saying I could only imagine such a ventrue with a military flavor. I mean, the ship gives you very fininte resources, the crew would have to be assigned workstations to make sure everything is covred. I suppose hydroponics could provice food, but water would be difficult, unless we can envision a recycling system so fine that 0 percent of waste water ended up too contaminated to recover. I suppose it would be theoretically possible to have a sort of cruise ship set up, where the crew was separate from the passengers. In that case, i suppose you could have a crew that provided the basic services while the passengers lived in a kind of city wehre they could choose occupation and a basic economy could exist.

Interesting question.

Public utilities and rail service always create a quandry for a free market system. they have to be provided, or you can't have a city. But duplication of them is prohibitive in terms of cost and space. No city could afford the space of several differnt frids, with several diferent pipe systems and several different telco systems, all competing with one another. I suppose, if you started this way at square one, you could have something similar to the power co-ops of the early days of rural electrification. I.e. all those companies interested in providing a service would split the cost of develping the infrastructre amonmg themselves evenely. With joint ownership, they could designate a subcontractor to do maintenace and expand services when needed. that would allow the "owners" to offer the same service and different contractors to try and win the contracts. But I know what would happen when expansion came, they would be stuck in a situation where one company might want to expand one way and the other's, realizing that company would get the lion's hare of bussiness there, wouldn't want to split the costs of providing service. It's kinda sticky no matter how you do it.

 

[Sex and Death]

In defense of the "labels" that have been placed on people?

We've heard the rhetoric before.

Over and over again.

It gets old.

You're fairly new to the fray, S&D. Check back to some of ami's older posts and you'll understand why many in the AH have him on ignore.

Thanks, Sarahh.

I try not to get attached to outcomes (I am not always usccessful in this), as I judge Amicus often is, and I am, by nature, more interested in the dialogue process as a creative process than I am in in being right, but I do very much enjoy a good fight (I seem to grow more form being pushed and tested to my edges and limits than by staying in my comfort zone).

Yes, I am very new to the fray here, and I don't want to misrepresent myself. I'd also like to avoid having my actions and/or intentions misunderstood (is that even possible in the relam of human being?). So, perhaps I can state that my views, and the way I try to direct my life is much more closely allied with Selena and her posts (she is, after all, my wife) than with those of Amicus.

Although...and this may seem a digression, but for whatever it's worth...I must add that I would trust Amicus in war, as a brother in arms, more than I would trust rgraham or BlackShanglan, even with their very considerable gifts. I am certain this is of no consequence, whatsoever, to rgraham and BlackShanglan (and probably rightly so).

SD

 

[BlackShanglan]

Just a few thoughts. Forgive me if they are not very coherent; the Martian Death Flu has quite a grip upon me.

Instead of tinkering with the current public education structure, we should first get the federal government out of local education decision making, and that means abolishing the Department of Education. Unfortunately, President Bush has increased federal involvement in education, a major policy goal of both the Democrats and the National Education Association. Although they have criticized some of the president's education policies, they support unequivocally the federal government's role in paying for local school operations. And we all know, with federal dollars come federal mandates and oversight, and that's why the federal government should not be involved in education--public or private.

This begs a huge question. That is, it asks me to assume that federal mandates and oversight are a bad thing in and of themselves. I wholly disagree. It was federal oversight, for instance, that led to the integration of many public school systems. Throughout this article runs the theory - never supported - that returning all governance to the most local level possible is the answer to most problems. I see no support for that. For example, here ...

At the state and local levels, local school boards, local administrators, principals, and teachers should make education decisions, not state education commissions. This means abolishing state education departments, eliminating another useless bureaucracy, and saving the taxpayers more money.

At the local level, the consumers of public education should pay for the operation of their local schools. This could be in the form of tuition, user fees or other methods--grants, contributions, etc. And of course, these expenses should be tax deductible from federal taxes, just as property taxes are deductible now. In other words, the tax burden on senior citizens, childless couples and single homeowners would be reduced. Finally, the consumers of education would foot the education bill, just as families pay out-of-pocket for municipal pools and recreation facilities.

The state in which I live already structures its school taxes in this fashion. The result is that people living on $30,000 salaries are paying not only a higher percentage of their taxes to the schools, but sometimes a higher actual figure than those with higher salaries in more wealthy districts. This sort of distribution of spending is a fast track to the permanent ghetto-ization of lower-income families.

I'd also point out that this article takes a deliberately and unsupportably limited view of "consumers of public education." It defines those consumers as anyone enrolled in school. However, if we look at some of the reasons why public education was established in the first place, we can see that other people also benefit. Employers benefit from having a pool of skilled labor. Taxpayers benefit from having increasingly well-salaried people entering the workforce to help share the tax burden. And everyone benefits when people from a lower socio-economic class are given some means of making a living other than stealing things from other people. Withdrawing funding from public education does not effect only students enrolled; it effects everyone. Consistantly, those states that spend the least per capita on public education are those with the highest rates of crime and incarceration.

While the author of the article makes a noble attempt to scare us with the big evil government enacting its all-controlling will through the schools to make students into good little drones, the truth is that there is nothing quite so detrimental to freedom as poverty and ignorance. Students and parents who truly resist the schooling the public schools offer have the option of home schooling, but to withdraw an education from tens of thousands of young people from impoverished backgrounds in the name of freedom is considerably more than I can personally swallow.

In short, suburban taxpayers are paying for their children's education as well as the education of urban families' children. This is unfair.

This is also quite untrue in many locations. In fact, where I live, the result of strict localization of educational funding has been for the poor to subsidize the rich. Of the two, which seems more fair?

The failure of urban public education confirms Peter Drucker's observation that "nonprofits spend far less for results than governments spend for failures". The solution for urban education can be summed up as follows: turn over the schools to the teachers, administrators and parents, so they can become independent nonprofits. This would force urban schools to address educational issues without government bureaucrats looking over their shoulder. And if they continue to perform poorly under teacher-administrator-parent governance, parents could then turn to homeschooling, organized around community cooperatives.

This is a wonderful solution for the relatively small percentage of families that can afford for one parent to stay at home and work with the children. For the rest, school also currently provides them with child care while they work. If we remove federal funding and make all schools non-profits, it's not difficult to see what will result. Wealthy districts will do well, poor ones will collapse, and then parents trying to support a family on a tiny wage will have the added burden of trying to also pay for education and child care. What would the author suggest they do then?

 

[Sex and Death]

Just a few thoughts. Forgive me if they are not very coherent; the Martian Death Flu has quite a grip upon me.




This begs a huge question. That is, it asks me to assume that federal mandates and oversight are a bad thing in and of themselves. I wholly disagree. It was federal oversight, for instance, that led to the integration of many public school systems. Throughout this article runs the theory - never supported - that returning all governance to the most local level possible is the answer to most problems. I see no support for that. For example, here ...



The state in which I live already structures its school taxes in this fashion. The result is that people living on $30,000 salaries are paying not only a higher percentage of their taxes to the schools, but sometimes a higher actual figure than those with higher salaries in more wealthy districts. This sort of distribution of spending is a fast track to the permanent ghetto-ization of lower-income families.

I'd also point out that this article takes a deliberately and unsupportably limited view of "consumers of public education." It defines those consumers as anyone enrolled in school. However, if we look at some of the reasons why public education was established in the first place, we can see that other people also benefit. Employers benefit from having a pool of skilled labor. Taxpayers benefit from having increasingly well-salaried people entering the workforce to help share the tax burden. And everyone benefits when people from a lower socio-economic class are given some means of making a living other than stealing things from other people. Withdrawing funding from public education does not effect only students enrolled; it effects everyone. Consistantly, those states that spend the least per capita on public education are those with the highest rates of crime and incarceration.

While the author of the article makes a noble attempt to scare us with the big evil government enacting its all-controlling will through the schools to make students into good little drones, the truth is that there is nothing quite so detrimental to freedom as poverty and ignorance. Students and parents who truly resist the schooling the public schools offer have the option of home schooling, but to withdraw an education from tens of thousands of young people from impoverished backgrounds in the name of freedom is considerably more than I can personally swallow.



This is also quite untrue in many locations. In fact, where I live, the result of strict localization of educational funding has been for the poor to subsidize the rich. Of the two, which seems more fair?



This is a wonderful solution for the relatively small percentage of families that can afford for one parent to stay at home and work with the children. For the rest, school also currently provides them with child care while they work. If we remove federal funding and make all schools non-profits, it's not difficult to see what will result. Wealthy districts will do well, poor ones will collapse, and then parents trying to support a family on a tiny wage will have the added burden of trying to also pay for education and child care. What would the author suggest they do then?

BlackShanglan,

You equate poverty and ignorance with lack of governmentally (tax-payer) funded education. And you say that poverty and education are detrimental to freedom. You also list the benefits of education for different social, economic and political groups.

What exactly do you consider a free life devoid of poverty and ignorance to be, to look like?

Your words seem to relfect your values as a certain basic level of comfort and saftey in which we each support the other through mutual benefit to maintain that basic level of comfort and saftey. Yet, you clearly have gifts and capabilities that transcend those necessary for a basic level of comfort and saftey.

Is the way in which you are gifted just a fluke of fate, nature and/or chance? Are you satisfied with the level of development of your gifts? Is it only a minority of people who have gifts that transcend the basic standard?

If (and this is a big IF around here, I suspect) each person has unique gifts to bring to the world, shouldn't any education system be aimed first at drawing out and developing the unique gifts of each individual with a certain basic level of knowledge and skills as the secondary support for this aim?

I have been called an "ideologue," yet, I see that if all we have our hammers, every problem starts looking like a nail. Our education system has become a bag of hammers, perhaps hammers of many different types, but still a bag of hammers...and we are using it to pound people, minds and souls into submission.

We need to put down the hammers and deeply re-evaluate our aims before we create another tool with which to achieve them.

The world is an ugly and unfulfilling place of submission, not of freedom, when everyone looks and feels like a nail.

(Hope you heal from the Martian Death Flu sooner than later).

SD

 

[amicus]

So much of so many discussions of this forum and elsewhere become mired in the 'practical' effects on an issue, such as public supported education, that the real meat of subject is seldom taken into consideration.

I am not sure I know how to avoid that on an open forum without rules or guidelines to follow, but I had a few thoughts:

The indigenous population of Iraq, with the cultural differences within and without that society, will have a difficult time dealing with whatever amount of 'freedom' the eventual democracy that emerges there happens to have.

A similar situation exists in the various nations that made up the former Soviet Union and there are other examples.

People who have not lived with the opportunity to freely choose how they live, who do not have freedom as a cultural background and history, are often hard pressed to see how to function in an open society.

In the news recently, a small city in Georgia, near Atlanta, I forget the name, outsourced all the city functions except Police protection to private enterprise. This has been tried before in other locations across the country and has been successful in reducing taxes, spurring growth and innovation and removing corruption from city and county governments.

I know you will have to stretch for this one, but in the late 19th century, there were no laws or restrictions on such drugs a cocaine, mophine, heroin, marijuana, opium, et cetera, all the now banned and restricted 'pleasure narcotics'.

As everyone knows, even alcohol was banned by constitutional amendment and tobacco products are even now being considered subject to government restrictions.

The question I have always asked is, 'by what right does government ban certain substances from its citizens?'

Now, if we were to discuss this, I am certain most of you would say that drugs are harmful to society and should be banned or at least strictly controlled.

And I would say, as usual, you miss the point, regardless of the benefits or harms, by what 'right' does government intervene?

It is quite the same with government supported, tax supported, manditory education and social programs that run from cradle to grave.

Much of the discussion rests on what are perceived as 'benefits' from public education and few will even approach the question of. 'by what right does government involve itself in education?'

I suppose that most of those who debate here don't really see the potential beauty of a free society; further, I think most do not realize just what form of government the United States actually has.

Most seem to think the power of government is unlimited and can be used to do anything a majority of its representatives approve, for what ever reason they approve.

In other words, a continual fight between opposing forces to tax and spend in the way the particular successful group determines.

Back to education for the moment. Can you really not envisage a free people without mandatory tax supported education supplying all their educational needs without confiscatory taxation and forced attendance?

Do you really think the poor and underprivileged would suffer lower quality education or no education? Is that really what you think of the society of people you are part of?

I, for one, think otherwise. I think those millions of children, forced day after day to attend schools would jump for joy at being set free to pursue their own dreams and the dreams of their parents. I also think the avenues to those dreams would multiply beyong comprehension as the ingenuity of the market place begins to deal with the demand for unlimited modes of education.

Just like people in former slave nations, and people now living where drugs are 'controlled substances', may not quite know how to deal with the absolute and actual freedom of choice, between education sources or drug choices.

Freedom seems to be a fairly challenging concept for most.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You equate poverty and ignorance with lack of governmentally (tax-payer) funded education.

I equate them with a lack of education. I have yet to see someone propose a solution to that lack of education superior to government funding.

And you say that poverty and education are detrimental to freedom.

I said that poverty and ignorance were detrimental to freedom.

What exactly do you consider a free life devoid of poverty and ignorance to be, to look like?

As varied and wonderful as the individual would like it to be. That's the joy of having the education and the resources to do as one likes. Yes, most of us will need to perform some sort of valued productive labor to stay alive; that is the way of the world. But with some education and some ability to make a living, we can move on in whateve direction calls us.

Your words seem to relfect your values as a certain basic level of comfort and saftey in which we each support the other through mutual benefit to maintain that basic level of comfort and saftey. Yet, you clearly have gifts and capabilities that transcend those necessary for a basic level of comfort and saftey.

Is the way in which you are gifted just a fluke of fate, nature and/or chance? Are you satisfied with the level of development of your gifts? Is it only a minority of people who have gifts that transcend the basic standard?

I fail to see how this applies to universal education or to the issue of attempting to construct a society that helps us to support each other for mutual benefit. How is the issue of some people having greater or lesser talents in some fields applicable? Everyone can take some education in some fields; that not everyone will reach the same level in everything hardly seems a reason to drop back to a position of abandoning all help for everyone.

If (and this is a big IF around here, I suspect) each person has unique gifts to bring to the world, shouldn't any education system be aimed first at drawing out and developing the unique gifts of each individual with a certain basic level of knowledge and skills as the secondary support for this aim?

No. It should be the other way around. Systems that attempt to teach large numbers of people can only operate efficiently if they focus on the things that everyone can and should learn. That's what they're good at; that's the chief reason to have them in the first place - to develop the mass of skills that pretty much everyone needs. Individualized work with individual skills is best done at the individual level. At the moment, in the current state of funding, no school has the resources to provide individual attention to every student. I would like to see more attention to individual needs in the public schools, and the funding that goes with it. However, I also feel that some individual work is best left to the home and the individual to pursue. Thus on the whole I do propose the opposite model to yours: that public education should teach the skills everyone can learn and does need as its chief goal, and to make individual exploration an important secondary goal, but not the primary one. It's not practicable on a wide scale; it's not was a public education institution is likely to be good at without massive funding increases. It's also less in the public interest. The public has an interest in making sure that each person can pull his/her weigh economically and in making sure that other folk don't starve or turn to theft. They have less interest in making sure that each individual achieves a sort of inner peace and joy in his/her life. That's largely an individual issue, and I think one best left to the individual.

I have been called an "ideologue," yet, I see that if all we have our hammers, every problem starts looking like a nail. Our education system has become a bag of hammers, perhaps hammers of many different types, but still a bag of hammers...and we are using it to pound people, minds and souls into submission.

Evidently our experiences have been considerably different. I'll confess that I didn't enjoy a moment of any math class I've had in years, but I don't think that its goal was to oppress me. It was to teach me basic math so that I would not be helpless.

The world is an ugly and unfulfilling place of submission, not of freedom, when everyone looks and feels like a nail.

Freedom, I will humbly submit, does not entail freedom from reality. Just as I disagree with PETA when they oppose pet training - because it infringes on the pet's "freedom" - I oppose publically funding any education program that does not ultimately suit the recipient for some sort of position earning a living in modern society. PETA, to extend my metaphor, believe that pets have the right to freedom from the rules of mankind - while not acknolwedging that like it or not, they live in a world dominated by mankind, and will need either to negotiate that world successfully or be destroyed by it. Similarly, while I would like all students to have the chance to consider their own individual talents, goals, and desires, I accept that most of them - like me - will need to earn a living in the world. I don't have a problem with devoting the bulk of education to preparing people for this reality; it's what most of us will spend the bulk of our lives doing. Certainly, open as many doors to self-fulfillment as possible. But first give people what we know nearly everyone will need: the ability to earn a living in the world they actually inhabit.

(Hope you heal from the Martian Death Flu sooner than later).

SD

Many thanks for that. I'm doing my best to drown it in chicken broth and apple juice.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

S&D, if you think I would abandon you or any comrades in arms in battle, you have so little understanding of me as to make me question your perception.

Our 'friend' I would not trust. He cares not a jot for honour, empathy or any of the finer human qualities. He cares only for his 'Great Truth'. If pursuing that truth meant betrayal, he would have no problem with it.

And I do care what you think, when it comes to questions of honour. I might be wrong about what we're discussing in this thread and in my beliefs generally, I have been many times. Can't help it, I'm a human being, my perceptions and power is very limited. But to accuse me of not being good, of dishonour and cowardice, that cuts very deep.

 

[BlackShanglan]

S&D, if you think I would abandon you or any comrades in arms in battle, you have so little understanding of me as to make me question your perception.

Our 'friend' I would not trust. He cares not a jot for honour, empathy or any of the finer human qualities. He cares only for his 'Great Truth'. If pursuing that truth meant betrayal, he would have no problem with it.

And I do care what you think, when it comes to questions of honour. I might be wrong about what we're discussing in this thread and in my beliefs generally, I have been many times. Can't help it, I'm a human being, my perceptions and power is very limited. But to accuse me of not being good, of dishonour and cowardice, that cuts very deep.

Ah, cheers, Rob. I missed that post.

Let my last post stand answered or unanswered as you like, SD. I shan't trouble you further.

 

[Guest]

He doesn't know you, Rob. That's all.

But we do.

 

[rgraham666]

He doesn't know you, Rob. That's all.

But we do.

Thank you, sarahh, Shang.

 

[Sex and Death]

S&D, if you think I would abandon you or any comrades in arms in battle, you have so little understanding of me as to make me question your perception.

Our 'friend' I would not trust. He cares not a jot for honour, empathy or any of the finer human qualities. He cares only for his 'Great Truth'. If pursuing that truth meant betrayal, he would have no problem with it.

And I do care what you think, when it comes to questions of honour. I might be wrong about what we're discussing in this thread and in my beliefs generally, I have been many times. Can't help it, I'm a human being, my perceptions and power is very limited. But to accuse me of not being good, of dishonour and cowardice, that cuts very deep.

Rob,

My apologies.

I was wrong. I clearly misjudged you.

You are clearly honorable, and no coward, as is evident here. I never questioned your goodness.

S&D

 

[Sex and Death]

Ah, cheers, Rob. I missed that post.

Let my last post stand answered or unanswered as you like, SD. I shan't trouble you further.

No. Allow me to yield. I am the invader here.

S&D

 

[rgraham666]

Rob,

My apologies.

I was wrong. I clearly misjudged you.

You are clearly honorable, and no coward, as is evident here. I never questioned your goodness.

S&D

Thank you. Allow me to extend the same courtesy to you. My judgment of you was incorrect as well.

 

[BlackShanglan]

No. Allow me to yield. I am the invader here.

S&D

I don't consider the AH to be my territory, nor you to be an invader. This is an Internet bulletin board open to anyone who wishes to use it, and I don't seek to discourage anyone from doing so.

 

[Sex and Death]

I don't consider the AH to be my territory, nor you to be an invader. This is an Internet bulletin board open to anyone who wishes to use it, and I don't seek to discourage anyone from doing so.

I wasn't invading the forum, I was invading into the friendship between you, Rob and Sarahh.

That feels more important than me being right.

I admire and appreciate the loyalty you express(ed).

 

[BlackShanglan]

Much though I would like to take up the mantle of selfless loyalty, and much though I like and admire Rob, your comments were directed to me as well.

 

[Sex and Death]

Much though I would like to take up the mantle of selfless loyalty, and much though I like and admire Rob, your comments were directed to me as well.

Yes. And my apologies to you, also. Regrets for having neglected that. It was also a wrong judgement, as your loyalty proves.

 

[Guest]

I wasn't invading the forum, I was invading into the friendship between you, Rob and Sarahh.

That feels more important than me being right.

I admire and appreciate the loyalty you express(ed).

Well, this just took the wind outta my sails.

NOW whose ass am I supposed to kick?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

NOW whose ass am I supposed to kick?

*waving hand wildly*
oh, mine mine!

 

[Guest]

*waving hand wildly*
oh, mine mine!

That was kick, not kiss, sweetie.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That was kick, not kiss, sweetie.

oh either one works for me