Today, I begin what is sure to be a never ending discussion of the idiocy, ignorance, vacuity, and just downright stupidity of the leftists/liberals/socialists/Bush Derangement Syndromites who make up the great echo chamber horde over there. Since this thread, and its progeny, will move from topic to topic, I am calling it the Fisking thread. Fisking, for those who may not be familiar with the term, is a point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking It has also been defined as A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual......Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment. See: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/fisking.html Robert Fisk, of course, is not just a British journalist, but a self-loathing, anti-West, anti-Israel journalist, know for his shallow and factually challenged polemics. For some on the left, he is revered. So, we begin. In the next post, the Fisking starts. And, as you would expect, there is a virtual never-ending supply of Fiskable material.
One area where the lefty horde over on the P&CE board is particularly challenged is the United States Constitution specifically...and our form of government generally. This inability to understand how our system works came to light in the discussion of Scooter Libby's conviction, and the possibility of Bush pardoning Mr Libby. So, as sure as execrement is bound to pass the intestinal canals of a healthy human being, so too do we have one of the great geniuses over there holding forth on the meaning of The Constitution, and specifically the pardoning power of The President. Here ya go. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10889370&postcount=156 When I read this, my jaw fell so far to my chest I nearly dislocated it. Of course, it's quite easy to find out what the framers meant by the pardoning power. All you have to do is read The Federalist Papers which, presumably, few of the great unwashed over there have ever done. So what do the Founders say? From Federalist 74, written by Alexander Hamilton. Emphases mine. There is no mention here of some prohibition against pardoning "buddies." There is no mention here that pardons are designed to rectify a "mistake." However, there is a very specific, and very clear, mention, of pardoning those who have been the recipients of verdicts that constitute "unfortunate guilt." THAT'S the operative phrase here. THAT'S what the founders meant when they created the pardon power. You know, I found it striking that a couple of the Libby jurors went public that they felt bad about convicting Libby, and that one ever suggested he should be pardoned. That juror, unlike Mr. Attacking Minded, actually understands what the framers intended. If any guilt is unfortunate, it's the guilt of Scooter Libby who should have never been put in this position in the first place had Fitzgerald stopped the investigation once he found out that it was Richard Armitage who leaked Plame's name...and that an initiating underlying crime was never committed.
One particular habit of the lefties over the P&CE board I have always found amusing is the self-revealing admissions of limited intellect, without even a hint of irony. Coupled with the tendency to incoherence, you have a two-part formula for sheer preposterousness. Take this englightening post about school vouchers. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10832147&postcount=28 Hmm...you "never understood?" Well, considering the incoherence of this statement, it's not suprising this poster has a hard time achieving some understanding...ANY understanding. One way you can "understand" the voucher system is by, you know, looking about articles about it. Like this one in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_voucher This article explains, you know, that if you are in a school voucher program you get a piece of paper, and you can use that piece of a paper, you know, to attend a school that, you know, you want to, as opposed to say a school that, you know, someone else tells you HAVE to go to. And, you know, typically that piece of paper represents your "contribution" in the form of tax dollars. Oh, one more thing. If I send my kid to a private school NOW, I do pay property taxes, and those taxes do go toward a public school system which I have decided to opt out of. Do we understand now?
(The rest snipped)I think you're being a little pedantic here. I'm sure Claymore understands how school vouchers work, but its that he can't understand why anyone would support them. His real problem is typically liberal, in that his statement makes him sound flabbergasated that anyone would have a model of reality that varies from his.
I am not sure he DOES understand. His view, as stated -- and I can only go by what he wrote -- is that somehow if a person uses vouchers, he/she doesn't "contribute" to education in society at large. We all get taxed and are taxed dollars, in part, go to schools...whether we have children or not, use vouchers or not.
I'm a little skeptical of vouchers, because I remember the 80's when they enacted tuition tax credits. All of a sudden, there was an explosion of bartender schools and truck driver schools. It was a scam extravaganza. If they ever go fullsteam into vouchers, I fear the same explosion of scam schools. However, it's hard to see things getting worse than the public schools are now.
Well, if vouchers are used for primary and secondary education, I think the chances of scam schools like the ones you mention are slim. What's interesting to me about vouchers is that quasi-socialist European nations, most notably Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ireland, have instituted voucher programs. These nations will likely never revert to mandated public schools; the horse is out of the barn. The big potentially troublesome issue, it seems to me, is using vouchers for religious schools. Not that religious schools can't be academically appropriate -- they can. Then again... And it's not necessarily the Christian fundamentialist schools here. Think of the Islamic schools in Holland. But my view is that competition and choice are, sui generis, better than government run monopolies.
I believe the Left fears people going away from public schools in general (whether vouchers or if we pay our own way). They fear people that don't use the public system will vote against raising taxes for public education therefore they will strongarm us into using the public system instead of, you know, actually improving it.
If so, the Left is a wrongheaded about this as they are about so many other things. More money doesn't improve schools...COMPETITION will improve schools. What the left doesn't understand is that people will pay taxes, if there taxes are used appropriately. Vouchers are incredibly popular with the public, and it's easy to see why. When people are given choice, they feel they are in control, and can make decisions they think best for them.
One of the principles that guides my brand of conservatism is, no matter how bad it is, it can get worse. We'd better make sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease. You mention a good downside, Islamic schools teaching death to America. And I'm not so confident that a bunch of ripoff schools wouldn't emerge once the gravy train gets going. Scam artists are very creative, and we're talking about huge piles of money here.
Both fortunately and unfortunately, life is full of risk. And tradeoffs. The problem with the left is that they have a hard time accepting these bedrock realities. Me, I'd tradeoff the risk of scam artists running fly-by-night schools, as well as academically suspect religious schools, for the benefits that would accrue with vouchers: competition, choice, individual responsibility. The world is not perfect, even if Hillary Clinton would like the government to make it so.
Well, you got the "pedantic" part right. The school voucher model is just a huge wank. First off, private schools are under no obligation to accept every student, as public schools are. The reason vouchers are so wildly popular among the middle class is the mistaken assumption that it somehow resolves the "double taxation" myth put forward by voucher proponents. At the end of the day, this "competition is good for everyone" bullshit falls flat on its face for the following reasons: - there's not a level playing field on which to compete; private schools can be selective with their student body. - there aren't enough private schools to take every student waving a voucher, or even a guarantee that the voucher will cover the full cost of tuition at a private school. - outside urban/suburban areas, there are very few private schools. With regards to the rest of this little temper-tantrum from Karl, I find it funny that he'd label Attacking Minded as a liberal.
--Voucher proponents neglect to note that, if you already have a kid in private schools, then the voucher represents a subsidy of that education, meaning that it has become a handout to people who can already afford to pay private school tuition. And where does that handout come from? Why, it comes from the public schools! --Studies have also shown that, when you control for socio-economic status, private schools (especially relgious schools) perform no better than public schools. So much for the free market/competition theory. --The Netherlands is now facing a problem re: public money being used to pay for tuition at Islamic schools, which may or may not teach the kind of values the people on this forum support. Being that Bush Republicans have proven to be remarkably short-sighted, it's no wonder that they haven't considered the possibility that a voucher program in the US might fund schools with questionable values. --Chicago has a magnet school program that addresses concerns parents may have about the quality (or lack thereof) of neighborhood schools. This is the model that other cities should follow.
Once again, you demonstrate that you know nothing about this subject, or any other. I am not going to bother to refute everything in your ridiculously idiotic summary -- so much stupidity over there on Politics board, and so little time for Fisking the great unwashed horde -- but I will focus on the cost issue. http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html Emphases mine. As for AM being or not being a liberal, one thing for sure: he is infected with that peculiar affliction of many of the left, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
What studies are you looking at? You're certainly not looking at this one. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Ho...chType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8012bc31 So much for Bo's view on the value of competitive free markets. Stick to your music blog; you're out of your element here. Oh, yeah...just so we're clear....you've been Fisked.
What a surprise Pfft. A quick survey of Catholic elementary schools in Montgomery County, MD indicates the lowest in-parish tuition to be $3900, plus books and activity fees; figure about $4500 altogether - and that's without transportation. Out-of-parish tuition at that same school is $6200. Assuming the kid lives in-parish, he's still looking at about a $1K delta; if he's outside the parish, he's screwed. Catholic high schools in the same county are roughly double that. So there goes your cost argument. Of course, you still haven't addressed the issues of "competition" or selectivity. EDIT: And a quick survey of San Francisco Catholic elementary schools indicates a $4500 average tuition, again without transportation, books or activity fees.
Karl, you must have missed this. The US Department of Education disagrees with you. In the interest of holding an honest debate, however, I'll note that my study's findings were controversial, and other researchers have questioned the statistical analysis. The most important point, however, is that definitive demonstrations of the superiority of private schools are hard to come by. The most important difference between the quality of private and public schools is one noted by Claymore above: private schools get to pick their own students. This situation will ALWAYS make private schools seem better.
For comparision... Montgomery County Cost per Student by Grade, FY 2006-2008 Code: Montgomery County Public School Cost per Student by Grade, FY 2006-2008 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Kindergarten $9,624 $10,509 --- Elementary $12,042 $13,349 $13,991 Secondary $11,527 $12,566 $13,622 Total K-12 $11,592 $12,718 $13,784
I'd be curious to know how much the typical private school earns via fund-raisers, investments, and affiliated churches. I went to private schools growing up, and they constantly sought outside financial help. In other words, the cost per student is likely more than the tuition per student.
Let's see...it costs $13 grand for a student to be educated in the PUBLIC schools...but HALF that to be educated in a PRIVATE school. Yep, that's right Claymore old buddy, we just simply can't affort those vouchers for private schools. Monopolists UNITE!!!
If you give them the additional $6000 Montgomery County charges for public students...they wouldn't HAVE to fund raise most likely...and they could spend more energy being even BETTER schools.
Would these "better" schools also in turn accept gang members, the children of illegal immigrants, and kids with learning disabilities?