What's standing in the way of school choice?
Many of you probably recently saw that a Maine school decided to make available contraceptives to their students.
Maine School to Offer Contraceptives
By JERRY HARKAVY –
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — School officials on Thursday defended a decision to allow children as young as 11 to obtain birth-control pills at a middle-school health center, saying the new policy is aimed at a tiny number of sexually active students.
King Middle School will become the first middle school in Maine, and apparently one of only a few in the nation, to make a full range of contraception available, including birth-control pills and patches.
Students would need parental permission to use the city-run health center in the school, but they wouldn't have to tell them they were seeking birth control.
"People I associate with are looking at me like, are you guys crazy? Is this really going to happen in Portland?" said school committee Chairman John Coyne, who opposed the new policy in the 7-2 vote by the Portland School Committee on Wednesday night.
Right there in the first paragraph…. “the new policy is aimed at a tiny number of sexually active students.” And yet, every student who wishes to utilize the health center will have the birth control available whether the parent would approve or not.
The policy is a bit curious to be sure, but I can’t muster or feign outrage with the school. They’re doing what they think is best for the students, but in that same vein, parents should be able to vote with their feet when it comes to matters of curriculum, policy, or quality. More broadly, it seems extreme that their children could be subjected to policies with which they fundamentally disagree.
My thoughts then moved to the political aspects of school choice. Something I don’t understand is why school choice and vouchers seem to be a partisan issue split down party lines. If you have the money outside or you’re in a solid (usually suburban) school district, your educational needs are generally met. Otherwise, it seems that you’re stuck. When you consider that it’s the poor and inner-city youths who stand to benefit most from school choice initiatives, I would think that school choice would be a slam dunk for the Democrats.
Said Milton Friedman on the subject:
The Democratic Party should be the natural supporter of vouchers. In Ted Kennedy's words, the Democrats are supposed to be the "voice of the voiceless." The voiceless would benefit the most from full-scale universal vouchers. You know, if you ask the voiceless, they are all in favor of vouchers. So I think, sooner or later, the nearly religious support for the anti-voucher position will crumble.
The other reason the teachers unions will crumble is the teachers themselves. Against the odds, the unions have been able to persuade teachers that universal vouchers would hurt them. On the contrary, teachers would be among the main beneficiaries. We know that in government schools not much more than half of the money spent goes to the classroom. Almost half goes to administrators, bureaucrats, and the like. In private schools, a much larger fraction goes to the classroom. In addition, we know that working conditions are much more attractive in private schools. Despite lower average wages, the turnover rate [among teachers] is much lower in private schools than it is in government schools.
Maybe there is hope….this was Senator Biden on the Floor…..
"When you have an area in the country -- and most often here we are talking about inner cities -- where the public schools are abysmal or dysfunctional or not working and where most of the children have no way out, it is legitimate to ask what would happen to the public schools with increased competition from private schools and what would happen to the quality of education for the children who live there."
What do you think? Why is it that opposition of school choice appears to be an ingredient to the making of a Democrat? Is it a matter of the NEA’s influence as Friedman suggests? Would it require a weakening of the NEA for vouchers to be given consideration?
- All-Time QB's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Several Answers
The old-guard statist Democrats are for government-run schools for obvious reasons.
Why do the rest generally disfavor vouchers? It's a very good question, and Friedman might be right.
I know I'm against vouchers for religious schools since I find that to be an inappropriate use of government money. I don't have any problem with vouchers for any non-profit, secular schools. Government needs to at least set standards for schools, but doesn't necessarily have to run the schools itself.
The only problem with a free market for schools comes in rural areas where a natural monopoly forms. Perhaps there simply aren't enough people in the area for more than one school to be successful. I graduated from an area where the nearest private school was 30 minutes away. Now, we had open enrollment, so parents had their choice of different public schools, but there was essentially no choice for parents who wanted a religious education for their children unless they were willing to do some driving or relocate.
Of course, I'm not a Democrat, so I don't know how well I've answered your question. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
stinerman....
I wouldn't expect natural monopolies to be any worse than the government monopolies ;-). But who knows what kind of solutions might pop up? Maybe in rural areas, public education would remain the primary option. Rural students certainly wouldn't be any worse off by such arrangements.
Good comments overall. Disagree on the religious aspect, but understand the point. Are you opposed to Pell Grants going to religious schools at the university level?
Yes
Yes, for the same reason. Federal loans for religious schools even make me uneasy, but I'll manage.
Note that I don't think either are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment (but might be under a state's constitution), but are simply things I don't agree with.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Is that a good basis for being opposed, stinerman?
I think not. I think your stance says more about what you fear and dislike than how you think such grants will affect outcomes.
I went to Catholic School from K-8, public high school and then my bachelors was from a Jesuit university ( with Pell Grants!)
I did not choose Catholic school. My parents did. I chose the Jesuit university...but not at all for religious reasons. I'm not very religious at all in fact. And if my experience and that of classmates is any indication of the norm, there's nothing at all dangerous or perverse about the quality of education at such schools. In fact, I can say that the quality of academics is quite high.
In short, what you feel is bad or risky from such schools is mainly unrealistic and overblown or just fallacious. And on, a different note, it's also none of your business what kind of school people choose to go to....whether for constitutional or simply rational reasons of cause and effect.
I agree that many if not most
religious schools provide an excellent education and don't attempt to compel or indoctrinate students in that religion.
But once the government says it's fine with funding this Catholic school because it does a good job and isn't "too" religious, how can it not fund schools that are objectionably cult-like? Suddenly there's no bright-line test.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
To me, your fear is irrelevant
By that, I mean it is not a concern of mine.
Quality of academics is the key. BTW, It would never cross my mind that the government would start funding my Catholic school based on a record of "not being too religious". To me, the religiosity is immaterial. The academics is what matters.
Perhaps underlying all this is that I have a history with religious schools...and that history is one that has me in a frame of mind where they are not "weird" at all. Perhaps I'm projecting my experience as the norm but I feel confident in saying that fear of religious schools usually comes from people who ave little experience with them and base their opinions on biased political accounts with a flawed agenda.
Such schools should be free to offer these alternative classes. But I can tell you that, with or without coercion, the vast majority of parents are not going to send their pride and joy to schools that fail in academics while lavishing kids with religion. Parents, religious or not, are pragmatic and want their children to get a good education in core subjects.
No argument here
Probably not. Perhaps I'm being irrational :-).
Truth be told I simply don't like any public money going towards anything tangentially related to religion.
And I'm fully aware how well some private religious schools teach their students. Notre Dame is a very good example of a high quality religious school. Jesuit schools are also known for their high standards.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And that's what matters
on a tangent, looking at the sorry state of public schools, especially in inner cities, I find it laughable that people get concerned and preoccupied with religion at private schools where the education quality is miles ahead of these public schools...all while these public schools are crumbling and failing their students in the most basic educational criteria.
The wrong problem
As Brendan has hinted, the problem isn't that we think religious schools don't offer quality education in most areas, it's that the government is implicitly endorsing a particular religious view via vouchers.
Tlaloc's point that public education is a legitimate government interest is valid, but doesn't register on my radar since I'm an individualist.
Also, public schools have to take everyone, including students who don't care to learn and just cause trouble amongst their peers. Private schools do not. I believe this to be a big reason why inner city schools are so poor. A few bad apples are enough to make class glorified day care.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
This is not true.
Merely allowing vouchers to be used in religious schools (not a specific religion's schools), and allowing them to likewise be used for other types of schools isn't endorsing a particular religious view. It's not endorsing anything.
Is is the current system to is endorsing a liberal agenda and a secularist view or religion.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Depends on semantics
It endorses religion in general. I favor a very strict separation between church and state, but understand that the constitution doesn't require it to be as strict as I'd like it to be. If it was my way prongs 2 and 3 of the Lemon test would read:
2) The government's action must not advance or inhibit religion in any way, shape, or form;
3) The government's action must not result in any government entanglement with religion.
For my purposes, that is. If I was on the SCOTUS, I'd probably vote with Scalia and overturn Lemon v. Kurtzman.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well, just to be contrarian ...
I don't want my tax dollars going to secular schools! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't necessarily disagree
If I had it my way, your state could decide to fund religious education as it saw fit. If Kansas wants to teach it's students that evolutionary biology is a liberal conspiracy, then the free market will learn not to hire Kansans in scientific fields.
I prefer to fight my battles on the state level, especially with regards to education. That word isn't found in Article I, Section 8, so it is clearly a state issue.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I agree that this is a state issue.
The NEA is an illegal entity under the constitution! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No Child Left Behind
So I take it you don't particularly agree with NCLB?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
?
Why not?
he's kidding
but I hope you knew that.
Were you aware of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Vouchers work fine as a small-scale bandaid
but they aren't a large-scale solution, because it doesn't cost the same amount to educate every child. Some kids have learning disabilities, behavior issues, medical conditions, etc, and they are guaranteed an education by the state too. Private schools picking and choosing naturally get the kids who are cheapest to educate.
The other damaging effect of vouchers upon public schools is that it's the most involved parents who are likely to use them, so the public schools lose their best advocates for improvement. Certainly it's understandable that a parent would seek to do what's best for their own kid before trying to "save society" (I would), but it's still a cost of vouchers.
Finally, I think there's a fear among many liberals that vouchers are a step on the slippery slope to complete privatization of education, to a system where the government makes no effort to provide a quality education for every child, rich or poor. Maybe it's irrational, sort of like how some conservatives are proclaiming SCHIP the advent of socialized health care, but I think that it's a political concern that needs to be addressed in order for vouchers to become widespread.
As a postscript, I certainly agree that the teachers unions are not always concerned with what's best from an educational perspective.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
but they aren't a
I don't necessarily think that public schools should be eliminated, but I don't know what would stand in the way of non-publics providing niche schooling.
That seems unfair and circular to me. People who can afford it can get out. But if you can't, you're stuck because we're interested in maintaining terrible schools on the premise that we'll make them better. Inner-city publics have been bad for 25 years. How long is it going to take? Additionally, it seems to me that having to compete over students is what would make these schools better.
That's fair. I'm not anti-public education nor am I interested in maintaining it if it's not the best solution. I'd personally like to find out.
It is unfair
and I tend to agree that when what's best for an individual conflicts with what's best for society there's something wrong in the structure of the system -- I don't expect parents to purposely leave their children in lousy schools because it will give them more of an incentive to pressure officials to improve the schools.
Improving inner city public schools is probably connected to improving inner cities. Other steps that could help would be to match the best teachers with the worst schools, which generally is not the way it works now; to pay teachers more but require more intensive training (or perhaps consider merit pay); to improve the infrastructure and equipment at lousy schools (ie, give them better science labs, musical instruments, computers); to change the structure of the school day and year, which is still based on antiquated agrarian schedules and is not optimized for learning; etc. (As an aside, NCLB actually has the potential to be a really good tool for school reform because it requires reporting be broken down by demographics.)
The research on the results of vouchers is mixed, IIRC, but I completely agree that if a community strongly feels they would like to try the experiment then they should be able to do so.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Frankly,
I oppose vouchers on principal, because they encourage a drain from the public schools, which are badly in need of improvement, both educationally, academically, and, in many instances, physicallyi, too, since in many urban areas, the public schools are physically run down as well.
The other problem with vouchers
is mentioned here
and I'm just going to quote quaoar's post:
So vouchers still requires state regulation of private schools unless you're willing to trust the market to sort it all out, which in this case I'm not because it would be too late for those kids who got screwed.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan....
Although I'd like states to be in charge of it, I definitely think that schools should have to adhere to standards not unlike the accreditation process of our colleges & universities. I do believe that government still has a major role to play in education, but a diminished role in the "manufacturing" aspect.
Here's Milton Friedman's case for the role of government in education...written in 1953 long before there was an education crisis in America.
http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm
Thanks, that's a good read
I skimmed it and will come back for more later.
With a few minor modifications, I would be fine with this. Specifically, children with special needs should get sufficient funding to provide for their education, and if religious bodies are running a school with government money I think the actual education should be secular.
Of course, this is a drastic change and we'll only get there gradually. Charter schools are sort of a step in this direction, as are vouchers.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
education is secular at religious schools
This is a misconception of religion-phobes. Like I said elsewhere, I spent a lot of time in relgious or regiously affiliated schools.
We had all the subjects at public school plus religion class.
In college, we had all the courses of public universities plus a selection of theology and related classes.
But the education classes are of above average quality. The fact that religion is a subject shouldn't matter. It's one class. So what? I think people overestimate the implications of religion class.
Personal experience:
I know many people who went to catholic school and not one [NOT ONE!] believes in Adam and Eve science or creationsim. I know ONE PERSON, a good friend, who does not believe in evolution and she went to public school.
If this is your fear, I feel confident in saying a corollary between going to religious schools and holding some social views that you disagree with for political puroposes is very, very weak at best. People are going to hold such views regardless of education. I think geography, social norms among different subcultures and family are much more telling.
It's *mostly* secular
I went to a Catholic school for ninth grade, and like you say we had religious class and that was pretty much it. We also had "human sexuality" and I think the teacher did a great job explaining without imposing the Catholic view.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
My experience as well
and perhaps Catholic schools are bit more open and "liberal" in this respect but our teachers tackled all these topics as well as PRIESTS and NUNS making sure that we knew that there is separation between science and religion. In fact, they were very explicit in saying that the book of Genesis and Adam and Eve stories do not refute or contradict anything we learn in science class. A rough paraphrase would have been to say that God's story is not to be taken as a mutually exclusive view. It is scripture and we should not be so arrogant as to read it literally based on our limited understanding of the universe.
well said, Father. Nobody argued. We went to science class and learned about dinosaurs and Darwin with no conflict.
when you have a "religion class"
that's pretty much the definition of "non-secular."
A comparative religion class is one thing, just religion is another.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I meant that the educartion classes
and education in general was secular.
One puny religion class does not render the entire education non-secular.
So what did you learn in biology class?
Evolution? Creationism? Genesis as metaphor?
And if they did teach evolution in the biology class, how did they reconcile that with what you were taught down the hall in religion class?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
explained elsewhere
no conflict.
I learned biology just like anyone else.
Now here's the key question-
when (roughly) was this?
See, I'm willing to bet that it's been at least a decade since you were in high school, quite possibly several decades. And in that time the fundamentalists in america have made a hard push towards moving religious education (like ID) into public schools. It'd be a little naive to assume they've made no attempt to push it in schools that are already religious in origin.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I started high school in
I started high school in 1987. So do the math.
But, I think you are broad brushing the fundamentalism movement. I can at least say that the Catholic church is not part of it.
If that school started changing its science curriculum, I'm sure I would have heard about it as I still live nearby. And such matters always make the news.
It's not naive at all.
I think you're being a little overly paranoid.
As for different schools run by other denominations, especially in the south, I think even there the fuss is overblown. Sure, there are some. But personally, I'm not very concerned. Suppression of bad ideas is the how you keep them alive.
I think all the fuss over ID and religious schools is not unlike O'Reilley's "war on Xmas"...over-sensitive fringe groups making small matters bigger than the public thinks they are and bigger than they really are.
Well just look around
The southern baptist convention was taken over by fundies who gamed the system until they had total control.
The Catholic Church has recently passed from the control of JPII, a moderate reformer who actually apologized for some of the Church's worst actions, to Ratzinger a hardliner/fundamentalist with a troubling past association with the nazis and who strongly resembles Emperor Palpatine for bonus creepy points.
A health dose of paranoia seems well called for in the face of the evidence.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Look Tlaloc
From what I understand, the Catholic Church has actually loosened up. This is based on what I've heard from family and friends who to church and send their kids to CCD classes.
Either way, I think the evidence is fine but it doesn't paint much of a picture for me. Either way, like I said before, I don't care. I don't mean to sound dismissive. I just don't find it at all alarming or intimidating.
That's fine
you don't have to be personally alarmed by it. Some of us are pretty wary.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
OK, so don't send you kids to a religious school.
Problem solved.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Indeed
with one additional caveat- also don't send any tax money to religious schools.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why not?
What does it hurt?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Similarly...
And I'll bet you don't want tax money going to abortions.
Should people get tax breaks for having abortions? Chances are that they'll save the taxpayer some money if the child qualifies for TANF.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You are correct.
I don't want public money used to fund abortions because it forces me to pay for something that I don't agree with.
Ironically Tlaloc would probably support such a position but complains about using tax dollars for private schools based on the same reasoning as I use for abortions.
The difference between the two in my case is that I am arguing for choice in education which is, by definition, NOT pushing my views on someone else while at the same time (as expressed elsewhere not in this diary) still being willing to accept public funding for the purpose of helping the under privileged. I am not against a public funded education for everyone, I just want to choose where my kids go. On the other hand, Tlaloc's position is again to push his views on others.
Hmmm.
Abortion Funding: Liberal position pushes their views on others.
School Funding: Liberal position pushes their views on others.
A trend emerges?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I disagree with you here, GoRight.
Crosslink to Stinerman's Creationism diary
Some info on Catholicism and creationism here in the diary up the page.
Bottom line: Catholic doctrine supports evolution and does not support creationism.
I could swear I've posted links in this blog to the Catechism on this topic too, but the Catechism is online for anyone who wants to view the official doctrine.
Love the Palpatine imagery though. I won't be able to forget that easily ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
2005 words on the topic
I'm just saying is all.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Dammit!
That is entirely too funny. I won't stop giggling for hours now.
I bet if you dig, you could find one of him in a monk's hood.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
You do realize that Emperor Palpatine is a fictional character?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Tlaloc
Interesting statement:
Gee, almost sounds like it's a negative, and using 'gaming the system' in this case depends on your own prejudice. Compare:
Seems sort of like the natural thing to do, to me, especially when you think you have the right idea. Of course, as both these examples show, thinking you have the right idea does not mean that you do have the right idea, nor that everyone will be in agreement with you.
BS as usual
"gaming the system" means abusing the system, i.e. doing something that wasn;t intended. Winning an election is not "gaming the system." Stealing an election is.
Now if you can show that democrats stole the election there would be a comparison to be made.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
We all know why Democrats object to one person one vote ...
and measures to enforce that concept.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sure, Tlaloc
if you say so.
If you have proof that the "fundies" stole the election, have at it. I went to your Wiki reference, and could see no place where they broke any rules. In fact your expert reference says :
You know, like Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, or Mayor Daly and Chicago, both fine examples of how the Democrat Party wins elections, in the case of the latter, even today.
Your expert reference also says:
So, like the Democrats of 2006, they formed a plan and carried it out. Their crime, which brings your charge of "gaming the system," seems to be that they actually succeeded. I simply took your term and your apparent criterion for applying it, and did so to the 2006 House election.
Now, I take it that your definition of "stealing an election" is "it turned out differently from how I wold have fixed it."
Tlaloc, I hear the term "stealing the election" meaning that something illegal was done to change the natural outcome of the election, like the Democrats "finding" more votes in Seattle in Washington's last gubernatorial election, won by the Republican, but over turned by found ballots after the results came in. This may be an example.
"Gaming the system" I hear as meaning that the rules were NOT violated, but were used to the advantage of the opposition. It means the same thing as "smart strategy," which is what it is called if your side wins. The cure is to write rules that can't be used to give an advantage, but this is difficult.
All campaigns game the system, and we should not be surprised if the Baptists do it also. It is the human thing to do. Witness the arcane ways that campaigns and politicians get around the intent of campaign finance laws. We Americans so love gaming the system that we fondly remember Don Hoak, whose act of fielding a ground ball as a runner on second in front of the shortstop and throwing it into left field, preventing a double play, cause a rule change which now would punish his team with an automatic two outs. Our Senate has instituted a method to game the system in its filibuster rules and traditions.
Look at the income tax, where everyone attempts to game the system, and an army of accountants, financial advisors, and tax lawyers make a career out of gaming the system for a fee. I'll bet a rich elitist like you might have hired someone to game the system at one time or another, even if it was a store front operation like H&R Block.
MS
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
OK, Tlaloc
I will agree that when baseball made a rule that any runner interfering with the fielding of a ball would be out, they didn't intend that Donn Hoak would trade his one out for doing so into a prevention of a double play. So, he gamed the system. (It was not the only rule that was chqanged because he took adavantage of it.) They did what you suggested with the tax laws, the closed the lpoopholes. The point iws that he didn't break the rules, he used them to his team's advantage.
I see nothing in the Wiki article that says that the fundies at the convention did anything that was not within the rules and within the usual use of the rules. All you seem to be saying is that the rules governing the appointments and running of the SBC were not intended to get the fundies elected or in charge. So?
Fact is that the fundies won it fair and square, according to the rules, and they didn't even have to do anything unusal since, according to the report you cite, they simply made an organized effort within the rules to win and reach their goal.
What action do you think wouldhave been more appropriate? Not trying to win?
As for my guess about your approach for taxes, I will express my admiration that you do your own gaming of the system.
Remember, gaming the system is as American as apple pie. People here, for instance, game the syste,'s rule against (some) swearwords by writing them with astericks, whereby they technically follow the rule, but still, in opposition to the intent of the rule, get their swearword out.
You have to realize, Tlaloc, that i am an anti-establishment rebel. I am also a literalist. This makes me LOVE gaming the system. I'm the kind of guy who would lead a bunch of anti-war marchers part way across the street, then back, where the sing said, "No crossing the street at this point. Use corner crosswalk" ands then frustrate the police sent to get rid of us by pointing out that we didn't cross the street.
So you are asking me to look askance at someone who uses the rules to his advantage. As if you have never done so, and as if your own political heroes don'[t do so every chance they get.
Doubole standard, Tlaloc.
MS
You;re being deliberately obtuse. The problem isn;t that they won, but that they did so in such a way so that they could never again lose. It would be the same if the democrats won large and then put a law in place making voting for any other party illegal. Or simply rounded up all republicans and had them gassed.
It would be breaking the system in an unadulterated power grab. The SBC take over was essentially a coup. They destroyed the elective system for all intents and purposes, it no longer means anything because just like in a banana republic the winner is known ahead of time.
Not how I would describe you.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No, Tlaloc
Or redistricted so that they would always win a majority.
If I were going to live long enough, I wold put money that those now having the upper hand in the SBC will not have the upper hand forever, as you proposition says.
The question remains, did they break any rules to win, and did they break any rules in trying to see to it that the theology they know is correct remains the theology of the SBC?
Was it a power grab? Of course. So was the Democrat party's actions in 2006. What is wrong with a power grab in a political situation? No one complains when their favourites grab the power. Would you be whining about the SBC if the liberal faction had won and forced rules through that would keep the fundies from regaining power?
just like in a banana republic the winner is known ahead of time.
So, you are saying that if the conference were to become 100% liberal, the conservatives would remain in power, even though there were none. "Well, Fred, even though we polled the delegates, and 100% of them favour your candidacy, we aren't going to bother with the election because the results are known ahead of time, and you lose."
Anyway, you may not describe me as an anti-establishment rebel, but that just shows you know nothing about me. to quote my psychologist's letter to my draft board, "His very appearance is an attack on authority." (I forget the exact wording, but you get the idea. He was arguing that I would not make good military because I defy authority at every chance. And that includes you, Tlaloc, who sets himself up as an authority, and loudly argues for a large, authoritarian government.) Funny thing, except for a little weight and some gray, I have exactly the same appearance now that i had then. AND the same attitudes.
Congratulations
Edit: deleted per posting rules.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Please don't discuss the commenter
I'll bet a rich elitist like you
Please restrict discussion to the comment.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Geesh, Brendan
Get over it. I see by H&R Block's website that they have over 12,500 tax offices in the US, and served over 19 million taxpayers worldwide. they offer services for as low as $15. One way to get to their services is through "TaxCutOnline." They are hardly the only tax preparers, and use of same is not confined to the rich. I might have just as well have said, "no doubt a rich elitist like you is going out to eat at McDonalds or KFC tonight."
The point had to do with the fact that we all game the system. That's what system's are there for.
Secondly, Tlaloc got in some personal digs first and more often, yet I search in vain for your motherly slap of his wrist.
Added in edit: As you can see in Tlaloc's last comment above, my sticking strictly to the comment caused him to respond with, apparently, an entire comment that was deleted according to board rules.
Deleted by me
I imagine he'd consider my motherly slaps unfairly biased against him. Such is life. Hey, if I get both of you ticked at me maybe you'll stop insulting one another anyway =P
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
No it was clearly in violation of the rules
All I can say is sometimes a person makes an argument so stupid that the only rational response is to tell them they're an idiot for saying the thing in the first place. The posting rules may preclude that statement from remaining, but they don't change the truth of it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I didn't think it was an insult
"rich elite"
Everyone would like to be rich. And most of us on a board like this consider themselves to be a part of an elite, if only the elite who keep themselves informed about politics.
I don't know if Tlaloc is rich (that is, in my definition, makes 10X what i do a year, which is $1,200 X 10 = $12,000) or not, but I do know that he acts like he thinks of himself as in the elite. He looks down his nose at anyone who doesn't adopt his faith or states heretical (to him) propositions, calling them bull or stupid and such.
Added in edit: I don't think the argument in question was stupid, and i don't think anyone with any objectivity would, either. That it did not draw some attempt at a rational response confirms my judgment.
Your argument
You literally argued that an electoral system that is fixed to only elect one group isn't broken because (here's the really smart part) if all those people in the first group disappeared the other side would have to be elected!
Yeah. And you think that's an intelligent argument. Even more, you think others agree with you on that score.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No, Tlaloc
hat wa not my argument, that is your strawman, necessitated by my actual argument, which is, in fact, that your argument that no one other than the fundamentalists can never again come into power. As you well know, to overcome an absolute argument such as yours, one need only provide one counterexample, and I simply provided the easiest one. I could have just as well made an argument from history, that nothing lasts forever. Even if it were, say, 1935, and you were arguing that the Nazis would be in power in Germany forever (because they rigged things so that no one else could ever rise to power), I would make the same argument. In fact I'll make it now: despite the Nazis' gaming the system, I am willing to make a bet with your that they won't even reach their near goal of being in power for 1,000 years.
How much do you want to put on it?
My example, which you misunderstands, represents your argument, which says that even if all the funies disappeared, they would still be elected (because, as you say, they have made it impossible for the other side to be elected). That is a stupid argument, but that is the argument you made.
All you had to do to avoid this is to use a phrase like "virtually impossible" instead. Then there would be something to argue.
In practice, you may be right because many liberals broke away to form their own conference where, guess what, it would be virtually impossible for the fundamentalists to come to power, as things are rigged. Let's hear you spit and moan about that.
four paragraphs (plus a orphan sentence).
That's over your ROI limit.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Catholic School and evolution
I had the opposite experience when I went to a catholic high school for a couple of years (before I got sick of having teachers try to convert me)
I was one of the only kids in the old testament class who believed in evolution (one kid, the most fervent, stated that he didn't believe in evolution because "Doesn't that mean we might wake up tomorrow and be a snake or something?" I couldn't respond as my jaw stopped working momentarily)
The biology teacher taught evolution (he was not a priest) but every other teacher was either quiet on the subject or was loudly against the idea.
Oh, and they invited a Right To Life spokesperson to class who then proceeded to flat out lie about Roe V Wade.
Yes, in Math, History,