From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:36:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.004018.13414@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <C15IMC.8t3@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In <1993Jan18.165128.4899@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>Exactly.  Despite conservative rhetoric, the average suburban school is
>>>*fine.*  There's nothing wrong with it.  The upper middle class do *not*
>>>send their kids to private schools, for the most part.  Because they
>>>*have* good public schools.

>>So, do you think that there's nothing wrong with the anti-intellectual
>>attitudes suburban schools are pervaded with, or do you deny that they
>>are anti-intellectual?  Do you deny that academic pursuits are in fact
>>far from the top of the actual priorities of those schools?

>I deny that the average public school differs from the average private
>school in this way.

Really?  Then you think that all that tuition money is just wasted?  Even
if you are right, I still wonder whether what you mean is that suburban
public schools are that great or that private schools are that poor.  Which
is it?

>>Just as a simple example, do you find it inconceivable that a math teacher
>>might postpone an exam because of a football game or school dance or pep
>>rally?  Can you imagine a basketball game being postponed because of
>>an important mathe exam?

>No, but I don't see your point.  American priorities as a whole favor
>sports over knowledge.  That has nothing to do with public versus
>private schools.

Do you really think that this attitude is as prevalent in private schools?
What makes you think so?

>Is this a good thing?  No.  But my point was that the average suburban
>public school *offers* the same chance for a good education that the
>average private school does.  It doesn't ram it down your throat, but it
>offers it.  

Well, they do "offer" some snippets of education, but they do everything they
can to keep it "locked away in a safe" away from the students.  To say that
they don't ram it down your throat is an understatement.

>>>*That's* where the problem is.  The uneven distribution of resources.
>>>Not the lack of them.
>
>>I think the important thing is the ideas and attitudes of those running
>>the show, and they are almost universally deplorable.  No amount of
>>"resources" can change that.  Your implicit demand that resources be
>>"redistributed" away from those who earned it is an excellent example of
>				     ^^^^^^^^^
>>the liberal view that most problems are caused by a lack of "fair
>>distribution of reasources" and that "redistribution" from the worthy to
>>the unworthy is the cure-all for any problem.  Admit it!  That just
>>doesn't work!

>Ah, so you favor complete confiscation of wealth through inheritance
>taxes?  Good start, though it won't address other inequities.  

Of course I don't.  The important issue in considering whether inheritances
should be taxed away is NOT the rights of the heirs, but rather the rights
of the person leaving the money to the heirs.  The person who *earned* the
money ought to determine what will happen to it, not you and your money-
grubbing socialist pals.  You have no right to confiscate the property of
anyone.  Even if inheriting money were morally wrong, why would it be better
to fill the world with 50 undeserving parasites rather than just one?  What
is so inequitable about allowing a dying man to see to the care of his
children?  What is inequitable is to have some brazen socialist rob him 
in his deathbed.

Anyway, are you under the impression that many people with lots of money 
inherited it?  Or that the amount of money that could be recovered if all of
this were to be taxed away would make much difference?  Heck, if it's OK
to steal from the dead, why not just have the "disadvantaged" rob people
outright and be honest about it? 

>(No, I don't really support that.  I just get irritated when people act
>as if they earned getting born into a middle class home.  Worthy vs.
>unworthy?  Bullshit.  Hasn't anyone here read any Rawls?)

I have and I must say that his theory of justice is one of the most 
irrational and ludicrous things I have read next to the Book of the Subgenius.
Hasn't anyone read any Ayn Rand?

If you really think that you have not earned anything you have, then why don't
you give up your job, your income, and you home?  Ahhhhh, not only are you 
irrational, but a hypocrite too!

>As for the specific case involved, yes, I argue that when inner-city
>schools can't afford textbooks, they cannot offer as good an education
>as a suburban school where everyone has access to a computer.

Perhaps you should tell that to Marva Collins.  Are you familiar with her
work?  How do you explain her successes?

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton