State of the Union 2006

283 comments on “State of the Union 2006”

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

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

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

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

3. PAD writes:9:48: “Clean safe nuclear energy.” There’s a contradiction in terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. 1

   What a bunch of drivel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As for nuclear-powered cars …

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

    OK, we won’t talk about cost … 😉

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

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

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

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

12. And for more wonderful šhìŧš & giggles, I give you the latest from Rumsfeld:

    Rumsfeld likens Chavez of Venezuela to Hitler

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

13. “I mean, we’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money,” Rumsfeld added.

    Rumsfeld later added, “And we can’t figure out how to divert into Haliburton’s coffers.”

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

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

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

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

    Rumsfeld likens Chavez of Venezuela to Hitler

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, let that one sink in a bit…

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Well, except for the part about Hitler being legally elected… 🙂

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

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

    Link of the Day!

    🙂

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

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

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

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

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

    Notice any pattern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But no cigar.

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

    But since you ask, I am poor.

    But I pay my taxes.

    Does that answer your question? 🙂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The product that they’re choosing is the SCHOOL.

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

    “That over there is less expensive!”

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

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

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

    The product is the school. Not the kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But the bottom line is, it DOESN’T.

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

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

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

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

    I hope you see the flaw in this logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It got worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And guess what?

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

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

    They’re not.

    Results count.

    Private institutions get better results than public ones. Period.

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

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

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

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

    Anyone? Anyone?

    🙂

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

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

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

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

23. Bill, thank you for the very kind compliment.

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

    Thanks again.

24. Nice little attempt at a lie, Craig.

    Nice attempt at bûllšhìŧ, Luigi.

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

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

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

    Really solid logic ya got going there.

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

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

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

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

    But that’s a totally different rant altogether…

    -Rex Hondo-

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

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

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

    -Rex Hondo-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sure you do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You, on the other hand, did.

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

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

    Nice try.

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

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

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

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

    I wonder why?

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

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

    Sorry about that, but I went to a public high school. 🙂

30. You, on the other hand, did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33. Current spending WOULD be enough for education in this country if they’d cut the bûllšhìŧ:

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

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

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

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

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

    Return the right to punish and expel trouble-makers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes or no?

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

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

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

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

    Two different things.

    Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Toodles!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They make sure class sizes are small.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Almost? It IS an epidemic and I AM blaming the parents. (geez, you need a 2×4 across the eyes for some people). Most of those who are screaming for vouchers and/or privatized education are looking for a quick fix (likewise with those who want to throw money at education willy-nilly), when the fact is that nothing is going to work until parents by and large take a more active role in their children’s lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I concur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or maybe I’m just spinning a fantasy here.

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

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

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

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

    Unfortunately, I doubt it.

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

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

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

    Times do change.

47. Not really Den,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If it only helps “some kids”, then it’s kind of as broken and screwed up the current system…

50. If it only helps “some kids”, then it’s kind of as broken and screwed up the current system…

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

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

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

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