.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Bully Pulpit

The term "bully pulpit" stems from President Theodore Roosevelt's reference to the White House as a "bully pulpit," meaning a terrific platform from which to persuasively advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word "bully" as an adjective meaning superb/wonderful. The Bully Pulpit features news, reasoned discourse, opinion and some humor.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

RE: Re: More school stuff

"So what's the problem with American car manufacturers? Wait, I know the answer! It's those pesky labor rights organizations, right?"

Labor rights organizations? You have it bad, Strother. Does all that PC hurt? It certainly looks painful. But no need to digress...

"Private schools currently exist, which are competition for both public schools and each other."

Each other, yes, competition for government-run schools, hardly. Capitalism 101: An oligopoly is not competition.

"However, the vast majority of those that can afford to send their children to private schools do not."

I'm not sure that's true, but let's leave it for now.

"Are they missing something, or are their children's public school experiences like most of those that I've had during my all-public school education?"

Or are they uninformed, lazy, or ambivalent? You can't go anywhere with this because you can't assume motive.

"While you're at it, maybe you can do something about our grossly inefficient postal service, too. "

I'll assume you're headed for a simile here, otherwise it means you're obfuscating.

"But wait, the postal service does have constitutional authority to be there in the first place. I guess some needs and things change after 218 years, huh?"

So what's your point? This shotgun logic liberals use is so hard to follow. Let's see if I can extract your argument. The postal service is inefficient but constitutional so you think that means federal involvement in education should be in the constitution because things have changed in 218 years. Is that about it?

"Steve's above statement is a great example of why drastic ultra-conservative -- or, for that matter, drastic ultra-liberal-- ideas never materialize. They almost always require some massive and totally unrealistic change in the status quo."

Well first, I'm not even going to touch what went before this since I'm assuming you already know how ridiculous it sounded. You really need to go into politics, Strother. Really. I'm always in awe of how you guys can take something that was the status quo, even in our lifetimes, and make it sound so radical with those hyperbolic adjectives. Following the constitution is "ultra-conservative." I love that. It's completely hysterical and devoid of intellectual content, but you have to love the application of rhetoric. Returning to constitutional federalism requires "massive and totally unrealistic change." Shivers!

"It's a looooong stretch between our current public educational system and a corporate educational system. Any ideas on what would happen during such a transition?"

Umm, improved education? Literate high schoolers? Young minds no longer eradicated in the government school meat grinder? The horror!

"How would we even make such a transition without negative effects on current students?"

See, there's where you liberals always disintegrate. That unrepentant pessimism. I look at it like this: How could we help but make such a transition without positively affecting current students?

"Ending the public school system could easily be the final nail in the coffin of the American dream and an end to this place where 'rags to riches' stories really and regularly happen."

Wow, that's pretty dramatic. I submit to you that the government run schools are the reason the American dream is dying. I submit that their concentration on stupidities like self esteem and grief counseling and political correctness have eliminated any sort of educational process and turned our schools into social laboratories and expensive daycare centers. I submit that the teachers' unions' relentless quest to avoid any sort of accountability in their membership has turned public education into a money pit, fraught with fraud, corruption, and inefficiency. I submit to you that if we don't end the government-run schools and soon, the American Dream will die out forever.

"...what happens when a school is nothing but children whose parents can't afford the tuition?"

In a market system, it would never happen. No need to even go there.

"...after all, once a school is a business it's all about profit; there's no profit in a school of poor children."

Which is why a school full of forgiven tuitions would never happen. One possible exception could be religious school, backed by the donations of church members, but no need to go there either.

"And do you think that the 'haves' will willingly send their kids to a school to subsidize the 'have-nots?'"

It happens all the time. But you're exposing one of the weaknesses of your beloved government-run schools. The government is forcing the 'haves,' as well as everyone else, at the point of a gun to subsidize the 'have nots.' In any case, this is just more class warfare and I'm finished with it.

"After all, now the ones that can will send their children to the best school money can buy, if they don't already."

And what would be the problem with that? Do you go out and buy a crappy car to satisfy some altruistic paean to poverty? More class warfare. You are attempting to float the argument that anyone who uses the fruits of their labor for the betterment of themselves or their loved ones is somehow evil, corrupt, and selfish. That's the same flawed argument the collectivists and unions try to use. It doesn't get any better with repeated use.

"Well, I don't know about you, but I live in a society, not in a bubble. The quality of life of others directly affects my quality of life."

That's great, but your rebuttal was nominally to my statement that a right to an education is a myth. You haven't offered anything in the way of evidence to contradict me. It is a common failing of liberals that they don't understand the difference between what might be desired or pleasing and what is a right. Let me help you out. A right is something you're born with, it's something God gave you. It's something the constitution protects but can't grant. What is meant by a right to an education is actually that one has some supposed right to be provided an education and that is never a right.

"Giving everyone a fair shot -- one that doesn't depend on whether a child's family can afford to send them to school or not -- matters to me."

That's great too, but it doesn't have anything to do with eliminating government schools. You keep missing it. I said market-driven, over and over again. Eliminate the government-run schools and the accompanying egregious tax burden, and there won't be a situation in which a parent cannot afford to send their kids to school. And in the end, there is always home schooling, isn't there?


Post a Comment

<< Home