Re: Vouchers lost in court, deserve no new chance

buckeye/jalison wrote:
(BJ): "WOW!!!!!!!! Malcolm got banned from Internet Infidels
discussion Board. LOL  I guess that is why he is back here "

Correct. Some moderators (claim to) consider the phrase "what do you
mean 'we', paleface" racist. Isn't it obvious it means "I don't
include myself in your 'we "? I found instances where moderators,
participating in discussions, had used the phrase that way. I
suggested, since we're going to be speaking in code, and since, to the
lords of IIDB, "you're a racist" means  "I don't agree with your
market-oriented social policy recommendations", we let  "you're a
child molester" mean "I don't agree with your socialist social
policy",  "moderation would be nice" mean "biased moderators suck ***
outta dead dogs" and "Please try be civil"  mean "**** you". They
didn't appreciate the suggestion. I learned a bit, arguing with
participants there. Sometimes a Christian would stumble upon IIDB and
say something like "atheists are socialists". Some strident
participant would promptly assert that there is no connection between
atheism an socialism, and then others would soon establish such a
connection (semi-empiricaly) by claiming that OF COURSE atheists are
socialists because atheists are smart and socialism is smart policy
(or some such idiotic argument).

Discussion deleted (various. Readers may backtrack).  .

(BJ): "MARKS RULE:
See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (explaining that
=93[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale
explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding
of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who
concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.=94).http://
www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=3D05-1444.01A"

Then school vouchers are constititional, since Justice O'Connor agreed
with Justice Thomas that if individual choices of individual parents
determne which schools receive tax sup****t, there is no
"establishment" clause violation.Justice O'Connor wrote the separate
concurring opinion because the policy at issue in Mitchell v. Helms
was not a voucher; the level of funding was determined by enrolment.

Judge McConnell considers this a distinction without a difference. I'm
inclined to agree, but I can see where people might worry that the
Louisiana mechanism might be more susceptible to manipulation by
government officials.

In any case, I don't see a Constitutional objection to Parent
Performance Contracting.
 http://harriettubmanagenda.blogspot.com/2005/12/proposal.html

Please read this one page Marvin Minsky comment on school.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html

Please read this article on artificially extended adolescence by Ted
Kolderie. http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Adolescence.pdf