buckeye/jalison wrote:
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(BJ): "WOW!!!!!!!! Malcolm got banned from Internet Infidels
discussion Board. LOL I guess that is why he is back here "
(MK): "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
(a) "you're a child molester" mean "I don't agree with your socialist
social policy",
(b) "moderation would be nice" mean "biased moderators suck *** outta
dead dogs"
and
(c) "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).
(BJ): "Bull**** "I'm a victim" crap above I see."
jalison, I agreed with you. All I did above was add detail to "Malcolm
got banned from internet infidels". It happened as I described.
(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"
(MK): "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."
(BJ): "...You have enver understood it (Mitchell v Helms) not matter
how many people told you that you were in error over it's im****tance
and meaning."
One of us misunderstands, anyway.
(BJ): "You have cited Mitchell v Helms almost from the day it was
handed down as
if it were im****tant and meaningful. In that citing you have always
cited Thomas"
Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court.
(BJ): "Mitchell v Helms establishes no new law, sets no precendece
since it was a plurality ruling and the controlling opinion in
Mitchell v Helms is not Thomas but rather O'Connor, which is excatly
waht you have been told over and over and over again."
Mitchell v. Helms was not a school voucher case. It has implications
for school vouchers. The ruling addressed a tax subsidy, determined by
enrollment, to independent schools. The argument which Justice Thomas
used applied to vouchers as well as to the mechanism at issue in that
specific proposal. Justice O'Connor's separate concurring opinion
regretted that the plurality endorsed the "aggregate enrollment"
feature as immunizing the policy against "establishment" challenges.
Appellate Court Judge Michael McConnell contends that this is a
distinction without a difference. Aggregate enrollment is the sum of
individual enrollment choices. In either case, funds move from the
State treasury to the school as a result of choices of individual
parents.
(BJ): "Had O'Connor not 'trumpted' Thomas, the opposite would have
been true, i.e. it would have been a major case setting making new
law, setting new precedence. Thoman's opinion was a broad change of
direction, however, O'Connor gutted that to the narrowest possible
meaning and it is her opinion that controls in Mitchell v Helms."
In no sense did Justice O'Connor "trump" Justice Thomas. The reasoning
of both Justices O'Connor and Thomas allows tuition vouchers. Justice
Thomas' argument allows more (and O'Connor's objection wasn't strong
enough to compel her to join the NEA's ****lls in opposition).
(BJ):
......................................................................=
.....................................
Failed Exam: Study Shows Lower Math Scores In Catholic Schools
http://blog.au.org/2008/03/13/failed-exam-study-shows-lower-math-scor...
[EXCERPT]Voucher boosters have promised a lot. Study after study has
shown that they have failed to deliver. It has been a rough couple of
months for advocates of private and religious school vouchers. First,
voters in Utah =96 the reddest red state in the nation =96 went to the
polls and trounced a voucher scheme that misguided legislators had
tried to foist on them. ..............................
This is quite obviously an opinion piece, not news. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel has a massive pr budget. Advocats for parent comtrol will lose
some contests. They will win some (just dis, in Florida). The US lost
the battle of Kasserine Pass. Maybe voucher advocates will never win,
and the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel will prevail. Many people thought that
the Evil empire would win the contest for control of this planet, and
the GULAG would continue. It was still the moral position to oppose
slavery.
(BJ): "Then, a researcher examining Wisconsin=92s voucher program for
children in
Milwaukee determined that students in the plan are doing no better
academically than their public-schoolcounterparts. The finding is
similar to other studies that have been released over the years."
And disagree with other studeis. As someone observed elsewhere in this
thread, the Milwaukee program places severe restrictions on
participating schools.
(BJ): "Now comes a real shocker: A researcher has determined that
students attending Catholic elementary schools make no more progress
in reading than similar students in public schools, and they do even
worse in math. [END EXCERPT]
That is a mischaracterizatiom of a flawed study. Catholic schools
outperform the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools, on average, across the
US. The NCES researcher adjusted for family income, using
participation in the free and reduced price lunch program as the
surogate for "family income". Caroline Hoxby contends that if you
compare students in the cartel's schools to students in parochial
schools in the same area (i.e., not nationwide aggregates), the result
again favors parochial schools. Andrew Coulson contends that parochial
schools do not partition their student populations the same way as the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools. That is, if parochial schools don't
participate in the Department of Ag school lunch subsidy program (or
whomever it is who subsidizes it), then parochial schools will not
count students who participate (i.e., they won't have any). Parochial
schools therefore systematically undercount "poor" students, and the
NCES researcher's measure of poverty in the student population was
therefore systematically off.
|
