Poor little jocks
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think all sports, music and art programs should be removed from public education altogether.
Why?
Stan Shannon wrote:
as a way for government to control athletic and artistic processes.
You think? So the US Government wanted to control student's art & sport? For what possible reason?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Before that, there was far more sports, music and art in our society than there is now - it just wasn't controlled by the government, but by individuals and private clubs and organizations.
You're not seriously suggesting that the decline in families sitting around the piano of an evening singing is due to the governments desire to control individual's musical development? I would also doubt (but don't have figures to prove it) that there were more sports clubs prior to compulsory education than after it. Even today the majority of sports are played in private clubs outside of school.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
Why?
Becuse there is no point in it. I should not be required to pay so that some other family's child can be a jock or get an easy 'A' in band. If they want that, let them join a club and pay for it themselves. I agree that the general education of children is important in a democracy. But getting to be the studly star guarterback who gets to fuck all the cheerleaders on my nickle isn't important to democracy at all.
Maxxx_ wrote:
So the US Government wanted to control student's art & sport? For what possible reason?
Read the history of the progressive movement. The state takes over all personal training in education, sports, art, etc. It controls everything from the center.
Maxxx_ wrote:
You're not seriously suggesting that the decline in families sitting around the piano of an evening singing is due to the governments desire to control individual's musical development?
That is precisely what happened.
Maxxx_ wrote:
I would also doubt (but don't have figures to prove it) that there were more sports clubs prior to compulsory education than after it. Even today the majority of sports are played in private clubs outside of school.
A century or so ago, every town had its own sports teams, its own bands, private musci teachers, private art teachres, all of whom stayed gainfully employed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan's grandfather thought covered wagons should be done away with. "If God wants covers on our wagons, he'll put 'em there!"
Actually, my grandad moved his family from Texas to Oklahoma in a covered wagon in 1917. So, you're wrong again, Jon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, my grandad moved his family from Texas to Oklahoma in a covered wagon in 1917. So, you're wrong again, Jon.
Damn. :-O Well, when I'm wrong, there's nothing to do but admit it. :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
Why?
Becuse there is no point in it. I should not be required to pay so that some other family's child can be a jock or get an easy 'A' in band. If they want that, let them join a club and pay for it themselves. I agree that the general education of children is important in a democracy. But getting to be the studly star guarterback who gets to fuck all the cheerleaders on my nickle isn't important to democracy at all.
Maxxx_ wrote:
So the US Government wanted to control student's art & sport? For what possible reason?
Read the history of the progressive movement. The state takes over all personal training in education, sports, art, etc. It controls everything from the center.
Maxxx_ wrote:
You're not seriously suggesting that the decline in families sitting around the piano of an evening singing is due to the governments desire to control individual's musical development?
That is precisely what happened.
Maxxx_ wrote:
I would also doubt (but don't have figures to prove it) that there were more sports clubs prior to compulsory education than after it. Even today the majority of sports are played in private clubs outside of school.
A century or so ago, every town had its own sports teams, its own bands, private musci teachers, private art teachres, all of whom stayed gainfully employed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I should not be required to pay so that some other family's child can be a jock or get an easy 'A' in band.
Ah - so it's about you! I didn't realise, I thought it was concern for the children' s welfare that was your motivation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is precisely what happened.
You forgot the smiley, surely? You don't think that the advent of radio had something to do with it at all? Or was the introduction of the radio all a part of the government's plan to manipulate the masses for their own benefit?
Stan Shannon wrote:
A century or so ago, every town had its own sports teams, its own bands, private musci teachers, private art teachres, all of whom stayed gainfully employed.
My town has several sports teams, numerous bands, a choir, many private music teachers, a number of art teachers (and galleries). As they've been around for a while, I assume they are gainfully employed. The village itself has a population of less than 700 - although I am including the immediate rural surrounds in the list of included 'rise against the feds' non academic gurus.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Yeah, and we can take even more of that money and spend it on fast food and soda for all students. Are you kidding me? I know this is a board for programmers, but are you seriously suggesting that taking sports out of schools is for the better? As if the nation wasn't obese enough, you want to cut off programs that force physical fitness. Sports aren't all about jocks. They're about building self confidence through competition. I guess being fat with poor self esteem is you're idea to get through tough times. I'm glad you're not an elected official where I am...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
I guess being fat with poor self esteem is you're idea to get through tough times
I have always believed in sit mens sana in corpore sano, but suppose you have to cut something because you don't have the money - which goes first: Algebra or Football?
VonHagNDaz wrote:
poor self esteem is you're idea to get through tough times
Looks like your high-school chose Football over Spelling ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I should not be required to pay so that some other family's child can be a jock or get an easy 'A' in band.
Ah - so it's about you! I didn't realise, I thought it was concern for the children' s welfare that was your motivation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is precisely what happened.
You forgot the smiley, surely? You don't think that the advent of radio had something to do with it at all? Or was the introduction of the radio all a part of the government's plan to manipulate the masses for their own benefit?
Stan Shannon wrote:
A century or so ago, every town had its own sports teams, its own bands, private musci teachers, private art teachres, all of whom stayed gainfully employed.
My town has several sports teams, numerous bands, a choir, many private music teachers, a number of art teachers (and galleries). As they've been around for a while, I assume they are gainfully employed. The village itself has a population of less than 700 - although I am including the immediate rural surrounds in the list of included 'rise against the feds' non academic gurus.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
Ah - so it's about you! I didn't realise, I thought it was concern for the children' s welfare that was your motivation.
No, its about freedom and liberty. I am being forced to fund the social activities of other families in ways that do not create any sort of social improvement or advance the general welfare at all. Some few children benefit far more from my money than do most children, including my own. Please understand. I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal. General education should be exclusively for the purpose of preparing the general public for participation in the general society. A child should have math skills, reading skills, and an appreciation for the history and traditions of their culture. If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
Maxxx_ wrote:
My town has several sports teams, numerous bands, a choir, many private music teachers, a number of art teachers (and galleries). As they've been around for a while, I assume they are gainfully employed. The village itself has a population of less than 700 - although I am including the immediate rural surrounds in the list of included 'rise against the feds' non academic gurus.
Well, mine doesn't. There are a few teams, and a handful of private music and art teachers. But nothing on the scale that existed in previous generations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
Ah - so it's about you! I didn't realise, I thought it was concern for the children' s welfare that was your motivation.
No, its about freedom and liberty. I am being forced to fund the social activities of other families in ways that do not create any sort of social improvement or advance the general welfare at all. Some few children benefit far more from my money than do most children, including my own. Please understand. I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal. General education should be exclusively for the purpose of preparing the general public for participation in the general society. A child should have math skills, reading skills, and an appreciation for the history and traditions of their culture. If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
Maxxx_ wrote:
My town has several sports teams, numerous bands, a choir, many private music teachers, a number of art teachers (and galleries). As they've been around for a while, I assume they are gainfully employed. The village itself has a population of less than 700 - although I am including the immediate rural surrounds in the list of included 'rise against the feds' non academic gurus.
Well, mine doesn't. There are a few teams, and a handful of private music and art teachers. But nothing on the scale that existed in previous generations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
for the purpose of preparing the general public for participation in the general society
But your 'general society' would (if it were up to you) include many sporting facilities, music academies, bands, choirs etc. etc. no? So teaching sport at school is for the benefit of allowing the children to fit in to society.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
And how would you fund further education - or would it be education only for the well-off?
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
for the purpose of preparing the general public for participation in the general society
But your 'general society' would (if it were up to you) include many sporting facilities, music academies, bands, choirs etc. etc. no? So teaching sport at school is for the benefit of allowing the children to fit in to society.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
And how would you fund further education - or would it be education only for the well-off?
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
But your 'general society' would (if it were up to you) include many sporting facilities, music academies, bands, choirs etc. etc. no? So teaching sport at school is for the benefit of allowing the children to fit in to society.
No it isn't. It produces a very little actual physical education and virtual no musical or artistic skill of any kind. It is a perfect example of trying to democratize something that is inherently non-democratic - actual atheletic, musical or artistic talent. It reduces the actual accomplishment of those who have real talent by concentrating attention and effort upon those who do not.
Maxxx_ wrote:
And how would you fund further education - or would it be education only for the well-off?
The community would fund it. The past model was a perfect exapmle of how well society once worked. Any community, being proud of its ability to produce real talent, would help pay for the training of those who were truly gifted artistically or atheletically whether they were wealthy or not. All they had to have was real talent.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
Ah - so it's about you! I didn't realise, I thought it was concern for the children' s welfare that was your motivation.
No, its about freedom and liberty. I am being forced to fund the social activities of other families in ways that do not create any sort of social improvement or advance the general welfare at all. Some few children benefit far more from my money than do most children, including my own. Please understand. I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal. General education should be exclusively for the purpose of preparing the general public for participation in the general society. A child should have math skills, reading skills, and an appreciation for the history and traditions of their culture. If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
Maxxx_ wrote:
My town has several sports teams, numerous bands, a choir, many private music teachers, a number of art teachers (and galleries). As they've been around for a while, I assume they are gainfully employed. The village itself has a population of less than 700 - although I am including the immediate rural surrounds in the list of included 'rise against the feds' non academic gurus.
Well, mine doesn't. There are a few teams, and a handful of private music and art teachers. But nothing on the scale that existed in previous generations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal.
Does this mean that if schools do not teach sport, you are happy for your children to become even more obese than they presently are, unable to provide an Olympics team, suffer diabetes, and perhaps have an earlier death than would otherwise be the case. The inability to understand or appreciate fine works of art be they classic masters on canvas of on manuscript. Doing this things outside of school requires families to spend monies that they may not have available. You have a charitable solution there I presume.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
6th grade - at the age of 11 or 12. So you want some form of Home Schooling. Not sure that many families would have the skills or the knowledge to teach Maths (Algebra, Calculus etc), Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), English (Shakespeare for example) to the required standard that enables them to qualify for College/University courses. And more so if the family is cash poor, or do you have a charitable solution hidden up your sleeve.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal.
Does this mean that if schools do not teach sport, you are happy for your children to become even more obese than they presently are, unable to provide an Olympics team, suffer diabetes, and perhaps have an earlier death than would otherwise be the case. The inability to understand or appreciate fine works of art be they classic masters on canvas of on manuscript. Doing this things outside of school requires families to spend monies that they may not have available. You have a charitable solution there I presume.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
6th grade - at the age of 11 or 12. So you want some form of Home Schooling. Not sure that many families would have the skills or the knowledge to teach Maths (Algebra, Calculus etc), Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), English (Shakespeare for example) to the required standard that enables them to qualify for College/University courses. And more so if the family is cash poor, or do you have a charitable solution hidden up your sleeve.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Does this mean that if schools do not teach sport, you are happy for your children to become even more obese than they presently are, unable to provide an Olympics team, suffer diabetes, and perhaps have an earlier death than would otherwise be the case. The inability to understand or appreciate fine works of art be they classic masters on canvas of on manuscript. Doing this things outside of school requires families to spend monies that they may not have available. You have a charitable solution there I presume.
The notion that the only possible way for children to have physical activity is from some kind of centralized state authority is ridiculous and indicative of how sadly dependent with have all become upon the state. ANd art appreciation is simply not going to be apprecaited by those who do not enjoy it. For those who do, the public library should be entirely sufficient.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
6th grade - at the age of 11 or 12. So you want some form of Home Schooling. Not sure that many families would have the skills or the knowledge to teach Maths (Algebra, Calculus etc), Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), English (Shakespeare for example) to the required standard that enables them to qualify for College/University courses. And more so if the family is cash poor, or do you have a charitable solution hidden up your sleeve.
I think the reliance upon the state needs to be minimized in all areas. There are plenty of possible means of continueing education for children which do not require a nationally planned curriculum. Very few chldren are going to need advanced math and would probably be far better served with technical training after the 6th grade or so. In any case, math skills can be acquired as needed at virtually any stage of life. It really isn't something that is required to be a functional citizen.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal.
Does this mean that if schools do not teach sport, you are happy for your children to become even more obese than they presently are, unable to provide an Olympics team, suffer diabetes, and perhaps have an earlier death than would otherwise be the case. The inability to understand or appreciate fine works of art be they classic masters on canvas of on manuscript. Doing this things outside of school requires families to spend monies that they may not have available. You have a charitable solution there I presume.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
6th grade - at the age of 11 or 12. So you want some form of Home Schooling. Not sure that many families would have the skills or the knowledge to teach Maths (Algebra, Calculus etc), Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), English (Shakespeare for example) to the required standard that enables them to qualify for College/University courses. And more so if the family is cash poor, or do you have a charitable solution hidden up your sleeve.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So you want some form of Home Schooling
I don't think that's where Stan is going. (Lord knows, I don't necessrily understand where he is going, but I'll make a stab at prognosticating about where he isn't.) FWIW, I think I'd like to see a different alternative: Free education for all until the 8th grade by which time, these kids, now at the traditional age of adulthood will be expected to have learned Arithmetic, Spelling, Grammar (at least well enough to diagram a reasonably complex sentence), History, and Geography. Then they will take entrance exams. Those exams will determine what free high-schooling they can get. If they don't pass, they can try again next year - and every year thereafter. When they graduate from whatever highschool they go to, they can take an entrance exam for college. Again if they fail, they can wait a year and then try again and again. (Both highschool and college level courses of study can be conservatories, or tradeschools as well as the traditional Science and Liberal Arts curriculi) Either instead of, or before, or after post-gramnmar school education, anyone, regardless of brains or brawn wioukld be able to enlist in the Service of the U.S. Some would be used as soldiers, others as fire wardens or border guards, others as airport security agents, road repair workers, or clerks in the motor vehicle department. After a five year stint, they could either re-up and start making more than a pittance (plus room, board and medical) or return to civilian life, better able to take those entrance exams and with the right to vote. Yes, I am afraid that anyone who is unwilling to serve his/her country (in my little paradise) will not have anything to say about how it is run - whether his name is Bill Clinton or Troy Hailey; Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So you want some form of Home Schooling
I don't think that's where Stan is going. (Lord knows, I don't necessrily understand where he is going, but I'll make a stab at prognosticating about where he isn't.) FWIW, I think I'd like to see a different alternative: Free education for all until the 8th grade by which time, these kids, now at the traditional age of adulthood will be expected to have learned Arithmetic, Spelling, Grammar (at least well enough to diagram a reasonably complex sentence), History, and Geography. Then they will take entrance exams. Those exams will determine what free high-schooling they can get. If they don't pass, they can try again next year - and every year thereafter. When they graduate from whatever highschool they go to, they can take an entrance exam for college. Again if they fail, they can wait a year and then try again and again. (Both highschool and college level courses of study can be conservatories, or tradeschools as well as the traditional Science and Liberal Arts curriculi) Either instead of, or before, or after post-gramnmar school education, anyone, regardless of brains or brawn wioukld be able to enlist in the Service of the U.S. Some would be used as soldiers, others as fire wardens or border guards, others as airport security agents, road repair workers, or clerks in the motor vehicle department. After a five year stint, they could either re-up and start making more than a pittance (plus room, board and medical) or return to civilian life, better able to take those entrance exams and with the right to vote. Yes, I am afraid that anyone who is unwilling to serve his/her country (in my little paradise) will not have anything to say about how it is run - whether his name is Bill Clinton or Troy Hailey; Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
The problem with all that is it still leaves the state in control of everything in the most intimate manner imaginable. The key to weaning American society off the government is to go back to where it all began in the first place. The notion that the only possible way to have physical education, artistic education and advanced education is by means of some centralized political authority of some kind needs to be rejected. SOciety is not going to degenerate into some kind of primival state without the government holding our hands and leading us from one classroom to the next. Our society saw far more social and intellectual advancement prior to the state's control of education than afterwards. I do agree with you though that voting rights should be predicated upon national service of some kind as well as being free of financial dependency upon the state (although I don't think they should be denied freedom of speech).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The problem with all that is it still leaves the state in control of everything in the most intimate manner imaginable. The key to weaning American society off the government is to go back to where it all began in the first place. The notion that the only possible way to have physical education, artistic education and advanced education is by means of some centralized political authority of some kind needs to be rejected. SOciety is not going to degenerate into some kind of primival state without the government holding our hands and leading us from one classroom to the next. Our society saw far more social and intellectual advancement prior to the state's control of education than afterwards. I do agree with you though that voting rights should be predicated upon national service of some kind as well as being free of financial dependency upon the state (although I don't think they should be denied freedom of speech).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Elitism, is that what you are striving for paid for by those whose family situation is one of relative wealth, but with those who can't reach such dizzy heights being labeled as failures and consigned to evermore menial thankless poorly paid jobs, or perpetual unemployment, where the ability to just about do basic arithmetic and do joined-up handwriting is all that's necessary. Sorry Stan, that is a vision I don't welcome.
-
Elitism, is that what you are striving for paid for by those whose family situation is one of relative wealth, but with those who can't reach such dizzy heights being labeled as failures and consigned to evermore menial thankless poorly paid jobs, or perpetual unemployment, where the ability to just about do basic arithmetic and do joined-up handwriting is all that's necessary. Sorry Stan, that is a vision I don't welcome.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Elitism, is that what you are striving for paid for by those whose family situation is one of relative wealth, but with those who can't reach such dizzy heights being labeled as failures and consigned to evermore menial thankless poorly paid jobs, or perpetual unemployment, where the ability to just about do basic arithmetic and do joined-up handwriting is all that's necessary. Sorry Stan, that is a vision I don't welcome.
That isn't what occured in the past. Those with real talent ,regardless of their economic circumstances, were identified and trained at the expense of the community itself. Obviously there is no way to know how many talented individuals fell through the cracks, but there is no way to know that today either. How many trully talented individuals go unnoticed today because of all the resources wasted upon those who have no interest in art or music aside from an easy 'A' in school?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The problem with all that is it still leaves the state in control of everything in the most intimate manner imaginable. The key to weaning American society off the government is to go back to where it all began in the first place. The notion that the only possible way to have physical education, artistic education and advanced education is by means of some centralized political authority of some kind needs to be rejected. SOciety is not going to degenerate into some kind of primival state without the government holding our hands and leading us from one classroom to the next. Our society saw far more social and intellectual advancement prior to the state's control of education than afterwards. I do agree with you though that voting rights should be predicated upon national service of some kind as well as being free of financial dependency upon the state (although I don't think they should be denied freedom of speech).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem with all that is it still leaves the state in control of everything in the most intimate manner imaginable.
I would like to think that a government elected only by those who were willing to serve the country for five years at low pay (think about what we were paid back in the day) would have a different attitude about what was important for the state to do and what was not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our society saw far more social and intellectual advancement prior to the state's control of education than afterwards.
I've never been a real fan of the public school system, even though I experienced it back before the days when they worried about hurting my feelings. However, I also don't know if Jefferson's model would work today. Our problem is not that too many kids are getting music classes (very few are these days, you know) it is that not enough of them are getting trigonometry; not enough can diagram a sentence; not enough can find Afghanistan on a map. My solution might not work as well as I think it would, but it would be far preferable to what we have - and with a different electorate, we might not have a nanny government in charge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
although I don't think they should be denied freedom of speech).
Me, either. If that seemed implied, it was poor diction on my part. I consider bitching as the most important aspect of the "purfuit of hapineff" that this country stands for. by the way, I think that talking to each other with respect far beats trying to intellectually bully each other. In truth, I have learned from you more'n once and changed my mind about something more'n once. I still think you're a reactionary old fart, but better a good opponent than a lukewarm ally. :rose:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem with all that is it still leaves the state in control of everything in the most intimate manner imaginable.
I would like to think that a government elected only by those who were willing to serve the country for five years at low pay (think about what we were paid back in the day) would have a different attitude about what was important for the state to do and what was not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our society saw far more social and intellectual advancement prior to the state's control of education than afterwards.
I've never been a real fan of the public school system, even though I experienced it back before the days when they worried about hurting my feelings. However, I also don't know if Jefferson's model would work today. Our problem is not that too many kids are getting music classes (very few are these days, you know) it is that not enough of them are getting trigonometry; not enough can diagram a sentence; not enough can find Afghanistan on a map. My solution might not work as well as I think it would, but it would be far preferable to what we have - and with a different electorate, we might not have a nanny government in charge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
although I don't think they should be denied freedom of speech).
Me, either. If that seemed implied, it was poor diction on my part. I consider bitching as the most important aspect of the "purfuit of hapineff" that this country stands for. by the way, I think that talking to each other with respect far beats trying to intellectually bully each other. In truth, I have learned from you more'n once and changed my mind about something more'n once. I still think you're a reactionary old fart, but better a good opponent than a lukewarm ally. :rose:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I would like to think that a government elected only by those who were willing to serve the country for five years at low pay (think about what we were paid back in the day) would have a different attitude about what was important for the state to do and what was not.
I think it would be an improvement, but not a cure. An 'oligarchy' of people who have served at the lowest rungs of social service would probably be the best kind of oligarchy. But, I will maintain forever that any kind of centralized authority, regardless of how it is organized and managed, suffers from the same kinds of inherent problems. If those types of people can be trusted to elect a controlling federal authority, they can be trused even more to manage the affairs of their local communities with the federal government being strictly limited in power as originally intended.
Oakman wrote:
I've never been a real fan of the public school system, even though I experienced it back before the days when they worried about hurting my feelings. However, I also don't know if Jefferson's model would work today. Our problem is not that too many kids are getting music classes (very few are these days, you know) it is that not enough of them are getting trigonometry; not enough can diagram a sentence; not enough can find Afghanistan on a map. My solution might not work as well as I think it would, but it would be far preferable to what we have - and with a different electorate, we might not have a nanny government in charge.
I think the current system is badly flawed, and that almost any significant change would be an improvement. I would actually like to see shorter school days and longer school years. Communities and families would have more opportunity to organize their own extra-curricula activities for sports, art, music etc. But school should be exclusively about learning the basics. No political indoctrination aside from an appreciation for the history of the country and its institutions.
Oakman wrote:
by the way, I think that talking to each other with respect far beats trying to intellectually bully each other. In truth, I have learned from you more'n once and changed my mind about something more'n once. I still think you're a reactionary old fart, but better a good opponent than a lukewarm ally.
I do too. I don't actually consider you t
-
I think the school pays the coach, but they give him other stuff to do so they can call him a "teacher." Our coach taught Drivers Ed. But going back to your OP, there must be some part of it funded by the school system or they wouldn't be talking about eliminating sports to save money.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But going back to your OP, there must be some part of it funded by the school system or they wouldn't be talking about eliminating sports to save money.
True. They're talking sports across the board and not just the high visibility things like football. In fact, I'm not sure those were on the chopping block. One of the very expensive items listed was swimming.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I'll bet the school covers the coach and whatever assistants he has as well as all the maintenance on whatever facilities they use.
Don't forget the cheerleading coach, too. My sister had that neat little bonus rilling in to her when sshe was teaching.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Don't forget the cheerleading coach, too.
Yeah, I know they have one of those. They turned the auto shop into a dance studio for her. The robot club got one of the old service bays for a lab. I got to really hate "Cotton Eyed Joe" while working in there. :mad:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
Ah - so it's about you! I didn't realise, I thought it was concern for the children' s welfare that was your motivation.
No, its about freedom and liberty. I am being forced to fund the social activities of other families in ways that do not create any sort of social improvement or advance the general welfare at all. Some few children benefit far more from my money than do most children, including my own. Please understand. I am not at all opposed to sports, arts and music for children. I entirely support it. But having it as part of the general educational system is not the best way to achieve that goal. General education should be exclusively for the purpose of preparing the general public for participation in the general society. A child should have math skills, reading skills, and an appreciation for the history and traditions of their culture. If I had my way, the state's involvment with public education would end after the 6th grade or so. After that, further education would be exclusively the responsibility of the family itself.
Maxxx_ wrote:
My town has several sports teams, numerous bands, a choir, many private music teachers, a number of art teachers (and galleries). As they've been around for a while, I assume they are gainfully employed. The village itself has a population of less than 700 - although I am including the immediate rural surrounds in the list of included 'rise against the feds' non academic gurus.
Well, mine doesn't. There are a few teams, and a handful of private music and art teachers. But nothing on the scale that existed in previous generations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Yeah, and we can take even more of that money and spend it on fast food and soda for all students. Are you kidding me? I know this is a board for programmers, but are you seriously suggesting that taking sports out of schools is for the better? As if the nation wasn't obese enough, you want to cut off programs that force physical fitness. Sports aren't all about jocks. They're about building self confidence through competition. I guess being fat with poor self esteem is you're idea to get through tough times. I'm glad you're not an elected official where I am...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
Sports aren't all about jocks. They're about building self confidence through competition.
Yeah, you sure bought into that one. And professional (drug addict, womanizing, boozing, arrogant asshole....) professional jocks are such good role models. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Not exactly. He actually tried to convince you that the government is diluting Arts, Sports, etc, by getting involved and that left alone it would flourish more.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
He actually tried to convince you that the government is diluting Arts, Sports, etc, by getting involved and that left alone it would flourish more.
I'm talking about a fair while ago. I thought it seemed relevant to the whole, "Let's not educate our kids" theme.