>>Goverment =in it for the country <<

hahahahhahahhahahahahahhaa what are you 10 years old?

>>who do you think should have your money?<<

Let's think about this one for a while. It's my money. Hmmmm. Who should posess the money which I posess...

Education is funded locally in the USA. Most national education financing is terribly wasteful and its purpose is to exert more national control over education (god forbid my children don't learn about transgendered people and that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder by age 10).

Most policing is funded locally in the USA as well. The FBI and other federal police forces are not the majority of our law enforcement.

All of this talk is about national debt and national taxation. There is no defense spending locally and most local authorities I have experience with are not in debt. Local authorities tax for education and also have control over their education systems through elected schoolboards. This is different than a president's apointee deciding who gets federal money for what programs. Local control does not lead to as much waste and loss of quality of education. There is still waste and instances of dumbing down education to make those who don't want an education feel better, but they're smaller and more easily corrected on the local level. National standards for very different environments and situations in such a diverse nation are problematic in all kinds of ways that have costs in quality of service and wasteful spending.

It is the job of the education system to teach children to read and write well, do math well, know history well, and know the historical context in which their reading, writing, mathematics, and other studies arose out of.

Maybe you need an education system to "produce" your children to be "well adjusted" and "well rounded." You do not have the right to waste everyone else's money forcing this unnecessary garbage on my and everyone else's children. Sure you can do it, and people are doing it in Amerika, but it's still wrong.

I find it bizarre that you assume my idea of education is to omit the teaching of academic subjects. My view of a well adjusted, well rounded individual is someone with an understanding of maths, science, history etc. Yes, when I have children I will need an education system to teach my children these things and I will expect the state to pay for it, because that is what taxes are for. I don't really know what your point is.

If condemning the claim that under 10s should be taught that homosexuality is a mental disorder is the tyranny of the majority then tyranny suddenly doesn't seem so bad to me.

Your last post is also slightly bizarre, rambling and pointless. You are claiming that people who call people narrow minded are narrow minded. Which of course results in you calling people narrow minded, which in your own words, makes you narrow minded. Not that I really care, the post is directed at people who call anyone they disagree with narrow minded. As I don't call anyone I disagree with narrow minded, the post does not apply to me. Using emotive language such as 'tyranny' does not successfully mask a lack of substance to a post.

The point is that when state-run education includes treatment of subjects such as homosexuality and transgendered-studies, academics and real, useful education that serves students as they grow up into productive citizens suffers. Dance around this point and criticize things I didn't say or claim all you want, you're not addressing my point.

I merely said that when narrow-minded people call everyone they disagree with narrow-minded, all communication ceases. There is no dialogue, no exchange of meaning which results in both disagreeing parties better understanding what values the other side has which they are not willing to compromise. Communication does not negate those clashing values, but healthy adults are able to communicate those values to each other so that others whom they disagree with know clearly on what matters their values clash. I did not call anyone narrow-minded or claim that anyone here or anyone with any particular set of values was narrow-minded. You're being overly defensive, so you just attacked me and again do not address or respond to my point.

I did not use the word "tyranny" as an emotional appeal. If you had any education you would recognize that the phrase "tyranny of the majority" is very grounded in much academic/scholarly work of the past few centuries. Again you miss the point and do not address the content of my post, merely claim it lacks substance without addressing my substance.

- - - - -

I quoted a premise I disagreed with and stated why. I didn't claim that your premise was not attached to other statements or that it was a point you were making without the context of those other statements. We both know what you said. I'm not trying to misrepresent your thoughts to you. That would be silly.

>> I would like to meet somebody who does have one because they must be pretty few and far between<<

I didn't mean to make it personal, and while I may have previously (I'm a drinker!), in these latest posts it was just in regards to the phrase "tyranny of the majority," which I did not use as you claimed (and I've since clarified). You started it... after I started it... Let's forget the whole thing and have a drink? Oh wait, I'll just pick another fight after a few drinks. We're ****ed.

We disagree over the extent to which we trust any eduction system to be fair and offer the right education on matters like homosexuality and racism. Despite what I post here such as referring to homosexuality as a mental disorder, I am as tolerant as they come. I have friends of many races and even a few of the other sexuality. I have fewer homosexual friends just because we tend to have less in common that bonds us. I'm an avid fan of the individual and, despite how often I play the devil's advocate here and sexuality turns out to be one key example were's discussing here (concerning education's warranted/ideal concern with the matter), I do firmly hold a "to each his own" value and I wouldn't argue that the law of the land ever be concerned with a person's sexuality. I believe in treating people equally regardless of color, sex, or sexuality. I just don't trust any government or educational board to be enlightened, impartial, educated, or competent enough to offer education on a matter such as homosexuality without imparting its own ignorant and incomplete (and often erroneous) views (motivated by a host of political goals) in with its education.

I completely agree that it is moral, righteous, and intellectually sound to believe that a man's inherent dignity does not depend to any degree on his race or sexuality or much anything else than the content of his character. I believe that racism, for instance, is one of the great self-evidently-evil ignorant ideologies that's done and continues to do harm the world over. I do not, however, trust a bunch of politicians (and politically motivated individuals--ie, the ones who tend to run for board positions) to education children on these matters. Many, for instance, teach about the righteousness of policies such as those of affirmative action in fixing the evil of racism of the past (and present). I have a problem with this teaching, because it fails to get past treating people differently based upon their race and commits the same crime as the ignorant racists of the past (to a lesser degree, perhaps I may grant, but that does not negate the fact). This is my position on affirmative action, a topic inherently arising out of discussion of race in history. Your position may be different. This is why I don't like educators inevitably putting in their two cents on the matter to children.

I acknowledge that parents cannot always be relied upon to give their children all they need, but that always has and always will be the case. Parents can indoctrinate children to distrust the education that can be offered to safeguard them against the education their parents miseducate them with. I just trust governments less and would place a bigger emphasis on the parents, whose influence tends to trumph that of government education in any case. I would rather public education error on the side of not seeking undue influence over less academic matters where, in many cases, students are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs because the authority seeking to educate them does not, in fact, have any academic authority over the material they seek to "teach."

I apologize for my lengthy statements. Feel free to ignore them or not read them before ever pointing them out as a flaw. I wish to be as clear and comprehensive as I can.

"The spirit that combines tolerance with conviction, open-mindedness with loyalty, yet compromises neither, is a mature product of philosophy." --Edgar Sheffield Brightman
"Life is richer when all voices/perspectives find full expression." --Pat Arneson

TP,

Seriously, just get a new car lol

> Einstein wrote:

> Yes you are

Hurray .

Anyhow, one of my favorite quotes is this. I forgot who said it and I'm paraphrasing them.

"Bureaucracy expands to satisfy the needs of an expanding bureaucracy."

lol, and it's so true!

Oh and Justinian the quote is:

The "Bureaucracy is expanding to satisfy the needs of the bureaucracy." and it is a Chinese quote.

> Justinian I wrote:

> TP,

Seriously, just get a new car lol

Dude, if I could afford the monthly payment, I would. As it stands, I have to buy the parts I need to fix it, and have a mechanic I know do it on a payment system whereby I pay what I can afford every paycheck until I pay him off.

Yes Skoe you misquoted, I quoted Father Communism

> Einstein wrote:

> Oh and Justinian the quote is:

The "Bureaucracy is expanding to satisfy the needs of the bureaucracy." and it is a Chinese quote.

Now I remember lol, thanks . It's a great quote too, lol. The Chinese have insightful thoughts on politics, I must say.

TP,

Oh, fair enough. Got to make do with what you got I guess.