I stand by what I've said in any and every other endeavor. The moment you begin funding something by taxes, that is by force, you divorce that something's ability to sustain itself from whether or not those it purports to serve believe they are getting value for their money. It doesn't matter what that something is, either. Healthcare, education, banking, car sales, it doesn't matter. The people doing that job no longer have to please their customers in order to keep their jobs, now the ones they absolutely must please are their own chain of command.
Over time, you will see the priorities of the people performing that service change. They have to change, it's as inevitable and as bound into the genetic code as flowers turning toward the sun. No power you can bring to bear is going to trump "if I don't do this, my family and I don't eat". Sorry, not gonna happen.
In short, "public _______" of any sort is always going to be the slave of ongoing political agendas. It cannot be anything else.
The point of the Education pieces I write is to illustrate that the system is broken beyond repair. It CAN'T. BE. FIXED.
Somewhat perhaps surprisingly, I disagree, Kevin.
It can be fixed. Or theoretically could be. But it would require specifically enumerating these fallacies that have infected and mestastized, and REPUDIATING THEM. Deliberately, obviously and directly.
I gotta disagree with you, U-J. Quite aside from things like "critical pedagogy", the "brokenness" of the public education system is built in, by virtue of it being "public". See above.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any educational institution in this country that receives NO tax dollars is on the fringe indeed, no? Given that, I think fixing the system is about as practical as trying to scoop all the insides out of an apple, leaving the skin and stem, stuffing it with something new and expecting it to still have all the qualities of a "real" apple. Better to just go pick another apple, preferably from a different type of apple tree, the wasps like this variety far too much.
Father of five here. All homeschooled. Never could understand why people railed against "socialized this" and "socialized that" yet happily sent their children to a socialized eudcation system. Why is it that the same people who scream that government involvement in ANYTHING brings sub-standard results willingly sign their kids up for a public education year after year?
It's common for folks who first find out we homeschool to defend their decision to us, so I probably talk about the schools issue more than most people. They tell us how good their child's school is. They tell us about the good programs. They tell us about the good teachers. They tell us about a list of positives. But, invariably, if the discussion goes on, the truth will come out - problems with the administration. Problems with other students. Discipline issues. Gangs, drugs, bad influences. Problem teachers. Conflicts. Stupid rules. Parents without a real say. They'll talk about how involved they have to be to make sure that Junior gets the "right" teachers, the "right" classes, the "right" schedule. They talk about how they volunteer in the classroom so they can keep an eye on things.
I have some strong views about public education, but I don't wear them on my sleeve. Most people don't know how I feel at all. But in conversation after conversation, I hear the same things- people know the schools are bad and they know they can't do much about it. So they hope, they pray, they volunteer in the classroom, they do what they can. In some cases, "what they can" does the trick. In the others... well..
(Yes, I know this is anecdotal evidence. If I hadn't been hearing the same thing for almost twenty years, I might not give it much weight. And, yes, homeschooling is a different path and there are homeschooled failures too. But it has a pretty good track record overall and is working fine for us. YMMV.)
My favorite teacher in high school was recently forced out. He now makes his living as a private tutor, and some of his students are homeschooled.
I got a chance to speak to him a few weeks ago, and heard what his new curriculum is now that he has full control. I nearly wept. Any student who studies with him will end up a second Byron, or perhaps a second Franklin.
The problem is not “solely” any single thing…it’s a combination of a large number of factors, all coming together to create a system which produces a vast majority of functionally-illiterate, functionally-innumerate, collectivist-oriented drones. The amazing thing is that it’s NOT a conspiracy.“Never attribute to a conspiracy what can be accounted for by stupidity.”
-The ever-increasing federalization of the educational got its initial start back in the 50’s, but really took off (along with the “Great Society” that extended FDR’s socialist state) in the 1960’s
-The de facto control of the budgets by the teacher’s unions
-The stunning waste of government-school bureaucracies, where multiple layers-upon-layers of administrators chew up hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for each useless twit (and stunningly none of the money ever spent to reduce “classroom size” ever actually gets there)
-The refusal to eject from either classrooms or schools those children who actively hamper the learning of others (and simultaneously the refusal to put into place “highly structured environments”, which is translated as, “we kick your sorry little butt”, for these same juvenile criminals)
Marxadelphia is a perfect example of someone so inculcated into the government-school system that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
The pedagogy taught in universities and colleges is now so collectivist that any attempt by an education student to discuss things rationally ends up with them being (at the least) ostracized, and at worst, thrown out. There is such a deep level of brainwashing that most (like Marxadelphia) are unconscious of it, and refuse to even acknowledge its existence.
Gee, what a surprise that government schools turn out the product that they do. It’s actually more amazing that anyone learns in them, but that’s a hard thing to shut down in human beings.
Marxy is completely off his meds. Over at his "blog" (otherwise known as fantasy world) he quoted Kevin from this post and tied it to the sick man who committed suicide by flying a plane into an IRS building.
Here's the link. Is it just me, or does it seem like Marxy is building up his nerve to be able to pull the trigger on us?
Since I don't have Mark Twain's advantage of time to leave a letter in the desk for his wife to edit out stuff he would regret later, I'll just stop now.
From his manifesto:
http://www.t35.com/embeddedart.txt
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple...
... the recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies ...
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Guess we'd better make sure Mark doesn't have his PPSEL. Seems like his crew's been driving up the fear and paranoia tapping into their inner rage.
I must agree with Grumpy. The ideological squabbling over the current educational system and its obvious failings will end only when schooling, like the church (at least in theroy), is completely separated from the state. To "mandate" schooling of any kind is, at the day's end, armed coercion and usurpation of parental authority and to fund it with taxes of any kind is, at the day's end, armed robbery and usurpation of private property rights. Left entirely to the free markets, there would be no lack of efficient, effective, and inexpensive educational enterprises catering to the demands and circumstancces of parents and children from all sectors of society.
and heard what his new curriculum is now that he has full control. I nearly wept. Any student who studies with him will end up a second Byron, or perhaps a second Franklin.
Before I dive into this thread, I'm curious about his new curriculum. What material is he using?
It's not the size of his nutsack he pumps up, it's the lack of size of his cerebral cortex.
He's got _nothing left to lose_ here. He's continually trying to "double or nothing" to get out of his debate deficit - thinking that any "Point" he "proves" somehow means he wins.
He's not here because he's brave or heroic, it's because he's too ignorant to know how stupid he sounds.
Of course, that's not taking into account his "diversity" or "particular idiom". It's merely measuring him against the facts. How utterly heartless of me.
For some reason, I keep thinking of the "contestants" on American Idol who are absolutely convinced that they are IT, yet they couldn't carry a tune in a bucket if it was welded to their hand and it was sealed shut.
I guess that's an example of "the lying agenda of Notes From the Front", where they are "only interested in ratings, site hits and selling themselves", huh?
It would be a lot easier to actually discuss and debate problems with members of the left if they'd stop channeling Jake Blues for a few minutes:
"I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts!IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"
But what can you expect, that method of "addressing the country's problems" comes from the top down.
Unix and Ed, what I find amusing about your exchange above is how you, once again, descend into that same, tired theme of "Mark doesn't know the English Language." You can't defend your hypocrisy regarding Stack so you create a world where I must be stupid. So, therefore...see everyone?....Mark's wrong. Whew. Now we don't have face the awful truth about our ideology. Thank goodness!
GOF, if I was after ratings, I'd be doing things much differently. And your characterization President Obama is just plain wrong. In fact, doesn't the base criticize him for taking the blame too much?
Back to the original intent of this post...education. The reason I am curious about the private teacher's curriculum is because of this statement:
and heard what his new curriculum is now that he has full control.
To me, this implies that he was force to teach sources of information he didn't want to teach. What were they? I think the answer to this will reveal two things
1. A very large problem, not only with our education system, but our culture in general.
2. A very large problem which bears a striking resemblance to...certain, previous information control techniques.
If any of you actually spent time in a classroom, you would see that teachers are very careful to present information in a balanced way. I think we can all agree that our country gets offended at the drop of a hat these days so it is "critical" pedagogy to be overly careful when it comes to bias. I've seen teachers get into trouble for teaching Huck Finn, offering a negative view about US involvement in Vietnam, and refusing to teach Jane Eyre. I got into it pretty bad a while back when I was co teaching a History of Religion class and we had an evangelical minister guest speak who discussed, among other topics as well, of the evils of homosexuality.
So, this view that teachers are engaging in "outright Marxist brainwashing" is flat out wrong. I can tell you for a fact that if that went on in a Minnesota classroom...a state that views having more than one beer and saying the word "thighs" on a night out as offensive and controversial...disciplinary action would follow quickly.
We hit on that because you misuse words and change definitions ALL. THE. TIME. Then when challenged to define the words, you always (or at least 99.999% of the time) pull a Brave Sir Robin.
More importantly, you're complaining that Kevin supposedly said we're past the point of reasonable discourse. Here's a hint: Discourse is ONLY possible if everyone is speaking the same language, as in the same words with the same meanings! You REFUSE to use the same meanings, therefore, the impediment to reasonable discourse IS YOU!!!
once again, descend into that same, tired theme of "Mark doesn't know the English Language." You can't defend your hypocrisy regarding Stack so you create a world where I must be stupid.
I *Agree* with you it's a tired theme.
BUT WE CAN'T GET YOU TO EITHER USE A DICTIONARY, STICK TO WORDS YOU KNOW, OR TO SHUT UP!
I don't have to create this world, Mark, you consistently MAKE UP DEFINITIONS TO COMMONLY USED WORDS, or INSIST THAT YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION, and then when pressed, DEFINE THEM INCORRECTLY.
If you think that makes you "stupid" - that's your problem, NOT MINE.
And THEN YOU GO AND MISUSE HYPOCRISY.
That's right, in the middle of that rant that Ed and I are "inventing reality" you WENT AND DID IT AGAIN.
I quoted you Stacks WORDS. The man was saying the exact same things, using the exact same words (or very close) that YOU DO.
You want to paint him as ideologically the same, or close, to Ed, Kevin and I, despite the fact that HIS WORDS AND ACTIONS PUT HIM NEXT TO YOU. (Or, in all fairness, something you never grant us, at least arguably next to you.)
These are Stack's words: when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tensof thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple... ... the recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies ... The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
OK, tell me which of us that sounds like? Ed? Me? DJ? Kevin? Please be SPECIFIC about what you're referring to, as well.
If any of you actually spent time in a classroom, you would see that teachers are very careful to present information in a balanced way.
GOF keeps hammering you on your semantic value. I won't steal his thunder here. But I do have to note that you, as usual, don't get the concept. First, you say "if you spent time" - without any regard for the time we HAVE SPENT. And ARE SPENDING.
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you think you're more informed than we are.
Which falls apart when we're able to point out that teachers aren't presenting - carefully - in a 'balanced' way. When we point out that a major underlying "fundamental" in the teaching of teachers is unbalanced, which you first denied, then admitted you'd HAD CLASSES IN THAT.
Who's ignorant here? (and who knows what words mean?)
You keep dodging, because you *are* an embodiment of this "critical pedagogy" idea - and you're upset we're getting clued in on the key words.
I didn't know phenomenology before. Now I do. Now I know that our education major teaches that as a "building block"
And then I look at your posts, which embody that concept. "A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness. "
Your 'reality' of what 'hypocrisy' means fits right in there like a glove.
So, this view that teachers are engaging in "outright Marxist brainwashing" is flat out wrong.
This conflicts with your other statements that they were too busy, and/or too incompetent to do so.
See, this is where your phenomenologist reality kicks in. You don't want it to be true. So all the proof, evidence, links and paths we keep pointing out are not just wrong, but evil.
I went to public school, and now that I've read Gatto, I can see where my school - at the time - was not in the Gramscian mold and how that caused my experience to be different. I can also see where it was.
I also know that since I graduated, they've "progressed" and made the school system more Gramscian.
I can analyze that information, compare it to Gramsci's ideas, and see that.
You cannot. You can't even use "hypocrisy" correctly in a paragraph where you're bitching about being tired of us pointing out that you can't use words correctly.
You get strip-searched every time you fly, don't you? All that embedded irony has *got* to set off the metal detector. (And you're in deep shit if they ever come out with a meta detector.)
A very large problem, not only with our education system, but our culture in general.
I'd ask you to define how we could investigate this. But it would be a waste of time, so I'll lecture you and you'll ignore it.
But when you take the SAME POPULATION, and move them from public to private - or vice versa - there is a definite correlation. Private schools in the middle of the worst NYC areas score on par - or in excess - than the "best" schools. Same culture. Only thing that changed? The education system. Same thing with DC - where your Obama is going to close down all those charter schools and force the students into the failed public education system.
Everything else is the same. That's how you compare. Your flailing and attempts to distract from the main point(s) actually reinforce that.
Cause I'd expect a private school teacher to be able to demonstrate how a hypothesis could be (dis)proven.
I'd like to bring up a point about the goals comment in the post. The question that didn't get asked is what ARE the goals of the education system. Drucker's contention was that the schools were given goals (from the 60s on) over and above straight-up education, and that those goals have subordinated what we would all think of as the primary mission.
Another trend I would note is the centralization of education during the timeframe in question. Even at the state level, let alone the federal. The more the bureaucracy has developed, and the farther removed that bureaucracy is from actual teaching and accountability to [local] parents has to be a considerable factor in fouling the education environment. It becomes just another political football.
Just to burnish my creds as an evil right-winger, the unionization of teachers and the growth in political power that has flowed from that is no small contributor to our current situation.
Finally, the issue of accountability also extends into the home. Any school will have an up hill struggle to educate a child that comes from a home where education isn't valued. Equally, parents can have an over-inflated sense of how wonderful their precious little snowflake is, and create a different dysfunction by demanding that the school cater to little Johnny's "creativity" and not subject him to some awful regimentation. School and classroom discipline isn't what it was when I was kid, and from what I understand - overbearing parents are a big part of the problem.
Want some numbers to help with this? Mark Perry's blog Carpe Diem is looking at some fascinating numbers about the DC School system. This is particularly interesting:
The growth in public school spending at the national level has been staggering. According to the Department of Education (data here), "Total expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools" increased 234 times between 1919 ($48) and 2006 ($11,257), and current expenditures per pupil has increased 245 times ($40 to $9,683). Over that same period, the CPI (All Items, data here) increased only about 12 times (see graph above).
Back to the details: 2. According to data from the Department of Education (data here, Table 186) for "Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools," spending per pupil in the D.C. schools was $20,596 in 2006-2007 (measured in constant 2007-2008 dollars), and that was the highest amount in the country and almost twice the national average of $10,720. Whether spending was $20,000 or $25,000 isn't as important as the fact that D.C. public school spending leads the country, when everything is calculated on a consistent basis.
3. From the same table, real spending per D.C. pupil in 1959 was only 15% above the national average and by 2006-2007 D.C. spending was 92% above the national average. Over the last fifty years, real spending per student in D.C. has increased by 6.63 times (from $3,106 to $20,596) since 1959, and that increase is the highest in the country, and compares to an average real increase in spending of 4.37 times between 1959 and 2006.
4. Department of Education data (Table 178) for "Total Expenditures for public elementary and secondary education" shows that the D.C. public schools spent $1,389,995,000 (almost $1.4 billion) for the 2006-2007 school year, which is even higher than the $1.29 billion reported in my last post (based on Andrew Coulson's data).
5. Department of Education data also show that the D.C. schools have one of lowest high school graduation rates of 65.4% for 2005-2006, a full eight percentage points below the national average of 73.4%.
Bottom Line: The important issues to me should be: a) the significant increase in real spending over time for public schools in general, b) the fact that D.C. public schools spend more than $1 billion per year and lead the country in per pupil spending, c) D.C. schools have had the greatest spending increases over the last 50 years, d) D.C. schools have one of the lowest graduation rates in the country, and e) the resistance by teachers' unions, Democrats (usually) and labor unions to school choice in D.C. and around the country, like the Opportunity Scholarship Program in D.C.
"Any student who studies with him will end up a second Byron, or perhaps a second Franklin."
Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread...
The reason why I was curious as to the gentlemen's curriculum relates to one major problem in education today.There is an intense struggle over what should be taught to an ever diversifying student body. Since Mastiff hasn't answered, I have no way of knowing for certain what he will be teaching his pupils but I am curious if it consists of any material the cult deems to be "Marxist." Sadly, anything that is culturally diverse is now liberal or Marxist. The problem that many in the cult refuse to face is that teaching Jane Eyre to a diverse group of students just won't cut it anymore. They aren't interested and they don't care because there is nothing in there to which they can relate.
This is also why people in the cult are so pissed off. They see this as a threat to their identity. Rather that have material that is reflective of the various views represented by the different cultures in an American classroom today, the cult wants their own version (and ONLY that version) of History and English to be taught. Not only are alternative views all "communist," but these views are actually the ONLY ones being taught as part of the ongoing Marxist plot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Instructors are very careful these days to present all sides of a story or historical event without judgment. Far too many people get offended by everything these days and so it has created a climate of extreme (and sometimes unnecessary) care to be as dispassionate as possible. This idea that our children are "under attack" and being taught the wrong things is nonsense.
There is an intense struggle over what should be taught to an ever diversifying student body.
Excellent example of a misdirected goal. U.S. history doesn't need "diversity" - it needs to teach the best (most accurate) historical account. Mathematics doesn't care about your cultural background. That this is even an argument in pegadogy proves Drucker's (and other's) point(s) - schools have lost sight of what they exist to do.
They aren't interested and they don't care because there is nothing in there to which they can relate. >
A variant on the soft bigotry of low expectations. Students will only care "if they can relate".
...the cult wants their own version...
M when you keep using arguments derived from Marxist orthodoxy you shouldn't really be schocked that you are called a Marxist. Perhaps if instead of simply aping certain words, you tried studying a little of the origin of the line of thought, you would be, dare I say it "enlightened".
Far too many people get offended by everything these days...
Indeed, and the most vocal about offense are the proponents of political correctness - a position you support without even thinking about it.
Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread...
Can't even be honest about the attempt to get the "last word" in?
There is an intense struggle over what should be taught to an ever diversifying student body.
Not really.
And in the meantime, none of the "diverse" student body can do basic math, or understand basic science. But they can tell you about who the victims were!
As usual, you use glittering generalities to avoid any real issue - so what "struggle" is so "intense"?
Sadly, anything that is culturally diverse is now liberal or Marxist.
How's your kids _math scores_? _Reading scores?_ That's not liberal or Marxist other than we know that schools now fail to teach kids reading, comprehension, math, or other skills that are not "culturally diverse".
Rather that have material that is reflective of the various views represented by the different cultures in an American classroom today, the cult wants their own version (and ONLY that version) of History and English to be taught.
"The Cult" - I thought we were the American Al Queda?
No, as usual, you've not proven that we're a cult (but you've proven you're in one). But that won't stop you from continuing to use a unproven accusation as a dependency for your argument without realizing what that means for your ability to frame an argument while lecturing *us* on *our* intelligence, education, and knowledge.
History might be arguable. Might. Except what you're saying is not true - and almost all of us have enough contact with the education system to know that. There's not a real "debate" over History. But most students cannot tell you WHY things occurred. They can list victim groups. But they can't give explanations of the contexts of historical issues, or much of a shot at a realistic idea of the history.
But English? English? What "version" of English is under dispute?
Not only are alternative views all "communist," but these views are actually the ONLY ones being taught as part of the ongoing Marxist plot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And you would be able to "dispassionately" discover, notice, and challenge that?
This idea that our children are "under attack" and being taught the wrong things is nonsense.
Unless, of course, you've been paying attention.
When *I* was in college, there was a joke.
"High schools used to require Greek, Latin, calculus and rhetoric to graduate. Now colleges teach 'Remedial English' and 'Intro to Algebra.'"
Public testing scores have been dropping since then. "Nonsense" - unless you pay attention to the very tests that your profession keeps coming up with to prove your expertise!
See, Mark, this is what you can't understand in your "dispassionate" discussion. You cannot point to any success stories. You can't point to any arguable points to support your side! And what's more damning to your entire hypothesis, what demonstrates why you don't fool us, is that you don't even know that.
So, aphasia boy, it appears your new word of the day is "cult".
A few mouse clicks provides the following dictionary definitions:
From TheFreeDictionary online:
n.
1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a sect devoted to such a system
3. (Sociology) a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
4. (Sociology) Sociol a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure
5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity the cult of yoga
6. the person, idea, etc., arousing such devotion
7.a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group
b. (as modifier) a cult show
8. (modifier) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or cults a cult figure
You used the word "cult" four times in your last post here. We find: 1) "the cult"; 2) "the cult"; 3) "the cult"; and, 4) "the cult". It's your comment, so you get to pick the definition. Now, just which definition of the word "cult" applies here?
Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread...
Whoops, apparently, there is. RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!
Well, then I guess I'm not the one running away, am I?
Of all the people who comment here, you're the only one who throws down the gauntlet for a duel, right before and after declaring your opposition to dueling.
So you challenged us for "running away" - after you ran away once (and ran away from the associated other threads), and then ran away, again.
I thought of using you as a fictional character in a story I'm writing, but none of my test readers believed anybody like you could exist.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/constructive-criticism.html (40 comments)
I stand by what I've said in any and every other endeavor. The moment you begin funding something by taxes, that is by force, you divorce that something's ability to sustain itself from whether or not those it purports to serve believe they are getting value for their money. It doesn't matter what that something is, either. Healthcare, education, banking, car sales, it doesn't matter. The people doing that job no longer have to please their customers in order to keep their jobs, now the ones they absolutely must please are their own chain of command.
Over time, you will see the priorities of the people performing that service change. They have to change, it's as inevitable and as bound into the genetic code as flowers turning toward the sun. No power you can bring to bear is going to trump "if I don't do this, my family and I don't eat". Sorry, not gonna happen.
In short, "public _______" of any sort is always going to be the slave of ongoing political agendas. It cannot be anything else.
The point of the Education pieces I write is to illustrate that the system is broken beyond repair. It CAN'T. BE. FIXED.
Somewhat perhaps surprisingly, I disagree, Kevin.
It can be fixed. Or theoretically could be. But it would require specifically enumerating these fallacies that have infected and mestastized, and REPUDIATING THEM. Deliberately, obviously and directly.
Yeah. Like THAT'S gonna happen. ;)
It's unlikely.
But not impossible.
Tut, tut, the word you want here is inconcievable!
I gotta disagree with you, U-J. Quite aside from things like "critical pedagogy", the "brokenness" of the public education system is built in, by virtue of it being "public". See above.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any educational institution in this country that receives NO tax dollars is on the fringe indeed, no? Given that, I think fixing the system is about as practical as trying to scoop all the insides out of an apple, leaving the skin and stem, stuffing it with something new and expecting it to still have all the qualities of a "real" apple. Better to just go pick another apple, preferably from a different type of apple tree, the wasps like this variety far too much.
Father of five here. All homeschooled. Never could understand why people railed against "socialized this" and "socialized that" yet happily sent their children to a socialized eudcation system. Why is it that the same people who scream that government involvement in ANYTHING brings sub-standard results willingly sign their kids up for a public education year after year?
It's common for folks who first find out we homeschool to defend their decision to us, so I probably talk about the schools issue more than most people. They tell us how good their child's school is. They tell us about the good programs. They tell us about the good teachers. They tell us about a list of positives. But, invariably, if the discussion goes on, the truth will come out - problems with the administration. Problems with other students. Discipline issues. Gangs, drugs, bad influences. Problem teachers. Conflicts. Stupid rules. Parents without a real say. They'll talk about how involved they have to be to make sure that Junior gets the "right" teachers, the "right" classes, the "right" schedule. They talk about how they volunteer in the classroom so they can keep an eye on things.
I have some strong views about public education, but I don't wear them on my sleeve. Most people don't know how I feel at all. But in conversation after conversation, I hear the same things- people know the schools are bad and they know they can't do much about it. So they hope, they pray, they volunteer in the classroom, they do what they can. In some cases, "what they can" does the trick. In the others... well..
(Yes, I know this is anecdotal evidence. If I hadn't been hearing the same thing for almost twenty years, I might not give it much weight. And, yes, homeschooling is a different path and there are homeschooled failures too. But it has a pretty good track record overall and is working fine for us. YMMV.)
I can't tell if Kevin is being too cynical or if he's absolutely right.
My favorite teacher in high school was recently forced out. He now makes his living as a private tutor, and some of his students are homeschooled.
I got a chance to speak to him a few weeks ago, and heard what his new curriculum is now that he has full control. I nearly wept. Any student who studies with him will end up a second Byron, or perhaps a second Franklin.
The problem is not “solely” any single thing…it’s a combination of a large number of factors, all coming together to create a system which produces a vast majority of functionally-illiterate, functionally-innumerate, collectivist-oriented drones. The amazing thing is that it’s NOT a conspiracy. “Never attribute to a conspiracy what can be accounted for by stupidity.”
- The ever-increasing federalization of the educational got its initial start back in the 50’s, but really took off (along with the “Great Society” that extended FDR’s socialist state) in the 1960’s
- The de facto control of the budgets by the teacher’s unions
- The stunning waste of government-school bureaucracies, where multiple layers-upon-layers of administrators chew up hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for each useless twit (and stunningly none of the money ever spent to reduce “classroom size” ever actually gets there)
- The refusal to eject from either classrooms or schools those children who actively hamper the learning of others (and simultaneously the refusal to put into place “highly structured environments”, which is translated as, “we kick your sorry little butt”, for these same juvenile criminals)
Marxadelphia is a perfect example of someone so inculcated into the government-school system that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
The pedagogy taught in universities and colleges is now so collectivist that any attempt by an education student to discuss things rationally ends up with them being (at the least) ostracized, and at worst, thrown out. There is such a deep level of brainwashing that most (like Marxadelphia) are unconscious of it, and refuse to even acknowledge its existence.
Gee, what a surprise that government schools turn out the product that they do. It’s actually more amazing that anyone learns in them, but that’s a hard thing to shut down in human beings.
Marxy is completely off his meds. Over at his "blog" (otherwise known as fantasy world) he quoted Kevin from this post and tied it to the sick man who committed suicide by flying a plane into an IRS building.
Here's the link. Is it just me, or does it seem like Marxy is building up his nerve to be able to pull the trigger on us?
Since I don't have Mark Twain's advantage of time to leave a letter in the desk for his wife to edit out stuff he would regret later, I'll just stop now.
From his manifesto:
http://www.t35.com/embeddedart.txt
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens
of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple...
... the recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies ...
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Guess we'd better make sure Mark doesn't have his PPSEL. Seems like his crew's been driving up the fear and paranoia tapping into their inner rage.
Heh heh heh.
I'll never claim not to have a dark sense of humor.
http://i.imgur.com/GqYrz.jpg (Seen on #GBC)
Dark, very dark… =-X
I must agree with Grumpy. The ideological squabbling over the current educational system and its obvious failings will end only when schooling, like the church (at least in theroy), is completely separated from the state. To "mandate" schooling of any kind is, at the day's end, armed coercion and usurpation of parental authority and to fund it with taxes of any kind is, at the day's end, armed robbery and usurpation of private property rights. Left entirely to the free markets, there would be no lack of efficient, effective, and inexpensive educational enterprises catering to the demands and circumstancces of parents and children from all sectors of society.
and heard what his new curriculum is now that he has full control. I nearly wept. Any student who studies with him will end up a second Byron, or perhaps a second Franklin.
Before I dive into this thread, I'm curious about his new curriculum. What material is he using?
You have the nerve to show up here after misusing part of Kevin's post?
Wow… …the size of the cojones on this guy…
Before I dive into this thread
*snorts*
Ok, add "dive" to the list...
Over on Marxy's site it became clear that "hypocrite" also needs to be added to the list.
Ed:
I'm telling you, I've got the list.
http://tinyurl.com/ykase48
Ed:
Wow… …the size of the cojones on this guy…
It's not the size of his nutsack he pumps up, it's the lack of size of his cerebral cortex.
He's got _nothing left to lose_ here. He's continually trying to "double or nothing" to get out of his debate deficit - thinking that any "Point" he "proves" somehow means he wins.
He's not here because he's brave or heroic, it's because he's too ignorant to know how stupid he sounds.
Of course, that's not taking into account his "diversity" or "particular idiom". It's merely measuring him against the facts. How utterly heartless of me.
For some reason, I keep thinking of the "contestants" on American Idol who are absolutely convinced that they are IT, yet they couldn't carry a tune in a bucket if it was welded to their hand and it was sealed shut.
'Course, you know what I'm talking about.
"It's not the size of his nutsack he pumps up, it's the lack of size of his cerebral cortex."
The material to pump up the nutsack has to come from somewhere! O:-)
I guess that's an example of "the lying agenda of Notes From the Front", where they are "only interested in ratings, site hits and selling themselves", huh?
It would be a lot easier to actually discuss and debate problems with members of the left if they'd stop channeling Jake Blues for a few minutes:
"I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"
But what can you expect, that method of "addressing the country's problems" comes from the top down.
Unix and Ed, what I find amusing about your exchange above is how you, once again, descend into that same, tired theme of "Mark doesn't know the English Language." You can't defend your hypocrisy regarding Stack so you create a world where I must be stupid. So, therefore...see everyone?....Mark's wrong. Whew. Now we don't have face the awful truth about our ideology. Thank goodness!
GOF, if I was after ratings, I'd be doing things much differently. And your characterization President Obama is just plain wrong. In fact, doesn't the base criticize him for taking the blame too much?
Back to the original intent of this post...education. The reason I am curious about the private teacher's curriculum is because of this statement:
and heard what his new curriculum is now that he has full control.
To me, this implies that he was force to teach sources of information he didn't want to teach. What were they? I think the answer to this will reveal two things
1. A very large problem, not only with our education system, but our culture in general.
2. A very large problem which bears a striking resemblance to...certain, previous information control techniques.
If any of you actually spent time in a classroom, you would see that teachers are very careful to present information in a balanced way. I think we can all agree that our country gets offended at the drop of a hat these days so it is "critical" pedagogy to be overly careful when it comes to bias. I've seen teachers get into trouble for teaching Huck Finn, offering a negative view about US involvement in Vietnam, and refusing to teach Jane Eyre. I got into it pretty bad a while back when I was co teaching a History of Religion class and we had an evangelical minister guest speak who discussed, among other topics as well, of the evils of homosexuality.
So, this view that teachers are engaging in "outright Marxist brainwashing" is flat out wrong. I can tell you for a fact that if that went on in a Minnesota classroom...a state that views having more than one beer and saying the word "thighs" on a night out as offensive and controversial...disciplinary action would follow quickly.
""Mark doesn't know the English Language." You can't defend your hypocrisy regarding Stack"
Irony Alert!!!
We hit on that because you misuse words and change definitions ALL. THE. TIME. Then when challenged to define the words, you always (or at least 99.999% of the time) pull a Brave Sir Robin.
More importantly, you're complaining that Kevin supposedly said we're past the point of reasonable discourse. Here's a hint: Discourse is ONLY possible if everyone is speaking the same language, as in the same words with the same meanings! You REFUSE to use the same meanings, therefore, the impediment to reasonable discourse IS YOU!!!
once again, descend into that same, tired theme of "Mark doesn't know the English Language." You can't defend your hypocrisy regarding Stack so you create a world where I must be stupid.
I *Agree* with you it's a tired theme.
BUT WE CAN'T GET YOU TO EITHER USE A DICTIONARY, STICK TO WORDS YOU KNOW, OR TO SHUT UP!
I don't have to create this world, Mark, you consistently MAKE UP DEFINITIONS TO COMMONLY USED WORDS, or INSIST THAT YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION, and then when pressed, DEFINE THEM INCORRECTLY.
If you think that makes you "stupid" - that's your problem, NOT MINE.
And THEN YOU GO AND MISUSE HYPOCRISY.
That's right, in the middle of that rant that Ed and I are "inventing reality" you WENT AND DID IT AGAIN.
I quoted you Stacks WORDS. The man was saying the exact same things, using the exact same words (or very close) that YOU DO.
You want to paint him as ideologically the same, or close, to Ed, Kevin and I, despite the fact that HIS WORDS AND ACTIONS PUT HIM NEXT TO YOU. (Or, in all fairness, something you never grant us, at least arguably next to you.)
These are Stack's words:
when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple...
... the recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies ...
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
OK, tell me which of us that sounds like? Ed? Me? DJ? Kevin? Please be SPECIFIC about what you're referring to, as well.
If any of you actually spent time in a classroom, you would see that teachers are very careful to present information in a balanced way.
GOF keeps hammering you on your semantic value. I won't steal his thunder here. But I do have to note that you, as usual, don't get the concept. First, you say "if you spent time" - without any regard for the time we HAVE SPENT. And ARE SPENDING.
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you think you're more informed than we are.
Which falls apart when we're able to point out that teachers aren't presenting - carefully - in a 'balanced' way. When we point out that a major underlying "fundamental" in the teaching of teachers is unbalanced, which you first denied, then admitted you'd HAD CLASSES IN THAT.
Who's ignorant here? (and who knows what words mean?)
You keep dodging, because you *are* an embodiment of this "critical pedagogy" idea - and you're upset we're getting clued in on the key words.
I didn't know phenomenology before. Now I do. Now I know that our education major teaches that as a "building block"
And then I look at your posts, which embody that concept.
"A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness. "
Your 'reality' of what 'hypocrisy' means fits right in there like a glove.
(I hate this commenting system)
So, this view that teachers are engaging in "outright Marxist brainwashing" is flat out wrong.
This conflicts with your other statements that they were too busy, and/or too incompetent to do so.
See, this is where your phenomenologist reality kicks in. You don't want it to be true. So all the proof, evidence, links and paths we keep pointing out are not just wrong, but evil.
I went to public school, and now that I've read Gatto, I can see where my school - at the time - was not in the Gramscian mold and how that caused my experience to be different. I can also see where it was.
I also know that since I graduated, they've "progressed" and made the school system more Gramscian.
I can analyze that information, compare it to Gramsci's ideas, and see that.
You cannot. You can't even use "hypocrisy" correctly in a paragraph where you're bitching about being tired of us pointing out that you can't use words correctly.
You get strip-searched every time you fly, don't you? All that embedded irony has *got* to set off the metal detector. (And you're in deep shit if they ever come out with a meta detector.)
A very large problem, not only with our education system, but our culture in general.
I'd ask you to define how we could investigate this. But it would be a waste of time, so I'll lecture you and you'll ignore it.
But when you take the SAME POPULATION, and move them from public to private - or vice versa - there is a definite correlation. Private schools in the middle of the worst NYC areas score on par - or in excess - than the "best" schools. Same culture. Only thing that changed? The education system. Same thing with DC - where your Obama is going to close down all those charter schools and force the students into the failed public education system.
Everything else is the same. That's how you compare. Your flailing and attempts to distract from the main point(s) actually reinforce that.
Cause I'd expect a private school teacher to be able to demonstrate how a hypothesis could be (dis)proven.
I'd like to bring up a point about the goals comment in the post. The question that didn't get asked is what ARE the goals of the education system. Drucker's contention was that the schools were given goals (from the 60s on) over and above straight-up education, and that those goals have subordinated what we would all think of as the primary mission.
Another trend I would note is the centralization of education during the timeframe in question. Even at the state level, let alone the federal. The more the bureaucracy has developed, and the farther removed that bureaucracy is from actual teaching and accountability to [local] parents has to be a considerable factor in fouling the education environment. It becomes just another political football.
Just to burnish my creds as an evil right-winger, the unionization of teachers and the growth in political power that has flowed from that is no small contributor to our current situation.
Finally, the issue of accountability also extends into the home. Any school will have an up hill struggle to educate a child that comes from a home where education isn't valued. Equally, parents can have an over-inflated sense of how wonderful their precious little snowflake is, and create a different dysfunction by demanding that the school cater to little Johnny's "creativity" and not subject him to some awful regimentation. School and classroom discipline isn't what it was when I was kid, and from what I understand - overbearing parents are a big part of the problem.
Want some numbers to help with this? Mark Perry's blog Carpe Diem is looking at some fascinating numbers about the DC School system. This is particularly interesting:
The growth in public school spending at the national level has been staggering. According to the Department of Education (data here), "Total expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools" increased 234 times between 1919 ($48) and 2006 ($11,257), and current expenditures per pupil has increased 245 times ($40 to $9,683). Over that same period, the CPI (All Items, data here) increased only about 12 times (see graph above).
Back to the details:
2. According to data from the Department of Education (data here, Table 186) for "Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools," spending per pupil in the D.C. schools was $20,596 in 2006-2007 (measured in constant 2007-2008 dollars), and that was the highest amount in the country and almost twice the national average of $10,720. Whether spending was $20,000 or $25,000 isn't as important as the fact that D.C. public school spending leads the country, when everything is calculated on a consistent basis.
3. From the same table, real spending per D.C. pupil in 1959 was only 15% above the national average and by 2006-2007 D.C. spending was 92% above the national average. Over the last fifty years, real spending per student in D.C. has increased by 6.63 times (from $3,106 to $20,596) since 1959, and that increase is the highest in the country, and compares to an average real increase in spending of 4.37 times between 1959 and 2006.
4. Department of Education data (Table 178) for "Total Expenditures for public elementary and secondary education" shows that the D.C. public schools spent $1,389,995,000 (almost $1.4 billion) for the 2006-2007 school year, which is even higher than the $1.29 billion reported in my last post (based on Andrew Coulson's data).
5. Department of Education data also show that the D.C. schools have one of lowest high school graduation rates of 65.4% for 2005-2006, a full eight percentage points below the national average of 73.4%.
Bottom Line: The important issues to me should be: a) the significant increase in real spending over time for public schools in general, b) the fact that D.C. public schools spend more than $1 billion per year and lead the country in per pupil spending, c) D.C. schools have had the greatest spending increases over the last 50 years, d) D.C. schools have one of the lowest graduation rates in the country, and e) the resistance by teachers' unions, Democrats (usually) and labor unions to school choice in D.C. and around the country, like the Opportunity Scholarship Program in D.C.
"Any student who studies with him will end up a second Byron, or perhaps a second Franklin."
Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread...
The reason why I was curious as to the gentlemen's curriculum relates to one major problem in education today.There is an intense struggle over what should be taught to an ever diversifying student body. Since Mastiff hasn't answered, I have no way of knowing for certain what he will be teaching his pupils but I am curious if it consists of any material the cult deems to be "Marxist." Sadly, anything that is culturally diverse is now liberal or Marxist. The problem that many in the cult refuse to face is that teaching Jane Eyre to a diverse group of students just won't cut it anymore. They aren't interested and they don't care because there is nothing in there to which they can relate.
This is also why people in the cult are so pissed off. They see this as a threat to their identity. Rather that have material that is reflective of the various views represented by the different cultures in an American classroom today, the cult wants their own version (and ONLY that version) of History and English to be taught. Not only are alternative views all "communist," but these views are actually the ONLY ones being taught as part of the ongoing Marxist plot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Instructors are very careful these days to present all sides of a story or historical event without judgment. Far too many people get offended by everything these days and so it has created a climate of extreme (and sometimes unnecessary) care to be as dispassionate as possible. This idea that our children are "under attack" and being taught the wrong things is nonsense.
"Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread..."
Of course we are. But that doesn't mean we care what you think about anything, so don't be surprised if no one replies.
Well, then I guess I'm not the one running away, am I? 8-)
"Well, then I guess I'm not the one running away, am I?"
Not on this thread, but you are, as usual, on others.
You fool no one.
There is an intense struggle over what should be taught to an ever diversifying student body.
Excellent example of a misdirected goal. U.S. history doesn't need "diversity" - it needs to teach the best (most accurate) historical account. Mathematics doesn't care about your cultural background. That this is even an argument in pegadogy proves Drucker's (and other's) point(s) - schools have lost sight of what they exist to do.
They aren't interested and they don't care because there is nothing in there to which they can relate. >
A variant on the soft bigotry of low expectations. Students will only care "if they can relate".
...the cult wants their own version...
M when you keep using arguments derived from Marxist orthodoxy you shouldn't really be schocked that you are called a Marxist. Perhaps if instead of simply aping certain words, you tried studying a little of the origin of the line of thought, you would be, dare I say it "enlightened".
Far too many people get offended by everything these days...
Indeed, and the most vocal about offense are the proponents of political correctness - a position you support without even thinking about it.
Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread...
Can't even be honest about the attempt to get the "last word" in?
There is an intense struggle over what should be taught to an ever diversifying student body.
Not really.
And in the meantime, none of the "diverse" student body can do basic math, or understand basic science. But they can tell you about who the victims were!
As usual, you use glittering generalities to avoid any real issue - so what "struggle" is so "intense"?
Sadly, anything that is culturally diverse is now liberal or Marxist.
How's your kids _math scores_? _Reading scores?_ That's not liberal or Marxist other than we know that schools now fail to teach kids reading, comprehension, math, or other skills that are not "culturally diverse".
Rather that have material that is reflective of the various views represented by the different cultures in an American classroom today, the cult wants their own version (and ONLY that version) of History and English to be taught.
"The Cult" - I thought we were the American Al Queda?
No, as usual, you've not proven that we're a cult (but you've proven you're in one). But that won't stop you from continuing to use a unproven accusation as a dependency for your argument without realizing what that means for your ability to frame an argument while lecturing *us* on *our* intelligence, education, and knowledge.
History might be arguable. Might. Except what you're saying is not true - and almost all of us have enough contact with the education system to know that. There's not a real "debate" over History. But most students cannot tell you WHY things occurred. They can list victim groups. But they can't give explanations of the contexts of historical issues, or much of a shot at a realistic idea of the history.
But English? English? What "version" of English is under dispute?
Not only are alternative views all "communist," but these views are actually the ONLY ones being taught as part of the ongoing Marxist plot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And you would be able to "dispassionately" discover, notice, and challenge that?
This idea that our children are "under attack" and being taught the wrong things is nonsense.
Unless, of course, you've been paying attention.
When *I* was in college, there was a joke.
"High schools used to require Greek, Latin, calculus and rhetoric to graduate. Now colleges teach 'Remedial English' and 'Intro to Algebra.'"
Public testing scores have been dropping since then. "Nonsense" - unless you pay attention to the very tests that your profession keeps coming up with to prove your expertise!
See, Mark, this is what you can't understand in your "dispassionate" discussion. You cannot point to any success stories. You can't point to any arguable points to support your side! And what's more damning to your entire hypothesis, what demonstrates why you don't fool us, is that you don't even know that.
DJ is wrong here. You do fool one person here.
You.
So, aphasia boy, it appears your new word of the day is "cult".
A few mouse clicks provides the following dictionary definitions:
From TheFreeDictionary online:
n.
1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a sect devoted to such a system
3. (Sociology) a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
4. (Sociology) Sociol a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure
5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity the cult of yoga
6. the person, idea, etc., arousing such devotion
7.a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group
b. (as modifier) a cult show
8. (modifier) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or cults a cult figure
You used the word "cult" four times in your last post here. We find: 1) "the cult"; 2) "the cult"; 3) "the cult"; and, 4) "the cult". It's your comment, so you get to pick the definition. Now, just which definition of the word "cult" applies here?
Markadelphia
Well, then I guess I'm not the one running away, am I?
Apparently, yes.
Let's see if anyone is still reading this thread...
Whoops, apparently, there is. RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!
Well, then I guess I'm not the one running away, am I?
Of all the people who comment here, you're the only one who throws down the gauntlet for a duel, right before and after declaring your opposition to dueling.
So you challenged us for "running away" - after you ran away once (and ran away from the associated other threads), and then ran away, again.
I thought of using you as a fictional character in a story I'm writing, but none of my test readers believed anybody like you could exist.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>