Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

April 17, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. “School vouchers” are a conservative issue, mostly because our leftist brothers are gravely conflicted here. Although our leftist friends like to pose as empowering advocates for the “underclass,” they also believe our schools are essential centers of indoctrination for leftism. Thus, the pose conflicts with the actual as they are unwilling to surrender control of the power. We will hear arguments today that parents are not smart enough to know what is best for their child, or that the right to move children will be abused, or that the real purpose of vouchers is to destroy the public school system (as if there is something sacred about the public school system.)

Let the games begin.

By alice

April 17, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

While I am not oppossed to SB10, I hope that people understand that the decent private schools in Atlanta won’t be taking students. Keep in mind, that a school has to agree to participate. This is not a refund or rebate to a parent, the money is paid directly to the school. There are minimum standards for participating schools including being open for 3 years and being financially sound.

Most private schools in the Atlanta area are full. In addition, many parents opt into private school to avoid the behavior problems that exist in public school. While we all know that there are behavior problems in all schools, public or private, it is important to note that little Susie’s parent doesn’t want your child, who on occassion acts out for whatever reason, sitting next to her in class.

Most of the special needs private schools in Atlanta are full with a waiting list, though the vouchers may allow some of them to grow. (This is a good thing.)

With both the HOPE and the Pre-K programs, there is some accountability. With the HOPE, students have to qualify and then maintain a minimum GPA to continue to receive it. With the Pre-K program classrooms are evaluated multiple times a year and can lose the program (and it does happen).

What SB10 is lacking is this accountability. As a taxpayer, I want students to be at least as well off, if not better off academically, if my tax dollars are being used for this.

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

The voucher system is an idea whose time has come. Vouchers are used extensively in Europe and work well. This situation is ironic because most liberals love what Europeans do, whether it works or not - e.g. socialized medicine. Competition is the key and it works every time. Liberals just cannot stand to hear that the market place will fix things, but it will if allowed.

Please pray for all of the victims of senseless violence at Virginia Tech yesterday.

By TW

April 17, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

No oversight? Clearly it has become the mantra of the White House, but how can real conservatives shrug their shoulders at accountability by endorsing the writing of these blank checks?

By Mid-South Philosopher

April 17, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

While the issue of vouchers for special needs students is one area in the education reform arena where you and I agree, I continue to be amused at your rationale that by the state government using its police power to compel citizens, who do not have children, to contribute to the cost of educating the children of those citizens who have chosen, via family planning or lust, to procreate somehow contributes to the development of personal responsibility and self-reliance on the part of those parents.

If we believe that personal responsibility and self-reliance are the desirable determiners by which children should be educated, we should be working toward the total privatization of education delivery institutions (schools) and the private financing (parent pay) for these educational experiences.

If we believe that the state is responsible for financing the education of all children and providing the educational delivery institutions (schools) for this purpose, then the notion of parental choice centers only upon whether the parents choose to use that which is provided by the state or whether (at their own expense) to seek private instruction. Now some will say that it is unfair to make parents, who choose private instruction for their children, to pay school taxes for the maintenance of public schools. I would argue that it is no more unfair than to make that individual, who has never been a parent, to pay those same taxes. It is their contribution to the common good of society.

The Georgia General Assembly, a string of Governors (competent and incompetent), the Georgia Department of Education, and other educational agencies have had it wrong for a century or more. Education should not be funded on the basis of FTE (full-time equivalency) or the old ADA (average daily attendance). Instead schools should be funded on the basis of WIT (what it takes) to operate a school. In other words, equity in resources should be the goal. An elementary school serving 800 in Atlanta should have proportionally the same resources as an elementary school serving 300 students in northeast Georgia.

If we are truly determined to go the way of vouchers, let’s make this a truly ”free-market” driven school system. Privatize all public schools. Dissolve all local board of education. Let each school council, which, by law, should already be in place in all public schools, form the first board of directors for each individual school. Let each individual school decide what the curriculum will be, what extra-curricular services will be offered, what students will be served, how much it will cost to attend the school, and how students will be transported to and from the facility. Let the state send a voucher to each parent in the amount of $9,000 (to use your figure, Jim) and let the parents negotiate with their school of choice. Now, that would be REAL school reform and REAL school choice. . This has about as much chance of being embraced by society as the call for a national holiday honoring Fidel Castro!

By Jeff

April 17, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

Listening to Kicks right now, it seems congratulations are in order for your nephew and your family, so congrats!

By Old Physics Teacher

April 17, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

It pains me to be on jbmlaw’s side. As one of my friends say, “you are who you associate with.” “…centers of indoctrination…”; “…something sacred about the public school system.” Pulleese! I feel dirty just repeating your garbage. I want to keep this civil, but reading trash like that makes me want to start telling lawyer jokes… like the one which goes, what do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean…?

I have friends who teach in private schools. They just love it when the principal brings in the new student, “Johnny.” This is “Johnny’s” third school this year. The teachers just love it when the principal tells them what “Johnny’s” grade is going to be, and it’s based on how much money “Johnny’s” dad pays in tuition - and no, I’m not going to identify the school, but it is in the Atlanta area. Vouchers are not going to solve all the problems of schooling; it just allows some parents a chance to move their children to another school. Good parents produce good children who do well any any school environment. It has nothing to do with income. I’ve seen good, poor parents who produce top-notch children, and I’ve seen some pretty pitiful rich parents that produce the same type children too.

Personally, I’d love for Marist, and similar schools, to start taking in some of the “regular ed” students and let them see how easy it is to teach unmotivated children. I hate to use this education term, but it applies, research shows moving unmotivated students to high performing schools does not improve their learning or motivation to learn. It just frustrates everyone concerned. Students who want to learn - learn.

jbmlaw: I’ll match my motivated students SAT scores with your kids’ private school anytime. My little rinking-dink school’s students finish universities quicker than most of the Atlanta area private school’s students do, and according to the rules set by lawyer-politicians (like you), we’re a failing school.

By Van

April 17, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Mid-South Philosopher,

Prior to the start of the 20th century, the standard education was public, but privately funded. Starting at various levels of funding. Schools were funded by systems like the Land Ordinance of 1785, designating section 16 of a township to the support of education or privately owned and operated.

Privately owned and operated schools, might be a way to expand needed education opportunities, with proper regulations, of course.

By Scooter

April 17, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Gosh, might all the candy-arse, politically correct barriers to discipline be part of our nation’s education problems? Might government provision of anything, education being one, be a gift and not a god given right? What type people generally advocate the installation of such barriers and insist everyone has all these “rights” to provisions, conservatives or liberals?

Reformed liberal signing out.

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

Alice - the schools will be accountable - to the parents! You must be a GAE executive because you are making the talking point argument that the teachers’ “professional” organizations are spamming me with every day. If the parents don’t like the results, they can take their vouchers elsewhere.

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

Old Physics Teacher - You obviously NEVER taught at a private school. Your characterization of how private schools handle students, new or otherwise, is 180 degrees from my experience and that of my friends. Private schools do not hesitate to expell trouble makers and they do not hesitate to fail students. They can always get another student because they have such long waiting lists. Marist, despite the expense, has students begging to get in. Yes the students are motivated and you are right, it is because their parents are motivated and they motivate their children. If some of these parents in public schools were motivated by the fact that they would actually have to follow that student’s progress and make sure he is successful or mom or dad would have to home school the brat then attitudes would change across the board. In Ireland education is completely privatized and the results are astounding across the board. Private schools are also free to teach values. Public schools cannot even enforce standing for the pledge, much less teach any kind of real moral values. The parents may or may not, but if the school gives no reinforcement, then the point becomes moot. Disrespect in public schools is in large part a herd mentality. When students see one student consistently getting away with it, then soon most of them are doing it.

Old Physics Teacher - you have a one dimentional view of things. I suggest you broaden your mind and your horizons.

By @@

April 17, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Jim, your last sentence truly sums it up well.

Now, unless they can move or afford private schooling, they’re stuck wherever and however government wants to serve them.

THAT ^^^ is one of those harsh and painful realities that all must view before things can improve.

Separating private from public will reveal the glaring differences.

There is nothing to motivate government to succeed at anything they do. Voting cycles come every two to four years. Inside those windows of opportunity, politicians will either convince the public to adapt and concede or they will force change.

This bill will lay bare the failure of government to educate our children. It will expose their cracks so to speak.

Unfortunately, there will be those who will slip through those cracks.

But hey…it’s been stinkin’ up there for a long time.

It’s time to smell the roses Georgia.

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Regarding Mr. Wooten’s comments and continued promotion of private schools, vouchers, special needs, etc.

His continued pounding of his views, regardless of the numbers of times educators on this thread have told him differently, are an example of a typical neocon - I’m right, everybody else is wrong.

I’d beg the readers liberal permission to play that game; for the fourth time Mr. Wooten, show us where public education has ever been overly funded, or for that matter even adequately funded.

Public education is the best bargain in this country (even with its faults).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By deegee

April 17, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Van, thanks for letting us know how it was done in the 1800’s. I am sure not much has changed in your neighborhood since then.

By Van

April 17, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

deegee,

But pointing out how things were handled prior to the era of big government, before Jimmy Carter raised the teacher’s unions to a Cabinet position, we might want to look back and see how it was when things seemed to work a little better. If looking back at history is not your cup of tea, then I would suggest you drink one of those caffeine laden power drinks and continue to make mistakes when it come to education.

By harold

April 17, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Let’s do school vouchers. Definitely! For every student, public private or home schooled!

Require the public schools to earn their money via voucher payments.

Once the voucher system is in place, let’s remove the taxpayers from the loop and have the breeder parents of these generally useless spawn pay for their own childrenses’ babysitting, uh, education.

The elimination of the tax paying bureaucracy would save so much money that the parents could pay less for schools than they pay for taxes for schools today, and those without children or whose children have grown would no longer be robbed blind!

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

y Mid-South Philosopher April 17, 2007 8:26 AM Good morning, Jim,

“While the issue of vouchers for special needs students is one area in the education reform arena where you and I agree, I continue to be amused at your rationale that by the state government using its police power to compel citizens, who do not have children, to contribute to the cost of educating the children of those citizens who have chosen, via family planning or lust, to procreate somehow contributes to the development of personal responsibility and self-reliance on the part of those parents.”

MidSouth, You and I have agreed on several topics, but let me depart from your viewpoint regarding those w/o children having to help pay for public education.

Most of your doctors, policemen, firemen, the man who makes sure you have clean water, the man who keeps your traffic lights working correctly, the person who sets the type for the newspaper you read, and an endless list of others, most all come or came from public education.

You and I and all others benefit from public education. And I see no reason why we shouldn’t all chip into the financial pool that all of us benefit from.

And we all see the idiot who “leads”? our country and what private education did for him. (Except maybe, Jim Wooten).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 17, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Sorry off topic, but couldn’t resist highlighting the efforts of more big-government, tax and spend Cobb County Republicans to stifle free enterprise:

Committee kills Cobb pipeline bill

By JIM GALLOWAY The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 04/17/07

A House committee abruptly killed a bill Monday that would have eased the way for Colonial Pipeline Co. to build a third, 500-mile petroleum pipeline from Louisiana to Cobb County — then to the rest of the eastern United States.

Senate Bill 173 failed in a 7-4 vote by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was opposed by a bipartisan coalition of Cobb legislators, who said the company did not tell local officials of its intentions.

A company spokesman said the pipeline will proceed without the legislation.

“We’re certainly disappointed that this committee did not see fit to help ensure Georgia’s energy future,” Colonial spokesman Sam Whitehead said. “We’ll have to begin the process immediately.”

Colonial, an Alpharetta company, said the bill was necessary to speed the construction of an additional, $1 billion pipeline to move gasoline and other products from five new refineries in Louisiana, set for completion in 2010.

The two current company pipelines end at a tank farm in Powder Springs.

“I did not have a level of trust in the corporate proponents of the bill,” said state Rep. Rich Golick of Smyrna, the highest-ranking Republican to vote against the measure.

The bill would have eased restrictions put on the company in 1995 after several spills and what some wealthy Georgia landowners said was Colonial’s abuse of eminent domain.

“I take a dim view of any erosion of private-property rights,” Golick said. Last year, he noted, the Legislature rewrote laws restricting the seizure of land by government and utilities.

By deegee

April 17, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

Woah, let me put my Red Bull down and ponder the Little House on the Prairie.

I happen to believe that the public school system serves the country well. My suggestion for improvement is to give local school districts more control over their standards and curricula. I can speak from personal experience and say that a motivated student in a public school can get a better education than an unmotivated student in a private school.

Private schools exist for a number of reasons and the folks that shell out the money for the schools pay for the exclusivity that comes with the tuition. There is nothing wrong with that in a private system. Parents that don’t have the money to send their kids to those schools but would like their child to have that experience should be able to obtain a private scholarship for their child. It doesn’t need to come from the taxpayers.

When parents take an active interest in the public school and are responsive to the school administration then the kids do well. My observation is that most kids are interested in something and a parent and/or an observant teacher should be able to get to know the child and figure out what sparks their interest. Then the child should be directed and mentored in their area of interest. Primary school should teach the child the basics. Secondary school could do a better job of directing kids into either an academic or technical path. I think that we could improve the system and retain more students if we would recognize that an academic path is not for everyone. Rather than providing vouchers for sending kids to private school,I would invest the money in teaching technical trades for students that aren’t particularly interested in academics.

By No Charter Bill!

April 17, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

The charter bill is the worst thing for teachers because if a district were to go to charter status, then teachers would lose the very few protections guaranteed them under current law.

Vote against the charter bill.

By jm

April 17, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

What Mr. Wooten seems to leave out is what is meant by “special needs”? Are we now going to be subject to an array of newly defined “special needs” once these vouchers become available? Also, what accountability will be attached to these vouchers? While the money is going directly to the schools, how are the taxpayers to know that it will be properly utilized.

By harold

April 17, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Based on the Korean attack on Virginia students Dubya ordered the flag flown and half staffed and Iran invaded!

By harold

April 17, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

there is a direct link between the shooter and Iran!

the shooter was korean. korea is part of the ‘access of evil’ with iran.

iran must pay for this attack!

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 17, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

He was part of a “sleeper cell”.

Cheney has known about this for months.

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Every child is a “special needs” child. That is why teachers have it so hard in the classroom.

The critics of public education, including our host writer, just can’t seem to comprehend that.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By harold

April 17, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Was the Marta subway line recently extended to Virginia Tech?

All crime comes from Marta, right? So it must have been.

By JP

April 17, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

This is just Fantastic. Of course Conservatives will interpret “shared identity” to be a reference to Communism, and therefore suggest that this observation is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the rest of us will ponder the element of truth in what is being said.

President George Bush’s “war on terror” rhetoric has strengthened terrorist groups by helping them to create a shared identity, the development secretary, Hilary Benn, warned yesterday.

By Bipartisan scandals?

April 17, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

*The Democratic party’s “class warfare” rhetoric has strengthened our terrorist groups by helping them to create a shared identity, the secretaries of consumer affairs, Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson, proclaimed yesterday.

Down with the free market enterprise they shouted. Up with the not-so-free market (to taxpayers anyway) of Democratic rule.

Show us your money. We’ll distribute it as WE see fit.

By Van

April 17, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

deegee ,

My point was that the intrusion of the federal government into public education has not gone well. We do agree that more local control is needed.

My vision would be for privately owned and operated public schools. A charter schools system might also work also.

By Shar

April 17, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

I agree with many of the posters in today’s thread. Public education is a general good and is therefore a rightful recipient of public money, even that paid by people who do not use the system. The lack of value received for that money is the problem, particularly in last-place Georgia.

Research has conclusively supported deegee’s point above, that learning increases in schools where parents are actively involved. Schools that have parents constantly on site are much more likely to maintain clean and functional facilities, to respond more quickly to classroon or teacher problems, and to have their unfunded needs provided as donations. Students who know their parents value education enough to come to school are less likely to act out and more likely to make an effort in their studies. Parents who know teachers and assignments are more capable of following up with their kids and heading off problems.

Mid-South Philosopher also makes a good point that taxpayers who do not use the system should have some expectation that those who do shoulder more of the load. And the resistance to the vouchers for special ed students, who constitute a tiny minority, is indicative of the difficulty in a major shifting of funding resources.

With these points in mind, school reform legislation should entail some consideration of promoting or mandating increased parental involvement in the public schools. There are myriad ways of making this happen, offering increased resources or flexibility for those schools attracting high levels of participation to required attendance for parents of students who are disruptive or recalcitrant. Insisting that parents sit in class or monitor such activities as lunch or p.e., typically the most troublesome times from a disciplinary point of view, can provide a strong motivation for those parents to address their child’s areas for improvement along with a first hand knowledge of the school’s/teacher’s expectations and contacts who can offer assistance in meeting them. Parent volunteers can support a school in money or time, providing such things as tutoring, administrative help, proctoring, classroom reading or other projects, which are all “extras” that are not funded but which can make a big difference in school performance.

Parents have traditionally taken the schools for granted, assuming that the teaching professionals knew best and often intervening only after a problem is acute. Drawing parent resources into the schools independent of problems arising could add a huge fresh support stream that has been proven effective and will not add to the burden of non-users.

By Jack

April 17, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

A question for the trashers of conservatives: What percentage of your income should we pay the government? Keep in mind that the current administration is republican and not conservative.

By Van

April 17, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

jack,

Shouldn’t the question be -

How much of our hard earned income should the Government take.

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Jack and Van - the great CONSERVATIVE Republican Senator Robert Alfonso Taft of Ohio who died in 1953 wisely stated that government - local, state and federal - should never take more than 25% of total national income in taxes or spend any more of that in peace time. I think that is a reasonable formula, although I think that figure is a little high. I would say it should be cut down to 15% if possible. Of course that would mean ending many public welfare programs and forcing the privatization of such efficient institutions as the U.S. Postal Service, but I think we could get by.

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Shar said; “to required attendance for parents of students who are disruptive or recalcitrant.”

“Drawing parent resources into the schools independent of problems arising could add a huge fresh support stream that has been proven effective and will not add to the burden of non-users.”

Please don’t think these haven’t been tried. Regarding your first suggestion, in many cases the police would have to literally go and bring the parent to school. The police will tell you, and rightfully so, they don’t have time for this. And, they can’t force a parent to come to school w/o some sort of warrant.

Most parents “expect” the school to do it all.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By jm

April 17, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Shar@12:30 - You do realize that the parents you are talking about are the same ones who dropped their kids off at Six Flags (or on the interstate) for that “free admission” day without even bothering to check to see if they would even be able to get in to the park.

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Dennis - you just proved the conservative argument for vouchers. Those parents who do care will vote with their vouchers (wallets) and force the public schools to make reforms. Parents who care should not be forced to have their children maleducated because other parents don’t care and it is impossible to make them do so. Only a blind liberal, or a stupid one (same thing) could fail to see it!

By jbmlaw

April 17, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Dear OPT @ 8:48, sorry to break your heart. The ensign’s SATs were 780 and 750, far superior to his father’s 660 and 750, and he obtained his undergrad bachelor’s in the same eight semesters. If you mistakenly think there is no indoctrination, you haven’t listened to your children talk about class. My sons attended public schools from k-college. I found it useful to teach my sons to challenge every thing that did not sound right to them, and the younger one became better at it than his father. In all fairness I have never taught school, just Sunday school, but I always gave my kids the same disclaimer, that they should not confuse my ideas with “Gospel.” Would that our government school teachers were so cognizant of their biases. OPT, I fear you do not understand that the motivated students do well wherever they go, but they do better with the best competition, and opportunities vary among schools. Schools are no different than their students; by defending the uncompetitive public school system, you prohibit motivation within the school to do better.

Dear Van @ 8:49, perhaps for the first time I disagree with one of your arguments. I think Philosopher nailed it with his closing argument. Specifically, I would excise “with proper regulations” from your argument; who is better qualified to “regulate” than the parent, i.e., consumer (in this case)? I hold you and Philosopher and even OPT in the highest regard, but none of you are competent enough to write the regulations that would suit me. But I think the free market would. Don’t give me platitudes and standards, just give me capacity to select and parents, voting with their feet, will regulate just fine. (Just noticed, Truthsayer @ 9:05 and @@ @ 9:29 beat me to the argument.)

Dear Van @ 12:22 (addressing deegee), I agree that more local control is needed, I just think that the local control ought not be outside the nuclear family.

By Jack

April 17, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Thanks Van & Truthsayer. I noticed a big silence from the left concerning my question. (Maybe because they only have ten fingers and ten toes to figure it out)

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

By Jack April 17, 2007 12:47 PM “A question for the trashers of conservatives: What percentage of your income should we pay the government? Keep in mind that the current administration is republican and not conservative.”

Jack, does it really matter which party is the current administration?

Personally, I don’t mind a graduated tax structure where the more you make the more you pay - including corporations, who, by the way, are considered by the courts to have the same rights as individuals But individuals don’t get the same tax breaks as corporations.

I/we know the conservative arguements that business takes its tax breaks and reinvests them in expanding business, but there’s no guarantee of that. That money can just as easily be used for dividends.

I think everyone (who can, and I personally know some who can’t) ought to pay some tax amount.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Shar

April 17, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

As far as expecting parents to come to school, you’re right - some kind of pressure is needed. I would suggest that their kids either are not admitted to school or are sent to an alternative campus until the parents comply. Parents who must deal with a child at home, or whose child has been sent to a class that is hard to get to and much more unpleasant than their own school, are motivated and nagged enough to show up.

A motivated student will learn, although at differing rates dependent upon ability, learning conditions and preparation. The small percentage of kids, all of whom are identifiable, who degrade the learning environment for everyone else and who take a disproportionate amount of teacher and administrator time, are increasingly dealt with through group tactics - the class or grade is held back or punished in hopes of applying peer pressure to the problem students. This is unwise and unfair. Parents of those students can be part of the solution, whether they are willing or not, and they should be forced to participate or their children removed.

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

By Truthsayer April 17, 2007 1:21 PM “Dennis - you just proved the conservative argument for vouchers. Those parents who do care will vote with their vouchers (wallets) and force the public schools to make reforms.”

Truthsayer, you sound like I’m talking to Jim Wooten - vouchers will solve all of public educations problems.

And while I will admit that more money isn’t going to solve all of educations problems anymore than vouchers are going to create competition among schools, I offer you the same challenge I offer him; show me where public education has ever been overly funded, or for that matter, even adequately funded.

The reason we don’t declare war on ignorance is that politicians have convienced the public it’s not worth while to dig down into our pockets and have everybody educated. (There will be less money for the top 1% in this nation).

This was certainly the case when school were segregated and it’s no different now.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

April 17, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

The progressive tax system we have now is just as you stated, the more your earn the more you are required to give up to the feds.

Taxing corporations only makes them pass their tax burden onto the consumer, and therefore to the corporation are neutral.

A flat tax or a fair tax would be more beneficial to the nation than the current “progressive” tax.

By jm

April 17, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

Jack@12:47 - kind of a pointless question to ask since the government will just borrow the money they need. During the reign of W the incompetent, the government has been more than happy to reduce revenues (taxes) but proved quite unwilling and unable to reduce expenditures. Rather than exercise true fiscal discipline, they keep looking for quick fix methods (line item veto, growth limits, etc) to solve their mess. Rather than ask how much of your money the government should take, you should ask what services you could do without (hint, that is what your taxes are used for).

By Van

April 17, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

jm

“During the reign of W the incompetent, the government has been more than happy to reduce revenues (taxes) but proved quite unwilling and unable to reduce expenditures.”

Two points - First point, Congress controls spending and revenue, the President can only suggest proposed spending. If Congress would cut the pork - both sides of the aisle - we would reduce the deficit faster.

Second point, the current fiscal year, the deficit is dropping faster than expected because with the lower taxes from the 2003 tax breaks, more revenue is coming into the treasury.

Civics 101.

By Jack

April 17, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

Really JM? Did I mention Bush in my question? Where did I say the current administration was conservative. Learn to read and comprehend before you spin.

By LivingRight

April 17, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Van, I absolutely agree. It is time for the rest of the brethren to join me and you in calling for the abolition of term limits. Bush again in 2008!

4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!

By jm

April 17, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

van@2:16 - from 2000 - 2006, both houses of congress and the executive branch were controlled by one party. That party is headed by W the incompetent.

Second, wait until the fiscal year is finished before you pass judgement on how fast the deficit is dropping.

By jm

April 17, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

jack@2:18 - then I will reduce my 2:11 post to the first sentence for you: kind of a pointless question to ask since the government will just borrow the money they need.

By Jack

April 17, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

I think they should be allowed 1 term and 1 term only. That way,their full time job would be the office they serve instead of trying to get re-elected.

By Then again

April 17, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

But individuals don’t get the same tax breaks as corporations.

I/we know the conservative arguements that business takes its tax breaks and reinvests them in expanding business, but there’s no guarantee of that. That money can just as easily be used for dividends.

I would venture to guess that the risks taken by individuals can, in no way, compare to the invested risk taken by corporations whose success is at the mercy of the consumer.

The individual is at the mercy of decisions, and theirs alone.

Individuals are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Corporations are entitled to profit from their costly investment in society.

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Jack - what you have proposed seems good in theory, but in nations where they have term limits - Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador - also have political corruption which is almost uncontrollable. The fact is, with term limits, there is no incentive to be honest. When you have to stand for reelection there is more incentive to be honest. There are always exceptions - Chicago comes to mind - but normally the rule holds true.

Term limits are also inherently undemocratic in that it deprives the voters of choice - especially an experienced choice.

By HAROLD

April 17, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

SO OUR CRIMINAL IN CHIEF DUBYA MADE AN APPAERANCE IN VIRIGNIA ONE DAY AFTER DISASTER SAYING HOW AFWUL IT WAS

HOW LONG DID IT TAKE HIM TO MAKE IT TO NEW ORLEANS?

MAYBE HE LEARNED HIS LESSON FROM KATRINA. YEAH RIGHT. THAT’S THE DIFFERNCE

WHEN WILL THAT A-HOLE APOLOGIZE FOR KATRINA

By catlady

April 17, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Maybe the solution is to give all sp ed parents the vouchers and let them apply to any school they wish for any services they think their child needs, INCLUDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Schools are not required to take the children, nor are they required to provide the special services unless the parent has enough money, in the form of the voucher or cash, to pay for the services. That is how it works for every other thing I prefer, such as a car I think would serve my needs better.

Seriously, I don’t understand why the emphasis on sp ed students. Give it to all or give it to none. I guess that is the point, right?

By Truthsayer

April 17, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

jm - you are spinning so much I am afraid that you might lose your lunch or maybe fly out of orbit. You really cannot counter facts with anything to disprove them as they are facts, so you just spin, spin, spin. Opinions must be backed by facts to be valid. Just saying something does not make it so. By the way, the Republicans did not completely control Congress from 2001-2007 as the Dems controlled it for most of 2001-2003. Also, the Reps had to compromise with the Dems because of the filibuster rule. Therefore, to place the blame squarely on the Republicans is unfair and disengenuous.

By getalife

April 17, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Depending on government to fix anything is insanity.

If there is no profit, forgetaboutit.

Geez Jim,

I thought you would have figured that out by now.

Wake up.

By GodHatesTrash

April 17, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Everyone knows the real problem of Georgia education:

Garbage in, garbage out.

Einstein himself couldn’t teach Georgia rednecks.

Money spent on education in Georgia might just as well be thrown in the street.

By Van

April 17, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

jm,

Official estimates for FY07: White House at -$244 bln, CBO at -$172 bln. Could come in even lower than CBO estimate.

Gee, which to believe, the White House or the Congressional Budget Office.

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

By Then again April 17, 2007 3:16 PM |

“Dennis, I would venture to guess that the risks taken by individuals can, in no way, compare to the invested risk taken by corporations whose success is at the mercy of the consumer.

“The individual is at the mercy of decisions, and theirs alone. Individuals are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“Corporations are entitled to profit from their costly investment in society.”

Let’s turn that around a little and say that corporations are at the mercy of their decisions. If they are mismanaged, if they fail, are they entitled to a federal bailout, or extra tax breaks?

The government looks at some little guy who has no one to lobby for him (including his representative and senator) and says, “Tough luck. If you had just worked harder, if you just hadn’t made ‘wrong decisions’, you wouldn’t be in this mess” - which is the theme of the conservative view.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By jm

April 17, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Truthsayer@3:31 - spin this notice that revenues are finally returning to the levels they were under the previous administration but that expenses have kept growing. FYI, this is from the Heritage Foundation. Like I said, they have been more than willing to cut revenues but not expenses.

By jm

April 17, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

van@3:38 - it is still a deficit. I will refer to the same chart I referred truthsayer to Federal Revenue and Spending

FYI, it is generally a bad thing when expenses exceed revenues.

By U-turned Dennis?

April 17, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

Let’s turn that around a little and say that corporations are at the mercy of their decisions. If they are mismanaged, if they fail, are they entitled to a federal bailout, or extra tax breaks?

The employees they support are. Criminal charges can be filed against their CEOs if their intent was such. Shareholders can take actions against them as well. The employees shouldn’t suffer. Their community and other businesses within those communities shouldn’t suffer. That’s where the government SHOULD help.

The government looks at some little guy who has no one to lobby for him (including his representative and senator) and says, “Tough luck. If you had just worked harder, if you just hadn’t made ‘wrong decisions’, you wouldn’t be in this mess” - which is the theme of the conservative view.

You have the right to vote that representative and senator out of office. You have the right to be the big guy instead of the little guy.

It’s up to you Dennis. If you don’t like your station in life get on the train to individual success. It’s this way ———————>. Right.

Not <———————— that way. Left.

By newkid

April 17, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

Some of you may have already reviewed the 2005 Georgia State University report shown at the link below; if not, you might find it interesting.

http://frp.aysps.gsu.edu/frp/frpreports/report114/Rpt114.pdf

By Roger

April 17, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Why You Should Own a Gun April 17, 2007 01:53 PM EST

The murders on the Virginia Tech campus, the worst such rampage in our history, might have been mitigated if just one member of the faculty or a student had the means to return fire.

I have owned guns for decades. On rare occasions, I have had to “show” one of my guns to people with bad intentions. Not surprisingly, they changed their plans to take my money and do me some harm. The Virginia Tech murders confirm the value of empowering ordinary citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

On March 9 I learned of a ruling in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia in which Senior Judge Lawrence H. Silberman wrote an opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring, that restored the Second Amendment to the citizens of the District and, by extension, to every citizen of these United States. Not since 1976, had residents of the District had the right to defend themselves with force of arms.

Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people’, when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

As Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, noted succinctly, “The right of self-preservation was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

That is precisely why the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Many States refused to ratify the proposed U.S. Constitution until this amendment and nine others were included. As Judge Silberman noted in his decision, the Second Amendment acknowledges “a right that pre-existed the Constitution” in the same way as freedom of speech.

Barely a week later in the Greenwich Village area of New York, David Garvin, carrying two semi-automatic firearms and a bag with 100 rounds of ammunition killed Alfredo Romero, a pizzeria employee, firing 15 rounds into him. Confronted by unarmed auxiliary police officers, Nicholas Todd Pekearo and Eugene Marshalik, he killed them as well. They were volunteer civilians who wear uniforms nearly identical to regular police. Finally, Garvin—a man with no psychiatric history—was shot dead by full-time police officers.

This is why police officers are always armed. I could not help wondering how that event would have been altered if any of his victims had been able to shoot back.

The Second Amendment Foundation notes that firearms are used defensively an estimated 2.5 million times every year, four times more than criminal uses. This represents some 2,575 lives protected and saved for every life lost to a gun. According to the national Safety Council, the loss of life to accidental firearm death is at its lowest point since records were begun nearly a hundred years ago.

In a nation where the rights conferred on individual Americans by the Second Amendment were just reaffirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, it’s worth considering that, as of November 1997, there were an estimated 129 million privately owned firearms in the nation.

Guess what? After September 11, 2001, the one thing a lot of people did was to go out and buy a gun. If a bunch of fanatical Muslims could hijack four commercial airlines, destroy the World Trade Center towers, fly one into the Pentagon, and intended to fly the other possibly into the White House or the Capitol building, a lot of people decided that being able to shoot people with similar intentions was a very good idea.

Since then we have seen numerous incidents of “instant Jihad syndrome” where some Islamist decided to kill infidels who were just out for an hour at the local mall or otherwise peacefully going about their lives. And, yes, there are still criminals who use firearms. Now, however, Americans are not bound by some gun-banning law to be nothing more than victims.

Responsible gun ownership is a good idea. And if this is the first time you have heard about the recent decision of the Court of Appeals, that’s because this story got buried by most mainline newspapers and by virtually all of the broadcast news media. No doubt this case will go to the Supreme Court at some point.

The writers of the U.S. Constitution understood the necessity for an armed citizenry. When only the government has guns, everyone else is just a slave. Gun-banners who would turn everyone’s life and liberty over to the care of an all-powerful, central government, don’t understand and don’t agree with that.

As gun law expert, John M. Synder, put it, “Gun rights are human rights. Gun rights equate with the right to defend life and, therefore, with the very right to life itself.”

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, http://www.anxietycenter.com. His book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, is published by Merril Press.

© Alan Caruba

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

By U-turned Dennis? April 17, 2007 4:48 PM | “Dennis, It’s up to you Dennis. If you don’t like your station in life get on the train to individual success. It’s this way ———————>. Right. Not <———————— that way. Left.”

Thank you for your concern. However, if you saw my circumstances I think even you might say I’ve been successful. And more especially so considering where I came from.

Including a conservative religious/political background to which I cannot go back to even if I wanted to.

Regarding the crooked CEOs, etc., I only had in mind a businesss that went south because of bad management, bad economic times, not crooked management.

As to voting’em in/out, unless I get in and become as crooked and as soldout as they are, I don’t stand a chance of being heard anymore than you do.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Then and now Dennis

April 17, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Good for you and in conclusion I guess you have no problem with bailing out the employees, their communities, and the businesses within them.

Good for you.

It’s that or you’re willing to put that little guy at risk. Usually the shareholders take care of the big guys if there’s mismanagement at the top.

Bad economic times affect us all equally.

By Dennis

April 17, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

I’m working in the yard and as time is now short on here, I’ll do the best I can.

That the politicians and government are as concerned about the financial equities of average citizens, I think we can forget it.

For example, the “energy meeting” meeting behind the closed doors of Dick Cheney’s office - you can bet there was no talk of you and me. It was how to increase profits for the energy corporations, not how to help the underpriviledged pay their energy bills. (Nor would I doubt some discussion of the oncoming invasion of Iraq and the savoring of profits from that).

But if you think you are equally represented by your elected politicians as are corporations, I’d like to sell you Niagra Falls.

Corporations are bailed out because of the influence of big investors, not people like me. And you?

Bad economic times affect the man with no money. Those with money go on with their lives.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By reidster

April 18, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

Bad economic times affect the man with no money. Those with money go on with their lives. Our forefathers who survived the great depression that helped build character and a backbone in this nation are rolling in their graves. Well the man with no money gets no tax refund when taxes are cut either. Boo hoo.

By WFC

April 18, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

I’m not totally against vouchers for Sp. Ed. students but I doubt they would do much good for a number of reasons:

3.Where are the special ed teachers needed by the private schools going to come from if there is an influx of sp. ed. students? Will they be willing to take the tremendous pay cut required to go to private schools?

Am I missing something?

By CJ

April 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

In 2003, per 1,000,000 people, the United States had 8 times more firearm deaths than Canada, and 136 times more firearm deaths than in the U.K. and 136 times more firearm deaths than Japan. Such disparities between firearm death rates in our country and those in other industrialized countries are relatively consistent from year to year.

In addition, the Second Amendment says, in its entirety, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It’s time to stop the insanity and pass effective gun control laws with the goal of having the lowest firearm death rates in the world and adding more credibility to our claim that we’re the greatest country in the world.

By Teacher

April 18, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

WFC - As a teacher on a lunch break in a public school, I just have to tell you that you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Most of the Special Ed teacher I know would gladly take a pay cut to go to a private school. They would like to get away from all of the bureaucracy foisted upon them in government schools in the name of “accountability” and just teach.

Secondly, most would not have to take a tremendous pay cut. Most Atlanta area private schools are actually paying at or only slightly below what public schools pay. Those who are not are rare exceptions. The market place tends to sort these things out. I would gladly go to a private school if offered a job at even $5,000 less than what I am paid now.

Vouchers also work very well in Europe where I used to live. The Socialist Francois Mitterrand tried to do away with them and almost did not survive the experience. As long as people are being forced to pay taxes for schools, they should be able to send their children to the school of their choice. It works elsewhere, so why are you afraid of trying it here? Are you a board memeber or officer in PAGE or GAE by any chance?

By harold

April 18, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

harold says considering the fascists leading this nation-state and the world towards religofanaticism, the liberals and moderates having stockpiles of guns is our only hope

liberals! moderates! stock pile guns!!!! start today!

the 2nd amendment is our only hope!!!!!

By Van

April 18, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

CJ,

And just what kind of gun law would you suggest? How about every loon criminal can have one, but the honest citizens can not have any?

That should be right up you alley.

By DawgBite

April 18, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

By Roger

April 17, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

Why You Should Own a Gun April 17, 2007 01:53 PM EST “The Virginia Tech murders confirm the value of empowering ordinary citizens to carry a concealed weapon.”

Absolutely brilliant Roger! A bunch of college kids carrying concealed weapons at their next keg party. You Roger, are an imbecile!

By jbmlaw

April 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon all. In a widely-distributed quote, Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux observed yesterday, “Mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled.” I am part of that camp that would consider a law requiring every person above the age of 14 to carry a gun on his/her person at all times (excepting people convicted of violent crimes, of course.) Mrs. jbmlaw would not like such a law, but she would comply because she is a law-abiding person. The only reason that I cannot forthrightly advocate such a law is that I cannot justify executing all violators. Nevertheless, if every student at Columbine and Virginia Tech had been carrying a firearm (and if we had reasonable education standards forbidding elementary school graduation until each student was competent in use and maintenance of weapons - sorta the Swiss model) we may have seen strikingly different outcomes in both. Distantly related, hope you all read the story of the Virginia Tech heroism of the Nazi-concentration camp survivor, Livieu Librescu. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009953

By getalife

April 18, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

The kid had mental problems that were not addressed.

We have the right to bear arms and w has taken enough freedoms.

Jim whines about liberals wanting to take freedoms while his hate party is doing it.

This is why is a paid gop hack and a not very good one at that.

Congrats again to the Pulitzer prize winner, Cynthia Tucker.

Have nice day wingnuts.

By jbmlaw

April 18, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Classic editorial on the decline of American civilization: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009957

By Van

April 18, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

DawgBite,

If they pass the background checks in Virginia to carry a concealed weapon, why not?

Most states have a 21 year old age limit on possession of fire arms. That would eliminate most freshmen, but allows teachers and other adults the opportunity to carry.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

If legalizing marijuana leads to more drug abuse then shouldn’t it stand to reason that easy access to firearms leads to more gun abuse. The only thing that would have prevented the slaughter on Monday is if the assailant was institutionalized or taking medication for his mental condition. I don’t see why people are using this as an example of why we need more guns in our population and not fewer guns. While you can make the case that an armed individual could have taken out the assailant, what are the chances that a madman is going to run loose on a college campus and start shooting? I can certainly see why someone working in a convenience store should be armed, but a college professor? If you are exposed to risk then you can get a gun permit and carry a weapon. It’s not something that everyone that has ever experienced a fright should be doing.

By jbmlaw

April 18, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Dear deegee @ 2:58, perhaps we would agree that legalizing marijuana would not increase drug abuse. The law does not prevent drug use, it merely punishes it. If you remove the laws, I still will not try marijuana, nor will most conservatives - we are driven by an ethical system independent of the effluent of our noble solons.

As to guns, I cannot conceive any reason every elementary school child is not trained in the effective and safe use of weapons.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, i agree with you on your point about legalizing marijuana. The part about noble conservatives and their ethics was in my opinion, effluent.

By Van

April 18, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

deegee,

You said, the “…easy access to firearms leads to more gun abuse.” Thats the problem, there wasn’t easy access to guns on that campus, it was ruled illegal to have any.

The little twerp broke too many laws just going on campus with them.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Van, Cho acquired the gun legally. If he didn’t have the gun, it wouldn’t have been necessary for anyone else to have one.

By Jack

April 18, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Hey Deegee, if 3 of the students in that 1st classroom were armed they would have turned that guy into pizza before he killed more than one.

By Kent

April 18, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

I couldn’t help but notice that those who advocate for the so-called right to own a gun (and carry a concealed weapon) have ignored the statistics showing that industrialized nations with strict gun-control laws have significantly lower firearm death rates than we do. The post at 12:42 restates such well-known statistics which are available from various sources, both governmental and non-governmental (easily found via Google).

Those who speculate that we’d all be safer with more guns choose to ignore facts. That’s a shame. I’m looking forward to hearing the rationalization used to explain why countries like England and Japan have such low firearm death rates when their citizens are denied access to the guns that NRA proponents believe are so necessary for our safety.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Jack, How do you know what would have happened in a minute’s time? The witness in the first classroom shooting said that the gunman was there for approx. 1 minute. Crazed gunmen aside, why do you think it’s a good idea to have college students armed with guns? Would you feel good about sending your child to say Georgia State or Dekalb College knowing that anyone and everyone on the campus could be carrying a pistol?

By jbmlaw

April 18, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Dear Kent @ 3:33, I also note that those who advocate for so-called gun control similarly ignore Mr. Lemieux’s observation that “Mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled.”

By jbmlaw

April 18, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Dear deegee @ 3:38, if I may offer an argument, one good reason to have all students carrying guns is that it may decrease the moonbat opinionating by professors and persuade them to stick to the subject they are supposed to be lecturing.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, I think that you are making a correlation that doesn’t take mental illness into account. It could be that at the time when guns were easily available, society institutionalized people with schizophrenia, depression and anti-social tendencies. Now we are more likely to medicate the individual and keep them in the general population. Given the random nature of a mass killer’s venue, ie, college campuses, restaurants, brokerages, malls, bus stops, you would have to arm everyone. I will say that there does seem to be a propensity for mentally ill people to choose schools, and that the shooters generally exhibit anti-social tendencies before they explode. Perhaps the best way to have avoided the situation at Virginia Tech would have been to isolate and treat Cho for his mental illness.

By Jack

April 18, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Yes Dee. It is much better to stand there and be executed without a chance to defend yourself. You don’t think professors will start packing? Kent, ever seen the stats on how many people have been saved by law abiding citizens who drew their guns in self defense? Course not, you don’t want to know.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Oh, that was good, jbmlaw. Would the college professors be allowed to shoot back? I am hearing Clint Eastwood saying “make my day” while the theme music is playing in my head.

By Kent

April 18, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

I note that jbmlaw and Jack changed the subject without responding to the data presented. Although jbmlaw continued to ignore well-known statistics, deegee fell into your trap by speculating about the Lemieux’s “observation” that jbmlaw reported. Well done jbmlaw.

I’ll bite too. In response to Mr. Lemieux’s quote, if there are facts supporting this observation (so-called), then I’d be happy to review them. Otherwise, the Lemieux quote is just another falsehood created to bolster a position that can’t be supported with actual data.

Again, if any NRA advocates can explain (rationalize) the relatively low firearm death rates in England, Japan and every other industrialized nation other than the U.S. – despite their strict gun control laws – I’d certainly be interested in reading these arguments. (Maybe Jack could explain why far fewer people living in these countries don’t need guns to defend themselves while so-many Americans do.)

By deegee

April 18, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Jack, I think that the tragedy that occured at VT on Monday was caused by a mentally ill person that had access to a handgun. It is difficult to speculate on how quickly someone with a gun could have reacted in defense and how many lives would have been saved. I can speculate that if Cho did not have a gun in the first place then no one would have died.

By Jack

April 18, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Cho was law abiding. If he didn’t have access to a gun, no one would. When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Is that the way it should be?

By Van

April 18, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Kent,

I guess you are including Switzerland, Israel and most of Scandinavia.

An interesting note, Israel and the west bank share similar gun ownerships, but guess where most firearm crimes are?

By deegee

April 18, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Kent, jbmlaw’s emphasis was on mass killings. While I side with you on the issue, I think that you can find a statistic somewhere to back up any position you want to take. I would tend to believe that mass killings are more common today than they were ages ago but not because of gun restrictions. It’s more as result of untreated mental illness and the proliferation of highly lethal weapons.

By Van

April 18, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

Folks,

Where has this feeling that it is not okay to defend yourself? When did we lose the ability to stand up and fight back?

I guess the feminizing of the American male is well underway. Where has all this pacifism come from.

If more qualified and licensed individuals did carry a legal firearm, you would see a drop in violent crime, like in the US over the last 10-20 years.

Yes, there is a price to an open society. We have to punish the violators harder and allow the honest, law abiding citizen the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is available to all.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Jack, Cho was law abiding and mentally ill. There were alot of people around him that knew he was disturbed. Why was he able to stroll into a gun shop and lawfully purchase a semi-automatic 9mm handgun?

By Kent

April 18, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Van apparently doesn’t know that the West Bank enjoys third-world status, and Israel is in a continual state of war with surrounding territories and countries whose people believe that Israel took their land and control of holy sites.

Let’s consider comparing apples to apples. I’m still waiting to learn how England, Japan, Canada and others have maintained incredibly low firearm death rates without giving citizens access to guns that, according to NRA advocates, they so badly need to protect themselves. If their arguments were true, then wouldn’t we be the ones with the low firearm death rates and wouldn’t they be the ones with the astronomically high rates?

By DawgBite

April 18, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Amazing how you right wing wackos can so staunchly advocate for 2nd Amendment rights in this country yet have no problem with this administration’s attempt to totally dismantle the 4th Amendment. You remember that one don’t you? It goes something like this: “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.

Yeah buddy! A gun in every pocket and a tap on every phone! A wingwacks idea of how America ought to be. You idiots are truly classic.

By deegee

April 18, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Van, we are trying to defend ourselves by making it harder rather than easier for the general population to obtain highly lethal weapons.

By Laurie

April 18, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

Responding to Van at 4:44 apparently he is able to deflect bullets with his chest and, unlike the victims at VT, Van would have confronted the shooter. If only Van had been there that day to save the lives of those poor, effeminate intellectual wannabes.

On violent crime rates, Van is drastically misinformed. He must be regular viewer of Fox News.

Check the FBI statistics. Nationwide, the violent crime rate has been climbing again in the last couple of years…dramatically.

By DawgBite

April 18, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

So Jack on crack. Say again how you would like for your son or daughter to be at that next kegger where every student is packing heat. Sounds like the perfect scenario for another mass shooting to me.

By Jack

April 18, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Deegee. They don’t do a mental evaluation before selling you a gun. If you are a law abiding citizen without a criminal record, you may get one. Like I said, he was law abiding. Crazy but law abiding.

By jm

April 18, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Mr. Caruba makes an intersting argument that lives “might” have been saved if students and faculty were armed. However, I wonder how many lives would be lost if people went around armed all the time, including those of the police.

Personally, I don’t care if someone wants a gun. However, I do not want that persons right to have a gun to trump my right to keep guns off my property. Also, I want to know as best as possible that the person who has a gun has at least passed a reasonable safety course. Then again, that did not help the officer who shot himself during a demonstration on gun safety.

I would prefer not returning the the days of Dodge City (though in many Old West towns, the sheriff and/or the deputies resorted to disarming you as you entered town and returning your weapon as you left).

By Jack

April 18, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

I would rather he/she be able to defend themselves. Something you libs think is the most awful of things.

Dawgwipe, wouldn’t you like to have a weapon in the house if thugs came in to rob you and rape your wife?

By Amy

April 18, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

About 2 months ago my next door neighbor dumped a bucket of water on another neighbors cat that happened to be using his child’s sandbox as a toilet. In response, the cat owning neighbor who had witnessed the dousing of his cat, went into his house and promptly returned with a handgun and fired 2 times at the cat dousing neighbor’s German Shepard. (missed him I might add) Shortly thereafter the police arrived to take this formerly “law abiding” gun owner to jail. I guess in his “law abiding” mind he was only excercising his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms to defend his cat from that deadly bucket of water that had so inconveniently interrupted his morning BM.

By Van

April 18, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Laurie,

The problem with you is that the laws of Virginia and the college would have left even me, unarmed.

You are as inane as you are dense.

By Van

April 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Amy,

No, the formerly law abiding citizen broke several laws. Firing a firearm too close to a dwelling, reckless endangerment and several more.

By Van

April 18, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

jm,

I guess then you have never applied for a Conceal Carry Permit.

Once the GBI does a background check, from you finger prints and you have paid the fees, the Probate Court will issue a permit.

Just out of curiosity, anything in your past that might prevent you from passing a background check?

By geebee

April 18, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

We have fewer people today in mental institutions per capita than we did in 1970. Part of the reason is that it’s harder to send someone temporarily or permanently to one. It has become harder to define mental instability. It’s almost like terrorism - wait until they really do something bad first. You can thank the we feel your pain understanding and compassionate liberals for that. Nobody is getting rid of guns in this nation. Nobody. No entity, no group, and certainly no wingnut anti-gun lefty libs in Washington. That’s the fact Jack.

By DawgBite

April 18, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

So Van, since Jack on crack won’t answer how about you? Would you want your son or daughter attending a college keg party where all of the drunk students were packing heat? Or would they only be packing on the days when a nut case goes on a rampage? And Van…you are definately not the brightest bulb in the pack.

By Jack By Jack

April 18, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

I would rather he/she be able to defend themselves. Something you libs think is the most awful of things.

Dawgwipe, wouldn’t you like to have a weapon in the house if thugs came in to rob you and rape your wife?

And for your info Jack on crack, I do happen to have several wepons in my home for just that purpose. But that fact doesn’t rob me of the common sense that it takes to know that every “law abiding” citizen carrying a gun everywhere they go is not the answer to society’s ills.

April 18, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

By Laurie

April 18, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

Van —

First you criticized the male Virginia students for not standing up to the shooter (“Where has this feeling that it is not okay to defend yourself? When did we lose the ability to stand up and fight back? I guess the feminizing of the American male is well underway”). Then, when I pointed out your idiotic remarks, you backtracked and indicated that you were only criticizing the gun control laws (“the laws of Virginia and the college would have left even me, unarmed”).

Make up your mind, Marshal Dillon. Are the male students who died the other day effeminate or not?

If you want to carry a gun to make up for your inadequacies elsewhere, then join the Army. But don’t make me carry one in my home and my workplace to protect myself from insecure freaks like you. You are as inane as you are dense.

By the way Van, how about answering the question posed earlier by Kent and ignored by your fellow Second Amendment revisionists? Why are firearm death rates so much lower among the effeminate Europeans, Canadians, Australians and Japanese than in the U.S.? Why do so many more people get to stay alive in those countries when they don’t have guns to protect them? Please explain.

By Realist

April 19, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

Van, From your many post on Wooten’s Thinking Right, I know that you have a problem with intellects. But for your sorry, candy a* to question the murdered, males’ masculinity, I know now that you are a bitter, old, weak, limp wristed, Bush brown star licking, idiot of a person. I will gladly clean, load, and hand you a gun so that you can exterminate yourself. For God’s sake…just end it!!!!!!!

By Van

April 19, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

Laurie,

It goes back to what I said earlier, if you confront a bad guy with your own firearm, he will take it and use it against you. A favorite rant by the liberals against the CCW’s. If a bad guy can take your gun out of your hand, why not a few football players or rugby players?

The reason is the lefties have beaten it into us that we must not confront evil. We are taught to just give them the money, do what they say and everything will be okay. I guess it did not work at Virginia Tech.

Another thing, those of us with CCW’s are usually very conscious about where we can and can not carry a weapon. With the rules in Virginia and at the school, a CCW holder would not have had a firearm on campus - it would have been illegal.

Realist , I am sorry if I hit a tender spot with you, I do not go out of my way to upset people. The rant was about society, in general, today. Sorry I got your panties in a knot.

By jbmlaw

April 19, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

Dear Laurie late last night and Realist evidently up all night, I am with Van. The emasculation of America is well under way. In any rational world, today we would be celebrating the girlfriend who shot the VaTech nut the minute he entered the room; due to the leftist whiny antigun bias, nobody was able to do the right thing.

By jbmlaw

April 19, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

And Laurie and Realist, you both commit the most serious sin - you talk ill of the dead, which my friend Van did not do. I realize you think that a conservative conceit, but we deplore such a lack of manners as your posts display.

By Van

April 19, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

Laurie,

Good question, I do not know. Maybe someone from Switzerland can tell you. Our Canadian friends to the north tried to register every firearm in their country, it was a dismal failure. Great Britain banned firearms, with exceptions, and in the last 10 years firearm violence has risen. Same thing happened with our friends down under.

I do know that the car is much more efficient killing machine than the handgun. You can buy a car at any age as long as you have the money. You can drive a car on your property at any age. We let 16 year olds drive unsupervised. Hmmm, maybe we need a law enforcement background check, which failed in Cho’s case, before you can drive.

What I do not understand is how the courts rulings did not get into law enforcements hands. When Cho bought the handguns, the insta-check should have red flagged him.

By jbmlaw

April 19, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 8:47, Chairman Ann this morning must have seen your arguments – she used most of them. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

By Van

April 19, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw

What could be more American, than a blond girl shooting a BB gun off the back porch?

Little Annie

By deegee

April 19, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

Here’s a timely story. Another innocent victim of someone that shouldn’t have had a handgun.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/stories/2007/04/18/0419metclayton.html

By Craig

April 19, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

What could be more American, than a blond girl shooting a BB gun off the back porch?

A Native American shooting an arrow back at the “blond”e girl.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 19, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Van & Jbm,

You guys are kooks. Blame everything on the lefties.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a culture of gun violence. Overwhelmingly so when compared to other Western industrialized countries. Gun violence happens everywhere, every day…Just yesterday a man in Clayton County accidentally shot his wife and a kid outside Charlotte committed suicide in a parking lot…with guns.

This culture of acceptance has come from the popular culture via media, which you guys continually bash as “leftist”. Any drama on television involves guns and gun related violence constantly.

Then there are the video games…I can’t even begin.

And what about the rise in popularity of UFC events among young males…are all those effeminate boys out there the ones watching that?

Our culture is disturbingly violent, not effeminate.

As for the left “beating” it into our heads to just give up, any law enforcement official will tell you, when confronted by an armed individual who is robbing you, give them what they want. That’s any cop, anywhere, in any town. Are you calling the cops “effeminate lefties”.

Why do ya’ll hate law enforcement in this country?

By jm

April 19, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Van@5:37 (wednesday) - To answer your question, I managed to pass a FBI background investigation without any trouble, so I doubt I would have trouble with one from the GBI.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 19, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Also,

Ya’lls comments seem to indicate a preference for violence over suppression….just let the freaks out there pop up and then those of us with weapons will kill them when they start shooting.

I think it’d be better if, after all we’ve learned about mentally unstable and isolated kids over the years, this one had been pulled out and given some treatment.

In other words, prevent the crime from happening, instead of allowing it to happen just you can have an excuse to use your gun.

I’m not about to second guess this particular event, but it seems like all the warning signs were there to take some action that coulud have prevented it.

By time for the truth

April 19, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Does anybody know who that noxious blonde haired black dwarf and vile narcissistic mental midget is who puked up all that utterly irrelevant, vapid multi-culti bollocks about mexican types and afriKans and disabled lesbian Eskimos etc and then flashed Nixonian like V signs at the VT ‘convocation’ whilst despicably “milking the applause”? This kind of putrid self indulgent bewildered third world nutter liberal display is almost enough to drive a Kennedy to drink, drive, kill a pregnant woman by underwater driving and then run away to sober up and make up a lame cowardly story for the cops that wont cost it its senate seat.

I have recently upgraded my .22 target pistol for a Glock 17 (yes 17 is a subtle reference to inbred rednekkk’s highest ever recorded IQ). My shiny new Glock will afford self defence protection if ever needed and many hours of enjoyable paper target shooting at local ranges. In England now only thuggish black yoofs and other non indigenous criminals have been buying new ILLEGAL guns in any numbers on the black market since the gun grabbing bleating liberal sh!theads stole them off law abiding folks after the sick paedophile porridge gobbler in Jockstrap land went beserk at a kids school in Dunblane. A typical pathetic short sighted liberal overreaction.

Now only shotguns are available to farmers and other British landowners who can prove a “need”. The UK international shooting team used to have to actually go abroad to practice after the smug lefty morons had their insane firearms round up WHICH ONLY LAW ABIDING FOLKS ACTUALLY COMPLIED WITH - dont know whether this ridiculous arrangement has now changed or not for the shooting team.

As a very modest gesture of support for and solidarity with the folks in VA I have decided to join the truly patriotic very sensible folks as a new member of the NRA which is based up there in what is still (at least nominally) Dixie.

How amusing and utterly sickening to see the lemming like panderers Mrs HItllary corrupt to the core and hated in the polls Klinton, slimy John lets fleece the cancer well wishers Edwards and Barakkk big eared black nonentity Osama Obama are are gleefully slithering off to the hippety convention to listen to black hippety hop thugs using black culture buzz words like ho, b itch, n i gg a and sing about “capping cops” and the usual odious glorifying drugs and violence. SO NO LEFTIST HYPOCRISY THERE THEN!!

Funny how the deranged leftist gun grabbers endlessly bleat about the extremely rare mass shootings here by mentally ill evil nutters, yet say bugger all about murderous mohammedan fascists who perpetrate vastly worse outrages day after day after day after day!! GO F Yourselves … LIBERAL HYPOCRITES!!!

By Van

April 19, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

It appears the Cho was picked out of the crowd back in 2005, when a court ruled him a danger to himself and to society. He was placed into a voluntary program and walked away.

Why this court ruling was suppressed, privacy I guess, is beyond me. Here we had clear indications that someone was in trouble and the courts tried to help, but else where things fell apart.

He did not show up on the insta-check, it did not show up when he applied for college. It almost looks like, and I don’t know for sure, that once he was ruled a danger, the thought there jobs were done and nothing else was tried or done to help him.

By John Konop

April 19, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Sonny Perdue Must Stop Kathy Cox

Georgia’s State Superintendent of Schools, Kathy Cox, has imposed a dramatically different high school math curriculum without properly reviewing it with teachers and parents. She is replacing the traditional structure (Algebra I & II, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Calculus) with vaguely-titled Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3.

There are currently four math tracks available to high school students. They vary in difficulty to accommodate a broad range of math abilities. Under Cox’s proposed change, freshmen, sophomores, and juniors will now only have two tracks (Math 1 and Advanced Math 1, Math 2 and Advanced Math 2…). Cox’s new mandate may be well intended-but the devil’s in the details.

Lobbyist-Driven Education Policies

Politicians like Kathy Cox have been promoting programs like this to help fund their political campaigns instead of being straight with parents. David Chastain, Director of Georgia Libertarian Party, claims Kathy is bought and sold by the educational lobbyists who represent the companies that provide the consulting, textbooks, and testing materials needed to implement the new program.

Kids would be better served if we had far fewer heavy-handed state and federal mandates (which they aren’t responsible for implementing or funding), and instead gave more money directly to the local school district and let local voters hold them accountable. In fact, if we eliminated these kinds of pork-filled bureaucratic misadventures we could raise the proportion of education funding that goes to classrooms (versus administration) to 65%. Please click here for more information.

Problem #1: Cox punishes gifted and advanced kids

As part of her new math program, Cox wants to stop giving gifted and advanced middle school math students the chance to earn high school credit in math (algebra). Currently, these advanced junior high courses (that Cox wants to eliminate) make Georgia students eligible for college math courses in their junior year, which helps them get placed in the top colleges.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that Cherokee County School Superintendent, Dr. Petruzielo, said this aspect of Cox’s new math program doesn’t make sense. “One of the things Cherokee County is proud of is the number of kids in middle school who take algebra. Next fall we will have ninth-graders in high school taking algebra for credit. Why not have seventh- and eighth-graders take algebra? And if they can pass the end of course test, why in the world would they not get credit?” In fact, 95% of Cherokee County’s junior high Algebra 1 students pass the Cox’s own, state-required, EOCT test.

Problem #2: Students will suffer under unrealistic goals

Cox spokesperson and Georgia’s math program manager Claire Pierce told me that a goal of the new math program is to have 85% of Georgia’s students graduate having completed the equivalent of Algebra II. I believe this goal makes the same mistake as President Bush’s unpopular No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program: not all high school students should prepare for college. As reported by the AJC, it is wildly unrealistic to expect that they should, and it damages the self-esteem of kids that would be better served by a vocational program.

It’s more likely that 85% is the proportion of students she wants to buy new textbooks for, as a favor to her education-industry campaign donors.

Problem #3: Unrealistic goals for the teachers

I support high (yet realistic) expectations. But Kathy Cox’s unrealistic plan to graduate 85% of our high school students with the equivalent of Algebra II will destroy the morale of math teachers. Georgia’s high school classrooms face an explosion of immigrants with very poor English skills, pregnant teens, drug users, and kids with parents who don’t support academics.

Finally, Cox needs to double check her math-if currently 44% of Georgia’s high school students drop out and only 29% (nationally) graduate with math proficiency (which doesn’t include Algebra II), how can she possibly meet her 85% goal? The only way is to hide watered-down standards behind the vaguely titled Math 1, 2, and 3.

Problem #4: A rushed and careless policy

Cherokee County’s Mark Smith says Cox’s new math program hasn’t been reviewed with any colleges except those within Georgia’s state system. Meaning no one knows if or how colleges from other states will accept it. “This is a sea change in the way registrars look at stuff,” Petruzielo said. “I’m not comfortable [with the new courses]. We wouldn’t want our kids to be at a disadvantage.”

The state has also failed address how to handle students transferring into Georgia public high schools. Since the new curriculum is mandatory, advanced students transferring into our systems could be forced to sit through math classes they have already mastered. The same holds true for middle school students who have taken advanced math courses.

What can we do?

David Chastain, who ran against Kathy Cox for State School superintendent, said this will be priority one for the Libertarian Party to fight. Chastain wants to hold Sonny to his word about less government and local control. Click here to help David with his fight to protect our children from bureaucrats with alternative motives.

Please contact Sonny Perdue at 404-656-1776 or click here and tell SONNY to STOP KATHY COX. Please forward this email to other concerned parents.

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/sonny-perdue-must-stop-kathy-cox

By holdingAJCaccountable

April 19, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

The ONLY thing that is going to help public schools is a return of discipline. We have proven OVER and OVER again that we don’t have the will to do that…even Republicans have been complete, total, spineless, bedwetters on the discipline issue.

Some people get this, but not enough to reach “critical mass” to change it system wide. Since the system is broken, go ahead and BREAK IT! Make every school a charter school, bring vouchers in and let the free market rule.

But what about all the poor kids who won’t benefit? Waaa…All the bedwetters can look at THEMSELVES in the mirror…for supporting an education system that PRETENDED you could have quality education without discipline, if you only made the lessons “interesting”. Why should ANY parent (poor or not) but stuck with your failed education dogma?

By Shelly

April 19, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

holdingAJCaccountable,

I don’t want my tax dollars supporting right-wing Christian fundamentalist madrasahs with the likes of propagandists, such as Van/jbmlaw, indoctrinating our children with trash from Ann Coulter and the NRA. Neither do a lot of other people.

Find another solution.

By holdingAJCaccountable

April 19, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Shelly,

I don’t want any of those things either. But when teachers are routinely disrespected and physically assaulted without consequence to the student (I’ve seen this more times than I can count) and we STILL won’t address discipline, the system is broke…dismantling it will bring about some of the very things you say…but keeping it as it is has not and will not work because the system will NOT change, unless it is giving COMPELLING reason to…and that means competition

By geebee

April 19, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

For those really paying attention to the comments here, the non-reactions of the victims at VT are exactly how the libs would react if we are attacked by an enemy on a massive scale. All they can do is call 911. They can’t pull out a weapon and defend themselves because they don’t believe that violence should be used at any time. They’ll just be lined up like sheep and slaughtered. Only one out of four hijacked airliners that witnessed any uprising on the morning of September 11, 2001 was the last one still flying, and only after loved ones were telling them what was going via cellulars. Emasculation of America indeed. Thanks a million feely goody touchy giddy libs.

Forget about Cho’s background and gun purchase red flag. Cho should have been in a mental institution. It is inexcusable Cho was allowed to roam free after all those red flags, especially after a psychologist who evaluated him said he needed an in depth evaluation. Now thanks to our left leaning courts of apologists and those running our college campuses, nothing was really done. The court essentially said ‘further evaluation is needed’ by a volunteer psychiatric program. Whooptie doodle. We have more walking murmuring mental case nuts out there now than ever. But nobody wants to talk about that, certainly not the leftist wingnuts amongst us. Just get those guns, they are simply an easier ‘target’.

By ABS

April 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Geebee, Paranoid conspiracy theorist like yourself are forgetting one important thing with comments such as “if we are attacked on a massive scale”….it can’t happen. There is no army in the world who could invade our nation with a substantial military force and sustain that military force here in the United States for any period of time. Geographically…it is impossible and can not happen.

Sure, they can send in nuclear bombs and hijack airplanes, but a handgun will not help with that. Our country will never be invaded by another military force like what we did in Iraq. It can not be done. But, if it ever does happen in a made up imaginary world…you better believe, that is the ONLY thing that would cause me to take up arms.