Conference back40::soapbox

  Wait a minute.  If there's no profit, how can there be much tax ?

  bb

    re. .1
    
    TA TA TA BOOOM!

    
    	My house hasn't made a profit in months, maybe years, but we still
    	pay taxes on it.
    

    
    Jack, slow day in sales today?

|    There are some of us out there who believe that tax exempt status
|    should be taken away from some non profit organizations...but amazingly
|    enough, it should not be taken away from others.  This of course is
|    typical of people who have an agenda.
    
    Yes there are.  A Senator, recently retired, held hearings into the
    tax status of AARP last year.  Was ready to hang 'em from the rafters
    he was.  When it came to GOP tax exempt "charities" however....
    
    At least the man who admitted to a felony is now gone from the Senate,
    only to bother us on slow Sundays.
    
    								-mr. bill

| <<< Note 834.0 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>


| There are some of us out there who believe that tax exempt status
| should be taken away from some non profit organizations...but amazingly
| enough, it should not be taken away from others.  This of course is
| typical of people who have an agenda.

	Jack, you said in the past you are willing to pay some taxes, but not
for public schools. So you have described your own self here. This is good.

    Glen:
    
    I pay property taxes...ONE TIME....for a public school system.  I pay
    it and I've been paying it for many years.  I don't believe in double
    taxation...which is apparently what you seem to believe in.  
    
    I am actually quite interested in your reasoning here Glen.  I don't
    think you realize the ramifications of your passion toward double
    taxation.  I don't think you are truly aware of the impact it will have
    on the poor in this country...considering a large chunk of charity
    comes from local churches.  
    
    -Jack

if they have just 1 penny left over at the end of the year.... tax them.

    
    	Or fire the accountant.  Balanced budget?  Hah!  Trade in that
    	Pentium for an Alpha and try again.
    

Um, it's more correct to refer to then as "not-for-profit" organizations.
Remember, for many recent quarters, Digital was non-profit.

Not-for-profits are allowed to have a surplus in their budget.  They're just
restricted in what they can do with this surplus.

    Glen:
    
    In that case it comes down to more tax code and wasted time.  Under
    current tax law, any entity that is incorporated can evade the tax man
    by putting funds in special trust funds.  
    
    Ha ha ha ha....you aren't going to get a dime!! :-)  What a laugh!  You
    dummy....

| <<< Note 834.11 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| In that case it comes down to more tax code and wasted time.  

	The above applies to you not having your money go to public schools.
Jack, you are your own worst enemy.

    One wonders whether OJM is willing to consider the tax-exempt status of
    large landowners holding prime city real estate in every state in the
    land.  Watcha think, Jack?  (Verb used loosely.)
    
    DougO

  Yes, it's mostly local real estate taxes, because there isn't any
 income to speak of.

  As always with tax laws, it is a matter of incentives.  If you taxed, say,
 universities, for the "value" of their city real estate, you would slowly
 alter the cities.  Since land is cheaper in the country, you would be
 giving a tax advantage to the rural schools.  So, Dartmouth would be
 favored over Harvard financially.  It probably wouldn't have so very
 great an effect on such strong institutions as those, but in the current
 university squeeze, you might find universities selling off their property
 to abandon the city.  In the odd case, marginal colleges might go belly
 up, and their plant abandoned, converted to aspartments or businesses.

  There is no constitutional requirement that non-profits be exempt.  It's
 a matter for politics to decide.  What do we WANT to encourage ?

  bb

  

 Z   The above applies to you not having your money go to public schools.
 Z   Jack, you are your own worst enemy.
    
    Glen, meddling in the affairs of the local church is only secondary to
    the real issue.  If you had an ounce of common sense, you would
    understand that our secondary education system is probably the best in
    the world...because it is pretty much hands off by teachers unions and
    much of their drive for private advancement is perpetuated by the
    strong desire to learn.  Our primary educational system has become
    factories and holding pens for children...which of course is a
    travesty. 
    
    So what I am suggesting, which of course makes total sense, is to make
    primary education back up to standards by privatization (and of course
    obliterating the teachers unions operated by reprehensible elitists). 
    Education has been proven more effective when operated privately...no
    question there.  
    
    Applying this to our conversatiion, you are suggesting I keep paying
    for a failed system while at the same time you seem to think the
    gummint can handle charity better than the local church.  This is
    indeed a laugh!
    
    -Jack

    <<< Note 834.8 by BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/" >>>

>if they have just 1 penny left over at the end of the year.... tax them.

	There is a serious misconception concerning the bookeeping related
	to non-profits.

	There is nothing in the law that says that a non-profit's income
	and expenses must be equal.


Jim

re .14:

Some college with lots of real estate in Back Bay (Emerson?) planned to move
to Lawrence.  For those of you not familiar with these locations, Back Bay
is a very expensive area of Boston, and Lawrence is probably the worst pit
in MA.  With the amount they'd get for their Back Bay real estate, they
would have got lots of land and been able to put a bundle in the bank.
But the students and faculty balked, so they stayed put.  It's not just
real estate taxes that determine where a college locates.

| <<< Note 834.15 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| Glen, meddling in the affairs of the local church is only secondary to
| the real issue.  

	Jack... you crack me up! You try to apply it to tax exempt as a whole,
and now try to narrow it down to just the church. Which is it?

| Our primary educational system has become factories and holding pens for 
| children...which of course is a travesty.

	You made the claims about primary and secondary educational systems.
Now prove your points. Open my eyes. Come on, Jack.... show us some facts.

| gummint can handle charity better than the local church.  

	Who said the government would use the tax money for the poor? The
repubs won't let them.

    What I'm really trying to understand is why Glen, in this case, seems
    to feel our beloved government is better able to dole out cash to
    charities than private institutions...which we all know is absurd
    (except for Glen apparently).
    
    We most likely won't hear from Glen regarding the inequity of taxing
    churches but not other private organizations.  Agendas are pretty hard
    to cover up.
    
    -Jack

    DougO:
    
    Property taxes infringe on property rights, which is spoken of far more
    by our founding fathers than civil rights.  I am actually against all
    forms of land taxation.  It is an impediment on progress.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 834.19 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| What I'm really trying to understand is why Glen, in this case, seems to feel 
| our beloved government is better able to dole out cash to charities than 
| private institutions...which we all know is absurd

	You keep mentioning this.... but where have I ever stated that? I don't
think you will find that anywhere....

	Now where are those facts on the primary and secondary schools?



Glen

 It's been a while since we've had one of these Glen/Jack ring around the
 rosie fests that only serve to cause the readership to forget what it was
 that started it.



 Jim

 Z   You made the claims about primary and secondary educational systems.
 Z   Now prove your points. Open my eyes. Come on, Jack.... show us some
 Z   facts.
    
    Glen:
    
    We are currently ranked 13th amongst industrialized nations for our
    primary educational system.  You will find most of our Ivy league
    schools filled with people of Asian and Indian persuasion...mainly
    because their cultures place a high price tag on education.  It is
    recognized that America has the greatest Universities and Colleges in
    the world.  Let's not kid ourselves.  
    
    On the other hand, homeschooling and private education in the earlier
    years have been growing at a phenomenal rate.  This of course is well
    known by parents and anybody who has a clue about children/parent
    issues of the 90's.  Parents are trusting the local school system less
    and less each year Glen.  
    
    Where have you been?  
    
    By the way, assuming there is revenue brought in by churches...which
    actually won't happen, what were you hoping to seen done with these
    charitable receipts you feel should be extorted?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 834.23 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| schools filled with people of Asian and Indian persuasion...mainly

	I knew this stuff would enter the picture.....

| On the other hand, homeschooling and private education in the earlier
| years have been growing at a phenomenal rate.  This of course is well
| known by parents and anybody who has a clue about children/parent
| issues of the 90's.  Parents are trusting the local school system less
| and less each year Glen.

	Jack.... you stated that primary schooling has us listed as 13th. Yet
you offer no facts to bolster your claim about homeschooling. Being taught at
home does NOT mean that a child is getting a better education. 

	One thing I have always hated about homeschooling is the lack of being
with other kids does to a child in the real world. 

| By the way, assuming there is revenue brought in by churches...which actually 
| won't happen, what were you hoping to seen done with these charitable receipts
| you feel should be extorted?

	Gee.... he finally asks.... public school system of course!

 Z   | schools filled with people of Asian and Indian persuasion...mainly
    
 Z           I knew this stuff would enter the picture.....
    
    Glen....just like I tell me young-un....FO-CUS ON WHAT IS BE-ING
    CON-VEYED.  Young people at the age of 18, primarily from Asiatic and
    Indian cultures are flocking our Ivy league and other secondary
    schools.  They are coming abroad Glen, to get an education they
    consider worthy of leaving their own country for.  So while you and
    your ilk (like that??) are contemplating your navels down in primary
    education, secondary education continues to rank highest in the world.
    
    -Jack

    Consumption tax!  I think there is a topic for this.

	Jack... it really burns you to have all these forieners here, huh? All
that talking of a language you don't understand and all....

	Now is there any info on homeschooling that puts it above 13th like you
stated the primary schooling method is?



Glen

>           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 834.22               TAX EXEMPTION OF NON PROFITS                  22 of 28
>CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day"   9 lines  28-JAN-1997 16:35
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> It's been a while since we've had one of these Glen/Jack ring around the
> rosie fests that only serve to cause the readership to forget what it was
> that started it.
>
>
>
> Jim
    
         Hey!
    
        Cut that out! First it was 'rosie's boobie's' now, they want to
    put a ring around me. A fest to boot with it! 
    
       I didn't get rid of the ring around my finger to end up with
    a ring around all of me!  Where will you guys be putting the ring? 8*)
    
       Rosie

	sheeeeee's back! :-)

re .27:

Tax tuberculosis?

 Z   Jack... it really burns you to have all these forieners here, huh? All
 Z   that talking of a language you don't understand and all....
    
    Pointer please.  I never implied in any way that I disliked having
    foreigners here.  Where could you have ever possibly gotten such a
    notion?
    
 Z   Now is there any info on homeschooling that puts it above 13th
 Z   like you stated the primary schooling method is?
    
    Glen, I believe that the ranking of 13th is an aggragate of public and
    private education...so you can imagine how abysmal public education has
    become.  And you want to throw alreay taxed money at it...from churches
    but no other intitutions no less...
    
    Boy, you must really be afraid of the local church Glen!
    
    -Jack

    
    Taken from the WWW...
    
    http://www.icon.portland.or.us/education/vose/hmsch/hmsch.html
    
    The performance of Oregon home schooled children is clearly superior to
    that
    of their public schooled counterparts. Even though Oregon public school
    kids scored above the national average they were eclipsed by the home 
    schooled population. 
    
           Percentile Performance of Oregon K12 Students
    
                                   READING
                                                  MATH
                                                             WRITING
              Home Schooled
                                       84
                                                    81
                                                                 86
              Public Schooled
                                       63
                                                    60
                                                                 58
    
    Education Reform: Salvation or Stifling? - SansVerite
    Press - Chicago
    
    Glen, this is one sample but I think you are going to find the data to
    be uniform everyplace else.  Are you going through denial?
    
    -Jack
    
    
    
                                                                    
    
    

Apples and oranges.  Compare home-schooled kids with public school kids
whose parents have similar socio-economic and educational backgrounds.

| <<< Note 834.32 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| Z   Now is there any info on homeschooling that puts it above 13th
| Z   like you stated the primary schooling method is?

| Glen, I believe that the ranking of 13th is an aggragate of public and
| private education...

	Wow.... earlier you said primary (back in .23). Hmmm..... I guess
you'll say anything to make a point.

| Boy, you must really be afraid of the local church Glen!

	I like the local church. There is the big Greek church right up the
street. Lovely place.

	Oh... about the foriegn language stuff.... you have stated before about
the restaurant, you have stated it with eubonics, you have stated it with
people who should learn english because they won't get anywhere otherwise, etc. 


Glen

| <<< Note 834.34 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Apples and oranges.  Compare home-schooled kids with public school kids
| whose parents have similar socio-economic and educational backgrounds.

	Come on now Gerald..... don't confuse him.....

 Z   Oh... about the foriegn language stuff.... you have stated before about
 Z   the restaurant, you have stated it with eubonics, you have stated it
 Z   with
 Z   people who should learn english because they won't get anywhere otherwise, 
 Z   etc.
    
    The restaurant...what are you talking about Glen?  You mean the Chinese
    restaurant issue...take off your diversity glasses Glen, you lack
    understanding of the basic issue here.  
    
    Ebonics?  Glen, ebonics is not a language.  It is just a lazy form of
    English that is being ridiculed throughout the country.
    
    As far as having a national language...I fail to see how this is a
    bigoted issue.  Do you refute the belief that people who don't speak
    English are at a handicap in America?  Be honest now...

	Jack.... take a look at:


http://www.home-ed-press.com/INF/hsinfo_tstassv.html

| <<< Note 834.37 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| take off your diversity glasses Glen, you lack understanding of the basic 
| issue here.

	Bigotry? Oh I understand it. No one should be allowed to yell at
another employee in whatever language they want because they live in America.

| Ebonics?  Glen, ebonics is not a language.  It is just a lazy form of English 
| that is being ridiculed throughout the country.

	Lazy? My... you do add to your list, huh? You have all sorts of
different language types in this country, Jack. A lot of them are based due to
the local. A Texan has one sort of talk, a New Englander has another. Street
language is yet another. It isn't my problem you can't see this. 

| As far as having a national language...I fail to see how this is a bigoted 
| issue. Do you refute the belief that people who don't speak English are at a 
| handicap in America?  Be honest now...

	I think how a person is has more to do than ones language. I do think
language has its barriers. Not from anything real, just because bigotry exists.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    I am going to read it but before I do, I want you to know that I am
    going into it with prejudice.  I believe testing is absolutely
    imperative for a child or a parent to better understand the needs of
    their children.  
    
    Are you familiar with readiness Glen?  My son was a candidate for this
    last year.  We kept him back this year because we felt he needed the
    extra year of maturing.  Also, we found because of the testing he went
    through, he would have had a tougher time as he went into the higher
    grades.  This process has been of great value to us.  
    
    -Jack

    Hey Jack,
    
    guess who came up with "readiness?"  those same NEA people you harp
    about.  BTW some teachers in private schools are NEA members.  
    
    Many of us who believe in the public school system are out there
    working with the schools and with our kids to make them the best they
    can be.  some parents lack the time, commitment, and ability to work
    with their kids.  If they were in p[rivate school or homeschooled they
    would do no better, except in the public school they might have a
    chance at running into an adult "mentor" who is willing to help them
    through rough spots, show them tricks for reading and math, help them
    learn to contruct a paragraph, when their own parents don't speak in
    complete sentences.  
    
    But you are right, these kids should be "homeschooled" by the same
    people who don't or can't read, fail dto understand basic arithmetic,
    let alone mathematics, and have even less interest or world view than
    some people in this string.  
    
    meg

  >  But you are right, these kids should be "homeschooled" by the same
  >  people who don't or can't read, fail dto understand basic arithmetic,
  >  let alone mathematics, and have even less interest or world view than
  >  some people in this string.  

  I'm not sure there is an intersection between the folks who home school
  because their kids aren't getting a reasonable education in public schools,
  and the people you describe in that paragraph.

   Doug.

 Z   But you are right, these kids should be "homeschooled" by the same
 Z   people who don't or can't read, fail dto understand basic
 Z   arithmetic,
 Z   let alone mathematics, and have even less interest or world view
 Z   than some people in this string. 
    
    Hey Meg...guess what....I DON'T HOMESCHOOL!!!  Isn't that a hoot!?  All
    I was trying to point out to Glen is that on an aggragate, homeschooled
    children score better on the SAT's than those of public schools.  And
    by the way, readiness is a buzzword for keeping a child back a year.
    Nothing new under the sun or anything to credit to the NEA.  And
    another thing, my disdain for the NEA is for the UNION...not for the
    teachers.  The teachers are either buffaloed or they just have the
    gumption to put up with them.  They're a political extortion group.
    
    To get back to the point of this whole thing, I am still interested in
    why Glen singled out churches over other not for profit organizations. 
    Glen, we're still waiting!!
    
    -Jack                   

| <<< Note 834.43 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| To get back to the point of this whole thing, I am still interested in
| why Glen singled out churches over other not for profit organizations.
| Glen, we're still waiting!!

	Asked and answered. Go back and read. But come on, Jack.... you started
this topic for the whole kit and kaboodle. Why are you changing it now? And you
have not proved anything on if homeschool children are better or not.

    >And
    >by the way, readiness is a buzzword for keeping a child back a year.
    >Nothing new under the sun or anything to credit to the NEA.  
   
     er, not quite ...

  Z  Asked and answered. Go back and read. But come on, Jack.... you started
  Z  this topic for the whole kit and kaboodle.
    
    Glen, you lie!!  Why do you lie?!  You DID NOT answer this question
    and I will haunt you until you do!
    
    Re: Lazy dialects.  Glen, keep in mind we have a spelling police right
    here in Soapbox.  Never seem to hear you calling them bigoted!  
    
    Re: Primary languages...Glen, you can cry bigotry all you want...people
    who don't speak English cannot function as well in our Western European
    culture.  Why do you keep denying this?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 834.46 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| Re: Lazy dialects.  Glen, keep in mind we have a spelling police right
| here in Soapbox.  Never seem to hear you calling them bigoted!

	Because they are not. 

| Re: Primary languages...Glen, you can cry bigotry all you want...people
| who don't speak English cannot function as well in our Western European
| culture.  Why do you keep denying this?

	I didn't deny it. I just stated it was based on bigotry.

>    Re: Primary languages...Glen, you can cry bigotry all you want...people
>    who don't speak English cannot function as well in our Western European
>    culture.  Why do you keep denying this?

I did not know that ours is a Western European culture.  I did not know that
Western Europeans who don't speak English do not function as well as those
who do.

    
    	It must be unnaturally hot on Jack's planet, because it appears
    	that his brain is very close to being completely fried.
    

    I really want to go to Western Europe.  It all sounds so strange and
    exotic.

Not as strange and exotic as Jack's cranium.

Z    I did not know that ours is a Western European culture.  I did not know
Z    that Western Europeans who don't speak English do not function as well as
Z    those who do. 
    
    A culture is defined by its heritage, language, and traditions.  The
    United States was built on the foundations of people from Western
    European descent.  Our school systems, medicine, language, religious
    traditions are predominantly western European in origin.  
    
    Once you have a breakdown of the prominent culture, you will see decay
    of a society.  I have never heard of a civilization that has adopted
    the mentality we have in America today...that being the shunning or
    loathing of that which has been the driving force in the building of a
    great civilization while trying to embrace that which destroys a
    civilization....multiculturalism amongst other things.
    
    I place the blame of this on the elitists of academia and politics. 
    Unfortunately, Glen and others have somehow embraced much of what
    destroys a civilization.  Looking for the bigot boogeyman behind every
    tree is counterproductive and stifles progress.  
    
    -Jack

>    A culture is defined by its heritage, language, and traditions.  The
>    United States was built on the foundations of people from Western
>    European descent.  Our school systems, medicine, language, religious
>    traditions are predominantly western European in origin.  

That would explain "Blue Man Group."  It's the Druid influence.    

    | Re: Lazy dialects.  Glen, keep in mind we have a spelling police right
    | here in Soapbox.  Never seem to hear you calling them bigoted!
    
 ZZ           Because they are not. 
    
    Oh...so because I call a dialect lazy and make fun of it, I am a bigot
    but if somebody constantly corrects grammatical errors, they are not a
    bigot...again, like the taxing of churches only, a biased answer from
    you.
    
    By the way, I don't think grammar correcters are bigots either.  I just
    want to point out how absurd and hypocritical your assertion is that I am 
    a bigot for attacking ebonics.
    
    
    | Re: Primary languages...Glen, you can cry bigotry all you want...people
    | who don't speak English cannot function as well in our Western
    | European culture.  Why do you keep denying this?
    
      ZZ      I didn't deny it. I just stated it was based on bigotry.
    
    Glen, it isn't on bigotry.  It is more on discrimination and there is a
    vast difference between the two.  Bigotry is rooted in hate while
    discrimination is rooted, in this case, on what is most expedient for
    the growth of a society.  I cannot hire one who doesn't speak the
    language of the country because they cannot communicate.  Therefore, I
    discriminate based on reasonable purposes.
    
    -Jack

    
    Funny, she doesn't look Druish.
     

    So, um let's ban the dialects that are in the language,  No more
    dropped rs in words to have them added on in later places.  "Hey
    Linder! gimmee a Beah"  dropping the are is simply lazy English, right? 
    No more allowing anyone to speak faster or differently than the middle
    Illinois dialect most newscasters use.  we can do away with Ya'll, you
    all, howdy, and yabetcha! as well.  Of course, Jack with you accent you
    will have to make some serious adjustments, or are you just lazy?
    
    meg

    I must see them, next time they're on the woad.

    Meg:
    
    I don't have the heavy Bostonian accent, and by the way, I hold no
    favorites.  Listen to talk radio up here and you will find that people
    from North Boston and surrounding areas have such a heavy Bostonian
    accent they sound ignorant.  I make fun of them too...not to worry.
    
    -Jack

Where's North Boston?

    Chelsea, Everett, Revere, Winthrop, the North End.

 Well, this topic has digressed rather nicely in only 60 replies.

| <<< Note 834.52 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| A culture is defined by its heritage, language, and traditions.  The
| United States was built on the foundations of people from Western
| European descent.  Our school systems, medicine, language, religious
| traditions are predominantly western European in origin.

	How can you say the above and then get upset that someone who is
Chinese yelled at their employee in their native tongue which is probably 
built on their foundations of the people from their homeland?  Man.... you
take the cake.

| Looking for the bigot boogeyman behind every tree is counterproductive and 
| stifles progress.

	Jack... how many people in all the years that you have known me have I
called a bigot? One? Maybe two? Have I ever said that the terms (along with
homophobic) are used much too often and don't always apply???? (I'll help you
out here.... yes) Nice try, but it doesn't apply. Oh... and one never really 
has to look for a bigot... That's the beauty of it....they are usually kind 
enough to make that quite obvious.



Glen

    I keep hoping that if I subtract groups from the cultural pool
    I'll eventually arrive at something that approximates to Jack's
    idea of what American culture and society should be.
     
    Now that "people with Bostonian accents" have been tossed on the
    reject heap along with "Glen and his ilk", Mrs Dougherty and a host
    of others I'm starting to narrow it down to Jack's immediate family.
    Excluding a disturbed nephew and his dysfunctional parents, of course.
    

| <<< Note 834.54 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| Oh...so because I call a dialect lazy and make fun of it, I am a bigot
| but if somebody constantly corrects grammatical errors, they are not a
| bigot...

	Jack... you make it against cultures.... they make it against bad
spelling. Big difference.

| Glen, it isn't on bigotry.  It is more on discrimination and there is a vast 
| difference between the two.  Bigotry is rooted in hate 

	No... it is rooted on intolerence. Go look it up.




Glen

| <<< Note 834.58 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| from North Boston and surrounding areas have such a heavy Bostonian
| accent they sound ignorant.  I make fun of them too...not to worry.

	Of course you do... but it is funny you say they sound ignorant and 
all....

    Jack,
    
    You sound far more Massish than I do, therefore you talk funny, like
    the rest of them.  
    
    meg

    Colin:
    
    You forgot my mother n law...but that's okay!! :-)

    Glen:
    
    A question.  If I'm such the bigoted type you claim I am, how come I am
    so beloved and have so many friends, while you are percieved as a
    perplexing posturing paranoid paluka?

Palooka.

    sorry

| <<< Note 834.68 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| If I'm such the bigoted type you claim I am, 

	Your words spell out what you are, Jack.

| so beloved and have so many friends, while you are percieved as a perplexing 
| posturing paranoid paluka?

	Don't think I didn't notice you added many people when describing you,
but when describing me it was in singular form. :-)

    I see two kinds of non profits in this town.
    
    Those who are actually providing a service, such as boy and girl
    scouts, red cross, some churches, the Y, community gardens, the
    domestic violence prevention center, life support center and PP.
    
    Then there are the stadium churches which some seem to have ponzy
    schemes around church members' property, those who are actively
    lobbying the local government, and who are paying their family-oriented
    employees so little the employees are on food stamps AND ransacking the
    local food pantries.  I don't see these churches or ministries doing
    anything for the community except for trying to tell the rest of us how
    to live, and soaking up the small resources other churches and agencies
    are sharing around with others who are needy.  They don't host food
    drives, the build multi-million dollar visitor centers.  They don't
    donate or attempt to help out in the very sectors they purporte to be
    involved in.  they do not contribute to working on affordable housing,
    or much of anything, except how great they are, and how the rest of us
    whould be as homogeneous as their members.  
    
    meg

Ponzi, with a capital "P".  Named after Charles K. Ponzi.  NNTTM.

    Meg:
    
    Don't forget to mention the president of the girl scouts in the 1980's
    who was in a plush office in D.C. making 500K a year.  
    
    -Jack

    Meg:
    
    Re: Churches....
    
    Well, I find that very despicable.  I don't believe the local church
    has the right to extort money from anybody.  However, this matters not
    in light of the tax code.  Religious institutions must be treated
    equitably across the board.  I do believe however that an institution
    must meet a strong criteria in order to be deemed a religious
    institution.    
    
    I take it your indictment is against Focus on the Family?
    
    Glen, why the church and no other not for profit?  At least provide a
    pointer.  You have pissed and moaned continuously yet you have yet to
    justify your reasoning here before all the readers of Soapbox.  We are
    beginning to believe you have no content behind your gripes.
    
    -Jack

>  I do believe however that an institution
>  must meet a strong criteria in order to be deemed a religious
>  institution.    

The US gummit can't deem any organization a religious institution.
That would be establishing a religion in violation of the first amendment.
They _can_ deem institutions charitable non-profit organizations, however.

             <<< Note 834.72 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>

>    Those who are actually providing a service, such as boy and girl
>    scouts, red cross, some churches, the Y, community gardens, the
>    domestic violence prevention center, life support center and PP.
 
	I'm hurt that you left out dog rescue groups.

Jim ( A Director of a 501(c)3 Non-profit Charitable Corporation)

| <<< Note 834.75 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

| We are beginning to believe you have no content behind your gripes.

	Who is 'we'?

        >Who is 'we'?

    The silent majority.

    Sorry Jim,  Actually I guess I should have put in including, but not
    limted to in front.  
    
    There are several "ministries" in town who do not meet my definition of
    a religious or non profit intitution, the founders of the edifice on
    the north end of town being only one.  However, Colorado's tax laws
    make it impossible for anything that is referred to as religious or for
    religious purposes to be taxed, even if it is a resort that is rented
    to other groups for money most of the year.  
    
    meg

    
    Jack, you lie like a rug! You do so have a Bostonian accent. I've
    spoken to you via the phone. I do however, agree with Meg. Throw
    out all accents and dialects except for Illinois. That should cover
    it.

    Battis,
    
    But which Illinois accent, I haven't talked top you on the phone, but
    my partner in crime is from Mundaline (sp) and he does have an accent
    that I can hear as well.
    
    ;-)
    
    meg

    
    Mundelein. it's only 20-25 minutes from where I live. that accent
    will do just fine, meg.

How about Cairo?  Don't they talk like Southerners there?

    I believe the central Illinois accent is used by broadcasters, as it is
    the clearest and most understandable accent in the US.  
    
    meg

| <<< Note 834.79 by FCCVDE::CAMPBELL >>>

| The silent majority.

	Ifn yer silent.... how do you know you're the majority? How do you know
what the other silent peoples are thinking? 

             <<< Note 834.80 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>

>    There are several "ministries" in town who do not meet my definition of
>    a religious or non profit intitution, the founders of the edifice on
>    the north end of town being only one.  However, Colorado's tax laws
>    make it impossible for anything that is referred to as religious or for
>    religious purposes to be taxed, even if it is a resort that is rented
>    to other groups for money most of the year.  
 
	In Colorado, it IS relatively easy to incorporate as a non-profit.
	You need at least two state residents listed as directors of the
	corporation, you have to submit a copy of your bylaws and send
	in $25.

	The Feds, on the other hand, are quite a bit more stringent. The
	"full boat" 501(c)3 paperwork took over six months. Most of that
	was mailings going back and forth to the IRS making changes, then
	making changes to the changes. We had to revise the bylaws (I will
	give at least one IRS employee her due, she gave us the precise
	wording we needed to change/add).

	A sidenote. After Kat received the notice that we had been approved,
	we talked to a few other folks running non-profits and found out that
	generally you get an attorney to do all this at a cost of $500 to
	$1000.

	Another issue with non-profits. We are strictly forbidden from spending
	any corpororate funds (sounds impressive, but right now I think we have
	about $50 in the checkbook) on political activities. No lobbying, no
	ads. Of course, as private citizens we certainly can express our
	political views. I'm sure that Focus on the Family has to follow
	the same rules.

Jim

    Glen:
    
    By the way, are you interested in implementing a property tax or a
    profits tax?  And are these taxes going to be implemented federally or
    on the state level?

    Just a few thoughts on the various items so far.
    
    The issue of the proper use of English, particularly in America, is
    very pertinent.  there are an awful lot of politically correct
    positions to disparage this concept, but they don't hold water in the
    real world.  English is accepted, almost worldwide as the requirement
    to success.
    
    My daughter spent a semester in Seville, Spain and the majority of
    people she met in everyday situations spoke English.  She would try to
    speak Spanish, since that's why she was there, and had a very difficult
    time getting people to speak Spanish as opposed to English and these
    were the residents, shopkeepers and other business people.
    
    She is presntly spending six months in Tours, France and it is
    basically the same situation.  the majority of people speak English and
    she has a very difficult time getting them to speak French.  The
    overriding opinion was that English is necessary in order to be
    successful.  these people understand the importance, but we can't
    recognize that our own citizens should be able to speak English well.
    
    As far as tax exempt organizations go, it was recognized early on that
    the power to tax was the power to control.  All of those who keep
    screaming about the separation of church and state should be able to
    grasp this concept very easily.  As soon as you can tax, you can
    control.  the Founders of this country recognized that and attempted to
    insure that such would never happen.
    
    As far as non-church tax exempts are concerned, it really deals with
    what is the purpose of the organization.  I believe that way too many
    receive this designation as the majority of their receipts do not go
    for the purpose they nominally state.  We should tighten up the
    requirements, but there is a place for tax exempts in our society.
    

    Actually, when I worked in Valbonne (off-and-on), the american version
    of french was so laughable that most french people thought (correctly)
    that their english was far better than the french spoken by the yanks
    and so chose that language to communicate, feeling it was also a subtle
    insult that the americans never understood.
    
    There were several honourable exceptions to this rule.

    .90
    
    that may indeed be the case, that all of these people are merely making
    fun of Americans, but at least they can speak English well enough to
    make fun of Americans.  We are trying to insure that the situation
    continues.
    
    Or wait a minute, maybe we should teach kids French so they don't get
    made fun of, but then since we apparently can't teach them English,
    teaching them French won't be much more successful.
    

	Jack... when r u gonna prove that home schooling is better than public
schools?

    .92
    
    I believe he already did give a reference to the difference.  Of course
    it was immediately dismissed because he didn't provide all of the
    socio-economic data to go with it.  Of course, that really doesn't
    matter.  The issue is that in the study home school kids did better. 
    The demographics really don't matter.
    
    Also, my daughter has been a teacher for the last six years and can
    attest quite clearly to the fact that the system does not really care
    about teaching, but keeping funding levels high and moving the kids on
    to the next grade whether they are prepared or not.
    

| <<< Note 834.93 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

| The demographics really don't matter.

	No... this is wrong. 

Why don't the demographics matter?  A's parents are educated and show A the
value of education.  B's parents are uneducated and belittle education.
Who's going to do better in school?  Clearly B is not going to be home schooled.

  Of course the demographics matter.

  And if you get over that hurdle, the teachers' unions will challenge
 you on some other statistical grounds no matter what you find.

  bb

    Glen:
    
    I will be glad to address the homeschooling issue in another string. 
    Right now, we....WE are interested in why you insist upon taxing
    churches and no other not for profit organizations.  
    
    Deal with it, we all know you have an agenda.  Your silence on the
    matter is a testament to this.
    
    -Jack

I'm not saying that home schooling _isn't_ better, I'm saying that Jack's
statistics are worthless.

    Gerald,
    
    In that case statistics by the Department of Education comparing
    students to other countries are also worthless....so we may as well
    disband the Department of Education.
    
    

    Rocush
    
    Tell your daughter to find a job she is ethically qualified for, if
    she believes her goal for her students.  Fundraising for either the DNC
    or RNC come to mind.  She should be teaching if she doesn't care about
    the kids and their learning.  I know too many dedicated, motivated
    teachers that don't believe the way she does to believe this is the
    norm.  
    
    Demographics are extremely important in judging two school systems. 
    obviously if a person has no ability to read or do math, he or she
    isn't going to do a good job of teaching it.  I have also seen
    homeshool used as an excuse to make the kid into a household servant,
    instead of educating that person.  The parent makes sure the minimum
    level is met to keep the kid in "homeschool" although the parent is
    working long hours and isn't working with the kid to help the kid learn
    much.  I believe this person should also find a job such as fundraising
    for certain political parties.  Putting this adult's child up against
    the average public school child would have widely different results
    than the non-demographic studies of HS v PS.  
    
    I live in a neighborhood where parents can't or don't read, some parents
    believe school is a babysitting service, and some don't value their
    child's education at all.  If these people were homeschooling the
    children would be learning even less than they do in school.  the main
    thing about schools and a child's success is how motivated the student
    is, how motivated the parents are to see to it the child gets a good
    education, and what things the parent does to enrich and reenforce what
    the child is learning.  
    
    meg

>    In that case statistics by the Department of Education comparing
>    students to other countries are also worthless....so we may as well
>    disband the Department of Education.

I didn't know that the Department of Education's sole function is to
generate statistics comparing U.S. students to those of other countries.
    
I didn't say that all statistics of home schooling are worthless.  In fact,
I implied that statistics that compared home schooled children with public
schooled ones whose parents had similar educational and socioeconomic
backgrounds would be interesting.

    .100
    
    Once again your inability to read what is written is evident.  Please
    refrain from statements like"ethically qualified for" when you are
    absolutely clueless and have not read what was written.  Please
    identify where I said she did not care about the kids or their
    learning.  What I said was the system didn't.  She was told that she
    could not fail any student no matter how they performed as the funding
    levels were based on the progress of the students from grare to grade.
    
    All of the students and the parents know this so any attempt to enforce
    learning standrds is a joke and the kids know it.  She was told that it
    was the school's responsibility to provide supplies and she was not
    allowed to bring supplies for her class if other classes did not have
    supplies.
    
    So please keep your personal comments to yourself if you refuse to
    respond to what is written as opposed to what you would like to have
    had written.
    
    Also, my statement regarding demographics applies to the success of
    homeschooling and not who is homeschooled.  If you start discounting
    the fact that people who are fed up with the system and are taking it
    into their own hands, tend to have a different background than those
    who go like sheep believeing the drivel that is put out, then you
    rapidly get to an inane conclusion.
    
    the fact is homeschooling works.  will it work for everyone - probably
    not, but it doesn't mean that it should not be used by those who are
    fed up with the public system.
    
    The rest of your statements regarding how homeschooled kids are abused
    by miserable parents who treat them like servants gets filed with the
    rest of the hysterical statements.
    

    Rocush,
    
    I can come up with a real-life example of the form of homeschooling I
    mentioned.  Come on out, I'll introduce you to her.  
    
    Your daughter still sounds burnt-out or at least in need of a
    different school district to work in.  You didn't indicate that she
    cared, or was working to change the system.  
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    How come children from India, many who live in abject poverty are doing
    better on test scores than those of our country?

    Jack,
    
    What is your definition of abject poverty?  Somehow I doubt the kids
    who are being sold as "brides" and beggars do better on the
    standardized tests.  They don't get the opportunity to take them.  
    
    meg

    
    jack, they ought to pickle you and study you some day.

yeah.... pickled oj!

    .103
    
    I can show you examples of the same form of behavior by people who send
    their kids to public schools.  The behavior is by the person, not which
    system they chose to use.  It gets back to that personal responsibiity
    thing again.
    
    Also, you keep making wrong assumptions. Now you claim my daughter is
    burnt-out or needs to change districts.  Well the union pretty much
    boxes you in pretty effectively.  Because they demand specific pay
    scales for experience, she is now considered an experienced teacher and
    most districts are not interested in paying the higher salary that her
    experience dictates.  The other districts would rather hire the recent
    grad withh no experience so they can pay less.  the union sets the
    rates.  Also, since there are not reciprocity agreements across all
    states, she can't even move to a different state without having to get
    re-certified.  Again, thanks to the union lobbying efforts to keep
    their market free of competition.
    
    I am sure once she gets married she will consider home schooling for
    her children since she has first hand knowledge of just how bad the
    system can be despite the efforts of the teachers.
    

    Hey Glen....answer the question you coward!!!

i have before, Jack. many a time.

    You are a congenital liar Glen.  Furthermore, you won't even provide a
    pointer because you know your lying.  
    
    Glen Silva....A Man With an Agenda!!!!

    Everybody has an agenda, no?

    Glen prefers the wrong, ah, gender.

    him and his ilk tie me up in knots!

    You're saying men are wrong?

    That'll make a few women happy. At least the effeminate ones.

Glen's into B&D?

bob & dave?

    
    Betty and Deborah?  Butch and Daniel?  Barb and Deneb?
    
    ;-)

bum & d...

re .119

It's an adolescent obsession.  Get over it.

| <<< Note 834.120 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| It's an adolescent obsession.  Get over it.

	Now the above wouldn't have worked if you added vomit. 

	But I didn't know those two things were just for kids. I thought that
marriage also included them thangs!

    Answer the question lord Glen!!!

	I have Jack. It's not like the issue hasn't been talked about on
numerous occasions. 

    Glen, you are avoiding the subject.  Avoiding AVOIDING AVOIDING!!! 
    Don't give me this "it's been talked about"...you have NEVER justified
    your reasoning.  
    
    Now answer the question or I will sic Matilda the Hun on you!!!!

yawn

    Glen:
    
    Ya know what you are...you are a big government letch.  You never add
    much value, and you only show up when you feel the need to subvert
    an organization that doesn't meet your letching needs.
    
    Therefore, your intellect on the matter of taxing not for profit groups
    is not taken seriously.  You are hereby condemned to the fate of
    criminal law professors at Ivy league schools.  From this point on,
    once a quarter, you will be dressed in a clown outfit and become
    subjected to random beatings.  Now off with you.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, in the last full line of text that you wrote, get rid of the
word, 'now'. 

    
    	Look out, Covert is projectile vomiting!!
    

    filtha!

| On the other hand, homeschooling and private education in the earlier
| years have been growing at a phenomenal rate.  This of course is well
| known by parents and anybody who has a clue about children/parent
| issues of the 90's.  Parents are trusting the local school system less
| and less each year Glen.

>	Jack.... you stated that primary schooling has us listed as 13th. Yet
>you offer no facts to bolster your claim about homeschooling. Being taught at
>home does NOT mean that a child is getting a better education. 
    
    I believe it generally does mean that a child is getting a better
    education.  Typically a homeschooler scores higher on standard 
    achievement tests.

	>One thing I have always hated about homeschooling is the lack of being
>with other kids does to a child in the real world. 
    
    One thing I have always hated was the idea that homeschooled children
    lack being with other kids.  I guess their siblings aren't other
    children.  And I guess their homeschooled friends aren't other
    children.  I guess the folks they take karate with aren't other
    children.  
    
    And, of course, life outside of mass education is a real world.  I
    guess children were living an illusion prior to the creation of public
    education.

    jeff

Jeff, do you have any test result comparisons that are normalized for
parents' education and socioeconomic class?

>Why don't the demographics matter?  A's parents are educated and show A the
>value of education.  B's parents are uneducated and belittle education.
>Who's going to do better in school?  Clearly B is not going to be home 
    >schooled.
    
    They don't matter because homeschooling parents are not
    socio-economically different than the majority of parents in their 
    communities.
    
    You don't even have to have a college education to provide a better
    education to your children than a public education.  It seems folks
    just can't fathom the incredible effectiveness of a "tutor" for every
    subject.  Add that the "tutor" is the child's parent who loves him and
    knows him and understands him and has his best interest at heart, then
    maybe you can understand the superior results of homeschooling.
    
    jeff

    
    >I have also seen
    >homeshool used as an excuse to make the kid into a household servant,
    >instead of educating that person.  The parent makes sure the minimum
    l>evel is met to keep the kid in "homeschool" although the parent is
    >working long hours and isn't working with the kid to help the kid learn
    >much.  
    
    While I'm sure some folks (a tiny fraction of a percentage I am
    certain) don't school as they should or could I wonder if even that
    child isn't possibly better educated than a child in public school.
    
    jeff
    

>    They don't matter because homeschooling parents are not
>    socio-economically different than the majority of parents in their 
>    communities.

Some parents of public-schooled children are illiterate.  It's unlikely that
parents of home-schooled children are illiterate.  Are you arguing that
this is made up for by a dearth of home-schoolers who are highly educated?

How many home-schoolers are single parents who are the sole support of their
family?

    
    The point is that homeschooling parents are like the large majority of 
    public education parents in their communities.  
    
    jeff

        <<< Note 834.132 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>    They don't matter because homeschooling parents are not
>    socio-economically different than the majority of parents in their 
>    communities.
 
	I don't know that it's a socio-economic issue, but in general
	there is a big difference between parents that homeschool and
	those that don't. Those that do are, as a group, 100% committed 
	to the education of their kids. The same can not be said of
	non-homeschool parents as a group, even though many DO care,
	not 100% of them will.

Jim

>    The point is that homeschooling parents are like the large majority of 
>    public education parents in their communities.  

The large majority of parents are middle class.  Public school students
include lower class kids.  Your statement begs the question.

| <<< Note 834.130 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Typically a homeschooler scores higher on standard achievement tests.

	Jeff.... got any facts to compare like children (just different
schooling) and test scores?

| One thing I have always hated was the idea that homeschooled children
| lack being with other kids.  I guess their siblings aren't other
| children.  And I guess their homeschooled friends aren't other
| children.  I guess the folks they take karate with aren't other
| children.

	Real life children, Jeff.

 "real life children", Glen..just what do you mean by that?

	Ones who aren't sheltered from real life so when they get out into the
world they don't have a clue.

  if public school is "real life", we are in a world of hurt

  bb

>	Ones who aren't sheltered from real life so when they get out into the
>world they don't have a clue.


  Real life?  Having seen much of what comes out of public schools at all
 levels these days, I'd say that those who aren't "sheltered" are in serious
 need of a clue.


 Jim

>    The point is that homeschooling parents are like the large majority of 
>    public education parents in their communities.  

>>The large majority of parents are middle class.  Public school students
>>include lower class kids.  Your statement begs the question.
    
    The comparison must be between public education teachers and system and 
    homeschooling parents, not homeschooling parents and public education 
    students.
    
    Certainly you expect public education teachers to be able to read.
    
    jeff

Let's say there are kids in the same classroom.  One's parents are college
educated.  They read books.  The other's parents are high school dropouts.
They read nothing.  The two kids are equally intelligent.  Which kid is
going to score higher on standardized tests?

    This whole argument about comparing the socio-economic levels of
    homeschooled children with the feneral population is nuts.  who cares. 
    the point is that this system works and the children who are
    homeschooled do as well on standardized tests as the population at
    large.  the same applies to those educated in privatge or parochial
    schools.  these students tend to do at least as well as any other group
    on standardized tests.
    
    there has never been any indication that either homeschooled or
    private/parochial students receive a poorer education.  If, indeed,
    this is the fact then it would seem that these systems should be
    encouraged and embraced by those who are actually concerned with the
    education of children and not the power of the teacher unions.
    
    If these alternative system were to expand and remove more students
    from the system, even if they are the top students, that would allow
    more resources to be focused on the remaining, poorer performing
    students.  If half of every class were to move into homeschooling or
    private/parochial schools this would allow the remaining students to
    get much more individual attention and improve their performance.
    
    It appears, though, that a lot of the opposition comes from those who
    are afraid that if you take kids out of the public system they may not
    get the political indoctrination that is so important today.  In
    addition, they may get a religious aspect to their education, and this
    is absolutely unacceptable to many people, regardless of the fact that
    the overall education would improve.
    

>	Ones who aren't sheltered from real life so when they get out into the
>world they don't have a clue.
    
    What in the world do you mean, Glen?  What is "real life"?  What is a
    "clue"?
    
    In my opinion the ablity to make sound moral judgements and the ability
    to make and enjoy life decisions in the context of sound moral
    judgement is the real life I want my children to have.  All you would
    have to do is observe and interact with typical homeschooled children
    and observe and interact with typical public school children and you 
    would see that homeschooled children indeed have a clue.  Actually you 
    may be astounded at how much of a clue they have in relation to their
    public school counterparts.
    
    But the whole issue of "socialization" is really beyond the topic of
    academics.
    
    jeff

                     <<< Note 834.145 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

>    If these alternative system were to expand and remove more students
>    from the system, even if they are the top students, that would allow
>    more resources to be focused on the remaining, poorer performing
>    students.  If half of every class were to move into homeschooling or
>    private/parochial schools this would allow the remaining students to
>    get much more individual attention and improve their performance.
 
	Not sure how school funding is handled in your area but in 
	Colorado a large portion comes from the State. The funding
	level is calculated by multiplying a dollar figure by the
	student population. Reducing the number of students reduces
	funding. So your argument would not be valid in Colorado.

Jim

>Let's say there are kids in the same classroom.  One's parents are college
>educated.  They read books.  The other's parents are high school dropouts.
>They read nothing.  The two kids are equally intelligent.  Which kid is
>going to score higher on standardized tests?
    
    First off, you presume that children do better in school because their 
    parents read books. Secondly you presume that college educated parents
    read books.  Thirdly you presume that high-school dropouts can't or do
    not read books.  Fourthly, you link test scores to whether parents read
    books or not.
    
    I frankly doubt altogether the legitimacy of such entangled,presupposed 
    cause/effect relationships.
    
    And finally, I wonder if you are suggesting that standardized tests are
    meaningless altogether.
    
    jeff

    
>    It appears, though, that a lot of the opposition comes from those who
>    are afraid that if you take kids out of the public system they may not
>    get the political indoctrination that is so important today.  In
>    addition, they may get a religious aspect to their education, and this
>    is absolutely unacceptable to many people, regardless of the fact that
>    the overall education would improve.
 

 
 bingo!   

    
    >Secondly you presume that college educated parents read books.  Thirdly 
    >you presume that high-school dropouts can't or do not read books.
    
    Neither of these were presumptions about society in general, I'd say -
    he simply stated them as facts about the particular hypothetical people.  
                                            

>    This whole argument about comparing the socio-economic levels of
>    homeschooled children with the feneral population is nuts.  who cares. 
>    the point is that this system works and the children who are
>    homeschooled do as well on standardized tests as the population at
>    large.

The claim was made that home-schooled kids do _better_ on standardized test
than kids in public schools.  I pointed out that comparing overall results
isn't a fair comparison because the kind of kids one expects to score low
are simply not going to be home-schooled.  I'm not arguing against home
schooling.  I'm arguing that the statistics alluded to don't prove that
home schooling is superior.  BTW, I suspect that home schooling _is_
better for many kids.

>    First off, you presume that children do better in school because their 
>    parents read books.

Kids imitate parents.  Kids who read do better than kids who don't.  QED.

>                        Secondly you presume that college educated parents
>    read books.  Thirdly you presume that high-school dropouts can't or do
>    not read books.

I was referring to the kids in the example, but I suspect that college
educated people read books more that high-school dropouts do.  I further
suspect that most high school dropouts have great difficulty reading.

>                     Fourthly, you link test scores to whether parents read
>    books or not.
    
See my first point. 
    
>    And finally, I wonder if you are suggesting that standardized tests are
>    meaningless altogether.

I've long held that the main thing that standardized tests measure is the
ability to do well on standardized tests.  But I don't see that I was
suggesting that at all.

	I think a lot of character can be built in a public school system.
Through the interacting with other kids on so many different levels. Sports,
band, different clubs, etc. I think the student can get the whole picture, not
just part of it. 

	I do think that not all schools are on the same playing level though.

    .147
    
    It seems like the funding issue gets raised every time alternative
    education gets brought up.  there are numerous ways this can be
    addressed.  The first is that nothing changes in the funding levels for
    schools, but alternatives are encouraged.  The second is that some
    level of funding transfers with the student.  If a student provides
    $4,000 to a school, and choses to go elsewhere then $2,000 goes with
    the student.  that still leaves $2,000 for the school with no
    corresponding student to teach.  this would provide additional funds
    for the school to teach the remaining students and help defray the cost
    of a parent chosing an alternative education source.
    
    There are any number of combinations and permutations to address the
    funding issue, but I truly believe the overriding resistence is from
    the teacher unions and those who are just terrified that a religious
    foundation might be provided to students and somehow public funds are
    being used.  This can also be addressed legally, but those opposed will
    have no part of it, even though it could very easily be legal and
    constitutional.
    

>	I think a lot of character can be built in a public school system.
    
    No doubt public education creates a certain character.
    
>Through the interacting with other kids on so many different levels. Sports,
>band, different clubs, etc. I think the student can get the whole picture, not
>just part of it. 
    
    This is generally spoken hogwash which reduces "character" to the
    ability to get along with someone simply because one has a lot of 
    exposure to differnt folks in several situations.  There is nothing
    different about a homeschooled or a privately-schooled child's
    level of interaction with others through sports, band, "clubs", etc.
    
    In the context of character as moral strength, self-discipline,
    fortitude, etc., public education is detrimental to character through its 
    liberal social worldview which it teaches directly and indirectly to
    our children.  

	>I do think that not all schools are on the same playing level though.
    
    Mass education in the form of public education is roughly the same
    everywhere.
    
    jeff

    .151
    
    A while back homeschooling was getting a lot of press and I remeber
    seeing different reports about students who were taken out of public
    schools and homeschooled instead.  In several instances, and I realize
    this is a small sample, the figures showed that these students were
    doing rather poorly in school and associated standard tests.  their
    performance improved significantly after moving to a homeschool
    program.
    
    The socio-economic background didn't change, nor did the students inate
    ability.  The only thing that changed was where a student was taught. 
    This was a limited report since the homeschooling topic dropped out of
    the news rather quickly, but it did show that not just above average
    students are part of homeschooling.  Students who were not very
    successful benefited from homeschooling.
    
    It would seem in these specific cases that an indictment of the public
    system could be made.  Is it true across the board with no exceptions,
    I wouldn't be so sure, but the alternative is not without exception
    either.
    

    .153
    
    Most kids are able to have a high degree of interaction with other
    children whether they are homeschooled or not.  There are more than
    enough opportunities for kids to participate in community based sports,
    music, theatre and various other activities.  I would tend to think
    that kids may be more inclined to participate in these activities if
    they are homeschooled than if they are forced to be in large group
    settings all day long.  Many kids might prefer to have some personal
    time instead of being with the same kids after school as well as during
    school.
    
    I have heard all of these and other arguments before, and almost all
    have been more than adequately refuted and yet they keep being raised. 
    I tend to think the opposition has little to do with a concern for the
    education or growth of the student as it does with a particular agenda,
    or fear of alternative information being presented to students.
    

re .156:

Take virtually any kid out of a classroom of 30 kids and put him in a classroom
of < 10 kids and he'll do better.

                     <<< Note 834.154 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

>    It seems like the funding issue gets raised every time alternative
>    education gets brought up.

	Yes, But I didn't raise it, I responded to it. Now, if homeschool
	proponents wnat to agree that the funding levels for the public
	schools will remain the same, no matter how many students they
	take out of the system, then I don't have any particular heartburn.
	The same goes for private or parochial students.

	But most proposals, including yours, says that the homeschooled/
	private student "takes" some of the money with him or her. That
	requires a major shift in the way funding is handled, both from
	a collection and distribution standpoint. This is NOT an
	insignificant issue.

	And before we start with the "It's my money" argument, be advised that
	parents of school aged children don't fund even HALF of the public
	school system.

Jim

    
    I realize that the fixed costs of plant are significant.  But I wonder
    if reducing the funding, through giving home and privately schooled
    folks a school tax break, would force the public system to eliminate its
    bureacracies, thus freeing up money and probably improving overall
    results.
    
    No one said it will be easy to reform our public education system but we 
    must do it.  I would like to use public education since I'm paying for
    it through taxes.  I would like to see public education objectively be a
    success for everyone who wants to use it for the sake of our children
    and the sake of our nation.  I really don't see how under the existing
    models of public education and the monopoly which exists that any real 
    improvement is possible by tweaking that system.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 834.160 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| No one said it will be easy to reform our public education system but we
| must do it.  

	Jeff.... we agree on something! YES!

        <<< Note 834.160 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

    
>    I realize that the fixed costs of plant are significant.  But I wonder
>    if reducing the funding, through giving home and privately schooled
>    folks a school tax break, would force the public system to eliminate its
>    bureacracies, thus freeing up money and probably improving overall
>    results.
 
	It certainly doesn't take any changen funding to accomplish
	this. All that is required is a concerned community and a
	voter registration card.

>I really don't see how under the existing
>    models of public education and the monopoly which exists that any real 
>    improvement is possible by tweaking that system.
 
	You assume that the model is flawed. If you really think about
	it, the model has not changed. THe problems stem from poor execution.

Jim

    .159
    
    The same argument keeps getting put forward.  Sure, go ahead and chose
    an alternative but the existing system must remain funded at the same
    level whether there are less students or not.  this simply does not
    make any sense from any perspective, other than the one that syas we
    must keep the existing system at all costs.
    
    If you make some basic assumptions the financial picture is pretty
    clear that the existing, though ineffective system can continue to
    fuction quite well.  If my simple p[roposal were put in place the
    result would be as follows:
    
    Assume 1000 students and funding for 1000 students.
    Half of the students leave for alternative education and take half of
    their funding.
    The remaining 500 students would be in a system with funding for 750
    students.
    
    This would be equivalent to the initial 1000 students receiving funding
    for 1500 students.  The net effect is to increase per/pupil funding in
    the public system while providing some incentive to thos ewho would be
    willing to take a chance on an alternative system.  This would also
    provide a potentially viable alternative and competition to a system
    that is more interested in the teachers and administrators than the
    students.  If this was not the case, the public system would be working
    with the private system to establish multiple alternatives.
    
    The fact that they aren't clearly identifies what their agenda is, and
    it's not education.
    

>                     <<< Note 834.163 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

    So you choose to opt out of public education.  You are free to
    do that, as long as your kids do get an education (there is
    that much of a requirement).

    Why add all this extra stuff about needing to take money that
    was never yours in the first place with you?

    The funding is for public education....for the government to provide
    a decent education to every kid.  You can take part in that process
    or you can take part in some other educational setting.

    I see home schooling getting great support from our public schools.
    Kids do home schooling and come into the school for some classes.
    They do sports.  They do after school stuff.  Should their parents
    expect to get paid by tax dollars too?  I dont think so.
    bob

                     <<< Note 834.163 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

>    The same argument keeps getting put forward.  Sure, go ahead and chose
>    an alternative but the existing system must remain funded at the same
>    level whether there are less students or not.  this simply does not
>    make any sense from any perspective, other than the one that syas we
>    must keep the existing system at all costs.
 
	That suggestion was first put forth by a pro-homeschooler.

>    Assume 1000 students and funding for 1000 students.

	Amendment. 1000 public school students.

>    Half of the students leave for alternative education and take half of
>    their funding.

	Amendment. Reduce taxes raised for education by half.

>    The remaining 500 students would be in a system with funding for 750
>    students.
 
>    This would be equivalent to the initial 1000 students receiving funding
>    for 1500 students.  The net effect is to increase per/pupil funding

	I've heard time and again that throwing money at the education
	system is not the answer. In fact, I could swear that I've heard
	this from you.

>  This would also
>    provide a potentially viable alternative and competition to a system
>    that is more interested in the teachers and administrators than the
>    students.

	You have the education system that the majority wants. If they
	wanted something different the majority would do something
	about it.

>  If this was not the case, the public system would be working
>    with the private system to establish multiple alternatives.
 
	The charter given to public school districts is to provide
	a public education system. 

>    The fact that they aren't clearly identifies what their agenda is, and
>    it's not education.
 
	Their agenda is to satisfy the stated needs of the majority of
	the population in their districts.   

Jim

    Z   The funding is for public education....for the government to provide
    Z   a decent education to every kid.  You can take part in that process
    Z   or you can take part in some other educational setting.
    
    Bob, your are incorrect, it is our money in the first place and it is
    being extorted from the taxpayer.  
    
    Secondly, all education should be handled at the local level.  I don't
    want some pinko down in DC deciding what is best for my local school
    system.
    
    Government is like a letch.  It won't show up unless there is a
    compelling reason to...namely money.  To once again quote good ole
    Vlademir, "Give us your children until the age of seven and you will
    never see them again."
    
    -Jack

    
    I don't think the public is getting what they want at all from public
    education.  The public is disengaged in general from the important
    issues in society.  They are also brainwashed by the constant drumbeat
    of the education establishment and sympathetic media.
    
    I'm reminded of the fact that 49 percent of the populace voted for a
    President that most of them considered dishonest.
    
    These are remarkable times.  Without the conservative voice in politics
    I honestly believe we would slip completely into democratic socialism. 
    Even with the conservative voice, we may still make that transition and
    against the deepest convictions and wishes of our populace.  But that's
    the nature of moral decay - we become shadows of our former selves.
    
    jeff

    what's Eternal Weltanschauung?

>         <<< Note 834.166 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

>    Bob, your are incorrect, it is our money in the first place and it is
>    being extorted from the taxpayer.  

    We could debate the ownership of that portion of your income
    you owe in taxes....given that you will be arrested if you dont
    turn it over to the government, I'll stick with my belief that
    it belongs to the government.  I realize you view the government
    as stealing it from us.
    
>    Secondly, all education should be handled at the local level.  I don't
>    want some pinko down in DC deciding what is best for my local school
>    system.

    In Mass, education is VERY strongly controlled at the local level.
    Were you to get on your local school committee, you would probably
    be more aware of the huge control held locally.  Most of the control
    is in the hands of the administration which all too often is
    pretty inept.  But they are the administration hired locally.
    There really is no 'washington conspiracy' controlling education.
    
    I think that everyone with strong beliefs about education should
    serve on their local school board.
    bob

         <<< Note 834.166 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

>    Secondly, all education should be handled at the local level. 

	We actually agree on this. But of course that IS the system
	we have today.

Jim

        <<< Note 834.167 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>    I don't think the public is getting what they want at all from public
>    education. 

	If the public wanted a change, they could change it. If they don't
	change it, either they are getting what they want, or they don't
	care.

Jim

    Jim:
    
    Then why the NEA and the Department of Education?

    .165
    
    You're right I am not one who believes more money = better education. 
    I do believe that in order to change the system you need to eliminate
    as many objections as possible.  If that means the system retains some
    increased funding for a while, that's fine.
    
    Also, many people would use alternatives, if possible.  Most are too
    busy or uninformed to do much but go along.  It does not mean that they
    are plaesed with the existing system.
    

         <<< Note 834.172 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>

>    Then why the NEA and the Department of Education?

	The NEA is a union. If teachers want to join a union, that is
	their right.

	The Dept of Education could be eliminated with very little
	felt impact.

	But, local school boards control local education. That should not
	be in dispute.

Jim

                     <<< Note 834.173 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

>    Also, many people would use alternatives, if possible.  Most are too
>    busy or uninformed to do much but go along.  It does not mean that they
>    are plaesed with the existing system.
 

	If they were displeased enough, they would seek to change it.
	Since they don't, my statement stands.

	Locally, there is a school district where my daughter used
	to attend elementary school (we moved). The citizens got upset
	that the Bd of Ed fired a popular superintendent.

	The next thing you know, 3 of the 5 board members were recalled
	and replaced. The other two were bounced in a seperate recall
	election after their appeal asking for a stay was denied.

	Parents got upset, parents got involved, parents cared and
	an entire school board is out, replaced by members more in tune
	with what the parents wanted.

	It can, and does, work. But only if enough care enough.

Jim   

>    Also, many people would use alternatives, if possible.  Most are too
>    busy or uninformed to do much but go along.  It does not mean that they
>    are plaesed with the existing system.
 

>>	If they were displeased enough, they would seek to change it.
>>	Since they don't, my statement stands.
    
    Actually, there are changes afoot.  But it requires leadership.  There
    are also many people who cannot conceive what a different system should
    be like and therefore assume it cannot be changed.  Similarly,
    irrational fears cause people to squelch their own desires.


    jeff

    I'm not sure that all control is held locally.  Goals 2000, and similar
    educational mandates from the fed, do seem to get forced into local
    schools via the threat of decreased federal funding if said schools do
    not comply.  
    
    First, take money from population.  Second, tell them they will do as
    you want or they will not see any of their money again - even though
    by doing this, they do not fulfill their contract with the people
    (meaning, tax monies appropriated for public education is not used for
    this purpose for anyone who dares not to comply with the fedgov).
    
    Certainly there is a lot of local control, but to say that the fedgov
    does not have its say in how our kids will be educated, is a bit
    misleading.
    
    
    -steve 

        <<< Note 834.176 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>There
>    are also many people who cannot conceive what a different system should
>    be like and therefore assume it cannot be changed.  Similarly,
>    irrational fears cause people to squelch their own desires.


	Rationalize all you wnat. THe fact of the matter is that you are
	in the minority. And until that changes, the public school system
	model will remain unchanged.

	I do expect that school district will be held to account for 
	poor performance, but even that is a stretch for a largely
	complacent constituency.

Jim

           <<< Note 834.177 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>

>    I'm not sure that all control is held locally.  Goals 2000, and similar
>    educational mandates from the fed,

	Steve, would you like to list the "Federal mandates"?

> do seem to get forced into local
>    schools via the threat of decreased federal funding if said schools do
>    not comply.  
 
	Ahh, I see. We want the bucks, but not the conditions. Don't take
	the money, then.

>    Certainly there is a lot of local control, but to say that the fedgov
>    does not have its say in how our kids will be educated, is a bit
>    misleading.
 
	How about some specifics?


Jim

    Specifics?  Are there NO federal standards whatsoever enforced?  If
    there are none, then I'll delete my previous note.  If there is just
    ONE, then my note stands.
    
    If they can force ANY standards, then they can eventually force
    whatever standards they like (or said schools will get no funds).
    
    It's a catch 22, actually.  There *should* be some standards in order
    to get federal money.  However, who decides?  All you need do is look
    at the Goals 2000 fiasco to see the inharent danger in having the feds
    hold these particular purse strings.
    
    Schools should be completely funded and run LOCALLY (or by the state), and 
    fed taxes should be reduced an appropriate amount.  The fedgov has
    enough to worry about these days without trying to come up with some
    silly universal (politically correct) standard they deem appropriate
    for our children.
    
    It's not a matter of simply refusing federal money (though this is an
    option) - these taxes have already been collected by the fedgov from
    these communities.  It is unfair that they get cheated out of their tax
    monies due to the fact that they disagree with the fedgov's standards.
    
    
    -steve  

           <<< Note 834.180 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>

>    Specifics?  Are there NO federal standards whatsoever enforced? 

	I was asking foir an answer, not a question. You made the
	charge, all I asked for was data.

	Curiously, it seems that you don't have the "even one example"
	that you require. A little independent research might be a good
	avenue for you. A little independent thought would be even better.

Jim

>    Specifics?  Are there NO federal standards whatsoever enforced? 

    I can think of state mandates...such as the school is required
    to transport all kids living more than a mile from school.  And
    the state is supposed to help fund the cost of bussing.

    The state has mandates regarding special ed, a great bone of contention.
    And these are not funded.

    The state has mandates regarding the minimum amount of 'class time',
    meaning time the kids are learning not including lunch, recess, study
    hall, etc. etc.  The state mandates the minimum number of days.
    The state mandates certain courses, like some amount of gym.  I think
    this has changed recently.

    I dont know of any federal mandates.

    The feds do encourage certain practices by offering 'grants' that the
    schools can apply for.  So does the state..right now there are state
    grants for schools that have an 'all school' network in place,
    so many towns are putting in networks (at town expense) to
    qualify for the grants.
    bob

  from a pure dollar standpoint, what matters as far as mandates is
 special ed.  There is both state and federal law on the subject.

  One MA town recently spent $3M out of a $11M school budget on special
 ed.  It's BIG bucks.  Worst case, which can happen, you have a teacher
 with exactly one student.

  bb

Yep, one of the federal mandates is IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act).

    Read an article in the latest Fortune Magazine.  Special Education is a
    very big racket!!!  Or in Raq's case, it is a raquet.

Souhegan High School (an Outcome Based Education playground) has 1 out of
every 5 students in "Special Education." 

Art

    The chairperson of the Souhegan School district works right here with
    me!!

PIty.

Art

    She's a real peach!

I shouldn't have said that, actually. I don't know who that person is. 

I apologize for that.

But not for criticizing Souhegan High School, the expensive social
engineering experiment in our town.

Art

    Ohhhhhh.  I thought you meant "pity for her."

 --------------------------------------------------------------------

 Associated Press

 WASHINGTON -- Congress improperly stripped the courts of some of
 their authority to interpret the Constitution when it passed a 1993
 law to promote religious freedom, a lawyer for a Texas city told
 the Supreme Court Wednesday.

 ''How far can Congress go to ensure constitutional guarantees?''
 asked attorney Marci Hamilton, who represents a Texas town in a
 dispute with a Catholic church that could lead to one of the high
 court's most important religious freedom decisions.

 ''Our argument is it certainly can't go to the point where Congress
 can reinterpret the meaning of the Constitution,'' she said.

 At issue is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that says
 government cannot ''substantially burden'' a person's religious
 freedom unless there is a compelling government interest.

 Hamilton said the law also improperly overrides state laws,
 subjecting them to the tough constitutional standard.

 University of Texas professor Douglas Laycock, representing the
 church, defended the law, calling its impact ''a mile wide and an
 inch deep.'' Also, he said Congress always has had the power to
 ''make constitutional rights effective in practice.''

 Several justices questioned whether the 1993 law can be used by
 religious institutions to free themselves from other government
 rules. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked whether religious groups
 could avoid paying state taxes on non-religious businesses.

 Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, the Clinton
 administration's top courtroom lawyer, said the answer is no.

 Dellinger noted religious groups first must prove such rules
 constitute a substantial burden to them.

 The case stems from a dispute over building permits between a
 Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, and city officials.

 The justices are expected to rule by July.

 The original question was: Does St. Peter the Apostle Church have
 the right to tear down all but the facade of its building to expand
 its sanctuary?

 Squeezed for space because of a growing congregation, St. Peter's
 petitioned to expand its 230-seat sanctuary. The town of Boerne
 refused to give permission in 1994 on grounds that the church, an
 imposing Spanish-style structure built in 1923, is in a historic
 district.

 The Catholic archbishop of San Antonio sued, saying the 1993 law
 shields the church from historic preservation ordinances. A federal
 judge sided with Boerne, a town of some 4,000 people a half-hour's
 drive from San Antonio, finding the law unconstitutional.

 The archdiocese appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
 which reversed the judge. The town then appealed to the Supreme
 Court.

 Boerne officials are asking the Supreme Court to rule that the law
 violates the 10th Amendment rights of states and local governments
 by forcing them to allow more protection for religious beliefs than
 the Constitution requires.

 But a coalition of religious groups contends the law is necessary
 to protect religious rights from government incursions.

 Congress enacted the law in response to a 1990 Supreme Court
 decision that said laws otherwise neutral toward religion are not
 unconstitutional just because they may infringe on the religious
 beliefs of some people. In its 1990 ruling in an Oregon case
 involving Indian rituals, the court held that there was no
 constitutional right to take the hallucinogenic drug peyote as a
 religious practice.

 The religious freedom law has proved unpopular with prison
 officials in many states. They say it has caused a flood of
 lawsuits in which inmates challenge regulation of clothing, diet,
 hair length and other aspects of life behind bars as violations of
 their religious beliefs.

 Thirteen states are urging the Supreme Court to strike down the
 law. They are: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
 Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma
 and Pennsylvania.

 The case is Boerne vs. Flores, 95-2074.

    I think this case is going to be rather interesting from several
    different points.  The first, obviously, is can a state or government
    entity restrict the expansion of a church facility because they claim
    it is an historic location.  By restricting the expansion they
    obviously are directly impacting the ability of members of the church
    to practice their religion without undue handicap.
    
    the second issue, in this case, is the takings clause of the
    constitution.  From what I understand there is no other area on the
    church property that oculd be used build another facility.  this owuld
    mean that the church would have to give up their property and find
    another site.  This would mean that because of arbitrary government
    rulings the church would have to give up their property.
    
    It will be very interesting to see how this turns out.  I really hope
    the church wins, not from the religion aspect, but the ever-encroaching
    government regulations.