| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks to KMAN:
============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for everyone else. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for everyone else. Well, the free market, combined with stipends for the genuinely poor solves that problem. However, in the present system, if "slum schools" happen, the blame falls on the government, not on the parents who put their children in private schools...while usually simultaneously paying for a by-right public school education for the same students. The fact is that the more students who are moved to private schools, the more money and resources available to those remaining in public schools. What on earth could be wrong with that? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/1/05 11:26 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for everyone else. Well, the free market, combined with stipends for the genuinely poor solves that problem. It won't work. The amount of the stipend is obviously going to have limits, and the amount of taxes the free market payers are going to want to contribute to those vouchers is going to be next to nothing. Not unless society as a whole decides to abandon the poor, which is unlikely. If they were going to do so, they would have done so by now. You imply that contributing to public school education is optional or voluntary. I never suggested any such thing. I suggest that the stipend be based on need, and that it come from taxes that are levied equally on all, to reduce the burden to any individual as much as possible. Even the selfish rich would be unlikely to complain about a few dollars, or even a few hundred dollars in additional sales taxes paid to fund public schools. However, in the present system, if "slum schools" happen, the blame falls on the government, not on the parents who put their children in private schools...while usually simultaneously paying for a by-right public school education for the same students. The fact is that the more students who are moved to private schools, the more money and resources available to those remaining in public schools. What on earth could be wrong with that? What's wrong with that is it is total crap. You don't know that. You merely assume it because you have no faith that the people will be willing to tax themselves to achieve it. Problem is, they ALREADY ARE. If they can get a better education for their children, while providing a better education for poor children for the same amount, or less, than they are now paying for a public school education, why wouldn't they? The only real difference in the money stream is that the money goes with the child, not to the district. In this way, the educational system has something to compete for, which always results in a better product. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech, what offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal. As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system, thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually beneficial to the school system as a whole. Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how they "maligned" the system. It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over not being able to provide a premium education for your own children? How unbelievably arrogant. How astonishingly selfish and petty. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] I think you ought to examine your motives first. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/1/05 11:23 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech It's not about being politically correct. My awakening on this issue comes simply from listening to people with disabilities and understanding how the rest of the world views them and how this impacts on the way they view themselves. I don't know one person with a disability who wants to be labelled as handicapped. Of course, they would prefer not to have any label at all. But there are times when it is pragmatically necessary, in which case, whatever the label, understanding that it is "a person with a disability" not a "disabled person" makes a huge difference. It's semantic politically-correct pettifoggery. Disabled people are disabled. It's just a fact of life. They are handicapped. They have a "disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult." It's only a pejorative term if one uses it in a pejorative context. Otherwise it's simply a statement of fact couched in a way that is, if anything, supportive of their disadvantage and it recognizes the fundamental strength of character that's implicit in their successes. Unless one is using it in a pejorative context, saying "That man is black" or "That woman is Asian" or "That child is Indian" or "That person is handicapped" is simply a statement of observed reality and ought not be cause for all this histrionic gum-flapping. Engaging in politically corrrect sophistry doesn't help anybody, it just masks the *real* problem, which is that many people consider the handicapped (or disabled, or "person with a disability") as somehow inferior to others. That's not the case. They are not inferior, they are not superior, they are equal in every way but one: they have a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult. Lots of people have such disadvantages. Blacks. Indians. The poor. So what? Big deal. Denying that they are disadvantaged doesn't help them overcome the disadvantage and help them towards achievement, it merely silences the debate because people are too afraid of being politically incorrect to take ownership of the problems the disabled/handicapped face in life that each person can help to resolve. Getting all het-up about calling someone "handicapped" is just a way of avoiding the issue entirely. It makes it easy to say "hey, he's not handicapped and he doesn't need my help" and go on about your life with nary a thought to how you could ease the burden. It also allows people to ignore the issues entirely by claiming that they don't want to be seen as being insensitive or discriminatory by noticing someone's disability, so they just *ignore the person entirely.* If you don't think this is the case, spend a week in a wheelchair sometime. You become positively invisible. Sorry, but I believe in telling it like it is and facing things directly, not finding semantic refuges and dodges that allow me to avoid the issues. what offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal. As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system, thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually beneficial to the school system as a whole. Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me. Or you are being incredibly naïve and/or disingenuous. The outcome of this will be the erosion of funds for the public school system because support for paying the taxes to sustain public schools will plummet. Only if you let it happen. And if it does, what does that tell you about the value of a public school education? Moreover, it won't happen because if it was going to happen, it would have *already happened.* But it's not happening, is it? People still pay taxes for public schools, and many of them put their kids in private schools anyway. No big disaster looming. Never has been. The further outcome will be schools that are comprised entirely of the poor and people with disabilities. So what? So long as they are receiving a top-notch education funded by the public, which can afford to provide far more resources to each public school child than they could before, when children who had the means to get a private education were forced into the public system, thus clogging it up, who cares? Think of it as a way of providing much better, specialized education for those students. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how they "maligned" the system. It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over not being able to provide a premium education for your own children? You are leaping to the faulty conclusion that a publicly funded school is incapable of serving giften children appropriately. It's hardly a faulty conclusion. Every study ever done shows that private school educations are far superior, particularly when it comes to individualized instruction for the gifted, than public schools. It's a simple fact that public schools, by their nature, have to provide a uniform curriculum to every student because there is always insufficient money, resources and teachers to provide individualized instruction for gifted students. Even in the best public systems, which provide special "charter schools" and special schools for the gifted, the quality of education is far inferior to a private school education targeted at an individual student. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/3/05 2:23 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/1/05 11:23 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech It's not about being politically correct. My awakening on this issue comes simply from listening to people with disabilities and understanding how the rest of the world views them and how this impacts on the way they view themselves. I don't know one person with a disability who wants to be labelled as handicapped. Of course, they would prefer not to have any label at all. But there are times when it is pragmatically necessary, in which case, whatever the label, understanding that it is "a person with a disability" not a "disabled person" makes a huge difference. It's semantic politically-correct pettifoggery. Disabled people are disabled. No, they are people. It's just a fact of life. They are handicapped. They have a "disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult." It's only a pejorative term if one uses it in a pejorative context. Otherwise it's simply a statement of fact couched in a way that is, if anything, supportive of their disadvantage and it recognizes the fundamental strength of character that's implicit in their successes. If they find it important that you don't speak about them as though the disability IS their identity, rather than a part of who they are, why deliberately go out of your way? A person with a disability is just that - a person with a disability. They are not a "disabled person" like some car than won't run. Unless one is using it in a pejorative context, saying "That man is black" or "That woman is Asian" or "That child is Indian" or "That person is handicapped" is simply a statement of observed reality and ought not be cause for all this histrionic gum-flapping. The term "handicapped" is offensive to most people with disabilities, when you say "person with a handicap" or "handicapped person." Why do out of your way to use a term that you know offends, when there is no reason you have to use it? Engaging in politically corrrect sophistry doesn't help anybody, it just masks the *real* problem, which is that many people consider the handicapped (or disabled, or "person with a disability") as somehow inferior to others. It's not about being politically correct. Language used around people with disabilities and the way people with disabilities are treated/viewed are not two phenomena that develop in isolation. That's not the case. They are not inferior, they are not superior, they are equal in every way but one: they have a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult. Lots of people have such disadvantages. Blacks. Indians. The poor. So what? Big deal. Denying that they are disadvantaged doesn't help them overcome the disadvantage and help them towards achievement I agree with all of the above. it merely silences the debate because people are too afraid of being politically incorrect to take ownership of the problems the disabled/handicapped face in life that each person can help to resolve. I disagree here. Affording someone the simple respect of acknowledging that they are first and foremost a person, and using terminologies that do not offend them, does not silence anyone. Getting all het-up about calling someone "handicapped" is just a way of avoiding the issue entirely. Only in the same way that getting het-up about calling someone a "******" is just a way of avoiding the issue entirely. Your position on this makes no sense. It makes it easy to say "hey, he's not handicapped and he doesn't need my help" and go on about your life with nary a thought to how you could ease the burden. All I've said is that if there is a need to refer to the fact that someone has a disability, the most respectful way to do so is to say that the are "a person with a disability" not a "disabled person" and not "handicapped" since that is a term that is as offensive to a person with a disability as "******" is to a person who is black. It also allows people to ignore the issues entirely by claiming that they don't want to be seen as being insensitive or discriminatory by noticing someone's disability, so they just *ignore the person entirely.* Using respectful language has nothing to do with what you are talking about. What you are talking about here is, however, quite interesting, and if it were not being spoken in the context of justification for deliberately using disrespectful language, would be a basis for an important discussion. If you don't think this is the case, spend a week in a wheelchair sometime. You become positively invisible. I have some significant insight into what people with disabilities experience. Sorry, but I believe in telling it like it is and facing things directly, not finding semantic refuges and dodges that allow me to avoid the issues. Sorry, that's not what I am advocating. I'm telling you that there are ways of being more respectful to a person with a disability. That has nothing to do with avoiding issues. You don't have to call someone who is black a ****** in order to directly face the issues concerning them. what offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal. As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system, thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually beneficial to the school system as a whole. Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me. Or you are being incredibly naïve and/or disingenuous. The outcome of this will be the erosion of funds for the public school system because support for paying the taxes to sustain public schools will plummet. Only if you let it happen. And if it does, what does that tell you about the value of a public school education? It tells you that people are selfish. Moreover, it won't happen because if it was going to happen, it would have *already happened.* But it's not happening, is it? People still pay taxes for public schools, and many of them put their kids in private schools anyway. No big disaster looming. Never has been. Will be. If you make public school education the sole domain of the poor and people with disabilities. The further outcome will be schools that are comprised entirely of the poor and people with disabilities. So what? So long as they are receiving a top-notch education funded by the public They won't be. which can afford to provide far more resources to each public school child than they could before, when children who had the means to get a private education were forced into the public system, thus clogging it up, who cares? Think of it as a way of providing much better, specialized education for those students. It won't happen. There will be less and less money. It will become like your plan for health care for the poor...unless a charity provides it, there won't be any. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how they "maligned" the system. It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over not being able to provide a premium education for your own children? You are leaping to the faulty conclusion that a publicly funded school is incapable of serving giften children appropriately. It's hardly a faulty conclusion. Every study ever done shows that private school educations are far superior, particularly when it comes to individualized instruction for the gifted, than public schools. Whoops, you are getting a bit mixed up. Those studies don't claim that a publicly funded school is incapable of serving gifted children appropriately, they claim that they simply aren't doing so. Obviously, they could, with the right approach and the right resources. It's a simple fact that public schools, by their nature, have to provide a uniform curriculum to every student because there is always insufficient money, resources and teachers to provide individualized instruction for gifted students. So provide what is needed. Even in the best public systems, which provide special "charter schools" and special schools for the gifted, the quality of education is far inferior to a private school education targeted at an individual student. And the more public schools become the sole domain of the poor and people with disabilities, the worse and worse the schools will get, since they will get less and less resources and less and less funding. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
