the key word in that statement is quality, which is incompatible with a government-run school in my opinion. I do agree with the part about freely available. I would like to see a proliferation of charter schools, personally.

Dana

>I don't care who runs it - I just said it should be FREELY available.  I
>also said that it would put a huge strain on the govt to privatize them
>all... that's because of the cost of offering anyone a quality privatized
>education...which leads one to deduce that quality public schools is the
>most realistic solution.
>
>~Simon
>
>Simon Horwith
>CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
>Member of Team Macromedia
>Macromedia Certified Instructor
>Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
>Certified Flash MX Developer
>CFDJList - List Administrator
>http://www.how2cf.com/
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: 07 January 2004 17:26
>  To: CF-Community
>  Subject: Re:More Breaking News
>
>
>  Quality education should be available, but not run by government, imho.
>Charter schools are a step in the right direction.
>
>  Dana
>
>  >Quality education should be freely available to everyone - regardless of
>  >socio-economic, ethnic, or other conditions.  Do you really think that
>  >privatizing all schools would result in a larger percentage of the
>poplation
>  >receiving a better education?  That's interesting.  I'd think it makes
>more
>  >sense to raise the quality of public schools.  People who can afford good
>  >schools will go to them regardless of whether there are public schools.
>  >I've always felt that without putting a huge strain on the govt., having
>  >nothing but privatized schools would result in a wider gap between the
>well
>  >educated and the poorly educated.  Am I mistaken?
>  >
>  >~Simon
>  >
>  >Simon Horwith
>  >CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
>  >Member of Team Macromedia
>  >Macromedia Certified Instructor
>  >Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
>  >Certified Flash MX Developer
>  >CFDJList - List Administrator
>  >http://www.how2cf.com/
>  >
>  >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >  Sent: 07 January 2004 15:21
>  >  To: CF-Community
>  >  Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>  >
>  >
>  >  I'm a contractor.  I took a tech position at fair market value.  I do
>not
>  >  work FOR the government.
>  >
>  >
>
>  >  That being said, the department of state is the oldest department in
>the
>  >  executive branch and almost the only one mentioned in the constitution.
>  >  International affairs dictate the need for an organization that
>provides
>  >for
>  >  communication, direct and indirect, with foreign countries.
>Additionally
>  >I
>  >  provide security and intelligence analysis for U.S. Citizens operating
>  >  abroad.  Diplomatic Security is also the responsible law enforcement
>  >  organization for visa and passport fraud (some of this has been eaten
>up
>  >by
>  >  DHS).  The department of State is not the defense department or the CIA
>or
>  >  the FBI.  We are here for a constitutionally mandated reason.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Also don't get me wrong, I didn't say I am against all taxes.  I know
>we
>  >  need taxes for defense and law enforcement. Now roads, education and
>other
>  >  services should all be handled at a state level, or as in the case of
>the
>  >  postal service, privately.  In many cases I think we should move much
>more
>  >  aggressively towards toll roads supported by those that actually use
>them,
>  >  education that PARENTS want for their children, and by lowering the tax
>  >  burden n parents I can assure you that parents are not going to choose
>the
>  >  garbage schools that we have now.  Why not privatize all schools?
>  >
>  >
>  >  While I know that government research, mainly defense based, is in
>large
>
>  >  part responsible for great technological advances, this is not
>necessarily
>  >  always the case.  Xerox, IBM and Microsoft, all private companies, had
>a
>  >lot
>  >  to do with getting us where we are today.  A few generations ago it
>would
>  >  have been Ford, GM and Dodge.  Before that the railroads.  Private
>  >industry
>  >  is and always will be where the greatest and most powerful innovation
>  >comes
>  >  from.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Just so you know, I have my own ethical questions about where I work
>and
>  >  what I do.  I am a sellout, and I know it.  I have kids, and I do what
>I
>  >  need to do to give them the best life they can have.  I didn't need a
>  >knife,
>  >  a gun or a stick to do it.  I did it with my mind.  I have worked in
>the
>  >  private sector, actually starting to make something of a name for
>myself
>  >  before deciding to go the "professional" route.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Matt were you in a socialist position in the marines?  No.  It was a
>  >service
>  >  position.  It's different and you know it is.
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  Timothy Heald
>  >  Web Portfolio Manager
>  >  Overseas Security Advisory Council
>  >  U.S. Department of State
>  >  571.345.2319
>  >
>  >  The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
>U.S.
>  >  Department of State or any affiliated organization(s).  Nor have these
>  >  opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
>e-mail
>  >is
>  >  unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>  >
>  >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >  Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:05 AM
>  >  To: CF-Community
>  >  Subject: Re: More Breaking News
>  >
>  >  Whoa, now Tim.  You work for the US Government - that's a job provided
>for
>  >  society's benefit, making that a socialist position.  Why should I pay
>for
>  >  your job?
>  >
>  >  The whole point is that we make some sacrifices in order to acheive a
>  >safer,
>  >  healthier society.  Without taxes, we would have no roads, no public
>  >  education, no postal service.  Don't think that the private sector
>would
>  >  take over these things, because people just don't care that much about
>  >each
>  >  other on a personal basis to make society better without a huge
>personal
>  >  benefit.
>  >
>  >  WIthout supporting the public, you and I would not be sitting here in
>forn
>  >  of computers typing our views - we'd both be living in 1850.
>  >
>  >  - Matt Small
>  >    ----- Original Message -----
>  >    From: Heald, Tim
>  >    To: CF-Community
>  >    Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:44 AM
>  >    Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>  >
>  >    Yeah god forbid we expect people to work harder.  To study on their
>own
>  >  time
>  >    to better themselves.
>  >
>  >    People rise to the level of their abilities.  Why is it my burden to
>  >  support
>  >    them in a manner better than they can provide for themselves?
>  >
>  >    --
>  >    Timothy Heald
>  >    Web Portfolio Manager
>  >    Overseas Security Advisory Council
>  >    U.S. Department of State
>  >    571.345.2319
>  >
>  >    The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
>U.S.
>  >    Department of State or any affiliated organization(s).  Nor have
>these
>  >    opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
>e-mail
>  >  is
>  >    unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>  >
>  >    -----Original Message-----
>  >    From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >    Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:42 AM
>  >    To: CF-Community
>  >    Subject: Re: More Breaking News
>  >
>  >    Exactly. The overall cost to the country of an even poorer poor is
>worse
>  >    than the minor burden of an artificially manipulated standard of
>living.
>  >
>  >    Besides increases in unemployment, theft, and violent crime, there is
>  >also
>  >    an associated decrease in access to base medical care which leads to
>  >more
>  >    sickness and the spread of communicable diseases. With a shortened
>life
>  >    expectancy, people tend to try and have more children in order for
>their
>  >    family to survive which puts an even greater burden on the country.
>  >
>  >    And besides, if people aren't making as much money who's going to buy
>  >all
>  >    the SUVs and HDTVs?
>  >
>  >    -Kevin
>  >
>  >    ----- Original Message -----
>  >    From: "Simon Horwith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >    To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  >    Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:24 AM
>  >    Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>  >
>  >    > but the idea behind Minimum wage is that it guarantees a standard
>of
>  >    living
>  >    > that, though still at or near poverty level, does help to guarantee
>  >    certain
>  >    > basic living standards.   Even then, the minimum wage tends not to
>  >  keep-up
>  >    > with the rise in inflation.  That said, if a higher inflation rate
>is
>  >  the
>  >    > price we must pay in order to guarantee legal workers a chance at a
>  >  decent
>  >    > life, so be it.
>  >    >
>  >    > ~Simon
>  >    >
>  >    > Simon Horwith
>  >    > CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
>  >    > Member of Team Macromedia
>  >    > Macromedia Certified Instructor
>  >    > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
>  >    > Certified Flash MX Developer
>  >    > CFDJList - List Administrator
>  >    > http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
>  >  <http://www.how2cf.com/>
>  >    >
>  >    >   -----Original Message-----
>  >    >   From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >    >   Sent: 07 January 2004 14:02
>  >    >   To: CF-Community
>  >    >   Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   I think two main things have led us through inflation and rising
>  >  costs.
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   1. Coming off of the gold standard, thanx Nixon.
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   2. Minimum wage.
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   Why in a free market economy should the government dictate what
>one
>  >  side
>  >    > of
>  >    >   an open trade should receive?  If a person is willing to work for
>  >next
>  >    to
>  >    >   nothing, should they not be able to?  Also, to return to a place
>  >where
>  >    we
>  >    >   can compete in a world economy as not just a service provider,
>but
>  >an
>  >    >   industrial base, we need low pay low skill employees.  As long as
>  >law
>  >    >   requires us to meet and exceed basic standards we cannot do so.
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   The only other answer would be to severely penalize countries and
>  >    > companies
>  >    >   that don't meet the same requirements that we impose internally.
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   We start by exactly matching tariffs imposed by other nations
>  >against
>  >    our
>  >    >   goods.  Add additional tariffs to nations that don't afford their
>  >    > employees
>  >    >   the same minimum standing of living, add even more for nations
>that
>  >    don't
>  >    >   have basic human rights.
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >    >   It would be painful, maybe even start a war or two, but I think
>it
>  >  would
>  >    > be
>  >    >   worth it in the long run.
>  >    >
>  >    >   --
>  >    >   Timothy Heald
>  >    >   Web Portfolio Manager
>  >    >   Overseas Security Advisory Council
>  >    >   U.S. Department of State
>  >    >   571.345.2319
>  >    >
>  >    >   The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of
>the
>  >  U.S.
>  >    >   Department of State or any affiliated organization(s).  Nor have
>  >these
>  >    >   opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This
>  >  e-mail
>  >    > is
>  >    >   unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>  >    >
>  >    >   -----Original Message-----
>  >    >   From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >    >   Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:58 AM
>  >    >   To: CF-Community
>  >    >   Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>  >    >
>  >    >   Hey - I like cutting my own lawn.
>  >    >
>  >    >   I'm no economist, bu i wouldn't hold your breath on seeing
>minimum
>  >  wage
>  >    go
>  >    >   away.  Quite honestly, as far as I know it shouldn't go away.
>The
>  >  goal
>  >    >   shouldn't be to do away with it so that companies can hire
>Americans
>  >  for
>  >    > as
>  >    >   cheap as they can get illegal labor, but to legalize all of the
>  >labor
>  >  to
>  >    > the
>  >    >   extent that it all falls under minimum wage law.  That way
>there'd
>  >be
>  >  no
>  >    >   benefit to hiring an illegal labourer as opposed to a legal one
>  >  (they'd
>  >    > cost
>  >    >   the same).  Without minimum wage, what would protect the
>workforce -
>  >    >   especially unskilled and manual labour?  Of course, this would
>most
>  >    likely
>  >    >   result in even more work being outsourced to countries like
>India...
>  >  any
>  >    >   work that can be, anyway.
>  >    >
>  >    >   ~Simon
>  >    >
>  >    >   Simon Horwith
>  >    >   CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
>  >    >   Member of Team Macromedia
>  >    >   Macromedia Certified Instructor
>  >    >   Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
>  >    >   Certified Flash MX Developer
>  >    >   CFDJList - List Administrator
>  >    >    http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
>  >  <http://www.how2cf.com/>
>  >    <http://www.how2cf.com/>
>  >    >
>  >    >     -----Original Message-----
>  >    >     From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >    >     Sent: 07 January 2004 13:36
>  >    >     To: CF-Community
>  >    >     Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>  >    >
>  >    >     >We have 10.5 million illegal workers in the United States
>right
>  >  now,"
>  >    >   said
>  >    >     US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
>  >    >
>  >    >     >"If they went home, we'd have to shut down the country."
>  >    >
>  >    >     Hehe, or we'd just have to learn how to cut our own lawn again.
>  >:)
>  >    >
>  >    >     Immigration is probably where I am furthest from libertarian.
>At
>  >  this
>  >    >   point
>  >    >     I am almost isolationist.  I would much rather see work-fare
>  >  programs
>  >    >   that
>  >    >     get people off the rolls of welfare and into low and no skill
>  >jobs.
>  >    >   Really
>  >    >     if we could do away with the minimum wage and make it so that
>  >these
>  >    >     companies that hire illegals because they can't afford
>Americans,
>  >  can
>  >    >   again,
>  >    >     it would be good for us all.
>  >    >
>  >    >     Also isn't this going to encourage MORE illegal immigration, as
>  >  people
>  >    >   will
>  >    >     see the "success stories" of people who got legal recognition.
>  >Plus
>  >    the
>  >    >   way
>  >    >     many state governments are set up, don't immigrants, even
>  >    non-citizens,
>  >    >   then
>  >    >     become eligible for social programs, like welfare and medical
>  >    benefits?
>  >    >
>  >    >     Yeah I can't see how any of this is a good idea.
>  >    >
>  >    >     --
>  >    >     Timothy Heald
>  >    >     Web Portfolio Manager
>  >    >     Overseas Security Advisory Council
>  >    >     U.S. Department of State
>  >    >     571.345.2319
>  >    >
>  >    >     The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of
>  >the
>  >    U.S.
>  >    >     Department of State or any affiliated organization(s).  Nor
>have
>  >  these
>  >    >     opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations.
>This
>  >    e-mail
>  >    >   is
>  >    >     unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>  >    >
>  >    >     -----Original Message-----
>  >    >     From: Erika L Walker-Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >    >     Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:27 AM
>  >    >     To: CF-Community
>  >    >     Subject: More Breaking News
>  >    >
>  >    >       http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm
>  >  <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
>  >    <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
>  >    >   <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
>  >    >     <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3375327.stm>
>  >    >
>  >    >     Cheers,
>  >    >     Erika
>  >    >       _____
>  >    >     _____
>  >    >
>  >    >
>  >      _____
>  >    _____
>  >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to