First and foremost, I am interested in your recent weightloss. I don't know you, but 25 lbs is a lot for most people. Secondly, I noticed you signed that you are in Tokyo. Not knowing you, what is your connection to Moscow? I am always interested in what brings people to Moscow and why they leave. Nothing in a way of argument, just curious. Finally, it is my opinion that quality education benefits all of society in many ways -less crime, more tolerance, etc., etc. Personally, I would rather pay upfront for positive things than on the backend for the negative, such as prisons. But that is my opinion. <BR><BR><B><I>Christopher Witmer <cdwitmer@yahoo.co.jp></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Joe Campbell's arguments in favor of the school levy<BR>manifest a great deal of confusion and illogical thinking.<BR>I'm not directly
affected by the levy so I won't presume<BR>to tell people how they should vote on Tuesday, but I want<BR>to address some of Mr. Campbell's more egregious errors.<BR><BR>First we need to note Mr. Campbell's abuse of the notions<BR>of things that are volitional (the real of choice) verus<BR>things that are obligatory (the realm of duty), and the<BR>concept of taking responsibility for one's choices. <BR><BR>He starts off by asserting that "The state has an<BR>obligation to provide an education for everyone –<BR>Gabe<BR>¡Çs kids and mine."<BR><BR>Right off the bat, this statement is immediately subject<BR>to strong disagreement on constitutional grounds, because<BR>the education of children cannot avoid the promotion of a<BR>particular religious perspective to the exclusion of<BR>contrary religious perspectives. This is true in all<BR>subjects, but it is especially obvious in the creation vs.<BR>evolution controversy and in instruction with regard to<BR>sexual morality. If we
are to have a publicly funded<BR>education system, then a system of vouchers is the only<BR>method that passes constitutional muster because it alone<BR>does not involve the imposition of a particular religious<BR>perspective to the exclusion of others. There are valid<BR>constitutional grounds for opposing even vouchers, but if<BR>you take the position that the State has an obligation to<BR>provide an education for everyone, the only approach<BR>reconcilable with the Constitution is that of vouchers.<BR>Under the current system, even people who strongly oppose<BR>the religious content of public schooling are being forced<BR>to subsidize the promotion of belief systems inimical to<BR>their personal beliefs.<BR><BR>The next erroneous assertion Mr. Campbell makes is, "The<BR>funding of public education is a social good, like the<BR>funding of the military or the funding of highways. We all<BR>benefit if everyone has a quality education." This too is<BR>patently false. To
correct it, the first thing we need to<BR>do is remove the word "public" from his statement. The<BR>funding of education is a social good, but that funding<BR>does not need to come from the government. (It is simply a<BR>fact that a good education does not need to cost a lot of<BR>money, and in fact too much money can end up seriously<BR>interfering with the provision of a good education by<BR>encouraging involvement in all sorts of extraneous "bells<BR>and whistles" that are very much secondary to education. I<BR>strongly suspect, as an outside observer, that the very<BR>best thing that could happen to public schooling in Moscow<BR>at the present time would be for the school district to be<BR>forced to go on a severe austerity budget. I recently went<BR>on a diet and lost 25 lbs, and I feel better than I have<BR>in years. I'm much healthier on less, and I dare say that<BR>in general, most public school districts in the USA would<BR>be healthier on less too. What doctor,
when a bloated,<BR>overweight patient comes to him complaining of constant<BR>lethargy, tells the patient that he needs to eat more? But<BR>I digress.)<BR><BR>The military recognizes "Conscientious Objector" status,<BR>but regardless of their views on war, people are still<BR>forced to pay taxes to support the military. Pacifists are<BR>forced to support through their taxes what they view to be<BR>the murder of innocent people. In their view, funding of<BR>the military is not a social good but rather a social<BR>evil. I'm no pacifist but I am strongly opposed to the war<BR>in Iraq and to America's huge permanent military<BR>installations around the world and to America's military<BR>interventionism all over the world, so I would have to say<BR>that with America's current military policy the funding of<BR>the current military is a social evil. The funding of<BR>highways I have much less argument with at a personal<BR>level; however, arguably even highways could be built
and<BR>maintained entirely by the private sector. Anyway, you<BR>don't need to agree with me about our military or the<BR>highways to see the point I'm making about education.<BR>There is no disputing that EDUCATION is a social good;<BR>however, it is very much open to dispute that the PUBLIC<BR>FUNDING of education is a social good. I think a much<BR>stronger case could be made for the position that in the<BR>long run the public funding of education has actually done<BR>society far more harm than good, and society would be much<BR>better off if there was no public funding of education at<BR>all. The education would still get done even without<BR>public funding, and the education would be of much better<BR>quality as a result. Moreover, the whole system would much<BR>more reconcilable with our Constitution. (Note that our<BR>nation's founders in their wisdom did not make any<BR>provision for public funding of education, even though<BR>they easily could have if they had
wanted to.)<BR><BR>Mr. Campbell says, "Even if I walk to work I still have to<BR>pay for the highways. I don<BR>¡Çt get to ride the tanks but I still have to support the<BR>military. I have to support the military whether I like<BR>the current war or not." This analogy is totally<BR>inappropriate. Parents who homeschool and who use private<BR>schools are -- to use Mr. Campbell's analogy correctly --<BR>are actively participating in the construction of the<BR>highways and actively participating in the defense of the<BR>nation. If anything, these parents deserve not to be taxed<BR>again on top of their current contribution, but rather to<BR>be reimbursed by the State for their services. I'm not<BR>saying the State should reimburse them, but it would be<BR>fairer than making them pay twice. If you really wanted to<BR>be fair in passing the levy for MSD, turn around and on a<BR>pari passu, pro rata basis, pay the same amount per<BR>student to the homeschooling and private
schooling<BR>families that MSD gets. Note well that every single family<BR>would come out far ahead of the game financially because<BR>they are able to provide their kids with much better<BR>educations for far less money. The difference between what<BR>they spend and what MSD wants is, to put it succinctly,<BR>money that is being spend unnecessarily. It's waste.<BR><BR>Mr. Campbell says, "By living in Moscow, I have to pay a<BR>state income tax whereas if I lived in Pullman I would<BR>not. That is my choice and I have to pay because of it. To<BR>make that choice and then complain about the additional<BR>payment is silly." Just look at the Statist hubris<BR>expressed in this statement of his. What ever happened to<BR>accountability? Essentially he is just saying, "If you're<BR>going to live in Moscow, just shut up and pay what you're<BR>told to pay without demanding accountability, and if you<BR>don't like it, you are always free to move." The taxpayers<BR>have a right to
know exactly how their money is being<BR>spent. Apparently the MSD has been extremely reticent to<BR>provide such accountability to the taxpayers. If the sort<BR>of logic expressed by Mr. Campbell is representative of<BR>the mindset of the thinking going on in the MSD, the best<BR>thing that could happen to education on Moscow on Tuesday<BR>is for the voters to send that levy down in flames. Until<BR>there is a significant attitudinal adjustment on the part<BR>of the people who are intent on spending that money,<BR>giving them the money that they are requesting would be a<BR>big mistake. True, I'm just an outside observer, but it<BR>sure seems to me that Moscow could be doing MUCH better on<BR>much less money. I look forward to seeing the results of<BR>the vote on Tuesday.<BR><BR>Chris Witmer<BR>Tokyo<BR><BR>Vote AGAINST the school levy on November 13, 2007!<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step
Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Tom & Liz Ivie<p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com