<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Well, C.D., I was certainly planning to vote YES for the levy on Tuesday. After reading your lengthy dissertation, I am all the more certain that I will vote YES for the levy on Tuesday. Thanks. Carl Westberg Jr.<br><br>> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:09:22 +0900<br>> From: cdwitmer@yahoo.co.jp<br>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Support the School Levy!<br>> <br>> 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 &#8211;<br>> Gabe<br>> ’s 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>> ’t 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><br /><hr />Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! <a href='http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews' target='_new'>Try now!</a></body>
</html>