>I posted previously what I was told by your Majority leader, and The Lush Bimbaugh host. I see no need in debating you on what YOU believe about (many) conservatives mood towards public education.<
My comments were in direct response to your statement! You responded with irrelevancies. This is the point. It is only reasonable that I would respond to your point that conservatives do not support the public school system like they do not support the NEA, with either an explanation, denial or support of the point (do you really not understand this?). I responded with an explanation. It is now reasonable to expect you to respond to my response, as opposed to bringing in some completely irrelevant drivel!
>There are plenty of conservatives that would love to see [public education] go by-by. I know it, the public school system knows it, politicians know it. You don't. So again, not much I can say to prove it to you.<
(sigh) Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, etc. are perhaps against the public school system in this country, as are a great many other conservatives. But as I have already said to you, I hardly think they are against public education as a philosophy. These same men are in the business of public education. They disagree with you and others on the left with how best to educate the public. Public education as a philosophy does not necessarily equate to our current educational structure, some of which conservatives think is wasteful and even Draconian.
>You post, with great redundancy….That sums up your point, doesn't it?<
I simply want to give you the greatest opportunity to absorb the point.
>If you subject music (only) to the market, then you will get market music...disposable music designed to sell. Thus the term 'commercial music.'<
Well then dangit let it sell! Who are YOU to claim the music is “disposable” when the market wants it?!!!!!!!!!! Dang! This sort of sloppy thinking drives me insane!
>You throw the word 'trash' around frequently.<
Because this is what we call things that nobody wants.
>What the NEA does isn't to provide reckless amatuers a chance to give up their day job. Rather, it insures that some of man's greatest ideas and achievement survive -- just as you (apparently) agree that the ideas put forth in public schools should survive and have a forum to be delivered.<
Mankind's greatest ideas and achievements will survive on the basis of their valuation by the market. We do not need you or anyone else to force us to accept your bureaucratic ideas of what is valuable.
>You believe the market is always right as to the quality of the product. I do not.<
You misstate my position. I believe the market is always right as to what its participants believe is valuable. Value is a fluid and subjective thing. When a market participant issues a vote of confidence in value (i.e. when he spends a dollar, which is but a claim on goods having resulted of labor), that participant judges what is of value to him. He is right, and you are in no position to tell him he is not.
>It is both hilarious and pitiful that anyone would suggest that the only ideas worth keeping in this world are the 'marketable' ones.<
What is pitiful is that someone would aim to force the market to buy what it likely would think is trash.
>You state: " I am sure Beethoven will survive, even if only in my studio."
You think so little of Beethoven.<
No. You think so little of Beethoven, my friend. I have great confidence in Beethoven. So much so, that I am willing to trust his survival in the market.
(I really have to go) |
