Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (122339)	1/17/2001 4:09:49 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769670

Dems and their special interests against the children in SF: January 17, 2001 ----------------------------------------------------------- San Francisco Flunks A century ago, the railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt was infamously quoted as saying, "The public be damned." Today, the new lords of privilege are often ideological bureaucrats who show equal contempt for the public good. Take San Francisco's new reactionary school board, which is about to revoke the contract of a successful charter school run by a private corporation. The move could impact the future of charters elsewhere, including New York City where parents at five failing schools have just been given the go-ahead to hire private managers. Three years ago, a more enlightened San Francisco school board signed a contract with Edison Schools, a for-profit company that helps run 113 schools in a dozen states with a total of 53,000 students. The company agreed to take over a failing elementary school coincidentally called Edison Elementary. It received the same per-pupil funding as any other public school in exchange for flexibility in curriculum and management. Now Edison is a public school that emphasizes results rather than red tape. Under new management, Edison has made steady gains in nearly every subject and grade. Last fall, 49% of fifth graders scored at the national average or better in math, compared with 28% the year before. In reading, 35% of fifth graders performed at national levels. That's up from only 2% of students before Edison Schools took over. In all, Edison has the third most improved showing on statewide tests of all of San Francisco's 71 schools. The problem with Edison's success is that it could spread, and that has prompted incoming school board president Jill Wynns to declare that she will move to revoke Edison Schools' five-year contract at a January 23 board meeting. "This charter has been a destructive force, shattering our sense of community," she declares. Ms. Wynns admits the district "won't be able to maintain some of the things the school now has," but that must take a back seat to the fact that a narrow majority of board members are "philosophically opposed to for-profit management." Edison Principal Vince Matthews says the board's bottom line should be the improved student achievement that is "changing lives." He doesn't deny that the company shakes up the cozy status quo of traditional union contracts. Although Edison pays its teachers 10% more than other public schools, it is also open more days of the year than other public schools and demands more from both teachers and parents. Should Edison be kicked out of San Francisco, it will embolden opponents of its planned entry into New York City's schools. Last month, the Board of Education endorsed a proposal to allow Edison Schools to manage five of the city's worst schools if it can convince a majority of parents in each to go along. But you can bet that the San Francisco board's action will embolden union critics of privatization in New York and elsewhere to move against any charter experiments. Ms. Wynns and other opponents of Edison Schools' presence say they are practicing democracy in action. Teacher unions lavishly funded anti-Edison candidates in last November's elections and won a 4-to-3 majority on the board. But if we've learned anything about the failures of public education, it's the danger of allowing a board like San Francisco's to dictate what's best for each of 71 separate schools. Trusting parents with some input into what is best for their kids has worked wherever it's been tried. Monopoly power didn't work when it was exercised by railroads in the 19th century or in centrally planned economies in the 20th Century. Now that we've entered a new century, it's time that lesson was applied to the institutions charged with ensuring that today's children absorb workplace skills and learn to become good citizens. interactive.wsj.com

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (122339)	1/17/2001 8:05:29 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Patrica, are you just and out and out liar, simply screwed up in the head or are you just reporting what your psychic friends talking in your head are telling you. I'm a Catholic and I actually went to Church this last Sunday and I have only had and have one wife. You state that Ashcroft believes that Catholics are satanic and the Pope is a false prophet. And you also stated several other things that you state are Mr. Ascrorft beliefs Based on all I know the only thing that I can conclude is that you are a liar, simply screwed up in the head or are you just reporting what your psychic friends talking in your head are telling you. Tom Watson tosiwmee

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (122339)	1/17/2001 10:47:23 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

--Most Americans do not believe that their Pastor is entitled to 10% of their incomes for his personal use and they must pay out more to support the church's bills.......but Ashcroft does-- we should abolish the federal income tax and everyone should give 10% to their favorite charity. this would 'kill two birds with one stone.' andy (having lost faith in 'man and his scriptures,' finding faith in G-d (The All, the 'Supercomputer in the Sky')) artists.mp3s.com

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (122339)	1/18/2001 6:25:06 AM
From: cAPSLOCK	Respond to of 769670

Patricia, I get the feeling you are listing some of the things you believed (or were taught) as a pentecostal. Do you really have evidence that these are Ashcroft's beliefs? I share your disturbance over legalistic religious beliefs. I also agree that these sorts of beliefs are commonly held by pentecostals. I have also attended a pentecostal church, and am actually a graduate of a Bible college that is recognized by various pentecostal denominations. So I understand where you are coming from. I too have rejected the legalistic requirements of these groups and the cult like demands on their followers. But I have two points I would like to make: 1. Not all churches are alike, neither are all church goers. Even within a specific denomination. There are pentecostal churches that are growing out of the sort of legalistic bondage that you described. And there are members of these churches who are mature enough as human beings to recognize the importance of balance in their lives. From what I have heard John Ashcroft say during his senate hearings I feel he just might be one of these people. 2. Since when is it OK to discriminate against someone based on their faith? For that matter, shouldn't we even be tolerant of just about ALL people who believe or act differently than we do as long as they are not hurting others? Isn't this the same sort of thing that liberal folks like to say about some conservative's views on people like homosexuals for example? I believe, like many of my liberal friends, that it is a laudable goal to be represented by people from different races, cultures, genders, economic backgrounds, abilities etc. in our governmental system. I suppose you could go so far as to say that I support 'affirmative action' at least within the public sector. I challenge anyone to tell me why religious conservatives (even pentecostals) shouldn't also be represented equally in our government, or why they could not do the job. regards, cAPSLOCK mp3.com