The rise of faith schools

Limbaugh does not invent the writings and voice recordings replayed on his show that demonstrate the hypocrisy of the politicians. These are verifiable and undeniable facts. I am not sure what other facts you claim he misrepresents. If you would apply what is called "critical thinking skills" to his program, then you, too, can filter the BS from the facts. Try it.The key point which you missed (again, it must be your critical thinking skills need improvement) is that there are more sources for the news, and the competition exposes balance. We have always had news sources with incorrect facts now and then, but there is clearly a liberal bias in the ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR sources. If you just listen to those, you only get one point of view.

It is not their tax money.

You are right. Cronkite was never a rigidly dogmatic right wing extremist, which I take to be your meaning of "neutral."

Right wing ideologues, such as you, use the word "spin" for truths that they don't want to hear. Where did I ever promote single source education? Where did I ever object to choice and competition?And you have the gall to accuse me of spin! I'm calling you a liar, in spite of rule 10. I'll withdraw the accusation if you can demonstrate where I ever did what you state. There is no such thing as the public school system. There are many public school systems, some well run and some bureaucratically run. I'm all for reforming badly run school systems. You continue to misrepresent what I am saying. I am not against the cherry picking. What I oppose, is the use of tax dollars to underwrite cherry picking. And I oppose the dishonest use of the results from cherry-picking in arguments about what works and doesn't work in education.

No, he just uses writings and voice recordings way out of context. That's a form of misrepresentation.

Good article, even if the reporter had an agenda.
Sounds like the problem schools need better quality oversight like the successful Catholic and Lutheran schools mentioned in the article.One of the difficult things for parents is to evaluate a school and teachers (whether the school is private or public). This is why standardized tests administered by independent parties with results published is one good means for judging where to put your kids.Improving schools is a challenge, and usually it takes some time to get things under control. For example: In Houston, the public schools are being measured by a standard test called Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Initially, there was resistance. Then the tests showed bad results in some cases. Those schools & teachers were put under pressure. Some reponded by cheating and some starting teaching to just pass the test, instead of the subject proper. See the following link for more detail: shortened linkThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-10-2006 10:54 AM

quote:

---

No, he just uses writings and voice recordings way out of context. That's a form of misrepresentation.

---

I disagree. The quotes are long and the context is clear and is in line with what is reported on news channels (since most are extracted from the news sources)
So, you must admit that the news takes things out of context?

for calling another member a liar.

---

I should think that most people would agree that what makes it to the news is often dreadfully de-contextualised.This isn't neccessarily an intentional form of spin or deception, its just a neccessary evil to fit what are almost certainly very complex situations into a short slot for a tv report.Naturally the choice of exactly how that contextualisation is done is going to reflect the priorities of the reporter or whoever prepares the story.TTFN,WK

This simply isn't true. Almost all news is corporate-biased and most is right-wing biased these days.Example: Any journalist who actually treats the evolution/creationism contraversy as a real debate with two sides is simply right-wing biased. This is a fact.I feel really bad for you that you can't see what is going on. NPR and the BBC are FAR from left wing. I can point you to some actual liberal news sources if you would like. They are EASILY the most accurate of the news sources. Fox is EASILY the least accurate to the point of comedy. Again, these are facts. I'll see if I can find the studies.http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-03.htmOff the Charts - Television News Coverage of Israeli & Palestinian DeathsFAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. isn't up right now or I'd have a lot more. They have analyzed Limbaugh's shows and deducedc that he is nothing more than a fraud and a liar who rarely exposes anything close to the truth.I apologize for the source not being presently available.

I actually have a good perspective on a lot of these things because I used to BE a conservative republican! I listed to limbaugh occasionally (although I always thought his show was for stupid people even when I was a right winger), but I used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy a lot (he actually is funny and is MUCH smarter than limbaugh). After several years I realized after doing some diggin that these people were LYING to me. The truth is out there for those who aren't too lazy to find it.It's not like I am someone coming from a liberal perspective calling these guys out... I used to believe the crap they spew, so I know why it's BS and why people fall for it

Really? Can you demonstrate that? Because the exact opposite seems to be the case - the news bends over backwards to avoid painting issues in a negative light for Republicans, especially the president; and equally bends over the other way to avoid presenting any news except in the form of a loss for Democrats.Most recently, after several of his top aides indicated that they would testify against him on the subject of corruption, Tom DeLay announced that he would not run for re-election, essentially relegating himself to the role of a powerless lame-duck Congressman. Except this great victory for honest democracy, this first step to holding an incredibly corrupt and dishonets man accountable, was painted as a loss by Democrats. That somehow Democrats came out the loser when their most vocal opponent took a dive. Amazing.Or the coverage of Bush's National Guard service. The very next day almost every network came out with the story that the memos were probably fake, even though there turned out to be absolutely no evidence of that, and several people who were close to the purported author verified that the memos contained statements that the author had made to them and were entirely consistent with his views, even though it turned out that all the typographic "analysis" was nonsense, even though we never ever uncovered the purported "forger", etc, etc, etc. Bending over backwards to avoid anything negative for the president.There were maybe 2 networks that ran even one story on the Downing Street Memos that completely proved that the decision to invade Iraq anyway was made months ahead of the seeking of UN approval to force Saddam to re-admit weapons inspectors; which is naturally why we went ahead and invaded even after Saddam completely complied with the UN. You never hear that in the news, anymore - that Saddam actually had let the inspectors back in and given them total access weeks before we invaded anyway.I haven't seen one single story on any of the networks - and I do TIVO the news, so it's not like I'd have missed it - about how we now can prove that Ohio subverted it's own elections process and broke it's own laws by ignoring the fact that a large number of its reporting precincts failed to maintain a consistent count between the computerized election results and the random hand recounts. Instead, before the "official" random assay count, officials simply eliminated from consideration all precincts that had already reported, through a kind of pre-screening recount, a discrepancy between the computer and paper results. Then, they did a "random" sampling of all the precincts that they knew were not discrepant and pretended like that proved the election was legitimate.We know Bush stole the election in 2000. We know he stole it again in 2004. There hasn't been a legitimate presidential election in this country since 1996, but I haven't seen a single story about that, even on NPR.Liberal media? Please. We have a media of cowards, beholded to power. They're already bending over backwards to make sure your side gets as positive a press as possible, and your complaint is that they still don't favor your side enough? Unbelivable.

Crashfrog... I couldn't have said it better myself.The refusal of the media to really investigate the election fraud that has been occurring tells you everything you need to know. It's not like that's a partisan issue. Democrats could do the exact same thing in the future.aBe: Notice that they spend 1000% more time on things like the missing girl on spring break and other related stuff. Give me a breakThis message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 04-10-2006 02:46 PM

The topic is NOT new bias, it's the rise of faith based schools.Let's head back that direction. Please.

---

As Jar said, we seem to have gone off topic.So back to faith based schools. I have no problem with people sending their children to faith based schools as long as that school provides an equivalent curriculum. Is it fair to send your kids to a school that refuses to teach geometry because it conflicts with their beliefs?That being said, if you want to send your kids to a faith based school you are going to have to pay out of your own pocket. There is a separation of church and state and atheists like myself should not have to pay even more taxes that support things we don't believe in and find ridiculous.Please don't argue that public schools are at all similar. Public school curriculums are dteremined by elected officials (or those appointed by elected officials) and experts in their field. Evolution will continue to be taught in public schools until someone finds evidence to falsify it.