[Zon]

When the top government official tells bald-face lies to the American public, ala Bill Clinton saying, "I didn't inhale" and "I didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski" and defaults to banality before the court saying "it depends on what the meaning of is, is," that is not an institution you want teaching your children. It's a glaring example of why government was never given constitutional power to conduct public education schooling. And especially not setting the curriculum.

That government usurped the citizens power to teach children further proves that government can be detrimental to your child and his or her education.

People are not stupid; given equal time to hear both sides of virtually any issue they have good judgjement. There's a saying in the lawyer field. "If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If you've got the law on your side pound on the law. If you've got neither, pound on the table."

The effectiveness of pounding on the table has been in rapid decline as a means of winning arguments. Even pounding on the law is losing it's luster. Contrastive, in-context facts are soaring in credibility with people.

Imagine what would happen if John Stossel got not five minutes air time each week but got five hours.

[ladylib]

What would John Stossel do with this story? It's really about fraud in the public schools.

http://www.thereporteronline.c om/site/news.cfm?newsid=451457 4&BRD=2275&PAG=461& ;dept_id=466404&rfi=6

Talk about fraud. When children from one of Baltimore County's crummy public schools (who were in the "gifted and talented" program in their school) transfer to the local Catholic school, they find themselves in the lower ability classes. How's that for fraud?