Great rip. You do have in the Mackinac Center one of the best of the state think tanks and hopefully they can provide some much needed support.
I wish you and your son well.

1) This guy needs a subscription to Duh! magazine. Poor performance and poor cost effectiveness are not tolerated in business. Furthermore, parents should always be the final decision makers on the quality of their children's education. The combination of those factors dictates that a free market education system will necessarily produce better results in education of children (by their parent's standards).

2) That's just stupid, I'm glad you punctured that idiocy Dean.

3) Uhhhh, the point is what now? I have come to the recent revelation that large unions are nothing more than labor monopolies. As such they suffer the same failures and disadvantages of capital monopolies. I am very much in support of labor organization but, without competition, monopolistic labor organizations (like teacher's unions) will (and have) lead to a deliterious decline in quality and cost competiveness. Further, it is my opinion that tenure has no place in K-12 education. The only job of a teacher in a K-12 school is teaching, as such it makes sense to judge their fitness to remain as teachers on their teaching abilities alone, and to be able to remove poor teachers when necessary. Tenure in K-12 serves only to make it more difficult to get rid of poor teachers.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a city with several "charter schools" which were run along different lines than traditional public schools. I spent grades 1-3 in such a school and I am very glad to have had that experience. It was more than a few steps above my experience in traditional public schools (though I did happen to attend some rather nice traditional public schools). I can only imagine the superb quality of education that would be available if all schools were allowed the freedom to persevere toward higher qualities of education. If they are allowed to do so I have little doubt that the results would be spectacular.

Dean,

Thanks for the link.

RE: your summary of my points, I think you got it about right. Nonetheless, your refutation falls flat.

Why? Because you keep falling back on political cant to make your point, i.e., "I can't succeed because of the awesome nature of my foes arrayed against me."

In short, you spend entirely too much time for your own good thinking of yourself as a victim.

Get over it! Keep your eye on the ball: your kids' education, and his future is at stake!

Your child (as well as everyone else in life) only has one chance at K-8 education. Make it the best that you can for him or her.

If you believe that means private school, GO FOR IT NOW!. Don't waste your breath figuring out why you can't do it ("I'll have to put off buying my own home for 10 years.")

Do. It. By. Any. Means. Necessary.

Then go back and get your revenge, if that is what you want. But don't come crying to me that "it isn't possible."

Anything is possible if you want it bad enough.

And, yes, you will have to decide what you are willing to give up in order to get what you want.

That's how it goes, you know?

Stop telling me and your readers that you can't do it. It makes you sound like a loser; worse yet, in the long run, your child suffers for it.

But then again, maybe you've decided that owning your own home is the most important thing of all.

Godspeed. But don't make the choice and then complain about it. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND MOVE ON.

Notice that I'm not arguing politics here. Sorry. I know this is a blog, your blog, but the way I see it, the most important thing is a child's education.

Politics comes second.

If I have to eat dog food, I'll put my kids first. Will it eat me up inside? Sure. Will I hate the politicians who made this necessary? Absolutely. Will there be hell to pay? Of course.

But will it stop me from doing what I have to do to secure a quality education for my kids? NO.

There will be time to stew about public policy later.

The first thing, right now is to make sure my kids get the best possible education available.

After that, I worry about the luxury of arguing who's to blame for a crappy public school system.

Ara
More where this came from, at E Pluribus Unum

P.S. Everyone time you trot out the example of the single mom making $8/hour versus the suburban couple making $100 thousand, I get, er, embarassed for you.

Who do you think you are? Al Gore?

It makes you sound like you're a class warrior. Or worse: it makes it sound like I have to produce a financial statement to argue public policy with you.

Stop it. You are not doing yourself proud.

Ara, have you ever been on wellfare? Or foodstamps? Have you ever had to scrape by from paycheck to paycheck with barely more income than your expenses for food and rent? Have you ever had to raise three kids by yourself? Being able to buy clothing is barely an option for such families. Being able to put kids into private school is simply out of the question. Yet the state nevertheless spends more money on "educating" each child than tuition to private school would be. How is that not a diservice to the parent and the children?

I know what it's like to live like that, I grew up poor. My mom had to raise three kids on her own after leaving my alcoholic father. She did the best she could for us (and that was pretty damn good, thank you very much) but she sure didn't have enough money to send anyone to private school. Me and my siblings were lucky in that we were all naturally intelligent and eager learners, and the public schools in the area were of generally high quality, but even so there were many less than stellar aspects of public education. This is reality as I lived it, this isn't some trumped up hypothetical. There are millions out there who have lived and continue to live the same or similar circumstances.

Moreover, I find your argument weak, hollow, and stupefyingly moronic. You would have us preserve the sanctity of publicly funded education despite the fact that everyone who wants better education should send their kids to private school on their own dime. How is that not a massive waste of taxpayer dollars? Of what purpose is preservation of schools and funding that no one uses anymore? Your notion lacks sanity Mr. Rubyan. And I would suggest that you reconsider it before asking any child's parents to pour their tax money down a rat hole public school that neither their nor any other children are expected to attend.

Robin,

Please don't feel like like I'm insulting your mother when I question whether or not Dean Esmay should be sending his children to private school.

In return I would only ask that you not imply that I "lack sanity" and/or am "moronic." You only make your own argument that much weaker when you do so.

And please, everyone, stop hingeing your arguments on whether I come from a background as dreadful as yours. You have no idea who I am or what my background was.

Why should it matter, anyway, unless you need to wage class warfare? I thought you hated that.

Lastly, I think you missed my point. As a result, you are arguing a whole set of issues I don't care about.

In the hope that you will think about what I'm saying, I'll repeat my point:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If you're not "rich", don't let that be the reason that your child doesn't get the best education you can beg borrow or steal for them.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

If you have a child about to enter K-8 schooling, you should do WHATEVER YOU CAN do secure the best possible education you can for them.

Because, Robin, as you know (if you have kids), it's about THEM now, not you.

So save all the arguments about:

• politics,
• policy
• public school financing
• taxation without representation
• the NEA
• class warfare
• the 16th amendment
• the victimization of the poor by the rich
• etc

...save it all for later. Who the hell knows? Maybe we agree on all of it.

But save it all.

Don't let any of it be the reason that your child misses getting the best education you can beg borrow or steal for them.

If you must have your vengeance, then bide your time. Vengeance is better served cold anyway.

Save it for later, then go after the people that did this to you.

But until then, don't come crying to me that you've been victimized. I ain't buying.

"They" can only do this to you if you let them.

Sorry if that sounds "moronic" to you, or "insane", but that's the way I see it.

Ara, I never insulted you personally, only your argument, which continues to be insane and moronic. Your argument is nothing more than "let them eat cake." Oh yes, it would be very nice if every family could afford to send their children to private school. Many can not do so. They do not have anywhere near the income to do so. Private tuition runs from about $200 a month (Catholic school) to $550 a month (non-sectarian schools), many families have nowhere near that level of disposable income, let alone twice or three times that (for two or three children, respectively). They may nominally have enough money to pay for private school, as long as they don't mind not having a place to live, food to eat, or clothes to wear.

Moreover, politics, policy, and public school financing are not abstract concepts that have no bearing on people's lives. These are things of critical concern to people. Taxes are a reality. The quality of school that families are able to afford for their children is a reality.

This is the way democracy works. People decide how to improve policy. Maybe you come from a background unaccustomed to the notion that people have a right to demand responsibility and effectiveness from their government. I, however, do not, and I expect the people (including myself, including poor families) to have a powerful and direct voice in shaping politics, policy, and governmental spending. People are paying real money in real taxes and debating the real value they receive for that. This is the way it should be, the way it must be in any functional democracy. You can bluster all you want trying to forestall debate but you do nothing more than discredit yourself.

Ara makes an exquisite point. It certainly doesn't answer the whole subject, but DO NOT reject what he is saying. I spent a couple thousand dollars on psychotherapy fighting this point and until you get it , you absolutely don't get it.

Every single thing in your life is a choice. Period. "I can't" simply and unarguably means "I choose not to". And until you accept this fact you cannot EVER get past it. If you disagree, you are unalterably wrong.

Even if you do learn to accept it, it doesn't make anything easier, but it makes everything POSSIBLE.

Robin,

You're not getting it. I'm really sorry. Please read Owen's comments. He "gets it."

Sorry to dredge up the old cliche, but it really is true so I'll say it anyway:

"If you don't think you can afford to send your kids to a better school, you're probably right."

"But on the other hand, if you think you CAN do it, then you're also probably right about THAT."

I did it, you can too.

By the way, the numbers you quote are surprisingly low, compared to where I live.

That said, my experience is that there are probably non-profit community agencies that will subsidize private school tuition in your area. You really should check it out.

I am assuming, of course, that you have school age kids.

Am I right?

Ara
P.S. Thanks for writing, I appreciate the chance to air these issues out. Just leave the name-calling at home. It's not exactly the most magnetic of character traits, you know?

Of course everything in life is a choice. My kid will get a good education. Whether I have to eat dog food or not. Have no fear of that.

I had to give myself a good education, since I had lousy schooling as a kid. But my mother taught me to read, and I've had a job since I was 15. So I educated myself by buying a lot of books that I read on my own time. I also occasionally made use of a library card.

I merely resent that I've been paying taxes into a dysfunctional system my whole life, and will continue paying for services I'll likely not use because political forces have turned them into shit. I also know that not everyone has the options I did. Not everyone can educate himself.

I also know a little about Ara. His kids live in one of the best public school districts in the state of Michigan. He works hard to put them into a private religious school he likes, which is laudable. But if it got to where he could no longer buy groceries or pay the electric bill and still pay their tuition (unlikely for a man with a college degree and a fistful of technical certifications), the horror his kids would face would be one of the best public schools in the state of Michigan.

Neither he nor I will face the prospects that, oh, say, my sister and her kids had to face when she started out as a single mom at age 17. Or what other people I know face even now.

I am also rather convinced that if Ara lived in, oh, say, Highland Park or Inkster in Michigan, he might not be quite so glib about the irrelevance of debates like school choice. Or the morality of paying into a dysfunctional system and not allowing people without his resources to have better choices with their tax money.

My kid'll get a good education. Have no fear of that. In the meantime, I'll continue to try to help the "destroy the schools and collective bargaining" cabal. [Snort]

[sigh]

Whatever happened to "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?"

I guess around here, in Dean's World, that just earns you the resentment of others who target you as a "Commissar."

And I thought you hated "class warfare."

All I'm saying is this: If I can do it, you can too.

And that goes for single mothers regardless of their age or number of kids.

Remember guys: this whole thing started here when the Journal said this on their op-ed page:

the main issue with school choice today [is] you have to be rich to exercise it.

That statement was so breathtakingly stupid and dripping with disdain that I nearly canceled my subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

It reminds me of a quote from "The Godfather":

"Contempt for money is still another trick of the rich to keep the poor without it."

Goodness gracious, you'd think the Journal would understand that.

Let me say it again:

If you're not "rich" (whatever that means to you), don't let that be the reason that your child doesn't get the best education you can beg borrow or steal for them.

If you do, then you're just making excuses. You're just claiming the mantle of victimhood for yourself.

And your kids will suffer for it.

The commissars are the education establishment.

I think anyone who can afford private schools is rich compared to those who can't. I know people who can't.

And yes, this is class warfare--wealthy upper-middle-class suburbanites vs. the working poor. It's as deplorable as all the other kinds.

My kid will get a good education despite the efforts of the commissars to deny it to him. Have no fear of that.

Dean,

You said:

wealthy upper-middle-class suburbanites vs. the working poor.

Are these words for which I should already know the definitions? If so, I apologize for being so slow.

If not, could you please clarify?

I know what a suburb is. Are you saying that everyone who lives there is upper-middle-class?

If not, are you measuring class by adjusted gross income? Or net worth? Or liquidity?

Similarly, how do you define working poor?

Honest-to-gosh, I'm not being a smart ass; After all, this is war! I just want to know which side I'm supposed to be fighting on...

:^)

I think anyone who can afford private schools is rich compared to those who can't. I know people who can't.

Hell, Dean, I can't "afford it" but my kid is there anyway!

Just what do you mean by "afford?" That your present income doesn't cover the expense of private school?

Or that you are unable to find tuition assistance?

Or that you are unwilling to pay tomorrow for a chance to give you kid a quality education today?

:^)

Please advise.

Those of us who've long been a part of the school choice movement are painfully familiar with certain embarassing statistics, which most of the opponents are blissfully unaware of. Chief among them is that the higher a person's income, the more likely he is to oppose school choice.

Similarly, white people are more likely to oppose it than minorities. Suburbanites are more likely to oppose it than city dwellers. (And yes, suburbanites average higher income than city-dwellers.)

In the worst school districts in America, support for school choice is highest of all. This is usually in cities, such as Washington DC, Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, and the worst parts of places like Chicago.

Higher-income suburbs, on the other hand (and most of the suburbs are higher-income than most of the cities), tend to have better school districts, and much lower support for choice.

This illustrates another hidden, ugly truth: Most people, if they decide their local school district is garbage, move to a better district. In doing so, they are flexing their economic muscle and in effect doing exactly the same thing school choice advocates would like to extend to poorer people who can't move as easily.

Unfortunately, the power elite--the really rich people who control politics in the urban areas--are almost entirely Democrats, and the Democratic Party long ago sold out to the NEA on this issue. So, even in poor communities where a majority of voters would like school choice, the politicians refuse to back it, and instead campaign as if school choice is a secret right-wing plot to destroy the schools. (Sound familiar?) This is what happens when you have one-party rule in major urban areas--no real competition on the issues.

Come on over to my place, Ara. I live in Westland, Michigan, in a trailer park. Come talk to my neighbor Karen, and tell her if she just worked a little harder, or went begging on her knees, she could get her son into private school. That the tax money she's been paying for decades for schools--tax money which has a very direct impact on her ability to feed and clothe her kid--should not be hers to decide what to do with--that the objective is not to educate her kid, but merely to pay for the local lousy school, whether she wants to use it or not.

I want to see you have that conversation. In fact, I'd pay to see it. What, did you think my example of the single mom making $8/hour with no child support was a myth? She lives right next door. I want to see you explain to her how she's just making excuses and could get her kid into private school if she really tried.

Let's look at the 1990 Census data for the Detroit Metro Area, where Ara and I live, for Median Family Income for a few cities:

Ann Arbor city, MI $50,192
Canton CDP, MI $52,161
Clinton CDP, MI $45,431
Dearborn city, MI $42,215
Detroit city, MI $22,566
Farmington Hills city, MI $63,101
Inkster city, MI $30,191
Livonia city, MI $53,523
Pontiac city, MI $25,834
Redford CDP, MI $40,962
Rochester Hills city, MI $62,223
Roseville city, MI $37,516
Royal Oak city, MI $44,446
St. Clair Shores city, MI $42,926
Southfield city, MI $49,718
Sterling Heights city, MI $51,739
Taylor city, MI $36,244
Troy city, MI $63,187
Warren city, MI $41,504
West Bloomfield Township CDP, MI $75,103
Westland city, MI $41,116

You will find that the quality of the school districts in these communities tracks pretty closely (not 100%, but closely) with the median family income. Which is funny, because this does not track with teacher pay; indeed, the City of Detroit pays its teachers far more than teachers in most of the suburbs (average salary in excess of $45,000/year, with terrific benefits), yet also has the one of the worst-performing school systems in the entire United States.

Average income isn't the complete picture, of course. Westland, where I live, as a few very nice areas and a few near-slums, so has higher income variability than communities such as Livonia, West Bloomfield, or St. Clair Shores. You won't find many single moms living on $8/hour in West Bloomfield or St. Clair Shores, but you might in Westland or Redford.

Based on every survey I've ever seen (and there's been more than one), we can safely assume that in Detroit, Inkster, and Pontiac, school choice will be far more popular than in Livonia, West Bloomfield, or Troy. It's perverse, especially because so many people from places like Detroit get the hell out to the nicer suburbs just so they can put their kids in better schools. Which I'd call school choice for those who can afford it. For those who can't, well, hey, they should just beg for tuition assistance at the Catholic schools, I guess. [shrug]

Really, this isn't about me. I do deeply resent the fact that all kinds of money has been coming out of my pocket for the last 20 years to pay for public schools. That I'm still paying for them, and that even so I will never get much benefit from that money. My kid will be better-educated because I won't let him go to a bad school--hope I don't die and my wife doesn't become a widow though, or that might have to change.

Otherwise, sure, we'll do whatever it takes, even if I have to take a second job. Even if it means my son gets less free time with his parents, our family gets fewer vacations, that retirement savings will be harder for me and my wife, that we may never own a real home, in large part because we'll be double-billed for our child's education. But he'll be okay.

Not all my neighbors have all the options we do though, since even though we're lower-middle-class, we're still richer than many of them.

It's just that, as usual, the government is our enemy, our #1 barrier in getting ahead in the world. But hey, that's nothing new, right? It was always so, and I guess it always will be so. After all, government doesn't exist to serve the people, only the powerful, and taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed.

(Bitter? Me? Never! ;-)

Dean,

************************************************
My main point is STILL this: You don't have to be "rich" to exercise some level of choice.

Go here and read my original piece again. I'll summarize the Journal's original point, which was silly and deceptive:

"[T]he main issue with school choice today: You have to be rich to exercise it."
************************************************

That said, your response was this:

Come talk to my neighbor Karen, and tell her if she just worked a little harder, or went begging on her knees, she could get her son into private school.

I won't do that because it's not up to me to tell Karen how to live her life.

Somehow I don't think she'll be too receptive to that.

It's not up to me to tell her, or give her permission to do anything. I can't absolve her; I can't make her feel better.

The hard fact is this: She is free to live whatever life she wants to live. So are you. So am I.

God bless America.

But if you believe that she can't do better than where she's at right now, if you believe that some politician is holding her down, or if you believe that this is IT for Karen, then we don't have much to talk about do we?

Attention! To those of you reading this: if you believe what Dean believes, then don't even bother finish reading my comments.

Because all I've said, right from the git-go is that you don't have to be "rich" to give your kids a better choice for schooling.

Now, for those of you who are still reading, I'll say this:

I don't oppose school choice. I don't oppose getting rid of inept administrators and unqualified teachers.

I DO oppose the destruction of the public school system.

Dean made some remarks about white people opposing school choice.

Am I to conclude that it is probably because, statistically, they are presumed to be living in communities where the public school system is better than those schools in "urban" communities?

Do they percieve that, once the genie is out of the bottle, their system of good, free schooling will go away?

Must be the case because "school choice", as defined by Dean, is a non-starter in the suburbs.

They don't want it. They probably feel threatened by it. The status quo is pretty good. Why would they care to change it?

Can you blame them? After all, they distrust the same politicians that we all do.

So we're left to focus on the "urban" schools.

Dean said: Most people, if they decide their local school district is garbage, move to a better district.

Better job, better skills, higher income, more options in housing, etc etc. Makes sense to me. I did it. You can too.

God bless America.

In [moving to a better district], they are doing exactly the thing school choice advocates would like to extend to poorer people who can't move as easily.

Wait a minute. What are we discussing here? School choice or upward mobility?

Have you actually talked to anyone who moved to a better school district? Have you asked them what it entailed?

I think you'll find that, overall, they took a risk, they busted their butts, they sacrificed.

Overall I think you'll find that they are a pretty conservative bunch of people: they believe in hard work, playing by the rules, and building a better life for themselves and their children.

See the problem I'm having with this discussion is that you keep making it more complicated than it really has to be.

You keep making it about the oppressor and the venality of Democrat power brokers and savage teacher's unions. You want to wage class warfare.

Yawn.

I'm more optimistic and practical. I just want my kids to get a better education. I won't let anything get in the way of that.

Now I look around and I see some positive developments. There are, RIGHT NOW, alternative schools in urban areas that present a better choice for parents who care.

Detroit (for example) has a system of charter schools (i.e., "free" alternative schools) as well as private ("pay as you go") schools.

All I've been saying since this discussion started is that a burgeoning infrastructure of alternatives exist. And, in Detroit, I don't think you have to be rich to send your kid to an "alternative" (i.e., "better") school.

Let's not make this about class warfare. It's not about that; it's not even about you and me. And it sure as hell isn't about "begging on your knees" for tuition assistance.

Stop thinking so much about your own life.

It's about your kids now. You must have known that when you gave them life, right?

Oh, I just re-read the part upstairs where you said:

"it isn't about me. I do deeply resent the fact that all kinds of money has been coming out of my pocket for the last 20 years to pay for public schools."

It is a pretty crappy deal, I agree. But somehow you either believe the whole system is crap or you don't worry too much about any single part; cause I might have a different opinion.

For example, why am I paying taxes to fund business breaks for large corporations that build their HQ in my town? Etc etc etc.

we'll do whatever it takes, even if I have to take a second job. Even if it means my son gets less free time with his parents, our family gets fewer vacations, that retirement savings will be harder for me and my wife, that we may never own a real home, in large part because we'll be double-billed for our child's education. But he'll be okay.

It's pretty scary, all these irrevocable choices, eh? Believe me, many are the sleepless nights we've all spent worrying about whether we're doing the right thing.

I wish I was rich. I wish money didn't matter so much. God I wish I could give my kids what they wanted all the time instead of prioritizing based on grown-up ideas of what might be better for them in the long run versus right now.

That's the agony of being a parent.

It's just that, as usual, the government is our enemy, our #1 barrier in getting ahead in the world.

No, Dean. We disagree. We SO disagree.

The #1 barrier in getting ahead in the world is INSIDE OF OURSELVES. All the other barriers are miniscule compared to that one.

I'm so sorry you don't realize that.

I would like to make a few comments.

First, Dean - if God forbid something should happen to you - rest peacefully knowing that OUR child is my #1 priority and widow or not HE WILL receive THE BEST education. No matter what. I am the one teaching him to read (Dean too - but not if you drop dead), I am the one teaching him to add and subtract (he's great at it), I am the one teaching him very basic Polish and as most people know he has a better vocabulary than most 12 year olds (he's not yet 5).

No matter where he goes - his education is our responsibilty. So I will do my part no matter what.

Second, we DO own a "real" home you just don't like it. Quit yer bitchin'. You should also quit calling it a "trailer park" we pay more than $400/month to rent the lot plus a mortgage. Our community is one of THE NICEST ones you can get that's why WE CHOSE IT. Our trailer is 2000 square ft. Stop making us sound like we are losers.

I work my ass off and I hate reading shit that makes us look like lazy fat slobs who whine about money.

Ara, it's your turn.

Nice sermon. It's bullshit. Why don't you drive through the area of McNichols and Schaefer with a bullhorn spouting that drivel.

A basic human right is a right to an education. Children who graduate H.S. unable to read have had their rights violated. Why aren't you and the ACLU screaming about that? Your response should be to help change the SYSTEM not lecture people on parental responsibility. How about our responsilbility to the MANY Americans, who, graduated illiterate because our public schools SUCK and can't do for themselves or their children.

If you have no problem with passing out welfare checks - why not pass out a voucher with it. Help save the innocent children - who are headed for living on the dole because that's all they know.

They're parents are doomed to fail them and they don't stand a chance if our schools fail them too.
AND THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, Mr. Motivational Speaker. You've made your point, multiple times. No one is ever unable to afford private school. Anyone and everyone can do it, period. I got it.

Yes, I know people who through hard work moved out of bad school districts and into better ones. It used to be called "White Flight" and it was what half of the Baby Boomer generation (my parents' generation) did. I've known countless people who've done it since. Sometimes it's "upward mobility." Other times, it's just, "these schools stink, we need to get the hell out of here even though it means we'll lose money."

In the meantime, those charter schools you mention are just as common in suburbs as in cities, and have never destroyed any public schools. Even though that was the argument that the establishment made against them.

Those charter schools, by the way, were created by the exact same school choice movement you oppose. They were opposed, usually quite hysterically, using the exact same disproven arguments you continue to bring up.

Furthermore, the same groups who failed in their frenzied opposition to the creation of those charter schols are still working to shut them down, to prevent any further ones from being created, and to stop any and all further efforts to bring more choices to parents in inner cities. They are even fighting to make life miserable for home schoolers--even to make it a felony in some states.

All, by the way, using the same old disproven myths you continue to drag out about how all these choices will destroy the public schools.

But anyway, I get it. That's all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that, no matter what the circumstances, your only significant barrier is yourself. I got it.

How tax incentives to bring businesses into an area work into all this I still don't get, but I'm sure it makes sense to someone somewhere. I'm too tired to try anymore.

Ha. I see my wife posted while I was making my own comments.

She is right that we live in a perfectly nice "manufactured home community." And a mediocre school district. But, we aren't poor. Even if we were, we'd make it. Because we are not a barrier to ourselves.

That doesn't stop me from hating the status quo reactionaries who put up, and defend, artificial barriers to our getting ahead. Especially when they twist themselves into knots trying to defend making life tougher on people who are struggling.

The lessons I take home? They'll do whatever they can to deny us as much control of our lives as they can. It's what they do. THEIR goal is not to educate our child, despite whatever platitudes they mouth. Their only goal is to protect the status quo--whatever the cost.

The other lesson is an old one: taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed. Really, why did I ever think it would or could be different?

Our trailer is 2000 square ft.

What...the...fuck....!

Your house is bigger than mine!

ROTFALOL

You guys crack me up!