The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Rum]

Songs about tits and wet teeshirts are misogynistic?

Not necessarily, but Zappa's overall attitude to women was pretty clear and didn't seem to change much over the years. He was dismissive, sexist and arrogant about the more sensible sex.

[John_fi_Skye]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

(I didn't mean this to refer to Rum's. It was about the one before it.)

[Seth]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

(I didn't mean this to refer to Rum's. It was about the one before it.)

What? You disagree?

[Coito ergo sum]

Songs about tits and wet teeshirts are misogynistic?

Not necessarily, but Zappa's overall attitude to women was pretty clear and didn't seem to change much over the years. He was dismissive, sexist and arrogant about the more sensible sex.

Women aren't more sensible, or less sensible, than men. By saying that, you're either being sexist toward men, or more likely condescending toward women.

But, I hadn't noticed a hatred of women in Zappa's songs. I will have to listen with an ear toward that and see. I may have a higher tolerance, as I don't view mere sexism or sexual negativity as misogyny. I find misogyny is an overused word, to the point that it has lost much meaning and force.

[John_fi_Skye]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

(I didn't mean this to refer to Rum's. It was about the one before it.)

What? You disagree?

Always. As a matter of course.

[apophenia]

Seth argues that the money belongs to the child. For lack of a better definition, I propose that ownership of an item is the granting of exclusive right of control over some thing. Seth's contention runs afoul of this definition in that many forms of control we normally associate with ownership of property, such as the right to hold onto it and do nothing with it, are not granted to the child. More serious is that Wikipedia defines money as, "any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context." True, there are records involved, but I know of no voucher programmer here which officially transfers a monetary sum or credit to the child himself. Matter of fact, I rather doubt one could legally set up a voucher program in which a minor was one party to the agreement, or, if possible, it would certainly be unwise. Further, if the owner of the voucher fails to use the voucher, it goes away (perhaps replaced another year by the same). In no sense is a voucher a liquid asset, as money surely is. I had something else, but I forget.

There's nothing at all legally unusual about a conditional gift, it happens all the time. A voucher is an actual piece of paper that states both the amount due and the terms under which it can be redeemed, and it becomes the property of the child when the state sends it to him. Just like a store coupon or any other negotiable instrument, a voucher is the property of the authorized possessor, although it may be restricted in its use or fungibility.

Even if this were a conditional gift, it would be a condition precedent conditional gift in which the state agrees to pay the school a certain sum upon the condition that the child enrolls or otherwise commits to attending the school. Regardless, it is never a gift to the child, but made on the child's behalf to the school. Otherwise, condition or no, the child would be able to abscond with the funds and hop on a plane to Buenos Ares. Since this is not the case, it's clear the money is never given to the child.

But it is given to the child's parents. The voucher physically passes from the government to the parents who may use it or not use it as they see fit. They can burn it in the fireplace if they want, but they can only spend it on education for the child. They are not required to give the voucher to anyone, so it is indeed a gift, or a grant (same thing essentially) to the child. That legally separates it from being an act of government providing funds to a religious school. But, as I said, even if the government DIRECTLY gave money to a religious school for the education of children, it would be providing those funds for a purely secular and perfectly legal purpose: providing the state-mandated secular educational curriculum. It would NOT be for the purposes of religious education, which is in ADDITION TO the state-mandated curriculum and which is either given gratis by the church or is given at the expense of the parents. Either way there is no constitutional inhibition on the government giving money to a religious institution to fund non-religious secular programs.

That point has already been addressed by the courts.

Yes, apparently the voucher goes to the parents, not the school, as the court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris held that:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it passed a five-part test developed by the Court in this case, titled the Private Choice Test. The decision was 5-4, with moderate justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor and conservative justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority.

Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria:

• the program must have a valid secular purpose,
• aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
• a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
• the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
• there must be adequate nonreligious options.

The court ruled that the Ohio program met the five-part test in that 1) the valid secular purpose of the program was "providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system", 2) the vouchers were given to the parents, 3) the "broad class" was all students enrolled in currently failing programs, 4) parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school, and 5) there were other public schools in adjoining districts, as well as non-sectarian private schools in the Cleveland area, available that would accept vouchers.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated that "The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." They found that, in theory, there is no need for parents to use religious schools, and so long as the law does not especially encourage the use of vouchers for religious schools, the fact that most parents do choose parochial schools is irrelevant. Indeed, the fact that in this case, the funding was given to the parents to disburse as they chose, whereas in Lemon v. Kurtzman the funding at question was given directly to the schools, this was a key part of the Private Choice test. The majority held, therefore, that the intent of the law was the important thing.

I appear to have been materially incorrect in one or more regards. However, Zelmann appears to imply that more than a secular purpose is required. Do you have more recent cases which refine this understanding?



Regardless, whether this new understanding supports your prior rhetoric is not a question that I intend to investigate. Anyway, until another day.

[Santa_Claus]

Capitalism has no heart - Communism has no brain.

[apophenia]

Well, one last thing, since you brought it up, Seth.

What control over the use of the voucher does the child have, legally? Can the child refuse the use of a voucher, for example? Or insist on a different school? What rights does the child have?

[Seth]

Well, one last thing, since you brought it up, Seth.

What control over the use of the voucher does the child have, legally? Can the child refuse the use of a voucher, for example? Or insist on a different school? What rights does the child have?

The child's parents can use or not use the voucher for educational purposes, and can use it at any school (theoretically) to pay for the state-mandated curriculum, or they can use it to pay for home schooling, so yes "the child" can do so, with the parent's approval of course. The voucher is issued for the educational benefit of the child so it belongs to the child and cannot be used by some other person, like an uncle, to go to college.

[Seth]

Seth argues that the money belongs to the child. For lack of a better definition, I propose that ownership of an item is the granting of exclusive right of control over some thing. Seth's contention runs afoul of this definition in that many forms of control we normally associate with ownership of property, such as the right to hold onto it and do nothing with it, are not granted to the child. More serious is that Wikipedia defines money as, "any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context." True, there are records involved, but I know of no voucher programmer here which officially transfers a monetary sum or credit to the child himself. Matter of fact, I rather doubt one could legally set up a voucher program in which a minor was one party to the agreement, or, if possible, it would certainly be unwise. Further, if the owner of the voucher fails to use the voucher, it goes away (perhaps replaced another year by the same). In no sense is a voucher a liquid asset, as money surely is. I had something else, but I forget.

There's nothing at all legally unusual about a conditional gift, it happens all the time. A voucher is an actual piece of paper that states both the amount due and the terms under which it can be redeemed, and it becomes the property of the child when the state sends it to him. Just like a store coupon or any other negotiable instrument, a voucher is the property of the authorized possessor, although it may be restricted in its use or fungibility.

Even if this were a conditional gift, it would be a condition precedent conditional gift in which the state agrees to pay the school a certain sum upon the condition that the child enrolls or otherwise commits to attending the school. Regardless, it is never a gift to the child, but made on the child's behalf to the school. Otherwise, condition or no, the child would be able to abscond with the funds and hop on a plane to Buenos Ares. Since this is not the case, it's clear the money is never given to the child.

But it is given to the child's parents. The voucher physically passes from the government to the parents who may use it or not use it as they see fit. They can burn it in the fireplace if they want, but they can only spend it on education for the child. They are not required to give the voucher to anyone, so it is indeed a gift, or a grant (same thing essentially) to the child. That legally separates it from being an act of government providing funds to a religious school. But, as I said, even if the government DIRECTLY gave money to a religious school for the education of children, it would be providing those funds for a purely secular and perfectly legal purpose: providing the state-mandated secular educational curriculum. It would NOT be for the purposes of religious education, which is in ADDITION TO the state-mandated curriculum and which is either given gratis by the church or is given at the expense of the parents. Either way there is no constitutional inhibition on the government giving money to a religious institution to fund non-religious secular programs.

That point has already been addressed by the courts.

Yes, apparently the voucher goes to the parents, not the school, as the court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris held that:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it passed a five-part test developed by the Court in this case, titled the Private Choice Test. The decision was 5-4, with moderate justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor and conservative justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority.

Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria:

• the program must have a valid secular purpose,
• aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
• a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
• the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
• there must be adequate nonreligious options.

The court ruled that the Ohio program met the five-part test in that 1) the valid secular purpose of the program was "providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system", 2) the vouchers were given to the parents, 3) the "broad class" was all students enrolled in currently failing programs, 4) parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school, and 5) there were other public schools in adjoining districts, as well as non-sectarian private schools in the Cleveland area, available that would accept vouchers.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated that "The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." They found that, in theory, there is no need for parents to use religious schools, and so long as the law does not especially encourage the use of vouchers for religious schools, the fact that most parents do choose parochial schools is irrelevant. Indeed, the fact that in this case, the funding was given to the parents to disburse as they chose, whereas in Lemon v. Kurtzman the funding at question was given directly to the schools, this was a key part of the Private Choice test. The majority held, therefore, that the intent of the law was the important thing.

I appear to have been materially incorrect in one or more regards. However, Zelmann appears to imply that more than a secular purpose is required. Do you have more recent cases which refine this understanding?



Regardless, whether this new understanding supports your prior rhetoric is not a question that I intend to investigate. Anyway, until another day.

Well done! Nice bit of scholarship there.

The key is that the entire voucher PROGRAM must have a valid secular legislative purpose. That is satisfied by something as simple as stating that the purpose of the program is to encourage parental choice of schools for their children in order to give the student the education that the parents believe is best for the child. It must also be applicable to a broad class of students, and that test is met by simply including ALL students in the voucher program, meaning any student can choose any school that will accept them.

Generally any restrictions on the classes of students covered under voucher programs are the result of lobbying by teachers unions, who try to restrict voucher programs in every possible way because a universal voucher program would mean the end of public schools and public school teacher's jobs, and rightfully so. A universal voucher program would drive competition between private for-profit schools and taxpayer-supported public schools, which would lose money with every student that chooses some other venue. That's why unions don't like vouchers, it threatens the jobs of incompetent union members, just as it should.

A voucher program cannot however be so narrow as to single out sectarian students or have for its purpose allowing attendance only at religious schools, and there must be adequate non-sectarian alternative school choices available to the pool of students wishing to use vouchers. In other words, if there is a public school system and a Catholic school and no other educational opportunities within reasonable distance of the vouchered students, the program would likely fail the Private Choice Test.

[Seth]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

(I didn't mean this to refer to Rum's. It was about the one before it.)

What? You disagree?

Always. As a matter of course.

Ah, so you're just being irrational. I see.

[Daan]

Capitalism has no heart - Communism has no brain.

Communism has no heart as well. Just as cold as capitalism. All political ideologies lack heart. Though, maybe social-democracy does have some heart, don know.

[surreptitious57]

Songs about tits and wet tee shirts are misogynistic ?

Not necessarily but Zappa s overall attitude to women was pretty clear and didn t seem to change much over the years. He was dismissive sexist and arrogant about the more sensible sex

Women aren t more sensible, or less sensible, than men By saying that you re either being sexist toward men or more likely condescending toward women

Most wars in history have been
caused by and fought by men - most
crime in history has been perpetrated by
men as well so therefore claiming that both
sexes are equally sensible is a non starter far as
the actual evidence happens to be. However we can
not actually help it sometimes - since we produce far more
testosterone than women - which increase our natural levels of
aggression which unfortunately can then manifest itself in ways not
exactly conducive to The Golden Rule. Women too have a greater empathy
and compassion for others - most probably because of the maternal instinct - so
although it may be a generalisation to reference their greater sensibility the evidence
overall is actually in their favour. So not for nothing are they referred to as the gentler sex

[Seth]

Songs about tits and wet tee shirts are misogynistic ?

Not necessarily but Zappa s overall attitude to women was pretty clear and didn t seem to change much over the years. He was dismissive sexist and arrogant about the more sensible sex

Women aren t more sensible, or less sensible, than men By saying that you re either being sexist toward men or more likely condescending toward women

Most wars in history have been
caused by and fought by men - most
crime in history has been perpetrated by
men as well so therefore claiming that both
sexes are equally sensible is a non starter far as
the actual evidence happens to be. However we can
not actually help it sometimes - since we produce far more
testosterone than women - which increase our natural levels of
aggression which unfortunately can then manifest itself in ways not
exactly conducive to The Golden Rule. Women too have a greater empathy
and compassion for others - most probably because of the maternal instinct - so
although it may be a generalisation to reference their greater sensibility the evidence
overall is actually in their favour. So not for nothing are they referred to as the gentler sex

True enough, but when they do get pissed off enough to fight they don't play by any rules.

[Tero]

Capitalism has no heart - Communism has no brain.

Communism has no heart as well. Just as cold as capitalism. All political ideologies lack heart. Though, maybe social-democracy does have some heart, don know.

That will eventually be the problem. They want to save everybody, like Christians. There will not be room for all in the lifeboat. See Linkola in wiki.

ok HERE
http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_lin ... anslation/