by Taxpayer
I thought that the meeting went very well. It was nice to see the new Headmaster of Woodstock Academy and I was glad that he saw the issue of Woodstock education funding as a mutual K-12 concern and not an “us vs. them” situation (WA vs. WPS). I asked a few questions and got some very solid answers. One is that the Woodstock Academy field expansion is on hold (pending some zoning and environmental issues) and will not impact this year’s education budget. Other concerns I had are longstanding problems that have haunted us and Ct. education funding for years, but nonetheless, are important to raise.
So pretty much the same old same old, but compounded by a terrible economy which will make for a “perfect storm”, as Headmaster Caron called it. As Kevin can attest, this year’s budget will thus be a tough one. The BOE will continue discussing spending priorities and budgeting strategies again on this Thursday’s meeting.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/02/15/100215ta_talk_surowiecki
….a present for Newcomer.
Tax,
In my opinion, you and the author of that article are employing a far too general and loose application of the term “populist/populism”. It is a very particular movement and while it may seem to be similar to the Tea Party movement, is not quite the same thing. The Populist Party has historical roots extending back into the late 1800’s. It has been revived (sort of) again in present day. I’m no subscriber of its platform. You can check it out and decide for yourself what you think of it. Whatever you decide about their platform, you’ll notice that today’s Populist Party takes its own stand on the issues. Therefore, the term populism shouldn’t be thrown around to describe the mindset of a group or subgroup of voters who are unhappy with present day politics. As you’ll see on their webpage, they define themselves more clearly than that.
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/populistusa/issues.html
Newcomer,
I’m not talking about the “populist” movement or the “populist” party, and neither is Mr. Suroweicki of the New Yorker. There is a difference- and when you have the intellectual integrity to admit the difference and define it for us, then maybe this conversation can move forward.
Tax,
I’ve explained to you twice now what I feel the difference is. If you don’t agree with me, then how about just stating why in plain English. Kindly dispense with your passive-aggresive comments that I’m unwilling to admit “the difference” when in fact you’re being so vague that I have no idea what the hell you’re even talking about.
Defining “populism” by simply relating it to the “populist party” is grossly misguided and an unfair argument.
While you accuse myself and Mr. Suroweicki of using the term too loosely, the problem, ironically, lies with you. You interpret the term to narrowly! By defining populism simply as it relates to the populist “party” or the populist “movement” is absurd.
And further, to accuse others who use the term appropriately as somehow being libelous because they didn’t perceive your half-baked interpretation of it is a desperate attempt to rhetorically win the argument by creating a straw man.
Case closed. No further comments from me. You need to read the article I posted for you instead of just knee-jerk reacting to it. Funny though, come to think of it, that’s how you seem to handle all issues. All knee jerk reaction and no hard work. This kind of reaction undermines rationale thought and constructive problem-solving which is so desperately needed….and that’s the problem with populism.
Tax,
I read the article the day that you posted the link.
There is no knee jerk reaction here. There is a simple, common, difference of opinion. We seem to have quite a few of those. I’m OK with that. You are not. For you, a difference of opinion rapidly becomes an issue that threatens the security of the nation.
My use of the term populism is narrow? Why? Because you say so?! I think your use of the same term is too broad. That’s a difference of semantics and a difference of opinion - period. People are still allowed to see things differently around here, right? Blogs are still forums for opinions, are they not?
At least I don’t resort to hurling insults at people I disagree with. THAT is what undermines rational thought and constructive problem solving - supposedly mature adults throwing temper tantrums.
If you sincerely cared about the topic of our discussion, you wouldn’t hurl insults and then retreat at the first sign of conflict and dissent. Stick to your guns yes, stick your head in the sand, no. An academic retreat is not “hard work”; quitting is not hard work. Sticking with something until a resolution is reached is the hard work, which you are clearly unwilling to do.
In the future, if you aren’t committed enough to a topic to stay the course with fellow bloggers who might not view something the same way that you do, then don’t bother jumping into it in the first place. It’s intellectually dishonest to start a debate with someone and then cut ‘n run, and to do so while accusing the other party of being at fault, when you’ve simply tired of the topic or the debate process. If stalemate is reached, then declare that as such and end the discussion. What’s so hard about that?
Very simple NC–you are wrong.
Tax,
Prove it.
NC,
Instead of addressing and arguing the issue presented by myself and Mr. Suroweicki on the problem with populism, you simply took the context in which the term “populism” was being used and attempted to discredit the entire argument by claiming the use of the term didn’t fit into your definition–which somehow you narrowly associate with the Populist Party or the Populist Movement–and therefore mine and Mr. Suroweicki’s argument was wrong. I tried to explain to you that this is not how the term “populism” was being used, yet you seem to be unable to accept that the term “populism” can be used broadly and is subject to the context from which it is used in commentary. You then become falsely indignant and continue to parrot your original counterargument which holds no weight in the context from which myself and Mr. Suroweicki are using the term.
So your counterargument is thus non-sequitur….and therefore wrong.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you and it is against my better judgement to continue with such silliness. My apologies for coming across so gruff, but it is the result of frustration.
BTW, loved your email!!!