Click on the picture for more!

http://www.nydailynews.com/…

The recent news that there has been a 32% increase in the number of New Yorkers who educated their children at home between 2003 and 2007 has me preparing for the onslaught of questions I’ll be fielding over the coming days.

As a home-schooling parent, I frequently encounter people with serious misconceptions about how my wife and I educate our children. Despite its increasing popularity throughout the country, home-schooling remains a foreign concept for most New Yorkers.

I am always surprised when people ask me whether home-schooling is legal. Yes, I tell them, home-based education is permitted in all 50 states (although the degree of regulation varies greatly).

The most prevalent misconception is that home-schooled children lack socialization and are inadequately prepared for “the real world.” Not only is this untrue, but I contend that home-schoolers receive a far richer and more varied socialization than other students. This is especially true in a city like New York, with its museums, theater and multicultural population serving as the best training ground for healthy social behavior. And thanks to home-schooling support networks, home-schoolers participate in their own sports leagues, clubs and theatrical troupes.

The socialization myth is followed in popularity by the notion that all home-schoolers are religious fanatics. I do not know if that is true in other parts of the country – although I doubt it – but it is certainly not the case in New York City. My children are friends with other home-schoolers who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and atheist. Their parents have myriad reasons for home-schooling – some have kids who are medically fragile, some want to build close bonds with their children, and others are libertarians who philosophically oppose government education. None of them has indicated to me that they don’t want their children to learn about evolution.

A related myth is that home-schoolers want to protect their kids from exposure to some dangerous idea or social malady pervading the schools. Besides the fact that it’s ludicrous to imagine you can prevent your kids from learning about anything in the Information Age, it is antithetical to what I see as one of the greatest advantages of home-schooling. My goal is not to restrict my children’s knowledge, but to expand it as much as possible.

New York City is the best-stocked “classroom” that any child could have. The world-class learning opportunities are unlimited. My children participate with other home-schoolers in a wonderful chorus at New York University taught by a professor of music. They take art classes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with brilliant artists and scholars. They study plants at the New York Botanical Garden, and animals at the Bronx Zoo.

Home-schooling parents also have the advantage of tailoring an education to their child’s unique needs and interests. School reformers talk about reducing class size; our home has a student-teacher ratio of 2-to-1. Even in “gifted and talented” programs or remedial classes, teachers have to teach to an “average” student in the classroom. The inevitable result is that some students get the material immediately, while others struggle to keep up. Home-schoolers have the luxury of spending as much or as little time on a topic as suits the child.

While the city’s public schools have reportedly improved in recent years, many of them have a long way to go. New York also has some fine private schools, but they are prohibitively expensive for most families.

A better choice, for an increasing number of families, is for one parent to drop out of the workforce or adopt a flexible work schedule that allows them to take charge of their children’s education. (My wife even knows three working single parents who home-school.) As more New Yorkers choose this path, the idea of home-schooling may become more accepted and even admired.

Lesczynski is a home-schooling father of three and a former candidate for New York City public advocate.

Jim is a fellow Manhattan Libertarian Party member and friend. I’ve met his children on several occasions and never found that they were any more odd then any other kid their age. In the article’s comments a poster by the name “Professor” brings up 3 points against home schooling. Mostly social issues the children may have. I’m not a teacher but I was a government educated student from K to 12. Issue 1 never happened as I can recall to me. Kids rarely helped each other out. The teaching setup didn’t allow for it. I think the advantage is extremely exaggerated. Issue 2 is questionable too. Is it good for children to spend time with other children? I would think so. But how much time does a kid really spend with classmates in government school? 90% of the day they are stuck in chairs having facts, theory and logic thrown at them from a central authority figure. Interaction between students is usually disallowed.  Home schoolers will miss the note passing and other things kids do when surrounded with others their age… but I really don’t know how to quantify lose against the gain of closer and more targeted instruction. And as for issue 3. I think to imply that home schooling inherently involves parents wanting to protect from bullies and such is the actions of someone with an agenda. Of course you have overly protective parents… but most of them still send their kids to government school. And as with issue 2 I don’t think you can blankly claim that not being bullied will make you weaker. Some kids stick up for themselves and some don’t. Has little to do with experience with bullying and more to do with personality and education. Dealing with real life, as if government school is like real life, is important. However, given the condition I see more and more government educated students come out of high school and college I seriously question the ability of said institutions to prepare young people for dealing with reality.

And lets not forget the question of educating people by the threat of violence. Both in those who attend and those who pay for it.

I of course would like to hear bosco’s opinion on all this.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

Her comment?

How can a libertarian argue against child pornography?

Ruwart: Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.

Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.

What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.

And some responses from TPW:

Here are a few comments being left in defense of Ruwart:

• I don’t agree with the answer that Dr. Ruwart is quoted as giving to that last one—and I’m far from the only libertarian who would disagree with that answer. However, I think that the major defect in the answer is not that she wants kids to have sex (I doubt that she does), but rather that she’s attempting to apply a “short answers to tough questions” approach to a question that can’t be handled with a short answer.
• First of all, why should child pornography be illegal? Libertarian theory rests upon the concept that for a crime to exist, there must be a victim. While the photos depict an act of aggression, the possession of the photos harms no one. Certainly, the person collecting them could be seen as rather questionable, but so could a person who collects pictures of dead people or watches slasher flicks. There all sick in one way or another. An argument against this could be that the child owns the copyright or some such, but that would be a very different crime with very different penalties.
• Every society of which I’ve read, including those without formal governments, has considered capacity to be a required element in a contract, limiting the ability of children to consent to anything. The notion that any libertarian minarchist or anarchist believes there is no such element should be assumed to be false in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Citations by anonymous people that haven’t been verified are not evidence.

From Ruwart’s opposition:

• All I want to ask is this: why are we giving spin advice to someone who is an anarchist and represents the most radical view possible within the LP? Shouldn’t we consider WHY we would even want someone like this representing the party? Anarchism IS NOT THE SAME as libertarianism.
• Mary Ruwart’s views on child pornography and child sex are beyond the pale. I was thinking she would make a nice VP candidate, but not now… …She may have a Ph.D. in biophysics, but she flunked the basic course on common sense.
• I wonder what Shane Cory has to say about this Bullshit…because if it’s true…then you guys win. I will not associate with this level of trash…

As an AnCap I agree with her. She’s likely not referring to children as in prepubescent but post pubescent. We have criminalized the consentual act of sex between a physically mature young person and someone but a max 4 or 5 years older. Or even more ridiculous: charging 14-16 year olds with child porn creation and distribution for taking photos of themselves nude and sending them to a lover. I like what friend and fellow MLP member Jim Lesczynski said:

I attended a lecture by Dr. Thomas Szasz once, where he addressed this issue. Szasz advocated that in the case of alleged victims over the arbitrary age, the prosecutor should have to prove that the victim was incapable of giving consent (e.g., an adult who is severely mentally retarded). For those below the arbitrary age, the defense would have to prove to a jury’s satisfaction that the alleged victim was capable of giving consent.

Seems pretty good to me. I would make that age 12 or 13. The average age of puberty. Now only if we can start treating young people like mature individuals instead of children up to the age of 25 we could reverse a lot of these problems.

• The Democrat race is still in the air a bit. While Clinton is ahead by nearly 100 delegates there is still many states left and a long time till their convention.
• McCain did well as expected. I think primarily because of the number of winner take all states. Had the delegates been split up it would probably would have been much closer.
• McCain won 9 states. Huckabee 5. Romney 7. Paul 0.
• Accounting for things like what occurred in West Virginia the number of delegates dedicated to each candidate is not quite accurate.
• The available numbers also don’t account for any internal events which may be occurring in the states. I’m not familiar with the workings of all the different states but some use this primary or caucus to vote for state delegates which will at a later time pick national delegates. In those cases the MSM reports the national delegates as if they were already selected. If someone was to drop before the nationals are selected than they could vote differently.
• In several states Giuliani actually got votes. He even beat Paul 5% to 4% in California with 90% reporting. Assuming much of those votes would have gone to McCain it doesn’t look like they would have changed the results in any of the states. Again given the differing systems it’s hard to say for sure. Thompson even got 3% in Tennessee. In that race it could have changed the outcome. Huckabee got 34% and McCain got 32%. I suspect it would have helped Huckabee more than McCain however. I’d like to know if these were protest votes or people who didn’t realize their candidate of choice had dropped. I hope it’s the former.
• There has been several accounts of voting issues with Paul supporters. Three from people I know. Steve Miller in Brooklyn saw issues with voting machines not working and those running the poll said that only 2 Republicans where running and Jim Lesczynski and his wife had changed their party affiliation months ago yet the voting place had them as their old party. Here in NJ they had my girlfriend and I marked as unaffiliated and we had to choose which party to vote for on the spot. No harm but sad that I had changed to R months ago and received confirmation saying as much.
• Paul did well in states he was expected to do well in but not as well as some thought. 3rd in Alaska is disappointing given the level of support that was expected. He was the number 1 fundraiser there. In Montana Paul was again the number 1 fundraiser with more than twice what Romney in second raised. Yet Romney won 38% of the state delegates vs Paul’s 25%. Unfortunately Montana is a winner takes all state and the delegates are apparently required to vote for that individual. It’s even more interesting in North Dakota where Paul again was the largest fundraiser with Romney raising the least yet Romney won the majority with Paul a close 3rd with 21% to McCain’s 23%. Both get the same number of delegates as does Huckabee with his 4th place 20%.
• He also did worse in some states where he was polling last but with higher percentages than he actually received.

Paul generally got spanked but that was expected. The race is still not over and even with McCain in the lead he’s only 60% the way to the nomination. Obviously money does not mean votes. As a movement we need to better target the public. I truly believe the MSM did us great harm in this race and we need to figure out a way to deal with that in the future. The counties around the several states where Paul won or did well should be analyzed and replicated. I don’t believe there was anything particularly special about those voters it was how we advertised and presented our candidate to them. We need to convince people not only of his platform but his electability. As much as we hate that that is a major component to the average voters decision it’s reality and we need to counteract the MSM putdowns and writeoffs. Spend less money on blimps and more on newspaper, radio and TV ads. More articles to the editor which aren’t defensive and complaining about being left out but offensive and comparative and explains why our policies are right and better for the average voter. While we may lose this battle the fact we are able to get such high numbers in some areas of the nation should give us encouragement. In local and national elections were we are targeting much smaller audiences we have a better shot at getting freedom fighters in office. Murray Sabrin’s campaign for Senate has been able to get more money than they where asking for from 47 states. That kind of support will hopefully help get those people elected. Also as a libertarian candidate we’ve gotten a low of 3% and high of 25%. This is just unheard of in the Libertarian Party generally. Nationally Paul is pushing 7%-9% from what I’ve seen. That’s really huge. We do have an audience we just need to approach them. We probably have a larger audience we just need to get by the MSM’s attacks and blackout. On a local level that’s much easier.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when and if Huckabee or even Romney drop out. It seems to me that those supporting them would be hard pressed to support “liberal” John McCain. If Paul does not drop and seeks the Libertarian ticket he could possibly pick up quite a few delegates. I understand that is a fairly unlikely situation but I’d love to see it just to gage what and why people choose a candidate.

To leave on a more optimistic note, A Scorecard You Won’t Find on Fox News:

Supporter Loren C. sends in this excellent summary of what Ron Paul has achieved so far.

A friend of mine asked me tonight, “Should Ron Paul just quit? I never hear of him on the news so he can’t be doing very well today (Super Tuesday).” Here is my reply to him:

I don’t care what the liberal media is saying, he has,

2nd place in Nevada

2nd place in Louisiana (possibly first once they get it sorted out)

2nd place in Montana

2nd place in Maine

3rd place in Utah

3rd place in North Dakota

There is about 21 more states left to vote,

He has plenty of money,

No one has even close to enough delegates to take the nomination,

He has the only true Republican stance on the issues,

He is the only candidate who believes our government should follow ALL of the Constitution,

Quit?

Not even close. Keep fighting, Ron Paul is!

Well said. And while the momentum John McCain has been gaining lately may appear daunting, Ron Paul supporters are the ones who should be least intimidated by it, because as the other, fraudulent alternatives to John McCain fail one by one — Mitt Romney is certainly on the ropes after tonight, especially if, as appears to be the case, he loses California to McCain — the real alternative to McCain-ism, Ron Paul, will only become more attractive to conservative Republican voters.

Indeed, it’s interesting to note that so many of the states McCain won tonight were blue states which any Republican (except the antiwar Dr. Paul) will have a hard, if not impossible, time winning in November. And despite his wins tonight, McCain does not have a majority of Republican National Delegates, so the fight for the nomination is still very much on.

Serf City Volume 3, Issue 3

• Civil War or Sectarian Violence? Just Blame the Occupation! – Glenville Ashby
• So You Say You Want a Revolution – Jim Lesczynski
• Letters : Get Used To It – Brendan Michael Conner
• In Search of “Responsible” Development – Rick Miller
• Che What? – Ignacio Gutiérrez
• HIV Disclosure, Prevention and the Dismantling of the American Republic – Mitchell Luna
• Congestion, Cameras and Cash – Becky Akers
• What I Won’t Do as Mayor – Joseph Dobrian
• The Logic of Liberty : Ron Paul and the Passing of the Broadcast Age – Bob Armstrong
• The Keffiyeh and the Kids – Les Hunter
• Can You Smell That Smell? – Ignacio Gutiérrez
• Much Needed Common Sense – Elizabeth Chandler
• The Importance of Not Being a Fred: An Open Letter to Fred Thompson – Fred Steinberg

For past issues visit the Manhattan Libertarian Party’s Serf City page. And while you’re their subscribe to the RSS feed for the Serf City blog. Because I may just be writing for it soon.