Dr. Bill's illustrious response to an HSO writer:
Mr. Muchlinski, you are simply wrong on several levels. First of all, you have a parochial definition of public education. In your view, as you have clearly implied above, public education is composed of only the government’s K-12 system. But any rational and clear headed analysis of the education landscape demonstrates that in fact an educated public is accomplished by many sources, the government schools being the least efficient, most costly, and clearly from these volleys back and forth, the most divisive to communities. Public education includes not merely the inefficient government schools that you defend, but also private schools, religious schools, academies and last,but certainly not least, home scholarship. So, when you use the pejorative of anti-public education with respect to Internet Nut Salesman you are either ignorant or purposefully misleading people. Internet Nut Salesman is certainly not anti-education, nor is he anti-public education. Is he a critic of the government’s K-12 system? I would say yes, absolutely.
Secondly, if you want to refer toInternet Nut Salesman going in front of your local school board on camera and in public to challenge their dictatorial position as cowardly, you have a strange and bizarre concept of the term. Furthermore, it is this board and its leadership which has created much of the divisiveness by their politicizing matters that ought not be voted on at a board level (such as the voucher program in Milwaukee). Moreover, it was this board led by Annette Cook that engaged in the most cowardly of actions, with the compliant incompetence of the Hudson Police Department, in requesting Internet Nut Salesman and Mr. Shaw to be removed from a regular meeting in June.
Then, you state: We must agree to dismantle public education, and agree to pay tuition at a private school system, before he (Internet Nut Salesman ) will even attempt to make one valid argument that public education should be abolished by American society. This is an interesting argument, somehow placing government education in the role of the underdog and a sole citizen raising the debate and asking questions as the dominate, monopolist holding participant. Frankly, it’s beyond laughable it’s irrational. The fact is the system you are in love with has all the power - it's a government imposed monopoly! It has the power to tax, it has the most powerful union in the country representing its workforce, and by and large it has the support of the majority of citizens. Were that not the case, we would not be having this discussion your side would have lost long ago.
Then, for you to suggest that anyone who is campaigning for choice in education is advocating that you or anyone else pay for the private education of their child is, again, false and laughable. What the choice advocates argue and you can’t seem to grasp is the idea of only having to pay for education once, and not be penalized for choosing a form of education for your children outside of the government K-12 system (as is the case today). Only a socialist with intentions of complete government planning would argue that full economic choice constitutes redistribution from the socialists pocket to that of the marketplace participant - apparently you believe Mr. Internet Nut Salesman 's money is not really his in the first place. The truth is it scares you because the government K-12 system cannot compete on its merits or in the marketplace, and you know it.
No, it is you who refuses to engage in an honest argument because the facts, morality and the traditions of the founding of this country are not on your side in this debate.
Dear Dr. (of liberty I presume) Bill.
The first question that comes to my mind is when did the Creator die and leave you as the final arbiter of morality, of absolute right and wrong? You and your illegitimate philosophical offspring of Ayn Rand, (author of The Virtue of Selfishness) represent nothing short of the absolute antithesis of the Judeo Christian ethic upon which many belief this country was founded.
You think that by redefining the definition of public education you can delude others into adopting your premise of what public education actually is and thus argue that you are a defender not a detractor and destroyer of that ideal. I for one will not buy your premise, or semantic gymnastics that twist the widely accepted concept of public education. As you say" by and large it has the support of the majority of citizens".
I must have missed something when I formed my concept of democracy, that believes in the rule of the majority. In your world of inverted logic, you argue that it is your group of pseudo intellectual gangsters that hold the keys to truth, and that the majority should cow tow to your intellectual superiority. You believe that if only the invisible hairy three fingered claw of the market would reign over education, somehow a utopia of learning would follow.
In the days of aristocracy this mythical market of yours ruled with an iron fist to keep the lowly subdued and ignorant. There is no reason to think that if your utopian pipedream of market based education would become a reality that the same end would not result. To some degree, through ever narrowing control of media and wealth it is already happening, talk about monopolistic tyranny.
As one who no longer resides in the Hudson School District, you are no longer a stakeholder in our community schools, rather you are a rabble rousing outside instigator.
Why not spread you poisoness ideas closer to a school district near your current abode?
Finally, in your typically inverted logical tactics, you accuse the school board of creating the divisiveness that has resulted from your incessant "government" school bash fest? Give me a break.
1751-1836. 
