We know why he spends so much time here. At least, to the extent that we can take him at his word. He has said, both here and on his own site, that he enjoys antagonizing the libruls.

So the answer is that he’s a troll.

I know you don’t mean to be so transparent, but we appreciate it just the same.

Also, anybody who knows me is probably laughing pretty hard at the idea that I want it all just given to me. I’ve worked my ass off my entire life and there’s no end in sight. And if you’d fairly represent the things I have said here, you’d note that I always emphasize that the recipient of the opportunity has to WORK HARD. Seriously, I make that point ALL THE TIME.

By the way, it’s on the record, so if you can dig back as far as you did yesterday in an attempt to find a quote that makes me look bad, it shouldn’t be too hard to quote me on something I say nearly every day, should it? Or is intellectual dishonesty easier?

Larry: Jesus H Tebow, what the hell are you talking about? How did “we all benefit when the system provides each student with a chance to maximize his or her potential” become “we all need to spend as many years in school and accumulate as many degrees as possible”? An ed system that does what ours needs to be doing isn’t about the MOST years, it’s about the right program. Some people won’t need a lot of post-secondary at all, and if you can educate yourself to where you need to be and want to be, fine.

That said, are you really sure you’re ready to stand behind the argument that there’s no correlation between amount of education and achievement?

Counter-intuitive it may be, but my feeling is that raising the basic (and required) education of children and young people across the board would be the most effective method to realize the situation you’d like to see.

If we really want to see a leveled up playing field, we need to invest our money and time in programs that offer working parents an attractive and affordable preschool alternative to the free babysitting that Grandma provides while she watches Jerry Springer.

Which is hardly the case. You have to be admitted, and when we’re talking about admissions processes at elite institutions we have to circle back around to that “connected” thing. You don’t HAVE to be a Rockefeller insider, but strong family connections damned sure don’t hurt anything.

For my part, I think we’d be best served by a system that assured kids the optimal opportunity. That’s a different thing from having a system where they’re allowed to APPLY for the optimal opportunity.

In the final analysis, I’ve argued over and over and over that we Americans are HORRIBLE about confusing the rule with the exception. If I can show you a case where a guy succeeded against one-in-a-billion odds, somehow that becomes proof that the system provides everybody with a fair shot. The correct answer, of course, is that if only one talented guy in a billion is succeeding, your system is well more than 99.99% fucked.

I’m not arguing that it can’t be done, and I’m not arguing that it never is done. I’m arguing that we have a system where opportunity is all too often the exception when it should be the rule. If there’s a genius out there who can develop a cure for cancer or HIV or diabetes, I’d like to know that he or she is going to wind up in an outstanding research lab instead of slogging through a community college and finally winding up as an insurance adjuster because he/she had financial necessities that could no longer be ignored.

Andover and most other prep schools offer the same thing. They are able to offer this opportunity because guys like me make sure that they can. We don’t pontificate, we give.