I responded to today's editorial and its first comment, but an editor intervened. Here's the complete comment, emphasizing the section the editor found objectionable:
The well-off and anonymous private-school parent pays the additional costs of what seems a better education, thereby proving that more money can promote a better result, but would withhold that advantage from those who can't afford it. Not much of an argument for a PhD, and the basic spelling errors make that claim suspect as well.
Advocates of austerity argue against overfunding education despite having never seen an overfunded public education system. No one favors waste of public resources, but when placed in the real-world context, that argument boils down to "I got mine and to heck with the rest of you." The neglected piece is the broad benefit to all of better education, particularly for those less fortunate.
One can try to argue that profit or religion or antisocial fear produces smarter people, but I'm not buying it, that's ridiculous on its face. Better that we accept the premise that a public system offers the greatest potential for all and work together to identify and correct the problems that will inevitably dog any human system.
(Astute readers will have noticed that the editor used an unclosed ellipsis in place of the elision, a basic punctuation error.)
It's fascinating that whoever's fielding the comments this morning found the energy and motivation to screw around with this one, and all the more ironic that it happened in the context of a discussion of education.
I've sent in another comment to point readers here for the complete first comment. We'll see whether the anonymous editor will allow that.
Update, 11:30pm: And the answer is: no.