World Politics

[Semper Fidelis]

yup yup yup yup.. You are going to have to conform and give up that silly yearly flandrian thing you do though. You are suppose to stay home and abuse your wife and children. Show them their proper place and all that. and then watch and listen to all the right wing stuff so you can know what people have to agree with you about to be YOUR KIND. My Haliburton neighbor could give you pointers. Get with the program scott..Live like Richard Cheney is watching and listening to every word. and he knows your thoughts. Show contempt for who Cheney would show contempt for and others just to be safe.. Go accuse your neighbors of only being able to afford that new car because YOU paid for their mother's nursing home care via medicare..Be the azz

Do you have a hidden camera on my location?

I just did that yesterday evening. I saw them drive up in a new Prius with the solar roof and 29inch wagon wheels (what do they call them?). Anyhow it really chapped my back side. So I went over and told them a thing or two about their mothers home care and also the disability they are pulling in. All on my dime!

 

[rhubroma]

Im my world parents would have a choice to send their kid to a school that fit their needs. In my world parents would not be locked in and forced to send their kid to a non-performing school, public or private. I'm pro choice when it comes to our education system. You are not. We disagree.

Who said anything about negating choice?

The private schools system is a reality. So the choice already exists.

But I find it so tragic that in the US the public school system has been reduced to the deplorable state, in all but the highest paying tax districts, in which it has become.

This is because, as I have said time and time again, there is a prevalent ideology that works unremittingly against it in the private sector, which is driven by finances and special interests at the expense of democratic values and, even if I realize this means nothing to you, humanism.

Once again, the private schools should be financed privately, not publicly, and if ever a dime were to be spent from the public kitty on them, it should only be after billions were invested on a public system that functions and offers an optimal education to everyone.

This is what democracy was founded upon and what the right finds so insufferable, because it goes against their principle of siding with the wealthy business class and hence its world view and interests, which is the new feudal nobility of the modern age.

I don't care wether or not you agree with me, just what this ideological movement is trying to achieve, which I'm against in principle. Yours is a world in which wealth controls everything.

This is a society that I can not embrace. It's all about wealth and obtaining privileges.

 

[rhubroma]

I understand very well where you are coming from. I get it. I just disagree with much of it.

Just for fun, why don't you point out where I (or anyone on the right) fears a strong public school system? No one fears this... but you youself have moaned about the state of public schools (at least in the U.S.).

Speaking for myself only here, I fear a broken education system, which is what we have. The public school system has been failing for 25 years or more and this Country is seeing the effects.

So, what to do? I'm open minded about it. Solution oriented. If the public system can be fixed then it should be fixed already. But you are so invested in govt you can comprehend any other solution. The only way it can ever work is if govt runs/controls it ("it" being literally everything).

I completely reject this way of thinking. At least part of the reason the public school system won't right the ship is they don't have to. Their money comes in no matter what kind of job is done. Yet I mention a possible fix may be to force the public school to compete for available resources and somehow I'm the devil.

There is a direct relation between the nation's losing its concern for the public sector and the degeneration of the public schools. This has been brought about much more by the ultra-liberal and deregulatory economic principles that the right has always championed, and which has griped the nation's soul.

The only way I see to turn the situation around, is to recapture that respect for the public domain.

I'm not holding my breath though.

PS: It isn't coincidental that you see things diferently, although the government doesn't control it but the people do. The government finances it with peoples tax contributions and creates an atmosphere, under the law, in which the public life of the nation happens.

Your idea of government, instead, is to foster the private business interests of the most crafty and, in many cases, ruthless components of society, and doesn't really give a damn about anything else.

 

[Anonymous]

There is a direct relation between the nation's losing its concern for the public sector and the degeneration of the public schools. This has been brought about much more by the ultra-liberal and deregulatory economic principles that the right has always championed, and which has griped the nations soul.

The only way I see to turn the situation around, is to recapture that respect fot the public domain.

I'm not holding my breath.

There is a direct relation between the nation's losing its concern for the public sector and the degeneration of the public schools.

If true then it should be pretty easy for you to delineate. So have at it because I don't think this to be true.

The public education system in the US began to decline in the 60's.

"The growth of teacher unions, loss of local control, the push for desegregation, and the decline of blue-collar jobs - all have contributed to the problem.

Imagine Taking a trip back through time to a classroom of a generation ago. Many things are different. Perhaps the most obvious is there are a large amount of students, about 40% more than a typical classroom of today. One can look around in vain for a teaching assistant or a lot of equipment. Instead of modern audio/visual gear, there may be a scratchy old record player in the corner, probably shared with a few other classes. There are far less books and art materials, and they are doled out more sparingly. There is an altogether forbidding austerity about it, compared to today's more intimate and friendly place. Austerity is the appropriate word. This classroom is getting by with about one-third the real dollar expenditures of those of the 1990S. There is another fact that comes as a considerable embarrassment to the voyagers from this generation - this classroom seems to be turning out better-educated students. At least in terms of basic knowledge, of literacy and numeracy, the average high-school graduate apparently is no match for his or her counterpart of a generation ago. While it is possible to quibble with the details, the broad facts are beyond any serious dispute. Performance of students has declined noticeably."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2586_v122/ai_14995074/

Pretty interesting article. Perhaps you will take a few minutes to read it.

My feeling is those in control of public education have, for some time, complained that the problems associated with the decline in public education are due to funding, or lack thereof. That is not the problem and never has been. But by your way of thinking it just makes sense to demonize contrary opinion or thought and retreat to your fall back position of "we need more money." The basic problem with this is the true problems go uncorrected and students continue to be cast side without the tools they need to excel. This is why the term 'demagogue' fits you. Re-read some of your posts directed at me and then tell me what you think.

If I'm wrong, then please accept my apology.

 

[rhubroma]

If true then it should be pretty easy for you to delineate. So have at it because I don't think this to be true.

The public education system in the US began to decline in the 60's.

"The growth of teacher unions, loss of local control, the push for desegregation, and the decline of blue-collar jobs - all have contributed to the problem.

Imagine Taking a trip back through time to a classroom of a generation ago. Many things are different. Perhaps the most obvious is there are a large amount of students, about 40% more than a typical classroom of today. One can look around in vain for a teaching assistant or a lot of equipment. Instead of modern audio/visual gear, there may be a scratchy old record player in the corner, probably shared with a few other classes. There are far less books and art materials, and they are doled out more sparingly. There is an altogether forbidding austerity about it, compared to today's more intimate and friendly place. Austerity is the appropriate word. This classroom is getting by with about one-third the real dollar expenditures of those of the 1990S. There is another fact that comes as a considerable embarrassment to the voyagers from this generation - this classroom seems to be turning out better-educated students. At least in terms of basic knowledge, of literacy and numeracy, the average high-school graduate apparently is no match for his or her counterpart of a generation ago. While it is possible to quibble with the details, the broad facts are beyond any serious dispute. Performance of students has declined noticeably."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2586_v122/ai_14995074/

Pretty interesting article. Perhaps you will take a few minutes to read it.

My feeling is those in control of public education have, for some time, complained that the problems associated with the decline in public education are due to funding, or lack thereof. That is not the problem and never has been. But by your way of thinking it just makes sense to demonize contrary opinion or thought and retreat to your fall back position of "we need more money." The basic problem with this is the true problems go uncorrected and students continue to be cast side without the tools they need to excel. This is why the term 'demagogue' fits you. Re-read some of your posts directed at me and then tell me what you think.

If I'm wrong, then please accept my apology.

Sorry Scott, you're looking for an exclusive reason found in an ideological position. That this transcends the economic issues is the only point in which we find some agreement, but, as usual, for different and antagonistic reasons.

I'm talking about a culture, a priority that the zeitgeist, due to presures I oppose and based upon reasons and interests I reject, has simply opted out of. No amount of money can make all the necessary changes, though the fact that billions aren't being spent on the public schools means that there is not much hope for them either.

 

[rhubroma]

Sorry Scott, you're looking for an exclusive reason found in an ideological position. That this transcends the economic issues is the only point in which we find some agreement, but, as usual, for different and antagonistic reasons.

I'm talking about a culture, a priority that the zeitgeist, due to pressures I oppose and based upon reasons and interests I reject, has simply opted out of. No amount of money can make all the necessary changes, though the fact that billions aren't being spent on the public schools means that there is not much hope for them either.

PS: There isn't demagogic about anything I've said. A healthy democracy guarantees freedom of expression within the public sphere, on all sides of the political and social spectrum, for which the State is the norms provider, in a civil sense, of public life.

The public state schools are the backbone of such a democracy, where the forma mentis of the emerging class of citizens is cultivated and formed, within the rules of pluralism and under the guiding spirit of egalitarianism.

The tax base and state investments, if managed properly (and this has been America's first problem) and with a political class and society that values such an educational culture (America's second problem), sees to it that the public schools are adequately funded with all the things students need to develop well and excel. Because this is a national priority.

Instead what we have is a ruling class and a social conviction, because convinced of the propaganda of liberal capitalism and privatization, that works against this in favor of a private system, managed by people from the corporate plutocracy and which caters to an elite and privileged class.

I liken it to the religious schools that hire people who have to obey a theological system, which substitutes the public instruction and is egged on and abetted by an ideologically charged political class who find ways to fund it while taking away from the public system. Politicians who, furthermore, have been elected into power to serve the public good, and are supposed to be acting in the interests of the state, of which they are its first civil servants.

I realize this is too idealistic for you, but it's the only way I am able to think. That's it.

 

[rhubroma]

Now the repubs have come up with another demagogue of exceptional quality. After Palin, its Michele Bachman. I hope she doesn't become in a position to change so much as a lightbulb, seeing how she has signed the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act (don't laugh) and believes, evidently one of the only ones, that the new bulbs consume more energy.

 

[redtreviso]

Now the repubs have come up with another demagogue of exceptional quality. After Palin, its Michele Bachman. I hope she doesn't become in a position to change so much as a lightbulb, seeing how she has signed the Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act (don't laugh) and believes, evidently one of the only ones, that the new bulbs consume more energy.

I can't think of any function in society she should be allowed to do except be an inmate at a mental institution.

 

[Anonymous]

PS: There isn't demagogic about anything I've said. A healthy democracy guarantees freedom of expression within the public sphere, on all sides of the political and social spectrum, for which the State is the norms provider, in a civil sense, of public life.

The public state schools are the backbone of such a democracy, where the forma mentis of the emerging class of citizens is cultivated and formed, within the rules of pluralism and under the guiding spirit of egalitarianism.

and with a political class and society that values such an educational culture (America's second problem), sees to it that the public schools are adequately funded with all the things students need to develop well and excel. Because this is a national priority.

Instead what we have is a ruling class and a social conviction, because convinced of the propaganda of liberal capitalism and privatization, that works against this in favor of a private system, managed by people from the corporate plutocracy and which caters to an elite and privileged class.

I liken it to the religious schools that hire people who have to obey a theological system, which substitutes the public instruction and is egged on and abetted by an ideologically charged political class who find ways to fund it while taking away from the public system. Politicians who, furthermore, have been elected into power to serve the public good, and are supposed to be acting in the interests of the state, of which they are its first civil servants.

I realize this is too idealistic for you, but it's the only way I am able to think. That's it.

Then I offer an apology to you. Demagogue does not seem to fit after all.

The tax base and state investments, if managed properly (and this has been America's first problem)

Probably my biggest problem with govt is they don't manage much properly. I'm very skeptical this will ever change because of simple human nature.

Because this is a national priority.

It should be but because of competing interests with in the education system, sadly it is not.

Politicians who, furthermore, have been elected into power to serve the public good, and are supposed to be acting in the interests of the state, of which they are its first civil servants.

I think very few politicians are interested in anything other than re-election, Particularly those in Washington DC. You may rail against those bad players in the private marketplace (and there are many, many targets to choose from) however all but very few politicians are corrupt on several multiple levels. Trust placed in them (politicians/government) to do the right thing by society is more misplaced (in my view) then trust placed in private enterprise.

Different points of view....

 

[Anonymous]

I can't think of any function in society she should be allowed to do except be an inmate at a mental institution.

What's your problem with women?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

just did that yesterday evening. I saw them drive up in a new Prius with the solar roof and 29inch wagon wheels (what do they call them?). Anyhow it really chapped my back side. So I went over and told them a thing or two about their mothers home care and also the disability they are pulling in. All on my dime!

Next stop, nursing homes and disability centers. That's the real socialist cash cow. That's where the vast bulk of SSI, Medicare and Medicaid money is going. Those places are just filled with non-productive leeches, people just sucking off the system. Close all the nursing homes and make those people fend for themselves like the rest of us do.

 

[Cobblestones]

Im my world parents would have a choice to send their kid to a school that fit their needs. In my world parents would not be locked in and forced to send their kid to a non-performing school, public or private. I'm pro choice when it comes to our education system. You are not. We disagree.

You do realize that a needs-based system is a socialist system in the truest sense?

Your ideal system and my ideal system are very much alike. I think every child should have the chance to go to a great school with great teachers. If children perform well in math, science, art, humanities, crafts, or whatever they should have the possibility to develop their skills consummate to their talents. And this education should be available to every student to the fullest extend (including college and graduate studies), not based on means, but based on aptitude.

This is an ideal which I think most, if not everybody will agree.

The questions are: why doesn't it work (yet), and how is it paid for? These two questions are, of course, linked. Obviously, without money, we don't get anything. With money, we still might not get anything, if it's not spent well.

If you look at different systems around the country and around the world, I think data suggests that (i) well performing systems have highly educated teachers, (ii) class size does have much less relevance than commonly thought, (iii) gadgets, like videos, projectors, computers etc. don't have much impact (iv) existence of teacher unions, tenure system has practically no detrimental impact on performance (v) ghettoization with largely minority or immigrant children is very detrimental, and so on and so forth.

This should indicate that solutions in the US concern mostly teacher education and avoiding 'ghetto schools'. Furthermore, it is always helpful to encourage positive parent involvement and maintain a healthy degree of local governance.

What is likely to be ineffective to improve the US system is union busting, getting rid of the tenure system, reducing teachers compensation package (any of which should push out the good teachers into other lines of work and discourage good newcomers to even look at the teacher profession as a career path), certain forms of competition-based school systems or selective private school systems (which really just drive ghettoization of the remaining students), spending money on fancy gadgets or spending money with the only goal to reduce class size, etc.

The last question is about how to pay for the whole thing. Since it should be a needs/talent based system, not a means based system, I don't see much of a point in a really private school system (which presumably would always be of the latter kind). So it has to be paid by taxes. Do I support parent choice between schools? As long as the same choice is offered to all children with comparable talents, and it doesn't lead to large inefficiencies, I have no problem with that. Now, ideally, all schools would be on a comparably high standard, so the question of choice wouldn't be of much relevance anyway. I'm a bit wary of choice because schools (like colleges today) might tend to compete on fairly irrelevant stuff such better football teams, nicer campuses etc.

Well, anyway, that's probably my last point on the subject. Any new post would simply be a repetition of those points. Although I would be interested to hear more details on Scott's and rhubroma's ideal school system.

 

[redtreviso]

What's your problem with women?

None,.,.but you are welcome to all the D-Door offering submitting republican ones.

 

[Anonymous]

You do realize that a needs-based system is a socialist system in the truest sense?

Your ideal system and my ideal system are very much alike. I think every child should have the chance to go to a great school with great teachers. If children perform well in math, science, art, humanities, crafts, or whatever they should have the possibility to develop their skills consummate to their talents. And this education should be available to every student to the fullest extend (including college and graduate studies), not based on means, but based on aptitude.

This is an ideal which I think most, if not everybody will agree.

The questions are: why doesn't it work (yet), and how is it paid for? These two questions are, of course, linked. Obviously, without money, we don't get anything. With money, we still might not get anything, if it's not spent well.

If you look at different systems around the country and around the world, I think data suggests that (i) well performing systems have highly educated teachers, (ii) class size does have much less relevance than commonly thought, (iii) gadgets, like videos, projectors, computers etc. don't have much impact (iv) existence of teacher unions, tenure system has practically no detrimental impact on performance (v) ghettoization with largely minority or immigrant children is very detrimental, and so on and so forth.

This should indicate that solutions in the US concern mostly teacher education and avoiding 'ghetto schools'. Furthermore, it is always helpful to encourage positive parent involvement and maintain a healthy degree of local governance.

What is likely to be ineffective to improve the US system is union busting, getting rid of the tenure system, reducing teachers compensation package (any of which should push out the good teachers into other lines of work and discourage good newcomers to even look at the teacher profession as a career path), certain forms of competition-based school systems or selective private school systems (which really just drive ghettoization of the remaining students), spending money on fancy gadgets or spending money with the only goal to reduce class size, etc.

The last question is about how to pay for the whole thing. Since it should be a needs/talent based system, not a means based system, I don't see much of a point in a really private school system (which presumably would always be of the latter kind). So it has to be paid by taxes. Do I support parent choice between schools? As long as the same choice is offered to all children with comparable talents, and it doesn't lead to large inefficiencies, I have no problem with that. Now, ideally, all schools would be on a comparably high standard, so the question of choice wouldn't be of much relevance anyway. I'm a bit wary of choice because schools (like colleges today) might tend to compete on fairly irrelevant stuff such better football teams, nicer campuses etc.

Well, anyway, that's probably my last point on the subject. Any new post would simply be a repetition of those points. Although I would be interested to hear more details on Scott's and rhubroma's ideal school system.

You do realize that a needs-based system is a socialist system in the truest sense?

I draw a big distinction between a child's needs assessed by a parent versus needs assessed by the State, so I wholly reject your statement.

If you look at different systems around the country and around the world, I think data suggests that (i) well performing systems have highly educated teachers, (ii) class size does have much less relevance than commonly thought, (iii) gadgets, like videos, projectors, computers etc. don't have much impact (iv) existence of teacher unions, tenure system has practically no detrimental impact on performance (v) ghettoization with largely minority or immigrant children is very detrimental, and so on and so forth.

There is evidence to suggest this has a larger negative effect than you state.

"In examining states that are relatively less successful and asking what type of political environment seems to characterize them, the rise of teacher unionization comes up as one answer, beginning just about the time that student performance began to decline nationally. Before 1960, there was essentially no teacher unionization. Then, in the 1960s, there was very rapid growth. By the end of that decade, more than half the teachers in the country were unionized; today, about three-quarters belong to one or the other of the major national teachers' unions. This rapid early growth, with over half the teachers becoming unionized in less than 10 years, was accompanied by pressure on state legislatures to grant unions new rights. These days, it is almost an annual rite of fall to have teachers' strikes. Generally, most public employees didn't have the right to strike in 1960. There was a lot of political pressure on state legislatures to give these workers - including teachers - that option. The result of these efforts was very uneven. The initial success of teacher unions in New York City and New York State spread to a few urban centers and the states that contained them, then beyond those places. Even today, there are a few states where teacher unionization essentially is nonexistent. What happened to student achievement in those places where the push for teacher organization was most successful most quickly and those states where the legislatures were the most receptive to union pressures for things like the right to strike? The broad answer is that it tended to deteriorate more than average in those areas where the early success of these union efforts was most pronounced. This is not to imply that teacher unions are indifferent or hostile to student achievement; in fact, the opposite is more nearly true. Albert Shanker, head of the American Federation of Teachers, has emerged as a very powerful voice for improving the academic performance of students in recent years. However, unions also have other concerns - for job security, promotion, pay differential rules, etc. - so inevitably there are going to be tradeoffs. For instance, union-style job security and a flexible ability to replace underperforming teachers can not always co-exist."



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2586_v122/ai_14995074/


To simplify, my ideal system would be one that works. I know that's over-simplified, but I don't care if it is public, private or a blend of the two. I can't help but thinking that schools competing for kids and their public dollars will produce better results and probably lead to a system you advocate... more specialization in schools based on aptitude (not unlike our university system).

 

[redtreviso]

To simplify, my ideal system would be one that works. I know that's over-simplified, but I don't care if it is public, private or a blend of the two. I can't help but thinking that schools competing for kids and their public dollars will produce better results and probably lead to a system you advocate... more specialization in schools based on aptitude (not unlike our university system).

my ideal system would be one that works.--How profound..Is that like the "teach a man" to fish line? You truly are a giant amongst men.

I can't help but thinking You can't help being a poodle trying to earn your little forehead star. Maybe you should start a thread about Hannity's "war on easter"

Charter schools or corporate schools will just steal all the public money they can then go bust..will need bailing out..First sign will be CEOs of these companies making large coin.. Then some will go public , as in stock market..Those will fail as stock value PR specialists man their boardrooms.

Time to move on..College educators ...county community colleges would be a good target..The more affluent people's kids don't go there anyway.

Be the azz

 

[Anonymous]

my ideal system would be one that works.--How profound..Is that like the "teach a man" to fish line? You truly are a giant amongst men.

I can't help but thinking You can't help being a poodle trying to earn your little forehead star. Maybe you should start a thread about Hannity's "war on easter"

Charter schools or corporate schools will just steal all the public money they can then go bust..will need bailing out..First sign will be CEOs of these companies making large coin.. Then some will go public , as in stock market..Those will fail as stock value PR specialists man their boardrooms.

Time to move on..College educators ...county community colleges would be a good target..The more affluent people's kids don't go there anyway.

Be the azz

Oh, are we having another bad day? If you call now you can probably get an appointment with your therapist first thing on Monday.

Or you could just hit that bong again......

 

[Anonymous]

my ideal system would be one that works.--How profound..Is that like the "teach a man" to fish line? You truly are a giant amongst men.

I can't help but thinking You can't help being a poodle trying to earn your little forehead star. Maybe you should start a thread about Hannity's "war on easter"

Charter schools or corporate schools will just steal all the public money they can then go bust..will need bailing out..First sign will be CEOs of these companies making large coin.. Then some will go public , as in stock market..Those will fail as stock value PR specialists man their boardrooms.

Time to move on..College educators ...county community colleges would be a good target..The more affluent people's kids don't go there anyway.

Be the azz

How profound..Is that like the "teach a man" to fish line? You truly are a giant amongst men.

Given where we are with education I'd say it's damn profound. BTW meathead, what's worse... looking for solutions to a very real problem or pretending they don't exist? All I see from you is a spigot where from whence the sewage flows. Got any ideas?? I didn't think so.

You can't help being a poodle trying to earn your little forehead star. Maybe you should start a thread about Hannity's "war on easter"

Duuude! That's clever. I mean cle-verrrr
.

Charter schools or corporate schools will just steal all the public money they can then go bust..will need bailing out.

More absolute brilliance. Really. You must have really stretched the outer limits of your IQ thinking up this gem... I mean, the originality.

 

[redtreviso]

Given where we are with education I'd say it's damn profound. BTW meathead, what's worse... looking for solutions to a very real problem or pretending they don't exist? All I see from you is a spigot where from whence the sewage flows. Got any ideas?? I didn't think so.

You don't have any.. just bs-ing around destroying the concept..sis boom bah John Galt

 

[redtreviso]

""Tax evasion added $3 trillion to the deficit over the past decade alone, an average of $300 billion a year, according to IRS data. This isn’t revenue lost from legal tax write-offs, like the mortgage interest deduction. It’s not even, as the IRS notes, “taxes that should have been paid on income from the illegal sector of the economy.” That $300 billion represents the amount of revenue lost from people deliberately cheating on their taxes every year. This includes underreporting income, hidden offshore bank accounts, sham trusts, and other ways to illegally stiff the IRS <...>

Now extrapolate last decade’s tax fraud into the next, and adjust it for inflation and economic growth. We’re probably looking at $4 trillion in tax fraud over the next 10 years.

And there it is. Without raising tax rates or reducing spending, we could eliminate more than half of our projected deficit over the next 10 years by simply eliminating tax cheats.""

 

[rhubroma]

I draw a big distinction between a child's needs assessed by a parent versus needs assessed by the State, so I wholly reject your statement...

Puff...this statement is just so bad. My God! Have you no humanity. I nearly spit up my coffee on that one.

So the billionaire parent that can afford anything, has a child’s "needs" which are greater, less, or can simply be fulfilled with unlimited cash, than those of the kid in West Chicago?

In your world the State has no purpose other than ensuring that Big Business takes over everything and acts only in its private interests. Thus, to you, what's wrong with the public schools being allowed (outright desired by this ideology), to go straight into the gutter? And, then, be replaced with a private school system for those that can afford it.

What a world you guys are creating!

 

[Anonymous]

Puff...this statement is just so bad. My God! Have you no humanity. I nearly spit up my coffee on that one.

So the billionaire parent that can afford anything, has a child’s "needs" which are greater, less, or can simply be fulfilled with unlimited cash, than those of the kid in West Chicago?

In your world the State has no purpose other than ensuring that Big Business takes over everything and acts only in its private interests. Thus, to you, what's wrong with the public schools being allowed (outright desired by this ideology), to go straight into the gutter? And, then, be replaced with a private school system for those that can afford it.

What a world you guys are creating!

This is truly sad. But it's so sad it has some hilarity to it.

Yes, Rhub. A parent assessing a need for a child is what a parent is supposed to and hopefully does.

Some random bureaucrat assessing a need of a child, while clearly a better option for you, would not be the first or best option in my view.

It would similar for me to argue some corporation would be in a better position to make decisions for kids rather than their parent. Not a great idea... agreed?

Put your hysterics on the shelf.

In your world the State has no purpose other than ensuring that Big Business takes over everything and acts only in its private interests

This is stupid statement and you know it.

 

[rhubroma]

Scott, apart from the "hysterics": remember that you are both a parent and a citizen.

And while it's obvious that between the allegiances of kin and society, the former comes first, but, I mean, have you no sense of perspective?

 

[redtreviso]

Bwahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........................

 

[Oldman]

Bwahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........................

See-that's funny.

 

[redtreviso]

""Before the landmark Citizens' United ruling, the kind of corporate propaganda Koch Industries is using wouldn't have been legal.
April 23, 2011 | The following article first appeared on the Nation.com.

On the eve of the November midterm elections, Koch Industries sent an urgent letter to most of its 50,000 employees advising them whom to vote for and warning them about the dire consequences to their families, their jobs and their country should they choose to vote otherwise.

The Nation obtained the Koch Industries election packet for Washington State—which included a cover letter from its president and COO, David Robertson; a list of Koch-endorsed state and federal candidates; and an issue of the company newsletter, Discovery, full of alarmist right-wing propaganda.

Legal experts interviewed for this story called the blatant corporate politicking highly unusual, although no longer skirting the edge of legality, thanks to last year’s Citizens UnitedSupreme Court decision, which granted free speech rights to corporations.

“Before Citizens United, federal election law allowed a company like Koch Industries to talk to officers and shareholders about whom to vote for, but not to talk with employees about whom to vote for,” explains Paul M. Secunda, associate professor of law at Marquette University. But according to Secunda, who recently wrote in The Yale Law Journal Online about the effects of Citizens United on political coercion in the workplace, the decision knocked down those regulations. “Now, companies like Koch Industries are free to send out newsletters persuading their employees how to vote. They can even intimidate their employees into voting for their candidates.” Secunda adds, “It’s a very troubling situation.”

The Kochs were major supporters of the Citizens United case; they were also chief sponsors of the Tea Party and major backers of the anti-“Obamacare” campaign. Through their network of libertarian think tanks and policy institutes, they have been major drivers of unionbusting campaigns in Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere.
""

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150681/how_the_koch_brothers_indoctrinate_their_employees_with_right-wing_anti-worker_propaganda/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet_workplace