But nevermind the facts. They can't divide people using mere facts. They want the groups to hate each other, so they can exercise power by leading one group against the other. Facts lack the needed drama to encourage otherwise satisfied and peaceful people to want to fight their neighbors.
So shut up about how poor people get Medicaid for free. The poor don't get perfectly equal treatment (in exchange for the nothing that they offer in return). That's what matters. That's why one group should hate the other and put leftists in charge of fighting, procuring loot from your neighbors, and deciding who gets what share of the booty and precisely what the recipient is allowed to do with it.
Do European teachers' unions care whether children learn? The US union defenders posting here don't seem very interested. They talk about "protections" for teachers instead.
Most teachers in the other countries are union members too. Thus this can't be the problem. It's the scapegoat.
Other countries have parents, so parents can't be the problem. Other countries have tests, so tests can't be the problem. Other countries have politicians, so politicians can't be the problem. Other countries have school administrators, so school administrators can't be the problem.
I guess there are no problems? Or maybe this kind of analysis is simplistic and false?
The "good schools" are the real problem. The system can't be fixed because the parents who overpaid for their house to make sure their children get in the "good schools" have a big stake in the system staying as it is. Their child is getting a (relatively) good education, so that's taken care of -- they don't support any major reforms that might disrupt that. The "good school" teachers don't support changes either.
In fact, the premium value of houses near the "good schools" depends on their school remaining above average. Poor children in poor neighborhoods getting a bad education actually helps support the valuation of homes in wealthier neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, children in poor neighborhoods get cheated out of an education and the unions oppose reforms. Folks in the poor neighborhoods vote for union-backed politicians based on race and class. Nothing changes because poor children matter less than home values to wealthy parents, less than cultural issues to poor parents, less than money and re-election to politicians, and less than union benefits and grievances to the teachers' unions.
Note how the union defense force very rarely mentions the actual mission of schools: learning -- teaching children. It's almost as if that's not their primary concern...
Yeah. Blaming a foreign bogeyman doesn't count as a foundation. Really, "blame" in general seems to be mostly useful to losers and failures and people who want to succeed by leading losers and failures.
No one makes a point of saying "suicide bombing is terrorism" because it's obvious. Terrorist acts are terrorism. XYZ other bullshit (capitalism, Santa Claus, eating meat, not bowing to statues of political leaders, whatever else some fool says) is not terrorism. People who say "[XYZ] is terrorism" are wrong. If they weren't wrong, they wouldn't need silly exaggerations.
He can't, because the U.S is working hard since the elections to wreck their economy. Do you think socialism is bad? Look in northern Europe where people can move boxes in a warehouse and still put the equivalent of $1000 in their savings account after all the bills are paid. Don't use a small country under economic siege as an argument that socialism or socialistic democracy doesn't work.
Yeah, it's amazing how there's always an external bogeyman whenever socialism makes things worse.
And always a story about northern European success. Northern European socialists do ok. Northern European capitalists do ok. Maybe northern Europeans just have a strong, resilient culture?
Why doesn't he just point out all the great things that socialism has done for the people? It should be easy to find an audience. These people waiting in line for food would have to listen.
Slashdot Mirror
for this advertisement?
Let them eat cake.
But no sane person would give up access to all the services until something perfect is created.
"It's not perfect, so let's not do it at all" is the most common Slashdot argument against anything.
Try to understand: Free, ad-supported, limited-Internet service is bad. Let them eat cake.
But nevermind the facts. They can't divide people using mere facts. They want the groups to hate each other, so they can exercise power by leading one group against the other. Facts lack the needed drama to encourage otherwise satisfied and peaceful people to want to fight their neighbors.
So shut up about how poor people get Medicaid for free. The poor don't get perfectly equal treatment (in exchange for the nothing that they offer in return). That's what matters. That's why one group should hate the other and put leftists in charge of fighting, procuring loot from your neighbors, and deciding who gets what share of the booty and precisely what the recipient is allowed to do with it.
The question is do you throw it all out because of the bad things, then let the teachers work for near poverty wages?
Sounds like a way to reduce class sizes. Reduced class sizes are supposedly really important.
"Good schools" support the system. The system perpetuates bad schools.
Not children. That's the problem.
Tell it to the guy who said schools are "destroyed".
Do European teachers' unions care whether children learn? The US union defenders posting here don't seem very interested. They talk about "protections" for teachers instead.
versus wasting their lives in "destroyed" schools?
Your response doesn't mention learning or children.
Most teachers in the other countries are union members too. Thus this can't be the problem. It's the scapegoat.
Other countries have parents, so parents can't be the problem.
Other countries have tests, so tests can't be the problem.
Other countries have politicians, so politicians can't be the problem.
Other countries have school administrators, so school administrators can't be the problem.
I guess there are no problems? Or maybe this kind of analysis is simplistic and false?
The "good schools" are the real problem. The system can't be fixed because the parents who overpaid for their house to make sure their children get in the "good schools" have a big stake in the system staying as it is. Their child is getting a (relatively) good education, so that's taken care of -- they don't support any major reforms that might disrupt that. The "good school" teachers don't support changes either.
In fact, the premium value of houses near the "good schools" depends on their school remaining above average. Poor children in poor neighborhoods getting a bad education actually helps support the valuation of homes in wealthier neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, children in poor neighborhoods get cheated out of an education and the unions oppose reforms. Folks in the poor neighborhoods vote for union-backed politicians based on race and class. Nothing changes because poor children matter less than home values to wealthy parents, less than cultural issues to poor parents, less than money and re-election to politicians, and less than union benefits and grievances to the teachers' unions.
Note how the union defense force very rarely mentions the actual mission of schools: learning -- teaching children. It's almost as if that's not their primary concern...
Forgotten in this (story about a) power struggle: children.
So what? If public schools are "destroyed" and can't do their job, then let's shut them all down and kids can go to non-government schools.
If the union was stronger, how would that help poor children learn? Do you care at all about poor children learning?
Right after NASA's funding increase got signed.
Does Venezuela have oil?
Yeah. Blaming a foreign bogeyman doesn't count as a foundation. Really, "blame" in general seems to be mostly useful to losers and failures and people who want to succeed by leading losers and failures.
No one makes a point of saying "suicide bombing is terrorism" because it's obvious. Terrorist acts are terrorism. XYZ other bullshit (capitalism, Santa Claus, eating meat, not bowing to statues of political leaders, whatever else some fool says) is not terrorism. People who say "[XYZ] is terrorism" are wrong. If they weren't wrong, they wouldn't need silly exaggerations.
Grow up.
No. People who say "[XYZ] is terrorism" are always wrong. If they were right they wouldn't have to exaggerate.
He can't, because the U.S is working hard since the elections to wreck their economy. Do you think socialism is bad? Look in northern Europe where people can move boxes in a warehouse and still put the equivalent of $1000 in their savings account after all the bills are paid. Don't use a small country under economic siege as an argument that socialism or socialistic democracy doesn't work.
Yeah, it's amazing how there's always an external bogeyman whenever socialism makes things worse.
And always a story about northern European success. Northern European socialists do ok. Northern European capitalists do ok. Maybe northern Europeans just have a strong, resilient culture?
Why doesn't he just point out all the great things that socialism has done for the people? It should be easy to find an audience. These people waiting in line for food would have to listen.