Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:57:59 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera{antispam}.com
|
Viewed:
|
1254 times
|
| |
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ed Jones wrote:
> As a former teacher, two of the biggest problems with today's schools are:
>
> 1. lack of funding - classrooms are overcrowded, teacher salaries over the last
> 30 years have actually decreased (differnce of 1960's salary times inflation).
Oh, I don't know about lack of funding. The per pupil amount spent has
gone up a lot even in constant dollars. NY is particularly pernicious,
bumping up against 10K a head a year now. But of course, little or none
of that increase has made it to the teacher, NY has one administrator or
non teaching staff per teacher. Cut that. You can deliver a perfectly
fine education to a child for less than 1/2 that price.
> Why, because people decide that they would not pas tax levys to fund their own
> schools.
Because they have no say in whats done and aren't getting their money's
worth? As long as public schools have a monopoly on tax dollars and
sending your kids to a competitive private school means you pay twice,
of course voters are going to turn down millage, it's the ONLY way they
have of expressing their displeasure.
> 2. Lack of parental guidance. Few parents take an active involvement in the
> children's schooling. Too many view it as a day time baby sitter. The same
> schools that produce undereducated children produce well educated children.
> Explain the difference - parental involvement.
True. However public schools make it very very hard to be involved for
someone who works. I know, I speak from bitter experience on this.
Further, even when you manage to get to the school, your assistance is
rejected unless you do it "their way".
We paid good money to send our kids to Montessori prior to regular
Kindergarten, which gave them a healthy head start. Did the schools take
advantage of that? no. Our input was rejected and we were told we knew
nothing about what our children were capable of, or of how to go about
educating, and that they needed to repeat material they already knew.
This by a teacher with less education than me who had delivered less
classroom training than me.
Surprise, surprise, my daughter went through a period where she was
bored to tears by material she already knew, copped a bad attitude about
school, and would have been on a downward spiral if it wasn't for some
tough love we directed her way. happy ending, though, now that she's in
a gifted program where she belongs.
Not all teachers are that way, and not all schools are. Many parents
make the effort despite repeated rejection. My wife, who has the luxury
of being able to stay home and give care full time, unlike so many
families in which both parents have to work thanks to high taxes, is a
vigorous and effective participant in activities in our current school,
she's been a room mother, served on the cultural arts committee, planned
and executed "arts in the park" day, worked to get Noah's Ark murals
removed from school, and is VP of the elementary PTA.
But after that disastrous Florida expereince we chose where in Michigan
to live based on school characteristics (and distance to the airport).
Not everyone has worked as hard as we had in order to be able to have
such choices, we live in a pretty pricey district.
> Even worse is the attitude that came about in the 80's - this was actually
> stated to me by a student - "my parents pay taxes to pay your salary - I don't
> have to do a thing you tell me". If this is the amount of respect instilled by
> parents, we are in very deep trouble down the road.
Agreed. That student had a warped sense of how to communicate. What he
SHOULD have been saying was "My parents pay taxes to pay your salary -
therefore they should have some say as to how their money is spent.
Since they don't, and you're teaching me nonsense I can't use, I'm not
going to pay attention, I'm going to study my calculus instead, I have a
bridge to build some day"
> Look up homeless statistics. You will find an increase in homelessness at the
> same time as social services were cut by Reagan.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I think not. Look up cause and effect.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Besides I dispute that there was a real increase in the number of people
that did not have jobs and were in need of mental treatment, just a
measured one in the number of people visible in the streets. Since we
didn't measure for that previously, and since we changed how we measured
it, and since we had a somewhat misguided "empty the asylums, let's
mainstream everyone" policy, an increase in numbers is not too
surprising.
> > > Construction workers are employed by construction companies. Those • companies
> > > have winter layoffs. Those employees, having worked 6 months or more, are
> > > entitled to unemployment. It works the same for auto workers. They get • layed
> > > off and collect unemployment.
> >
> > Not the same at all, we can build autos in the winter.
>
> Excuse me, but the plants shut down each year to retool for the new models.
> During that time the employees are layed off and collect unemployment. Half of
> my family works for GM - I speak from experience.
Half my family works for GM too, so don't bother trying the argument
from authority ploy. By the way, auto workers are NOT laid off during
shutdown, at least not in Michigan, see below.
Yearly shutdown is a known, predictable phenomena just like teacher's
summer vacation. It clearly should be planned for and in tomorrow's
world, a planned shutdown won't be a cause for eligibility under most
insurance plans, only the high premium ones.
An example of the warped thinking auto workers have: My uncle (in law)
Denny is on shutdown right now. He has a planned two week outage. GM
told him to use vacation time during the shutdown, which seems
reasonable to me, and that's what everyone is doing (not collecting
unemployment, by the way, so I dunno what you're talking about, but I
digress...). Then GM came back and said they need a few people in the
plant during shutdown, went to Denny and asked him to come in, offering
him time and a half for time worked and the option of either also
collecting vacation or accruing it for later.
Denny refused. He's not doing anything except sitting around reading the
paper and complaining to everyone about how GM made him use his vacation
during shutdown. He certainly didn't have any travel or big events
planned. Still, he'd rather collect 1x his salary for doing nothing than
1.5x for working. When I asked him why, he said "there won't be that
many people in the plant, I might actually have to do some work".
Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I have lots of anecdotes like that.
This "auto workers should get unemployment while on planned shutdown" is
just ridiculous. The notion that you KNOW something is going to happen
and you shouldn't have to plan for it is evil.
> > > Society created
> > > those that cannot obtain their own posessions.
> >
> > What? Please point me to such a person. Society did no such thing.
>
>
> Really, let's see, Lincoln freed the slaves. The south segregated its schools
> and refused equal rights to housing. If it wasn't socity, then who did this?
Refusing equal rights to housing is an individual decision, not a
societal one. Go after the individuals. Don't tar me with that brush, I
wasn't born yet, and my parents weren't here yet. However, I have no
issue with declining to do business with an individual for any reason or
no reason whatsoever. I have a right to do as I see fit with my
property.
Segregation is over, right? If not, go sue the individual school board
members still doing it. Oh, thats right, you can't sue government
officials for not upholding the law nowadays.
But neither of these are examples of individual people who cannot own
possessions, created by "society", whatever that is. Keep trying please,
or admit no such person exists.
The fact that your ancestor suffered a past wrong means that it should
be unwound. It does not mean that instead of unwinding it you get a
permanent claim to free goods. My ancestors suffered past wrongs too,
don't I get free goods? (1). Who pays for all these goods? Who is goig
to keep your ponzi scheme going when you've taken the last dollar from
your current victims?
1 - Oh, that's right, under your morality, the fact that I am capable of
earning my own disqualifies me from receiving any. Only the undeserving
deserve help.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
