[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought you were looking for a response from me.

You asked for a privatization program that didn’t grow inequality. This doesn’t exist, so I provided one where it appears you find the inequality it grows to be acceptable.

You're right, I meant societal inequality, not a per-student academic outcome inequality.

I'm curious why you think the Bogota system provides better per-child educational outcomes. I didn't see any mention of equal per-child spending in those schools vs. the standard public schools, but are we assuming it's a lower cost for a better outcome? The only concrete difference that explains the better outcomes in the article I posted was:

These schools employ more full-time psychologists and provide more professional development training to teachers compared to traditional public schools. In particular, teacher trainings focus on classroom management and content, whereas teacher trainings in public schools focus more on coexistence in school and managing socio-emotional characteristics of students.

I see added cost, but I don't see where they're making up for it elsewhere. The less transparent and democratic a government is, the more likely a government position is to be 1) overpaid and 2) incompetent. I can see where replacing semi-corrupt government-appointed positions with non-profits would be more cost-effective and provide better outcomes if the original appointment wasn't based on skill or measurable outcomes and was overpaid. In my mind, the long-term solution is more transparency and democracy. But in a world where that's increasingly less possible, maybe relying on non-profits short term is a path to a more educated population that can drive society back toward democracy.

In Iowa, we have Area Education Agencies that appear to have a similar function to the Colombian non-profits chosen to run those special schools. They provide research, best practices, resources, and staffing to schools in order to drive better student outcomes. They provide professional development to teachers and play a significant role in providing resources for special needs students that an individual school might not be able to cover on their own. This is especially critical in the smaller, more rural schools in communities with declining populations, like my hometown.

Guess what the Republican governor decided to gut this year? AEAs. Stripped state funding and resources. Now the schools have to use their own funding to pay for AEA resources, so any school that's already on a tight budget (basically all but the big suburban schools) won't be able to afford anything, and poor kids fall further and further behind. The bill was EXTREMELY unpopular so the governor added an addendum that raised teacher starting salaries. NOTE that they didn't bump the pay scale, so a starting teacher would go years and years without getting a raise, and they also didn't increase school funding at all. So the smaller, funding-strapped schools will be even less likely to be able to afford new teachers. Nine Republicans actually defected and voted with the Democrats to block it, but it still passed 53-41.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I've always said if the private sector can run it well and make a profit, then the public sector can run it slightly better and break even. Its just a question of getting the right people in to run it.

There are many situations where you don't want to economize, e. g. hospitals having surplus beds available (which come in handy in the event of a pandemic) or military preparing for the worst cases. Both of these are not measured in terms of economic rewards, so I don't think running schools like businesses makes any sort of sense.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This notion that something cannot be run well because its publicly funded is a conservative trick used to justify selling off services to rich conservatives. Usually on the cheap.

What is more, most private schools do receive public money. So the public subsidizes them, something I don't like. Plus, they reserve certain rights public schools don't have.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Agree. All the private schools in the UK are religious to some extent or another. Its typically not a big focus, and many parents & students simply endure it in order to get the higher quality education, but its there nonetheless. Most public schools also have a religious affiliation too actually.

Montessouri-based schools (called Waldorfschulen in Germany) are based on an “alternative” philosophy that has cult-like elements. Just to be clear: that doesn't mean the teachers themselves are all disciples or the schools produce loyal disciples.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I like the Finnish idea where there are no private schools (so I heard anyway). The logic being that those super rich parents who like to buy a new wing of their kids already wealthy private school, will donate that money to public schools where kids who need it more will benefit too.

I'm very much in favor of that philosophy as well. It should be so good that no matter how rich you are, you feel confident your kids are getting a great education.

Ditto for healthcare and public transportation. Precisely because health care is seen as a right in all but one developed country, the average health care now is much better than what really rich people could afford 100, 200 years ago.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I see added cost, but I don't see where they're making up for it elsewhere. The less transparent and democratic a government is, the more likely a government position is to be 1) overpaid and 2) incompetent. I can see where replacing semi-corrupt government-appointed positions with non-profits would be more cost-effective and provide better outcomes if the original appointment wasn't based on skill or measurable outcomes and was overpaid.

Having more support staff, better equipment, smaller classes as a result of better funding and equipment all seem to make better outcomes easier — not guaranteed, but easier.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Montessouri-based schools (called Waldorfschulen in Germany) are based on an “alternative” philosophy that has cult-like elements.

Montessori and Waldorf are NOT the same thing. Waldorf schools are based upon the questionable teachings of self-proclaimed clairvoyant Rudolf Steiner. Yes, there is some bizarre cult-like stuff in there.

Maria Montessori took a decidedly more scientific approach whose effectiveness has been validated in a number of studies, since.

Both types of schools and kindergarten (pre-school for you 'mericans) exist in Germany.

[subego]

Was indoctrinated at a Montessori school from K-8. AMA.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Montessori and Waldorf are NOT the same thing. Waldorf schools are based upon the questionable teachings of self-proclaimed clairvoyant Rudolf Steiner. Yes, there is some bizarre cult-like stuff in there.

Maria Montessori took a decidedly more scientific approach whose effectiveness has been validated in a number of studies, since.

Both types of schools and kindergarten (pre-school for you 'mericans) exist in Germany.

Which type offers levitation classes?

I'd be much more supportive of private schools based on crackpot and/or fanatic followers, if they actually delivered. If the Jesuit schools taught how to smite your enemies with fire from the sky. Or Catholic schools teach walking on water, for example. Deep water, that is. Anyone can walk on water that's only a few mm deep.

[subego]

Catholic schools aren’t really in the same category as other religious educational institutions.

As an aside, the university outside my car wash that had their protests jackbooted? Catholic joint. My dad was an undergrad there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Guess what the Republican governor decided to gut this year? AEAs.

I looked at reporting on this from the Des Moines Register and the Iowa Capital Dispatch.

Are these strongly biased outfits? What they describe make it seem like little is changing. I certainly wouldn’t qualify it as gutted.

[Laminar]

Des Moines Register is mildly liberal-biased.

The actual AEA employees are peacing out.

https://www.kcci.com/article/iowa-ae...w-law/60541707

https://www.kcrg.com/2024/05/09/iowa...-takes-effect/

[subego]

From the first article:

“Yelick said the new policy isn't what's driving her employees from their careers. It's the uncertainty that coincides with the debates and coming changes. Yelick said the employees she's heard site [sic] the new law as a reason for leaving are expressing concerns about job security over distaste for the law.”

This strikes me as relevant.

[Laminar]

Yes, you could certainly take the politically-correct line delivered by the government employee to the media at face value. That is an option.

[subego]

Well, I’m nowhere near as familiar as you are with the system. Since you drew parallels to the program in Bogotá, I presumed there was NGO involvement.

[Laminar]

This probably deserves its own thread, huh.

[subego]

We can call it “Bogotálk”



Wait… what?

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This probably deserves its own thread, huh.

What? A thread for just you?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wait… what?

Sorry, I thought the most recent piece of political news might have warranted its own thread.

[Thorzdad]

Which one? Trump getting winged by another republican? Or Judge Canon dismissing the secret documents case?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Which one? Trump getting winged by another republican?

This one, the one where we each assign a narrative and significance to the event that fits our preconceived notions, but we pretend that we're taking a logical and analytical view of things.

[andi*pandi]

by all means we should have a new thread about the election at least, the "shooting" is part of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Sorry, I thought the most recent piece of political news might have warranted its own thread.

Was making a joke.

[subego]

For the first time I encountered “2 crisis counselors 1 cop”.

[Thorzdad]

Texas sues Biden administration to limit teenage access to birth control

Texas has the highest repeat teen birth rate In the nation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Texas sues Biden administration to limit teenage access to birth control

Texas has the highest repeat teen birth rate In the nation.

Their own idea of Hell is too good for those fucking cunts.

[Thorzdad]

Evangelicals have been pretty open about going after chemical birth control (i.e. “the pill”) now that Roe has been overturned. This is the initial soft target, since it involves minors.

[Laminar]

Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.

I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote

Regular, normal thing to say, not a threat to freedom and democracy.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.

I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.

Regular, normal thing to say, not a threat to freedom and democracy.

... but predictable - me, last May:

Originally Posted by christ 

Has anyone considered that the 2024 election may be the last for a generation?

[subego]

I translated that as “if I’m elected, by 2028 America will be so Great Again™ it won’t matter if a Democrat becomes president afterwards”.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I translated that as “if I’m elected, by 2028 America will be so Great Again™ it won’t matter if a Democrat becomes president afterwards”.

That is definitely not what he said.

Tr*mp has a very colourful history of saying the quiet part out loud, literally blurting out strategy and covert policy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That is definitely not what he said.

Tr*mp has a very colourful history of saying the quiet part out loud, literally blurting out strategy and covert policy.

Trump rarely communicates with precision or forethought, and is prone to excessive hyperbole. The result is much of what he says ends up open to interpretation.

I’m positive our respective, collected sets of interpretations are wildly different.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Trump rarely communicates with precision or forethought, and is prone to excessive hyperbole. The result is much of what he says ends up open to interpretation.

I’m positive our respective, collected sets of interpretations are wildly different.

He tends to randomly — without forethought, as you say — repeat talking points presented to him by the people who surround him. This has happened over and over. There were phrases and statements gleaned from Bannon, from Stephen Miller, whoever.

He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt, certainly not since Jan 6th.

If he says something that seems dark and foreboding, it's invariably been pretty much directly traceable to some fascist goon in his orbit trying to make him useful by feeding him stuff — in contrast to them, he's just dumb enough to blurt it out on camera.

[Waragainstsleep]

He does somehow manage to be an incoherent rambling lunatic while telegraphic every evil scheme he ever hatches. This one seems a bit too clever for him to have come up with himself for sure. Its the sort of thing I could imagine Putin making him say for his amusement.

[andi*pandi]

"if we win this you'll never have to vote again" pretty clearly implies a) no elections ever again because b) trump will be dictator and will pick his successor.

very clear.

[subego]

I don’t really agree with these interpretations but I shan’t belabor it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I translated that as “if I’m elected, by 2028 America will be so Great Again™ it won’t matter if a Democrat becomes president afterwards”.

lol

[subego]

I know I said I wouldn’t belabor it, but since he addressed it directly, my translation wasn’t too far off from his explanation.

I kinda sensed he was backhanding his audience a bit for not voting, but I wasn’t confident enough to include it.

Totally missed the angle where he’s trying to make his un-Christian behavior an easier pill to swallow.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know I said I wouldn’t belabor it,

Why would you want to? It's a pretty damning statement so of course you need to brush this under the rug.

but since he addressed it directly, my translation wasn’t too far off from his explanation.

Since when has landing on the same conclusion as Trump ever put someone on the right side of history?

The guy lost the last election and tried to have the election results overthrown. He tried legal means and he tried illegal means. People died. There's felonies about it.

The same guy says, "If you elect me this time, you'll never have to vote again."

I don't even know what to say here. He's very very very clear about his intentions. This isn't extrapolation, this is simply him promising to do the same things he's already done again, but this time with the confidence of the latest Supreme Court ruling.

"Oh no, he just means that America is going to be in really good shape and everything will be so great that we'll all feel really good!"

🤡

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Why would you want to? It's a pretty damning statement so of course you need to brush this under the rug.

That doesn’t make any sense.

My entire position is that what he said isn’t damning. There’s nothing for me to sweep under the rug because I don’t think he did anything.

However, my instincts tell me it’s unlikely I’ll convince anyone of this, and the end result of me maintaining my position would be to antagonize everyone, which I’m genuinely interested in not doing.

Of course, I did happen to almost exactly predict what his explanation turned out to be. I found pointing it out to be an irresistible lure. There is some form of insight occurring in my warped brain, regardless of whether one finds the conclusions I draw from it laughable… or antagonizing.

[Spheric Harlot]

You’d do well to respond to the rest of his post, because it’s 100% on the money, and it’s your country that’s on the line.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, I did happen to almost exactly predict what his explanation turned out to be.

It's really scary to me that you think his retcon is worth consideration in any way, shape, or form.

Maybe you implicitly but not explicitly understand how right wing messaging works, so your brain was able to come up with the weak explanation they offered afterward.

1. Say the fascist thing. Maybe even blatantly, outright, straightforward fascism.
2. Appropriate outrage from people who are not in favor of a fascist takeover of America
3. Retcon the fascist thing with a really weak explanation, blame the fake news media, blame the triggered snowflakes
4. People excited about the fascist message got the fascist message that they wanted plus the weasel words to get out of an honest discussion of the fascist message

It's completely predictable.

[Spheric Harlot]

Wow. That thread reminded me why I had myself blocked from the Poli War lounge for many years.

Also, absolutely ace post there, Lam.

[subego]

As I said, my intent was not to antagonize, and I apologize for having done so.

[Laminar]

Your post didn't antagonize, the existence of smart people that are still somehow giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2024 antagonized.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Your post didn't antagonize, the existence of smart people that are still somehow giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2024 antagonized.

After a literal coup attempt — an attempt to violently overthrow the fucking government by the democratically ousted president (!!!!!) — that really boggles the mind.

[Laminar]

It's funny - I third partied an hour-long rant about the Democrats making a big deal out of Jan. 6th. It actually wasn't a big deal at all, it was mostly a guided tour. Did some people misbehave? Sure, but the fake news media made a huge deal out of nothing. Also, Trump tried to get the Army there to protect the capitol, but the Deep State stopped him from getting the Army there.

So it was simultaneously nothing, but also required the military to respond, but at the same time the Deep State wanted it to keep happening...because Trump supporters advocating on behalf of Trump at Trump's direct orders was actual a Deep State op?

Read his whole speech and tell me this guy should be allowed to walk free, let alone run for office again.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639...eachment-trial

[subego]

I did my best. It’s very long and boring. I had to start skimming at some point.

This is an honest question: where’s the illegal part?

[Laminar]

Which part makes you feel good about giving him the benefit of the doubt?

[subego]

I entered into reading it giving him the benefit of the doubt. I endeavor to do that with everyone. I think you’ve even complained about it in the past that I do it too much, which is almost undoubtedly true.

Where’s the illegal part?

[Spheric Harlot]

Dismantling democracy will be unconstitutional at some point. Though since the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is and what isn’t constitutional, the republic will be dead before anything is „illegal“.

I mean, apart from the shit that got him impeached.

Twice.

[subego]

I assess a relatively low probability of Trump dismantling democracy. Certainly without some sort of crazy event like a terrorist attack killing thousands.

[andi*pandi]

He appointed judges who then decided that a president can't be convicted of crimes.

Convenient no?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I assess a relatively low probability of Trump dismantling democracy. Certainly without some sort of crazy event like a terrorist attack killing thousands.

Wow. You really haven’t been watching, have you?

What do you think happened on January 6th?

Why were people chanting to hang the Vice President?

What would have happened had he simply not certified the vote?

Your entire democracy already hinged, once, on the integrity of that milquetoast and some hella good fortune.