Mr. Private Profits: Of course, you couldn't address any of the point I made in my long-winded comment. So, I'll assume you agree with the majority of my comment. However, I'll comment on your response.
First off, I'm no champion (where did I say that?) of charter schools, nor would I want my kids to attend one. I had great experiences in public schools, as did my kids, but that of course was a looooong time ago. My simple point is that their existence is inevitable. And public funding for them is inevitable as well. And that our public education system is largely responsible for giving birth to them. Does the public ultimately lose? I don't know. But then one can say we lost our youth long ago to a public school system that advocates therapy for everyone, brands children with newly dreamt disorders, and has taken on the slippery-slope role of "learning facilitators". These were losing campaigns and self-assignments that public schools should have never assumed. And now, it's only inevitable that someone steps in with a true alternative.
Every time on the rare occasion that I grab a Tucson Weekly, there it is in the first few pages: Danehy bloviating on about charter schools. Well, it’s time to set him straight.
Charter schools (none to which I have any affiliation) are not going away, and are here to stay. How did they begin? Why, at the hands of public school districts themselves! It was public schools with their individualized everything that created a culture of “alternativeness” for retarded, learning-disabled, educable mentally-handicapped, pregnant, language-deficient, ethnic, newcomer, etc., kids. As the therapy culture liberal-minded new-educational establishment continued dividing & categorizing school children, it became apparent that public schools couldn’t handle the new workload they helped create. Soon, it was apparent that public education’s own expensive inefficiency couldn’t meet all the new needs of our current day school kids. In stepped ex-public school teachers, administrators, and retirees who could satisfy those kids’ needs, and thus the charter school concept was born.
And make no mistake about it, charter schools are being created and run by former public school teachers and officials possessing good old fashioned entrepreneurial spirit. Some might envision dollar signs, but I’ll posit that most of them just envision a better way of educating kids who for whatever reason, aren’t cut out for public schools. Here in Tucson, even the city’s best school district, Tanque Verde, senses opportunity and is opening a charter school. Danehy cites studies, some that show charter’s faltering in comparison to public schools, others showing them excelling. A recent Chicago report showed charter schools holding the top 9 spots for school kid’s performance in ACT scores. We’re not talking HS graduation exams, but the full-blown ACT college entrance exam. And that is Chicago, a city rife with poverty, violence and other factors that hinder a child’s success.
Despite Danehy’s ranting’s, charter schools have as much to do with “right wing” and they do with “left wing” or chicken wings. The hilarious irony of Danehy’s whining, is that it’s actually liberal educational policies that helped create the charter school industry he so decries. Indiscriminate moaning about the proliferation of the charter school industry is like crying about Fedex and UPS out-performing and displacing the USPS: it’s going to get you nowhere. Like most liberal-democrats, Danehy needs someone to blame for his inability to accept change. It’s time for Danehy to get over himself, let the charter school bloviating go, and move on to another topic.
Rose Hamway and the so-called "families" quoted in this article are not whistleblowers or deprived or were ever denied services. They're just a bunch of malcontent whiners looking to milk an administratively degraded government body (TUSD) for all they can. Probably the worst result of TUSD's overall ineptness are the problematic and disgruntled whiners who now live for hitting the jackpot by joining the line of 47 percenters looking to sue that school district for a free wad of money.
The writer fails to compare the cost of educating mainstream kids versus special ed kids. If the State spends $6000 per year per child, the average Spec Ed kid gets normally twice that amount spent on them. And it gets more ridiculous when poor, miserable parents who subscribe to the principles of our Therapy Nation get involved. They dream up obscure "problems" their kids supposedly suffers from, and are coached & coaxed along the way by typically psychotic social workers, counselors and other assorted weirdos from the behavioral sciences field. The characters in this story simply need to get a life, deal with adversity, and stop blaming others for their problems. And then, just go away.
You're all correct; my bad, the Malvinas are the Falklands. Rather, the president called the Malvinas (Falklands) the Maldives, which are in the Indian Ocean. And all of you trying to find "hate" in my email, well, it just isn't there, and you know it.
There are plenty of liberals with extreme communist or socialist leanings in this country with whom I wholeheartedly disagree. However, I don't hate them. In fact, hardcore lefties and I may actually concur on abortion, the environment, and other salient issues. So please stop embarrasing yourselves, leftists, and drop the "hate" accusations.
And Mr. Riorican: besides those curtailed freedoms others listed above, also understand that a president can curtail freedoms by not selectively enforcing laws he's forsworn to enforce, which our president has clearly done on the Southern Arizona border. And I'm not preaching any "right wing catechism". Unlike you, I choose to actually see and accept the truth of what's happening in this country. Spending is out of control, the national debt will sink us, Obamacare is ruining healthcare as we know it, welfare rolls are burgeoning, blacks have unleashed their angry flash-mob violence across the country (wasn't this supposed to stop with a black president?), and the President is growing the size and scope of government (despite the Clinton years' re-engineering of government, which reduced its size & cost). So, unlike your lockstep love of Barry Soetoro, or Barack Obama (whatever his true name is), I form opinions based on what I actually see and feel.
Sometimes I grab a copy of this commie rag just to pity liberals like Danehy of the grand delusion they live in. Whenever I read his articles, I wonder if he's playing a Steve Colbert-type role, or just parodying the stereotypical leftist. I think he's just a parody of himself.
So Danehy feels the Tea Party movement's "hate" of the president is "an undeniable fact". Too bad he, nor any of his ilk, can ever provide even a shred of evidence of this "fact". I remember another Tea Party article he once wrote about a rally he attended, and according to Danehy, there seemed to not be any noticeable "hate" at the event. I wonder when moronic leftists will finally realize the utter folly of their constant accusations of "hate" and racism towards anyone who doesn't idolize their exalted leader. It's really getting old, and frankly, no one listens or even remotely believes it anymore.
And on the subject of lying, all politicians, at some point, lie. And they lie because hyper-emotional partisan morons like Danehy always fall for it. Yes, W lied. And Obama has been caught in a multitude of lies. As in "I really didn’t know Rev. Wright had such political leanings”, even though Barack & Michele spent Sunday mornings in his church for 20 years. Or how about, , “I don’t know Bill Ayers (convicted terrorist bomber), he’s just some guy in our neighborhood”, when in fact they babysat each others' children for years, if not decades, before he became president.
So you see, no one believes an idiot like Danehy, who lies for his chosen liar and thus reveals his own lack of integrity. Oh and Danehy comments about the "double-edged" sword of being the smartest in the room?
Hey Danehy, Ill expect your next article to be about Obama's Marine CorPse speech, or his claim that Hawaii is in Asia, and his statement about America's 57 states, or his "my sons" speeches, or that the Malvinas are off the waters of Argentina...
One needn't read further than all 3 candidates seeking to "provide a robust health-care system for the poor". That's enough reason to vote for an alternate party.
I would be much more receptive to a candidate who seeks to provide robust job and self-improvement opportunities for the poor. Why, exactly why, do the poor need a "robust" health care system?? The poor need to get to work. The poor, if they tire of being poor, need to work at improving themselves. This doesn't happen with a "robust healthcare system". This happens with hard work and determination, and inhabiting those free traits (good diet, exercise, managing ones resources) that put us on the path to improvement. Do I want my tax money to simply provide the poor with a "robust" health care system, for nothing in return?? No way! First, secure employment or business, second, get off welfare, third, be in a position to contribute to society before you expect a free handout.
"I think firelog missed the point -- the way I read it, Tom was suggesting that this stupid woman was a good reason to support Arpaio."
Don2135: I read that passage again, and just maybe you're correct. Thanks for the insight. Either way, that woman needs to return to wherever she came from.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation