prole

SAYS THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIST!!!! Whew! Ha-Ha! That is a knee-slapper! Thanks for the funny, Jay. You are a riot. Irony quota filled for the day. Ha. Man, that was good.

i don't see this at all - the price tag for a high-faluting private school is way higher than for a public school - sure, give families the amount they threw into the common pot for education back to them to spend how they will, but it's not gonna get poor kids into anything better than what they left. it might make middle class families just capable of affording a posh school by throwing in extra on top of the voucher, but i doubt it. The utopian vision at work here as with other privatization schemes is that with all of this money sloshing around in parents' pockets, saavy capitalist educators will meet the need by building private schools in the areas where they're needed. It didn't happen. Never mind that the failure rate for private schools approaches those for new restaurants. Hey, if that kid from Compton can't find a school in his area, he can always walk to Beverly Hills or Brentwood and cash in his coupons there.

Vouchers have been around long enough in this country to provide some data as to their effects. Is our vouchers working?

I can't read (Christopher Hitchens).

"The money following the kids" Translation: School for the kids with money School for the kids without:

How about some endless digressions on methodology?

Seems like the problem for teachers is monopsony, which is the opposite of monopoly. Eg, monopsony = one and only one buyer, which distorts prices and suffocates competition just as effectively as having a single seller. It's puzzling to me that so many teachers are vehemently opposed to reforms to vouchers, since competition for children would also foster competition for teachers, and likely foster the development of compensation models that'd allow teachers to capture more of the revenue, have more discretion over curriculum, pedagogy, etc. Yeah, God knows why they wouldn't want to compete against each other for the lowest wages and benefits and bargain with their employers as expendable individuals like the rest of us!

Our kids is the BEST!

Anybody know what the Arabic character for "moran" looks like?

Yeah, the closest we've come is taking a giant crap on us right now.

I don't understand "hate" as a political category that's likely to hold up under any kind of sustained analysis. This just seems like lazy language to me. Can you be more specific? Anyway, my point is that under some historical conditions, violence may gain legitimacy as a political tactic when it is widely accepted by a population as part of a broader movement to effect a particular change. That violence from the Left is wholly unacceptable goes without saying (as witnessed by the mass hysteria that accompanies even the slightest property damage from an ELF action). That large portions of the population, their politicians, and mouthpieces in the media are capable of shrugging off right wing domestic terrorism as mere unfortunate but sometimes necessary episodes shows that violence as a means has gained at least semi-legitimacy among those powerful segments of society. I am in agreement with you that Leftists assassinating individuals would, at this point, not be very effective and would do nothing to address underlying structures (from the Right may be a different story). This is not to say that violence of this kind wouldn't be (or isn't) catalytic under different conditions. Revolutions, slave revolts, anticolonial struggles, sabotage come to mind. Suggesting that violence is unacceptable under any conditions obfuscates historical processes by which things have come to be and unless one's a pacifist in absolute terms would be pure hypocrisy.

Let's go for a hundred years, shall we? Labor Agitation Women's Suffrage The New Deal Civil Rights Movement Free Speech Movement Sexual Revolution Antiwar Movement Gay Rights Anti-Nuke Movement Etc.

i don't know that i understand this, but please explain to me how killing rush limbaugh at any time would have made the world a better place rush filled a vacuom, and it is the latter that is the problem, not the former - rush is powerful b/c idiots give him power - our narrowminded coutnrymen who get their jollies off him could jsut have easily crowned another apostle of hate, and will too, when he's gone - rush is the flower, the millions of red-blooded conservatives are the roots - if you're gonna kill your way out of this problem, be ready to be like robespierre. i assume you know how that went? See "strategic mistake" post above.

I don't think "socialized" medicine is in any of the proposals. Doctors, hospitals, etc will still be private - and charge whatever they do now. What is on the docket is replacing/supplanting the insurance industry - nationalization of it. Doctors say "bring it on!"

and satan wacking j.c. before he could fit into the adult sized bathrobe woula been wise too there is no problem you're gonna kill your way out - marat and robespierrre, extremist libtards of a long-gone era and land, certainly proved that extremism is the enemy, whatever flavor it chooses to come in Another argument would be that progressive movements have generally ridden the backs of their more extreme factions while the moderate elements take all the credit.

I don't think you really want to go here. Most of these events against Americans make Waco look like a weenie roast. Pullman Police Riot Palmer Raids Everett Massacre MOVE Raid COINTELPRO assassinations of the 1970s Centralia Massacre Lattimer Massacre Matewan Massacre Ludlow Massacre 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing I could go on like this for a while. Need a body count?

:cry:"WHAAAA!!! Say it ain't so!!":cry: Puh-lease, like this is news to anybody but you.

At this particular time, killing Rush Limbaugh would be a strategic mistake.

Min. 2:09. American terrorism enabler. [video:youtube]

I thought it went without saying that all US Presidents are mass murderers. But anyway, even if I gave you the Unabomber (and all my understanding about liberalism and the Left tradition places him squarely outside of that frame) you've got him...and Bill Clinton. Wow. As usual FW, you end up looking like the elementary school kid that peed his pants and has to wear the ones teachers keep behind the desk for the rest of the day. Except in this case Kojak peed on your pants.

If you were to chart the rise in domestic terrorism and violence linked to the Right in the last 10-15 years, you be hard pressed not to say it has already started "in earnest". Then again, y'all was killin' lotsa Irakkies, too.

Ahem.

Actually we're still waiting for a single example of a bloodthirsty liberal that's actually acted on their impulses during the last thirty years.