|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 8, 2016 23:51:43 GMT -5
I don't mind putting in my two cents on charters, and I don't want this to become acrimonious, but I can;t be quiet on this. Charter schools stand at the nexus of many issues related to education, but at their core are a creation of the far right meant to discredit, defund, disrespect, marginalize and fatally weaken the public school system. They are anti-union, anti-regualtion, anti-special education, anti-ELL, and all about circumvention, segregation, and privatization.
Competiton is all well and good: on athletic fields, in corporate boardrooms, and other similar arenas. The model does not hold for kindergartens or classes of 14-year-olds. Great for widget-making; terrible for developing critical thinkers. If you're making widgets, you can throw out the raw materials taht arrive damaged before you start the process; that's not the way it is with kids. Unless you buy what the right-wing, enemies of all things public are selling.
Schools were never intended to be rival factories whose success is measurable in products created in a certain period of time to exactly similar specifications. Schools should not be designed or evaluated as if each is a manufacturer or a profit-making business. The analogy is and has always been faulty, but it is the one that groups like the Pioneer Institute and other right-wing think-tanks have always put forward.
The hidden agenda in education today has everything to do with money and profits. Charter school curricula and the testing industry are two of the most lucrative ways to do so today. The game is rigged aginst the usual suspects: the poor, the disadvantaged, the different, the kids with special needs of all kinds. "Everyone is welcome" should be a sign hung above every public school entrance in America.
No public school in the nation can refuse admittance to any student. Think about that. Religious schools, private schools and charter schools determine the population from which they are going to select and expel immediately any whom they do not want at any point. They are exempt from the safety and health regualtions of public schools, can hire unlicensed teachers, and can pay them whatever they want.
A charter school (and there are two in our town) will not take non-English speakers, will not take blind kids, deaf, kids, emotionally troubled kids, homeless, kids, kids on 504 plans or IEPs, kids, SPED kids, kids who've just come out of lock-up, kids with kids, or kids who can't take AP-level or IB-level classes. They are inherently elitist, unfair, and exclusionary. Their target audience is people who'd like to send their kids to private school, but want their local town to pay the tuition. They are not required to make an accounting to the towns whose tax money they take; they are individual kingdoms unto themselves. Many are run by companies that know nothing about education, but plenty about appealing to fear and snobbishness when they market their product. They profit from public funds without ever explaining how those funds are spent.
They steal money from public schools that are generally underfunded as it is, and then trumpet their "successes" as if they have somehow discovered the magic formula that turns dross into gold. They are an insult to teachers, students and taxpayers, an insult to the notion of the common good.
I've been through the wars with these people. I've seen them in action. They are parasites, tapeworms, bloodsuckers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 8, 2016 23:52:16 GMT -5
When tradesmen say "I want this great job but I don't want to be a part of the union" I have zero pity for them. The whole reason the job is great is the union. You don't like it, Target is pretty anti union, you'll love it there. I've worked about 6 different places in the past 40 years and have not been part of a union. Workers were treated very fairly including myself. These companies are in competition to find and retain good employees. You don't necessarily need a union for that You're a very lucky man. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 2:33:53 GMT -5
When tradesmen say "I want this great job but I don't want to be a part of the union" I have zero pity for them. The whole reason the job is great is the union. You don't like it, Target is pretty anti union, you'll love it there. I've worked about 6 different places in the past 40 years and have not been part of a union. Workers were treated very fairly including myself. These companies are in competition to find and retain good employees. You don't necessarily need a union for that I'm nom Union too. When I was a truck driver that meant I made about ten dollars per hour less than my Union counterparts within the same company and holding the same position at a different location. Now it means I make ten dollars less, don't get vacation, medical, retirement, sick days, a company vehicle, reimbursement for certification courses, or half my Social Security tax paid by my employer. Without knowing what your profession is, I can safely assume the entire reason you receive the comforts you do is because the union elevated the standard to what it is, for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 9, 2016 3:05:09 GMT -5
I've worked about 6 different places in the past 40 years and have not been part of a union. Workers were treated very fairly including myself. These companies are in competition to find and retain good employees. You don't necessarily need a union for that I'm nom Union too. When I was a truck driver that meant I made about ten dollars per hour less than my Union counterparts within the same company and holding the same position at a different location. Now it means I make ten dollars less, don't get vacation, medical, retirement, sick days, a company vehicle, reimbursement for certification courses, or half my Social Security tax paid by my employer. Without knowing what your profession is, I can safely assume the entire reason you receive the comforts you do is because the union elevated the standard to what it is, for everyone. I don't think there are generalities to be made.It could all depend on the profession or the area of the country. In my case for the past 40 + years I've worked in the NYC area in office buildings and my profession is called retail planner (or merchandise planner, allocation planner-there's a few different names to it) I would work for a retail company, currently Saks 5th Ave who have 50 locations in the US. I'm given a certain area in apparel to work with. Basically I forecast upcoming sales and based on the forecast I suggest how much merchandise we should buy to achieve those sales and have a minimum amount left over to markdown. So I'm the one who gives the Buyer their budget and then I monitor the sales , constantly reforecasting and determining if there is an opportunity to reorder or suggest a promotion to goose up sales if they are below expectations. I also supervise the staff that allocates the merchandise we buy to the individual stores based on those stores' different selling history. Anyway people like myself, the buyers, the folks who do the allocations, actually everyone in the offices including secretaries do not belong in a union. I've worked for Liz Claiborne, Loehmann's and other firms as well and none of them were unionized. The warehouse personal sometimes were, the office workers never were As I said, its a competitive field, these companies do not want to lose their workers to the competition so the pay, hours, vacation time etc do not vary much within the field. After 5 or so years you get vested with the company and begin to get bonuses if you achieve your financial plan for the year. You get complete health insurance and a 401K plan too. The only thing missing is a pension plan but that's what the 401K is meant to be and the company matches your contribution into your account up to a certain point I'm middle management but most of the other folks I mentioned are not. No union-NY state does have strict labor laws that businesses have to comply with and between that and the free market system, I never felt I needed a union But I agree with you and Hal, many professions do as well as many states which don't protect their workers that well. I'm just saying that its not 100% in need. Or as Hl thinks, I 'm a lucky guy |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 9, 2016 9:01:21 GMT -5
When tradesmen say "I want this great job but I don't want to be a part of the union" I have zero pity for them. The whole reason the job is great is the union. You don't like it, Target is pretty anti union, you'll love it there. I've worked about 6 different places in the past 40 years and have not been part of a union. Workers were treated very fairly including myself. These companies are in competition to find and retain good employees. You don't necessarily need a union for that And you can have a country with no military and assume no one needs one because you've never been attacked. No one needs a union until the day they need a union. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 9, 2016 9:09:27 GMT -5
A charter school (and there are two in our town) will not take non-English speakers, will not take blind kids, deaf, kids, emotionally troubled kids, homeless, kids, kids on 504 plans or IEPs, kids, SPED kids, kids who've just come out of lock-up, kids with kids, or kids who can't take AP-level or IB-level classes. This is my biggest objection to folks claiming it's all about creating fair competition. If Charter Schools continue under the current climate in Ohio, eventually every well behaved, high achieving, non-disabled kid will be at a Charter School where they will inevitably succeed when all the funding is going to regular education of well-behaved kids with parents who respect education and support it at home, while public schools will be stuck with only behavior issue kids from broken homes who are the ones we aren't supposed to be leaving behind and special education kids who cost the district a lot more while the funding is going to Charter Schools instead. In short, public schools die out, "undesirable" kids get robbed of an education, and the inequalities between the haves and have nots grow immeasurably. Give me a classroom of 30 motivated kids with good parental support and no special needs, and I'll look like a teaching GOD, but that's not what education is supposed to be. We're supposed to be trying to move everyone forward. If that isn't what the governent wants, then the government should change its policies, not run us out of business for serving the clientele we are ordered to serve. And if the sentiment is that stable families with good kids don't want their kids in class/school with the "riff-raff",I won't judge it (though I disagree with it), but then they should put their money where their mouths are. FUND separate schools for these kids; don't just take it away from the public schools that are still struggling to serve all the other kids. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 9, 2016 9:41:11 GMT -5
I don't mind putting in my two cents on charters, and I don't want this to become acrimonious, but I can;t be quiet on this. Charter schools stand at the nexus of many issues related to education, but at their core are a creation of the far right meant to discredit, defund, disrespect, marginalize and fatally weaken the public school system. They are anti-union, anti-regualtion, anti-special education, anti-ELL, and all about circumvention, segregation, and privatization. Competiton is all well and good: on athletic fields, in corporate boardrooms, and other similar arenas. The model does not hold for kindergartens or classes of 14-year-olds. Great for widget-making; terrible for developing critical thinkers. If you're making widgets, you can throw out the raw materials taht arrive damaged before you start the process; that's not the way it is with kids. Unless you buy what the right-wing, enemies of all things public are selling. Schools were never intended to be rival factories whose success is measurable in products created in a certain period of time to exactly similar specifications. Schools should not be designed or evaluated as if each is a manufacturer or a profit-making business. The analogy is and has always been faulty, but it is the one that groups like the Pioneer Institute and other right-wing think-tanks have always put forward. The hidden agenda in education today has everything to do with money and profits. Charter school curricula and the testing industry are two of the most lucrative ways to do so today. The game is rigged aginst the usual suspects: the poor, the disadvantaged, the different, the kids with special needs of all kinds. "Everyone is welcome" should be a sign hung above every public school entrance in America. No public school in the nation can refuse admittance to any student. Think about that. Religious schools, private schools and charter schools determine the population from which they are going to select and expel immediately any whom they do not want at any point. They are exempt from the safety and health regualtions of public schools, can hire unlicensed teachers, and can pay them whatever they want. A charter school (and there are two in our town) will not take non-English speakers, will not take blind kids, deaf, kids, emotionally troubled kids, homeless, kids, kids on 504 plans or IEPs, kids, SPED kids, kids who've just come out of lock-up, kids with kids, or kids who can't take AP-level or IB-level classes. They are inherently elitist, unfair, and exclusionary. Their target audience is people who'd like to send their kids to private school, but want their local town to pay the tuition. They are not required to make an accounting to the towns whose tax money they take; they are individual kingdoms unto themselves. Many are run by companies that know nothing about education, but plenty about appealing to fear and snobbishness when they market their product. They profit from public funds without ever explaining how those funds are spent. They steal money from public schools that are generally underfunded as it is, and then trumpet their "successes" as if they have somehow discovered the magic formula that turns dross into gold. They are an insult to teachers, students and taxpayers, an insult to the notion of the common good. I've been through the wars with these people. I've seen them in action. They are parasites, tapeworms, bloodsuckers. In Wisconsin we have Scott Walker as our governor. He's a rabid Republican so he absolutely loves the idea of privatizing everything, especially schools. Milwaukee is the biggest population center in the state, so it has the most kids and biggest school system, and charter schools have proliferated. Unfortunately, oversight of these schools seems to be almost nil. Financial mismanagement (and outright embezzlement) has crippled many of these schools and forced them to close. One school was started by a guy with no educational experience, who then bought himself several Mercedes with state provided voucher money and ran the school into the ground. Another school was closed when it was discovered (after a couple of years) that they were basically just warehousing the kids and letting them play board games and watch movies all day. The kids in these cases then had no where else to go but back to the public school system, which got no money to pay to absorb them.
The public school system is supposed to be a promise that every kid gets a decent education. Public money should go to public schools, private money should pay for private schools. Also what ever happened to the whole separation of church and state thing? Religious schools shouldn't be getting public money. My church runs it's own state accredited school that charges no tuition to students, and takes no public money. The cost of the school is borne by the church and is open to members and non-members alike as an outreach program. We're not a rich area, so it's not easy to afford, but it's a commitment the church has made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 9, 2016 9:41:53 GMT -5
A charter school (and there are two in our town) will not take non-English speakers, will not take blind kids, deaf, kids, emotionally troubled kids, homeless, kids, kids on 504 plans or IEPs, kids, SPED kids, kids who've just come out of lock-up, kids with kids, or kids who can't take AP-level or IB-level classes. This is my biggest objection to folks claiming it's all about creating fair competition. If Charter Schools continue under the current climate in Ohio, eventually every well behaved, high achieving, non-disabled kid will be at a Charter School where they will inevitably succeed when all the funding is going to regular education of well-behaved kids with parents who respect education and support it at home, while public schools will be stuck with only behavior issue kids from broken homes who are the ones we aren't supposed to be leaving behind and special education kids who cost the district a lot more while the funding is going to Charter Schools instead. In short, public schools die out, "undesirable" kids get robbed of an education, and the inequalities between the haves and have nots grow immeasurably. Give me a classroom of 30 motivated kids with good parental support and no special needs, and I'll look like a teaching GOD, but that's not what education is supposed to be. We're supposed to be trying to move everyone forward. If that isn't what the governent wants, then the government should change its policies, not run us out of business for serving the clientele we are ordered to serve. And if the sentiment is that stable families with good kids don't want their kids in class/school with the "riff-raff",I won't judge it (though I disagree with it), but then they should put their money where their mouths are. FUND separate schools for these kids; don't just take it away from the public schools that are still struggling to serve all the other kids. Eloquently, passionately stated, Shax. And as you've implied, those who are most critical or disapproving of the public schools, whose principles inevitably are conservative, never quite get the irony that they want public funds used just for them. Public education has become unmoored from the values and ideals that are its wellspring and the purveyors of the charter school doctrine are among those most at fault. I know you are fighting the good fight. Don't give up! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 16:59:58 GMT -5
I'm nom Union too. When I was a truck driver that meant I made about ten dollars per hour less than my Union counterparts within the same company and holding the same position at a different location. Now it means I make ten dollars less, don't get vacation, medical, retirement, sick days, a company vehicle, reimbursement for certification courses, or half my Social Security tax paid by my employer. Without knowing what your profession is, I can safely assume the entire reason you receive the comforts you do is because the union elevated the standard to what it is, for everyone. I don't think there are generalities to be made.It could all depend on the profession or the area of the country. In my case for the past 40 + years I've worked in the NYC area in office buildings and my profession is called retail planner (or merchandise planner, allocation planner-there's a few different names to it) I would work for a retail company, currently Saks 5th Ave who have 50 locations in the US. I'm given a certain area in apparel to work with. Basically I forecast upcoming sales and based on the forecast I suggest how much merchandise we should buy to achieve those sales and have a minimum amount left over to markdown. So I'm the one who gives the Buyer their budget and then I monitor the sales , constantly reforecasting and determining if there is an opportunity to reorder or suggest a promotion to goose up sales if they are below expectations. I also supervise the staff that allocates the merchandise we buy to the individual stores based on those stores' different selling history. Anyway people like myself, the buyers, the folks who do the allocations, actually everyone in the offices including secretaries do not belong in a union. I've worked for Liz Claiborne, Loehmann's and other firms as well and none of them were unionized. The warehouse personal sometimes were, the office workers never were As I said, its a competitive field, these companies do not want to lose their workers to the competition so the pay, hours, vacation time etc do not vary much within the field. After 5 or so years you get vested with the company and begin to get bonuses if you achieve your financial plan for the year. You get complete health insurance and a 401K plan too. The only thing missing is a pension plan but that's what the 401K is meant to be and the company matches your contribution into your account up to a certain point I'm middle management but most of the other folks I mentioned are not. No union-NY state does have strict labor laws that businesses have to comply with and between that and the free market system, I never felt I needed a union But I agree with you and Hal, many professions do as well as many states which don't protect their workers that well. I'm just saying that its not 100% in need. Or as Hl thinks, I 'm a lucky guy I had assumed you were a tradesman because it was in my response to my post about tradesmen claiming they hate the union. Believe me, if not for the unions every bricklayer would make $4 an hour. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 13, 2016 10:20:55 GMT -5
I've worked about 6 different places in the past 40 years and have not been part of a union. Workers were treated very fairly including myself. These companies are in competition to find and retain good employees. You don't necessarily need a union for that And you can have a country with no military and assume no one needs one because you've never been attacked. No one needs a union until the day they need a union. In that, unions are like car insurance or condom! But as with everything, there must be limits to the power of unions (or insurance companies for that matter). As for condoms, I'd hate to be forced to wear them at all times, all day long. I am very happy when my insurance pays for repairing the damage caused by an accidental fire. That's what insurance is for. Likewise, I am happy when unions force employers to treat workers decently instead of exploiting them like so many wage slaves. But give insurance companies or unions too much leeway, and the same thing always happens : they start operating for their own good(for the good of their leaders, that is) instead of their customers' or members'. In the case of unions, because Canada has several very large unions, I have often seen the employees of smaller companies be sacrificed in pointless strikes just so the union could prove it could hold to its guns, in preparation for much more important negociations in, say, the automotive industry. That a few dozen people at a local slaughterhouse lose their job for good when it has to close its doors is apparently a small price to pay. Naturally, since the managers of those big unions don't have a job outside of their high-paying ones as power brokers, they have little incentive to protect a few workers here or there... they go for the big numbers. They become cynical manipulators instead of workers' advocates. In a parallel vein, big unions can also be used in a perverse way to protect incompetent members and inefficient ways to do things. I don't mean by that that it's always the case, far from it, but I am always incensed when I'm told I don't have the right to change a lightbulb or to install a new bookshelf in my office (and I swear I'm not making this up) because it's not part of my job description and I'm somehow stealing someone else's money by doing so. Years ago I had to prepare a small lab experiment for visiting schoolchidlren, one that required a few petri dishes. I came in on a saturday and prepared the dishes, a job requiring half an hour at most. I was shocked to be blamed by the union the following week : that half-hour job, according to union rules, should have been performed by a tech; the tech would have had to come in during the week-end, which counts as overtime and is paid at twice the normal rate, and since any professional can't be called in on a week-end for less than three hours the tech would have been paid for six hours. Cripes, I can understand why universities run deficits! That's an example of union overreach, and why I'm wary of their getting too much power. I'm much more comfortable with smaller, more local unions, in which members have an interest not only in protecting their rights and their working conditions (which is perfectly justified) but also in the efficiency and economic health of the enterprise they work for. It's all about power and how the individual can exert it or be crushed by it. I want a union that is strong enough to prevent the worker from being crushed by the power of employers, but I also don't want it to be so strong that it crushes the worker by itself. Kind of like I am all for socialism, but not when it goes all soviet on us. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 13, 2016 10:24:38 GMT -5
And you can have a country with no military and assume no one needs one because you've never been attacked. No one needs a union until the day they need a union. In that, unions are like car insurance or condom! But as with everything, there must be limits to the power of unions (or insurance companies for that matter). As for condoms, I'd hate to be forced to wear them at all times, all day long. I am very happy when my insurance pays for repairing the damage caused by an accidental fire. That's what insurance is for. Likewise, I am happy when unions force employers to treat workers decently instead of exploiting them like so many wage slaves. But give insurance companies or unions too much leeway, and the same thing always happens : they start operating for their own good(for the good of their leaders, that is) instead of their customers' or members'. In the case of unions, because Canada has several very large unions, I have often seen the employees of smaller companies be sacrificed in pointless strikes just so the union could prove it could hold to its guns, in preparation for much more important negociations in, say, the automotive industry. That a few dozen people at a local slaughterhouse lose their job for good when it has to close its doors is apparently a small price to pay. Naturally, since the managers of those big unions don't have a job outside of their high-paying ones as power brokers, they have little incentive to protect a few workers here or there... they go for the big numbers. They become cynical manipulators instead of workers' advocates. In a parallel vein, big unions can also be used in a perverse way to protect incompetent members and inefficient ways to do things. I don't mean by that that it's always the case, far from it, but I am always incensed when I'm told I don't have the right to change a lightbulb or to install a new bookshelf in my office (and I swear I'm not making this up) because it's not part of my job description and I'm somehow stealing someone else's money by doing so. Years ago I had to prepare a small lab experiment for visiting schoolchidlren, one that required a few petri dishes. I came in on a saturday and prepared the dishes, a job requiring half an hour at most. I was shocked to be blamed by the union the following week : that half-hour job, according to union rules, should have been performed by a tech; the tech would have had to come in during the week-end, which counts as overtime and is paid at twice the normal rate, and since any professional can't be called in on a week-end for less than three hours the tech would have been paid for six hours. Cripes, I can understand why universities run deficits! That's an example of union overreach, and why I'm wary of their getting too much power. I'm much more comfortable with smaller, more local unions, in which members have an interest not only in protecting their rights and their working conditions (which is perfectly justified) but also in the efficiency and economic health of the enterprise they work for. It's all about power and how the individual can exert it or be crushed by it. I want a union that is strong enough to prevent the worker from being crushed by the power of employers, but I also don't want it to be so strong that it crushes the worker by itself. Kind of like I am all for socialism, but not when it goes all soviet on us. There are plenty of examples in history of corrupt unions that grew too powerful and helped no one but themselves, but there are far more examples in history of employers exploiting labor to the benefit of none. It should be a constant balancing act. Right now, unions are so under attack in America, unionized labor counting for such a startlingly small amount of the workforce, that there is no balance. coincidentally, we see Wall Street enjoying the largest gains its ever seen while the middle class is on a sharp, statistically demonstrable decline. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 13, 2016 10:39:32 GMT -5
In that, unions are like car insurance or condom! But as with everything, there must be limits to the power of unions (or insurance companies for that matter). As for condoms, I'd hate to be forced to wear them at all times, all day long. I am very happy when my insurance pays for repairing the damage caused by an accidental fire. That's what insurance is for. Likewise, I am happy when unions force employers to treat workers decently instead of exploiting them like so many wage slaves. But give insurance companies or unions too much leeway, and the same thing always happens : they start operating for their own good(for the good of their leaders, that is) instead of their customers' or members'. In the case of unions, because Canada has several very large unions, I have often seen the employees of smaller companies be sacrificed in pointless strikes just so the union could prove it could hold to its guns, in preparation for much more important negociations in, say, the automotive industry. That a few dozen people at a local slaughterhouse lose their job for good when it has to close its doors is apparently a small price to pay. Naturally, since the managers of those big unions don't have a job outside of their high-paying ones as power brokers, they have little incentive to protect a few workers here or there... they go for the big numbers. They become cynical manipulators instead of workers' advocates. In a parallel vein, big unions can also be used in a perverse way to protect incompetent members and inefficient ways to do things. I don't mean by that that it's always the case, far from it, but I am always incensed when I'm told I don't have the right to change a lightbulb or to install a new bookshelf in my office (and I swear I'm not making this up) because it's not part of my job description and I'm somehow stealing someone else's money by doing so. Years ago I had to prepare a small lab experiment for visiting schoolchidlren, one that required a few petri dishes. I came in on a saturday and prepared the dishes, a job requiring half an hour at most. I was shocked to be blamed by the union the following week : that half-hour job, according to union rules, should have been performed by a tech; the tech would have had to come in during the week-end, which counts as overtime and is paid at twice the normal rate, and since any professional can't be called in on a week-end for less than three hours the tech would have been paid for six hours. Cripes, I can understand why universities run deficits! That's an example of union overreach, and why I'm wary of their getting too much power. I'm much more comfortable with smaller, more local unions, in which members have an interest not only in protecting their rights and their working conditions (which is perfectly justified) but also in the efficiency and economic health of the enterprise they work for. It's all about power and how the individual can exert it or be crushed by it. I want a union that is strong enough to prevent the worker from being crushed by the power of employers, but I also don't want it to be so strong that it crushes the worker by itself. Kind of like I am all for socialism, but not when it goes all soviet on us. There are plenty of examples in history of corrupt unions that grew too powerful and helped no one but themselves, but there are far more examples in history of employers exploiting labor to the benefit of none. It should be a constant balancing act. Right now, unions are so under attack in America, unionized labor counting for such a startlingly small amount of the workforce, that there is no balance. coincidentally, we see Wall Street enjoying the largest gains its ever seen while the middle class is on a sharp, statistically demonstrable decline. Yeah, the situations in the US and Canada can't be compared. Not only because unions here are far more important than the US, but also because our very laws are more worker-friendly than down south. In fact, it could be argued that our strong labour laws make most of our unions kind of superfluous but it is obvious that they would never have been edicted without the existence of the unions, and that were the unions to disappear they would probably be eroded little by little, as business-friendly lobbies got unbalanced access to politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 27, 2016 22:05:24 GMT -5
One thing that striking to me with Trump (and maybe Cruz as well), is how often they same to repeat about ISIS: "They're beheading Christians." ISIS, and other Islamist terrorist groups, seems to be in the habit of beheading foreigners. It's not just Christians, but other foreigners like Chinese hostages.
All this seems to suggest that the "They're beheading Christians" line is about trying to frame the situation as a war between religions, rather than between extremists and normal people. It also seems to suggest that those candidates think non-Christians matter. The fact is that the religious affiliation of most of the victims of such extremists are other Muslims. They regularly bomb the mosques of other Muslims, but that doesn't get as much coverage as attacks on non-Muslims in the U.S. or Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 27, 2016 22:14:01 GMT -5
One thing that striking to me with Trump (and maybe Cruz as well), is how often they same to repeat about ISIS: "They're beheading Christians." ISIS, and other Islamist terrorist groups, seems to be in the habit of beheading foreigners. It's not just Christians, but other foreigners like Chinese hostages. All this seems to suggest that the "They're beheading Christians" line is about trying to frame the situation as a war between religions, rather than between extremists and normal people. It also seems to suggest that those candidates think non-Christians matter. The fact is that the religious affiliation of most of the victims of such extremists are other Muslims. They regularly bomb the mosques of other Muslims, but that doesn't get as much coverage as attacks on non-Muslims in the U.S. or Europe. ISIS' victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. As are the Taliban's victims. So it's all about framing the issue in a way that it completely disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 27, 2016 22:48:18 GMT -5
One thing that striking to me with Trump (and maybe Cruz as well), is how often they same to repeat about ISIS: "They're beheading Christians." ISIS, and other Islamist terrorist groups, seems to be in the habit of beheading foreigners. It's not just Christians, but other foreigners like Chinese hostages. All this seems to suggest that the "They're beheading Christians" line is about trying to frame the situation as a war between religions, rather than between extremists and normal people. It also seems to suggest that those candidates think non-Christians matter. The fact is that the religious affiliation of most of the victims of such extremists are other Muslims. They regularly bomb the mosques of other Muslims, but that doesn't get as much coverage as attacks on non-Muslims in the U.S. or Europe. ISIS' victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. As are the Taliban's victims. So it's all about framing the issue in a way that it completely disingenuous. And that's why you see ads calling attention to "Christian Genocide." |
|
