WBUR self reports on its 2016 referendum polling. Also, we like the idea of banning tiny cages for chickens.
This is what's called "not thinking things through".
Which one do you think people are not thinking through?
Suffolk Downs is a much better site than Everett for a casino since it is on a subway stop. Either way, if another casino is approved, it will drain away some gamblers from Everett, reducing the congestion it will add to near Sullivan Square. The more casinos the less congestion around each one.
It would be specifically a slots parlor at the site of a mobe-home park the Bill's proponent owns near the racetrack. More on the question.
Curatone is still tantrumming about not allowing them to build a bridge to Assembly.
Maybe someone should change his pants and explain "state land" to him?
I've been beating that drum for years. "Oh, there's going to be so much traffic through Charlestown to get to the Wynn." Well, no (expletive), Sherlock, your Democrat government, in their infinite wisdom, decided to manufacture artificially pent-up demand for the public to visit a casino by banning them for many years, and even upon approval of them by the voters, establishing an artificial cap on how many can exist.
It's like the Donald Trump "they don't look Indian" video that surfaced recently. That's a foolish thing for the Cheeto to say, but his greater point stood. Why was the Congressman who was grilling him an arbiter of who gets to sell blackjack to people?
Casinos have always been the cause our tiny republican state rep contingency. They have argued for decades (not unreasonably) that Mass citizens spend billions st CN casinos, why don't we have we have them so they spend the money in state? Of course. It was always a non starter with state Dems, but Patrick backed anything and everything which can raise revenues (taxes) on the masses. Now the knee jerk response is that republicans hate casinos because they are a Dem thing, because of course.
That old trump video you speak of is well known and didn't recently "surface". The setting was why did the Feds give a casino Foxwoods, not whatever you think it was.
Sir, what I do in the shower is my own business.
but using "Democrat" that way sounds stilted and dumb. I know it's meant to degrade, and I think it does, but not who you think it does.
Have you ever been to a slots only casino? They're fucking awful, all the noise and none of the fun. No resort, never any of the more fancy/fun restaurants, and usually shittier entertainment options too.
The only people they attract are basically the only people who shouldn't even be at a casino in the first place. They only exist as some fucked up "hybrid" moral middle ground for the voters that agree to have them but don't want "real casinos" with all their "corruption from those dirty dealers" and "evils of the rollin' dice". If you allow resort casinos, then there's literally zero need for slots only locations. Resorts are still going to load up on slots because they're the money makers while the tables are all fun and glamour. If you want slots only locations, let any bar install slot machines...boom, instant "slots only" locations at your local pub.
" If you want slots only locations, let any bar install slot machines...boom, instant "slots only" locations at your local pub."
Sure, why not?
Suffolk Downs is a much better site than Everett for a casino since it is on a subway stop.
East Boston is booming right now, and from what I'm seeing in the neighborhood Facebook groups, it's even getting hard to find a reasonable place in Revere. Traffic has continued to get worse, especially on 1A, and the Blue Line has been getting more and more crowded, even on weekends.
I'm not saying Everett is a good place for it either, because quite frankly, both are horrible ideas. But Suffolk Downs is not a better spot just because of the subway. We're already dealing with being "the new Southie," we don't need this too.
Oh boy, WBUR really found some interesting people to interview...
It has the support of Gov. Charlie Baker.
His chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Paul Sagan, has donated $100,000 to one of the four political action committees supporting the measure.
It has the support of Gov. Charlie Baker.
His chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Paul Sagan, has donated $100,000 to one of the four political action committees supporting the measure.
How is it legal for the chairman of the board of education to donate $100,000 to a political campaign that directly affects his job?
"They don't want to put their kids into public school systems because of all the political correctness," Wade said. "You look at this transgender bathroom issue. A lot of parents are going nuts over that. It's almost like there's a liberal progressive movement to rewrite history."
I suppose abolitionists were part of a "liberal progressive movement to rewrite history" as well. And so was the civil rights movement.
"Basically, I believe marijuana is just a gateway to other drugs, and I don't think it's a good situation to have complete total access to the drug," Cooper said. "Don't like it."
Boy, people really like to cling to this fallacy, don't they? Amusingly, even the results of this very poll contradict that idea.
Who cares if the poll data refutes the issue -- it's a reflection of the opinions of people which usually have little to do with reality (sort of like Mr. Wade's comments). The actual scientific data on marijuana is inconclusive -- but people typically confuse correlation with causation. Once you strip that out, some studies hint at the possibility of cannabis use changing adolescent brains to make them more susceptible to addiction -- but not any more so than nicotine or alcohol, which we know those under 18 NEVER gain access to.
Grumpy cynics like to talk about killing all the lawyers (totally down with that by the way), but personally, with all due respect to Steve Koczela, I think shoving all pollsters off a cliff would probably make our lives and politics much better (and force journalists to actually get off their fat asses and work for a story. The lazy, drunken bastards).
...when the substance of the issue is sound-bit into something misleading and meaningless like "don't like charter schools".
Alcohol is legal and we don't have "complete total access" to it. It's regulated, as marijuana would be.
It's not a gateway drug, despite what he "believes." This person can believe that fairies put spells on the T and that's why it sucks so bad, but that wouldn't make it true. Legislation should be based on the facts at hand, not pearl clutching "beliefs."
It's also a social justice issue - as Mike Connolly (guy who just beat Tim Toomey) pointed out in his campaign. Even if you don't particularly like weed, it's not right for people to have criminal records for using it. We have failed the war on drugs, and legalizing marijuana is just one step in the direction to trying to help the crisis. Regulate and tax the basically harmless drug to fund more programs for people who have REAL drug problems, mainly opiates.
Benadryl has been shown to cause dementia and cognitive decline when used over an extended period and it's available in any store. People really get their panties in a bunch when someone uses a drug "recreationally," why is that? Why is it ok to use drugs medically that cause all kinds of problems, but not ok to use one that hardly causes any problems just because they like the way it makes them feel?
Why do people want to keep funding violent, evil drug cartels?
Agreed 100%. I am tired of the weed-phobic people. It's clear that anyone who still thinks this way are stuck in Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" 1980s drug campaign. And frankly, they are apart of the problem not the solution.
I'm tired of hearing it. Yet you bring up alcohol, and you get every song and dance out there why it should remain legal. But ya know, yeah personal anecdotes aren't factual but... I know more people with alcoholism than people who smoke too much pot (Yeah I know of a few of those too). Don't try to tell me alcohol isn't a problem.. because it is.
I was watching a debate on WBZ one morning a few weeks ago about this ballot question.. and the guy from the group trying to get this passed had one comment that struck a cord.
"If marijuana is a gateway drug, please show me a scientific studies that prove that fact"
Amazingly enough, they can't because there's no documented proof that pot is a gateway drug. But what has been found time and time again, is that pot isn't one and does not promote further drug use.
All for legalization of weed and see it as no worse maybe even less damaging than alcohol, but there is one weird thing. Pot smokers regularly start up the day with a joint, and their friends don't really bat an eye because, you know, it's not a big deal. But if you knew someone who rolled out of bed and had a couple of beers or a scotch before heading into work, came in reeking of booze and a little wobbly - wouldn't you feel just a little "judgey" about them? Like maybe they got a problem. So why is it different when a co-worker comes in smelling like a fragrant bud and generally a little slower on the draw?
You're free to judge on a personal level just the same. Still shouldn't be illegal though.
I would consider reeking of pot when entering the office just as fireable an offense as reeking of booze. In a corporate environment it isn't acceptable and legalization isn't going to change that. (Some people will learn this the hard way.) The only recreational drug that acceptable to take in the morning is coffee and even caffeine has limits.
I'm in favor of legalization but don't subscribe to the "it's harmless" dogma. With few exceptions, someone who's stoned is not efficient and isn't going to make trustworthy decisions.
I've never worked with a "wake and bake" type and I've never been one myself. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't think it's a good representation of people who partake in recreational marijuana. There are lots of levels of use.
Personally, I would think the same thing about someone who smoked in the morning as I would someone who drank alcohol in the morning. I would think they were sad.
I'm amazed by how many misconceptions about weed are out there. I've known tons of professional people who partake now and again (professors, doctors, you name it), and they are just as responsible and successful as those who don't. At least their marijuana use isn't what contributes to their success or failure as people.
Pot smokers regularly start up the day with a joint,
I didn't this morning. And I'm a regular smoker. Actually most mornings I don't because ya know. I got shit to do. Thanks for the generalization tho.
But if you knew someone who rolled out of bed and had a couple of beers or a scotch before heading into work, came in reeking of booze and a little wobbly
As someone who left a job because of an alcoholic boss (among other infractions I had against this man). I'll tell you this.. I'd rather deal with a stoned boss at 8am than a drunk one. That boss was unstable when drunk. A stoner.. he might giggle and head over to the snack machine. But he'd still work and be somewhat useful. The drunk boss... not so much.
wake and bake is fine for a rainy weekend morning, but weekdays I suspect most pot users act like most alcohol users - in moderation and when appropriate.
contrary to popular belief, pot smokers can make rational decisions.
That's the key... moderation and when appropriate. That's the difference between a recreational user and someone who has an issue :-)
I will admit it's my sunday thing to do.. but again, when and where appropriate.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all folks who light up do so on a morning basis. But that some do. Just like some people manage to wake up and not drink until later in the day. I would agree with everything you said. The point I was making was that I have met a lot of cannabis aficionados who spend a lot of time smoked up and feel that it is totally normal. They don't consider alcoholics the same way and I was asking why. And yes, I'd rather deal with someone stoned than drunk, as many people get pretty belligerent when pissed. Or responding to internet posts...
See grammar and commas matter :-)
No worries :-)
I have only known of a couple of people who do that.
One is my disabled uncle who uses weed instead of oxy, which he hated but didn't previously have an alternative for.
The other was one of my husband's college roommates and he had serious mental illness issues.
That isn't recreational use in either case - it is self-medication.
Been a while since chick Forrest Gump dropped one on us.
Every time someone tries to convince me that legalization is the right answer, I end up more in the camp of prohibition.
For example, you write-
Even if you don't particularly like weed, it's not right for people to have criminal records for using it.
True, except that in Massachusetts you don't get a criminal record for possession of less than an ounce anymore.
Why should anyone have a criminal record for weed at all?
fefu, pro tip: don't drive high on weed, just like don't drive drunk in Pabst Blue Ribbon. don't smoke pot at kids' playgrounds. don't sell
joints to minors. get it?
I asked my high schooler: how much for a joint? He said $2-$5.
Meanwhile, Colorado kids are actually having a tougher time getting their hands on the stuff and fewer are using it.
Prohibition = no control. Legalization = control.
Please show some scientific evidence supporting the contention that driving while high is like driving drunk.
Which reminds me of another reason why I think pot should be illegal- I had to keep the fan off in the window by the bedrooms this summer lest the 3 year old get a contact high. Don't quite have that problem when the neighbors get piss drunk (okay, I am thankful the loud drunks are gone.)
Talk to your neighbor. If that doesn't work, complain to your landlord because it is likely a nonsmoking lease.
Legalization also means edibles are available, and people just munch instead of smoke.
But, hey, if you want that kid of yours to have access to $2 joints at school in ten years ...
Not to mention the fact that I drive a car once about every 6 months anyway.
That's the end result of prohibition - no control over who gets access to controlled substances.
Parents of young kids always have great parenting theories about what teens are like and what their kid will be like. Keep weed illegal and you give your kid more choices in cheap things they shouldn't be touching.
Want weed to be completely uncontrolled so your kids can smoke it, too? PROHIBITION
When Waquiot Sr. was in middle school, the kids used to buy cigarettes all the time, even though one needed to be 18 to purchase them. When I got to high school, kids used to buy booze (albeit it through a third party) all the time, even though one needed to be 21 to purchase said beverages.
As it is now, we can not only point to the foolishness of smoking pot, but also to the fact that society as a whole (no, not everyone, but the body politic as a collective) has declared that it is not in the best interest to allow the purchase of marijuana and has hence made it illegal.
It's the thing the legalizers don't get- most arguments they give just hardens my point of view.
that's cause you have no interest in having your view changed. You've already made up your mind and are now just patting yourself on the back when you can string together a reply to the argument you're faced with.
This particular debate begins with "pot is no more dangerous than alcohol," which is quite a valid point, but somehow yes supporters end up turning me off.
I guess I'm about as set in my views as the guy I replied to, which says a lot about the debate.
So you want Waquoit Jr. to buy $2 joints in middle school
Pot is the least of your childs concerns at school. I'd be worried about other things.
My sister and her two kids came to visit a few weeks ago. Greg is now 16 and in high school. I know Greg smokes pot.. not allowed around me.. but fine, it's my sisters issue, not mine.. But talking with him. He says its easier to get pills (oxy's, ativan, etc) at school than it is to get pot.
My point.. times have changed. It's not 1975 anymore.
My kids told me that cigs and alcohol were much harder to get than pot. Likely a change from Waquoit's day, when merchants didn't card for either and there were no crackdowns like there are now.
Weed was by far the easiest to get, followed by adderall and opiates.
I won't doubt you there. Sister is from New Hampshire so it is a bit different up there.
Even still. When I was a teenager (early 1990s), it was pot N booze. Nothing else. You MIGHT hear about coke.. and the key word there is "hear". But never saw any. LSD was popular still when I was a teen.. was pretty hard to come by, but easy if you knew the right people.
But as far as pillz and the like that are getting passed around today. None back then. I don't remember *any* pharms being passed around.
Doesn't putting heavy taxes on legal weed and a lot of regulation give the edge to the illegal market. If you want to bring down the cartels it seems you should not tax weed at all or tax it really lightly so you can undercut the cartel price.
A tax on pot is also just another regressive tax... talking about social justice.
Because there's a huge black market for illegal tobacco and alcohol because it's regulated and taxed.
Actually there is. Remember Eric Gardner? He was confronted by cops for selling cigarettes illegally.
Was selling loosies which he most likely got from a legally purchased pack of taxed cigarettes.
Caught some flack for saying that tobacco taxes and regulation in NY got Eric Garner killed. Imagine how offensive it would have been if he hadn't been right.
People slinging loose cigarettes are not a "huge black market". They're not giving away a few for free to get people to come back for the "real stuff". They're actually filling a hole in the market and it's not one a lot of people care about. If he rode a bike around selling loose cigarettes door-to-door when he got paged, he would still be alive...people cared more about guys like him because he chose to loiter in front of stores selling packs and he was taking away from business and bothering other customers.
For example, people still moonshine. Some even sell what they make. However, there's not a "huge black market" for illegal alcohol.
When given the choice between a more expensive, but legal and regulated, purchase or a cheaper, but illegal and fraught with unknown quality control, product, people will overwhelmingly pay more but know that they can trust the result and nobody's going to arrest them for doing so.
Unless you are just saying that Eric Garner was huge, therefore the secondary market must be as well.
Please cite your sources and show your work.
The tax was already paid for on those cigarettes. What he was doing was selling loose cigs to poor people who maybe didn't have enough money to buy a whole pack...because they are like $14 in NYC. Loosies have been available for as long as cigs sold in packs have, but the money for the pack, and hence the taxes, still goes in the till at the end of the day. Loosies being illegal is the product of the anti-tobacco lobby, trying to restrict tobacco at every turn. this lobby is arguably bigger and more well funded than the ACTUAL tobacco lobby. It has nothing to do with taxes. In many countries you can buy smaller packs of cigarettes (10 per pack) for lower prices, but not here. They have to make it cost-prohibitive to curb smoking.
There is a black market for literally every product that is available legally. Any arguments using the black market as a talking point are stupid. It will still exist when we legalize pot, yes. It still exists for alcohol too. I drink home brewed beer every so often as well as moonshine and home-distilled whiskey. Still, 99.99999% of my booze comes from the store, taxes paid.
The elephant in the room for all these discussions is DOES, OR DOES NOT THE STATE WANT A CUT OF THE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT ON POT? That is the question facing the electorate. If you don't like pot, don't like the smell, think its a gateway drug, etc etc, THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT. It is just about the easiest mind-altering substance one can obtain without the benefit of being legal, Easier in fact for kids to get than alcohol, despite both being "illegal" for the underagers in question. Pot will be there. It's not going away. It's EVERYWHERE. Do you want the money or not? If not that's fine, the vote will bear this out. If it doesn't pass Waiquot will STILL be bitching about the contact high his kid is getting. Literally nothing will change besides not getting the extra cash in the state coffers.
I drink home brewed beer every so often
That's legal. Homebrewing/winemaking has been legal federally since the 70s and the last two holdout states MS and AL passed their homebrewing laws in 2013. There's a federal cap on just how much volume constitutes "homebrewing" in a year and states can be more strict if they choose and you can't just bottle and sell it legally. But you can make it and drink it and give it to friends. Home distilling is not however legal at all.
because the price is horrendously over inflated specifically because of the current illegal distribution system. You could put a 100% tax on legally grown pot and it would still be cheaper than it currently is.
the price of pot has remained the same for well over 10 years, maybe 20. Given inflation you could actually say it is cheaper than ever, back to 60s prices. Fact of the matter is pot is insanely cheap to produce. in CO and WA there are a bunch of other associated costs with inventory systems, taxes, fees, etc, and it is STILL worth it to the tune of billions of dollars to grow it with said regulations. It is one of the most tenacious plants on the planet, stronger and more hearty than almost any crop a farmer could ever grow. The price inflates on the black market to what it has become because it must be "taxed" at every step. From farmer to pipe there are likely 10+ people that need to make money off each change of hands until you are paying $60 for an eighth. Each person in that chain must be TRUSTED 100% in order for the product to move. You replace these "taxes" with actual taxes and fees and regulatory costs and the price stays the same. The current black market has essentially set the price for the legal market. The legal market is slightly pricier than the black market, but then you get better quality control, and you know what strain you're getting, vs Carlos on the corner just giving you what he's got.
All this has given the state a great buffer zone to allow for taxation, but if you taxed it at 100% it would be double what it is on the black market, instead of slightly above the black market. In CO for instance EVERY plant from seed to harvest needs a UPC code and tracking number to monitor where its going. That is not a cheap system for growers to implement and takes more labor hours to log and keep track of than traditional farming takes. If you applied that system to tomatoes they would be $5 each at Shaws. The low cost of actually producing pot allows for regulations like that to be implanted, along with taxation, and still make it a viable business. Black market suppliers still need to pay someone for transport, and each dealer gets their markup until it gets to the end user. If the legal market matched their prices the black market has a lot of room to go lower, but the product won't be nearly as good. Do you want a white label can that just says BEER on it or do you want Heady Topper from The Alchemist?
Focal Banger and Crusher are fucking outstanding as well.
We found an empty can in our son's room when he moved to college! Tis the stuff of degenerate wreck and ruin!
They don't want to put their kids into public school systems because of all the political correctness," Wade said. "You look at this transgender bathroom issue. A lot of parents are going nuts over that. It's almost like there's a liberal progressive movement to rewrite history."
Old fart lives in Webster. I had to look that up. It's a tiny town in the CT border, pop 16K. One elementary, one middle, one high school. No charters.
The queers are coming for your grandkids, Wade, just like the tee vee said. Union queers! So you better start a charter school in Webster quick.
Charter schools are privatized institutions, exempt from not only laws governing public schools, but also from all equal rights rulings from courts both district and federal. Why, I hear that even TRYING to use the wrong bathroom is grounds for summary execution, at these newfangled charter schools.
My least and most favorite part of the internet is that everything you say lives forever. Usually its to the detriment of everyone, but it's nice to know that when someone looks up Wade's name in 50 years, he'll still be proudly proclaiming his bigotry for all the world to see. Shuffle off into oblivion, boomer assholes, the grownups are running things now.
My kid is now legally forced to believe that heliocentrism is only a theory because they go to a charter school. The kids also can't learn about Benedict Arnold in history because one student has a severe egg allergy. Don't get me started on the 'there are aliens in dormant volcanoes' part of the geology curriculum.
Oh well, it's just the price I pay to make sure the Walton heirs are happy.
of any ideology or movement that hinges on a youth; youth, by it's very nature, involves inexperience, ignorance, and often deep insecurities. It's one the reasons marketers love marketing to youth. Their teams of psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologist, etc., know youth are generally easy to manipulate.
As for the transgendered bathroon issue: How many youth, or anyone for that matter, including gays, really give a rat's ass about this subject? Of all the extremely pressing issues we face, how the hell did this make it to the top of the list by so-called progressives? And of course, no one is going to be shot for usingthe 'wrong' bathroom, but you'll definitely freak out the gender-typical men and women using those bathrooms.
"Youth" does not only mean tweens or high-schoolers. I really don't think you can call the 45 and under set "easy to manipulate" and "inexperienced". And that's the age range I think most people mean when they say they want the older generation to GTFO of these issues and have the younger one take over.
No, slots casinos suck the life out of old people and the poor.
No, charter schools are private institutes that get public funding...you know, like the MBTA...you want more MBTAs??
Yes, animals should be free to move around...hell, even turn around...THEN we eat them.
Yes, you want to be "world class" and stick it up the ass of every New Yorker? Then make them come here and spend their hard-earned money as pot tourists!
Why is it your business if adults want to gamble. I think it's a waste of time and money - so what? If you don't let them do it here, they're just heading off to RI, CT or soon Everett anyway. Voting no is just cutting off your nose to spite your face like Eastie did on the casino vote.
What is the alternative for the thousands (possibly tens of thousands depending on what lists you use) of kids on waiting lists that want out of their local public school system? Most of these kids and their parents can't easily pick up and move. What kind of elitist snob are you to condemn them to attend one of the lowest performing systems in the state - whether that be Boston, Lynn, Lowell, Springfield, Fall River etc. - all in the supposed interest of protecting them against "privatizing" schools? Oh the horrors - they might actually get an education and escape a cycle of poverty.
Other stuff - sure - who doesn't want bigger cages and greater choice of mind altering substances - just don't drive if you use them. Maybe if you use them we should put you in a cage until the effects wear off.
Why is it your business if adults want to gamble.
It's not. That's why I agree to having outlets to do it, like the resort casino that will be 5 miles away. However, we know that allowing gambling comes with both benefits and detriments to society. More gambling availability means a greater segment of the population that can't afford to gamble doing so. So, we should allow it in a way that increases benefits and limits detriments as much as possible. Being laissez-faire doesn't mean being lazy. The easiest way to do that is require large hotel/resort style establishments that bring far more than just money-eating slot machines. If Suffolk Down said they wanted to build a resort style casino, I'd be game to hear their ideas and consider another resort license. Otherwise, your taxes will go up to help support the people who can least afford draining their entire budget into a slot machine hoping for a quick win. I thought you cared about not wanting to pay higher taxes.
What is the alternative for the thousands (possibly tens of thousands depending on what lists you use) of kids on waiting lists that want out of their local public school system?
Maybe tell them to get back to class so they can get the education necessary to have the critical thinking skills you're currently lacking.
Oh the horrors - they might actually get an education and escape a cycle of poverty.
Haha, kool-aid drinker.
You want to end poverty, maybe the Waltons could take the billions they're spending on trying to make Charter Schools a thing and distribute that to their employees.
I'm supposedly the one lacking critical thinking skills and you cite an article that reaches a conclusion ignoring the basic reality of the role of higher education to remain competitive in a global economy to make a point that doesn't remotely make sense.
Then you make a ridiculous statement like the Waltons should take the billions they are spending on Charter schools and give it to their employees.
Walmart employs 1.5 million American workers - or about 1% of the workforce. Assuming they were spending even $1.5 billion on charter school promotion (assuming they are spending $30 million in every state in the union - or more than twice what's been spent in Mass so far) - that's $1000 per employee. Yeah - that'll fix a lot.
Next time you criticize someone of not having critical thinking skills, you might want to run some numbers rather than just rely on Google and headlines. Now we know why and how you reach your conclusions about complex topics. Explains a lot.
That article literally presents data and quotes where it came from and took quotes that support its conclusion.
But it doesn't jive with your idiom of "education = no poverty" so you ignore it. If you're provided numbers, they're all bullshit and the other person should try harder. If you're not provided numbers, "where are the numbers???". You're full of excuses and bogus interpretations of reality. You can't even fathom how someone who made $20,000 this year might be able to use an additional 5% of their salary (psst, that's $1000). They would use it by putting it back into the economy. Instead the Waltons have spent $1B (look it up yourself, or don't and call me a liar, or go fuck yourself and pretend you're a pretty pony, I don't care what your reaction to what I say is any longer) on ads and basically funding anything anti-union. That's not money going to those in need and the results will be fewer jobs worth shit employing people who don't give a shit teaching kids who might find out the next day the school just closed. Or moved to Norwood from Burlington. Or whatever the fuck some private organization wants to do with the public's money regardless of what it means for the kids.
And that's the bottom line on this: our public schools suck? That's on us. That's something we have to fix for everyone's benefit.
Our Charter Schools suck? That's on them, maybe parents will complain and enrollment will go down. Maybe not, maybe parents won't even be told how bad it is until it's too late. Maybe the charter owner pockets every third dollar because he is paying himself as the "management organization" responsible for paying the bills for the non-profit. Maybe ANYTHING. They aren't responsible to anyone. That's the best way to be sure our kids are getting the most from their education. Clearly.
But if they are used to support a flawed premise - they don't mean much. If you lack the knowledge or critical thinking skills to understand the flaw in the premise of this putz (who recently got fired for being a putz) whose writing comes with an extremely biased agenda- don't blame me (hint - Rip van Winkle is a nice story - but you can't go to sleep for 23 years and think you'll magically be able to compare apples to apples).
As for - fix the public schools - we've tried - over and over and over. The unions have said go to hell for years - we're a monopoly and you have no choice.
So instead of going through the unions, we came up with a solution that goes around them - which are basically the fix - longer school days, longer school years, more discipline, segregation of kids by behavior and learning ability and more. It's working for tens of thousands across the state - it's not perfect - but it is better. And the unions HATE it and have so far thrown about $7 million at their job preservation scheme of false advertising about the charters which people like you have bought hook line and sinker.
Too effing bad. I don't give a crap about the teachers or any of the adults as long as the kids are getting what they need. Period. Mass charter results speak for themselves and EVERY kid (and parent) that wants that opportunity should have it. At the end of the day - if the charters are so bad - nobody will go there and all the rich guys supposedly making money off this system will lose. I'd love to see that - why? That means that the charters one upped the publics (which they have) and that then the publics responded by one upping the charters. The kids win.
Gambling as economic engine is a load of crap and I won't enable the pols telling the proles otherwise.
Yes to charters. Break the public unions. Public jobs have no business being politicized the way the teachers unions are politicizing them. Teachers are not blue collar workers, period.
No. They're chickens, they don't have souls, and so long as the metaphorical spice keeps flowing without artificial price floors imposed by dogooder busybodies, I don't care.
No opinion on weed. Don't really like smelling it from the downstairs neighbor through the vent, don't really have a good reason for telling people how to spend their free time.
they don't have souls
BACK IN YOUR CAGE!
I certainly couldn't have thought of an incisive rebuttal like that.
Thank you once again for showing us all how clever you are. I stand in awe at this, surely the best, application of an MIT education in the twin arts of logic and rhetoric.
No. They're chickens, they don't have souls
And what exactly is a 'soul', and how do you determine if an organism has one? Do dogs and cats have souls? Because if not, then I'm sure you'd be fine with a puppy spending its entire life in a tiny cage where it can barely move, right? If you're not okay with that, but they don't have souls, then surely that can't be a valid argument, right?
and specify its error rates I'll have this discussion with you. Until then, I assert that souls are things that only humans have. My mind may be swayed by a radio signal from the sky, and even then I'd be skeptical.
... that humans have souls?
unless you know something I don't. But then "knowing anything" might not be that meaningful...See what happens when you start treating basic axioms like they're micraggressions?
What does having a soul have to do with treating animals with a bit of respect? And if you're really all that buggered about soul-less things not needing to be given any mind, then consider the well-established fact that treating the animals better means the quality of their meat and byproducts goes up.
The only argument for continuing to factory farm animals in shitty conditions is price and I believe that's a local minimum, as in, the price could be as low or lower even with better conditions if we only forced companies to innovate efficiencies into new processes that took into account those requirements of better conditions.
Companies are great at finding the cheapest way to meet all the rules. It's what they do. It's the best outcome from capitalism. However, they'll also do everything they can to wipe out the rules or prevent them from being put in place in the first place because it fits that same mantra. We have no idea what the next idea might be to treat animals better while simultaneously making more profit than they are now because they have found a deep well in the process versus price graph where you don't change process without a jump up in price. Let's fill that well in so they have to find a new one to sit in...one where the animals can sit...or stand next to them.
Since you're a socialist who thinks magic can happen if only you impose more costs on people.
because they have found a deep well in the process versus price graph where you don't change process without a jump up in price. Let's fill that well in so they have to find a new one to sit in...one where the animals can sit...or stand next to them.
Prove it. Don't assert it. Who's making faith-based policy proscriptions now?
And legalizing cannabis doesn't begin to go far enough. The DEA, all the federal, state, and local agencies that get BIG $ from our so-called War in Drugs (A COMPLETE DISASTER, SAME AS ALCOHOL PROHIBITION) are a Frankenstein monster that needs to be put down. Likewise, the manner in which big corporations and $ interests, in the case of the War on Drugs, the biggest drug dealers of them all, the mega pharmaceutical corps, need to be neutered to stop their fascist like control of our governments and society.
And no, I'm not a druggie, far left moonbat or far right wingnut.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy