Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23.  @rh-sd7tf  "Schools that receive less funding have lower educational standards." <link deleted because the channel won't let me post links> " In the mid 1950s education spending began a rapid increase, from a low of 2.6 percent in 1953. Education spending peaked at 5.7 percent in 1976 before declining for the next decade to 4.7 percent of GDP in 1984. In the mid 1980s education spending began to increase again. It flatlined at about 5.3 percent of GDP in the 1990s, but resumed its growth in the 2000s, reaching 6.1 percent in 2010 before declining to 5.6 percent GDP in 2015. In 2022 education spending was 6.9 percent GDP. " (end quote) We're spending more on education now than we did when it worked. Obviously, throwing money at the teachers unions isn't the answer or we would have the best education system in the world. Several states are passing school choice measures so things should improve from here on out. The decline started when Jimmy Carter legalized public sector unions and established the federal Department of Education. Eliminate those two mistakes and bring in school choice (vouchers) and we're good. The situation with the teacher's union is not comparable with a private sector situation where only the wage workers are unionized and all the salaried employees are not and the union negotiates against the management. Not only the teachers, but the entire local, state, and federal administrative hierarchy is union. There is no countervailing power to negotiate against them. The unions, and the unions alone completely control the system from top to bottom so there is nobody else to blame. Nobody else has input. The local school boards and PTAs are supposed to exercise effective oversight, but the establishment has such power that when parents try to exercise oversight, the establishment calls the FBI director on speed dial to get them investigated for "terrorism". The only aspect of K-12 education not fully under the control of the union oligarchs is the budget, and all that ever happens to the budget is it goes up. Before Jimmy Carter established the federal Department of Education and legalized public sector unions, the US had a world class primary and secondary education system. Now we're spending more and getting less, and we don't compare favorably with other nations in education. They aren't outspending us, they just don't have an empowered clique running their system as a jobs program for teachers and administrators. Private schools can outperform most public schools for the same amount of money. Spending the same amount and getting more for your buck is the opposite of wasting money. This result is not limited to "prep" type schools with larger budgets than public schools, but applies to parochial schools as well, which usually operate on considerably smaller budgets than public schools. Think what they could do with the same per student allocation as the public schools get (and maybe a church subsidy, as well)! <link deleted> Even home schooled children, with the lowest "school budget" of all, and generally without teachers with masters degrees in education generally outperform public school educated children. <link deleted> It is the current system that is wasting money hand over fist. And a much more precious resource as well.
    1
  24. 1
  25.  @seanbrown9048  Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis: You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century. Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
    1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37.  @quango111  The US healthy enthusiasm for guns and gun ownership has served us well. While the US does rank somewhere in the 80s worldwide in per capita murders overall, which is high for a western country, the devil is in the details. Virtually all of these murders take place in certain Democrat dominated municipalities with strict gun control laws. Counties with the highest rate of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates. In the UK it is becoming more common for thieves to invade British homes when they know the occupants are home. Instead of sneaking around at night, or mugging people in the streets, they break in and get the combined haul of a burglary and a mugging in one job. Naturally, in a nation where gun ownership for self defense by private citizens is prohibited, they can count on 3 young strong men with clubs or knives being able to overpower whatever is waiting for them inside. This does not happen in the US for good and sufficient reason. In this area and most, we're doing it right and Europe is doing it wrong. (I had 5 links to articles in prominent British publications documenting my claims in my original post in my original post. YT wouldn't let me post that version. The way that that works is it looks like you've posted the reply, but when you reload the page, it's gone. I always check since I discovered this. Just think how many folk think they're replying to you, but you can't see their replies. It is easy to program a "black list" of links into the AI. Someday, I would love to see that list published, for educational purposes.)
    1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1