Another really fun "back to school" article today. This one is about how parents are being asked to supply even more school stuff than normal. I remember when schools gave out one pencil and one tablet for every nine week period. I remember when I had to start buying paper and pencils because the school could no longer afford to give them out. I even remember when the kindergarten teacher at the local elementary started asking parents to send in tissues. What parents are now being asked to supply is almost a joke.
*Paper towels
*Paper plates
*Hand sanitizer
*Baby wipes
*Liquid soap
*Ziploc bags
All of that sounds almost reasonable, right? I mean, these could all theoretically be used by your child, for his own hygiene. It gets so much better.
*Garbage bags
*Clorox wipes
*Wet swiffer refills
So now parents are being asked to pay for cleaning supplies for the schools?
And the coup de grace:
*Toilet paper
No shit. Although I suppose if there was no shit, toilet paper in schools wouldn't be in such short supply. Kids have to bring their own toilet paper. And parents are okay with this. They get the must buy list every year, and every year they simply go and get what's on the list, whether it makes sense to them or not?
There are some parent quotes in the article. One mother said she would rather buy the goods than expect the teacher to do so. And I will quote - "We don't expect Walmart cashiers to buy the plastic bags for our groceries, or the mailman to pay for the gas to deliver our mail." Of course we don't. We expect the money we pay for the groceries to cover the cost of the plastic bags, and we expect the money we pay to send packages to pay for the gas. Why shouldn't we expect the taxes we pay for the schools to cover the cost of basic maintenance supplies? Teachers shouldn't be paying for this stuff out of pocket either.
We don't expect prisoners to buy the supplies to keep the prison clean, do we? Yet we expect school kids to supply the stuff to keep the schools clean? What's next? I can envision a major change in the way schools work. New classes like "Custodial Arts" where kids spend a class period scrubbing toilets (with the clorox wipes they brought to school), and "Lunch Logistics", having each child serve lunch one day a month. Why not? Imagine the savings if the school didn't have to supply the janitor or the lunch ladies either? The only people who are really needed in the school are the well protected school teachers. Seriously, if schools got rid of all superfluous personnel, they could afford Viagra coverage and kids could get some truly real world experience.
While we're at it, shouldn't parents be supplying the food too?
Why do parents put up with this? When it became apparent that I was doing more to educate my children than the people I was paying to do it, I brought them home. I figured why have my child be one in hundreds when he could get very individualized attention at home. Oh, and the toilet paper is provided for them. By their teachers.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
This is really the chosen battle
I'm stunned. Not to whine about the economy, but I think we all know it's not good. And by "not good" I mean we keep hearing about a lot of layoffs and high unemployment rate, all of those things that we really see as not good.
Almost everyone who knows me knows I'm not a big of fan of the public school system in the US. I think it's a mechanism by which we dumb most kids down by teaching them to pass a test the president who enacted NCLB couldn't even pass on his smartest day. I also think that it doesn't serve the children it claims to be educating. The politics of the entire system are corrupt, and the people who always say they have the best interests of the children in their hearts seem to do things that are so counter to that notion that I have a very hard time understanding why they even bother to attempt the lip service.
Imagine my reaction when I read an article today about Milwaukee's teachers' union fighting the schools to get Viagra included once again in their insurance coverage. Their argument is that it discriminates against male employees. The district's argument is it costs ~$786K a year for that coverage and since they do cover other things to help with erectile dysfunction, there is no discrimination.
More of the union argument is since ED is associated with diseases and conditions like heart disease and prostate cancer, this is a very important issue for men. It was at this point in the article that I felt compelled to post this to my blog.
ED absolutely is associated with heart disease, prostate cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes. True statement. What isn't included in their argument is the fact that heart disease, prostate cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes all contribute to ED, not the other way around. A limp dick does not cause heart disease.
By what mechanism do these conditions cause ED? High blood pressure meds can certainly keep the blood from flowing, right? Diabetes interferes with blood flow, too. I mean, people lose entire limbs to the lack of blood flow. Hearts pump blood, so if the heart is having trouble pumping enough blood for the rest of the body, the body protects its important functions first. An erection isn't an important function for the health of the body.
I mean, come the fuck on. Are we really supposed to be so stupid as to believe that this is discriminatory, that men somehow have a right to turgid penises at whim? A right so basic that it should be paid for by taxpayer dollars? Shoot, taxpayers don't pay for basic health care for millions of people, but teachers are special enough that the bill for men to have sex should be footed by an already strapped system (pun absolutely intended)? Not to mention, one Viagra costs ~$20? That's less than most hookers charge, so what's the big deal about paying for it? I know if I wanted to get laid and had to pay $20, I'd happily pay it. Seriously, give up a few Big Macs and the trips to Starbucks each week, and you could cover the cost yourself with the savings. Not to mention probably getting healthy enough to get a hard on without the pills, considering being overweight causes most of what contributes to ED.
This fight has been going on for two years, costing the taxpayers a lot of money as the teachers' union continues to appeal court decisions siding with the school district. This is the battle they've chosen to fight. Forget the more than 600 teachers who were laid off. Forget that parents everywhere lament the fact that they are now required to pay for many basic school supplies. I'm really wondering how Milwaukee schools are doing on the NCLB crap. Are they so far ahead in achievement that they can honestly justify wasting that much money on sex?
I'm still rather flabbergasted at the whole concept. Maybe we could get state funded massages with happy endings for them too. I mean, isn't the fact that they can't get reimbursed for sexual release proof of some sort of discrimination?
Almost everyone who knows me knows I'm not a big of fan of the public school system in the US. I think it's a mechanism by which we dumb most kids down by teaching them to pass a test the president who enacted NCLB couldn't even pass on his smartest day. I also think that it doesn't serve the children it claims to be educating. The politics of the entire system are corrupt, and the people who always say they have the best interests of the children in their hearts seem to do things that are so counter to that notion that I have a very hard time understanding why they even bother to attempt the lip service.
Imagine my reaction when I read an article today about Milwaukee's teachers' union fighting the schools to get Viagra included once again in their insurance coverage. Their argument is that it discriminates against male employees. The district's argument is it costs ~$786K a year for that coverage and since they do cover other things to help with erectile dysfunction, there is no discrimination.
More of the union argument is since ED is associated with diseases and conditions like heart disease and prostate cancer, this is a very important issue for men. It was at this point in the article that I felt compelled to post this to my blog.
ED absolutely is associated with heart disease, prostate cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes. True statement. What isn't included in their argument is the fact that heart disease, prostate cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes all contribute to ED, not the other way around. A limp dick does not cause heart disease.
By what mechanism do these conditions cause ED? High blood pressure meds can certainly keep the blood from flowing, right? Diabetes interferes with blood flow, too. I mean, people lose entire limbs to the lack of blood flow. Hearts pump blood, so if the heart is having trouble pumping enough blood for the rest of the body, the body protects its important functions first. An erection isn't an important function for the health of the body.
I mean, come the fuck on. Are we really supposed to be so stupid as to believe that this is discriminatory, that men somehow have a right to turgid penises at whim? A right so basic that it should be paid for by taxpayer dollars? Shoot, taxpayers don't pay for basic health care for millions of people, but teachers are special enough that the bill for men to have sex should be footed by an already strapped system (pun absolutely intended)? Not to mention, one Viagra costs ~$20? That's less than most hookers charge, so what's the big deal about paying for it? I know if I wanted to get laid and had to pay $20, I'd happily pay it. Seriously, give up a few Big Macs and the trips to Starbucks each week, and you could cover the cost yourself with the savings. Not to mention probably getting healthy enough to get a hard on without the pills, considering being overweight causes most of what contributes to ED.
This fight has been going on for two years, costing the taxpayers a lot of money as the teachers' union continues to appeal court decisions siding with the school district. This is the battle they've chosen to fight. Forget the more than 600 teachers who were laid off. Forget that parents everywhere lament the fact that they are now required to pay for many basic school supplies. I'm really wondering how Milwaukee schools are doing on the NCLB crap. Are they so far ahead in achievement that they can honestly justify wasting that much money on sex?
I'm still rather flabbergasted at the whole concept. Maybe we could get state funded massages with happy endings for them too. I mean, isn't the fact that they can't get reimbursed for sexual release proof of some sort of discrimination?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
