Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
35. You're kind of all over the map there.
Thu May 1, 2014, 07:30 AM
May 2014

To answer your last statement first: I don't think I said that it should be "just" public school teachers setting the rules. As a matter of fact, the example I gave you directly contradicts that statement.

If you want to play with analogies...here's what I think.

I think it should be doctors, not insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, that decide what kind of care patients get, and when. I think they should have a majority place at the table when setting the "rules" for medical care. Because yes...lives are on the line.

Military policy? As long as military policy complies with basic agreements about human rights, for example how they treat their own, how they treat the women among them, and adherence to the Geneva Conventions, I have no problem with the military deciding on military policy. That's a red herring, though. The real issue is deciding on how and when to intervene in global situations with our military, which is not military policy. That's what the politicians do, and they don't do it well. No matter who is at the top of that chain, it should be an inviolable law that our military is never used except as a final resort to defend our home. You know. The department of DEFENSE. Major stakeholders in the MIC aren't troops; they're those industrial giants at the top profiting obscenely from perpetual military action all over the globe. They should have ZERO influence on "the rules" and the distribution of resources when it comes to our military.

Just as the private political/corporate "foundations" working to privatize our public education system so that they can tap into the public monies spent on it by directing "reform" polices across the nation should have ZERO place at the table.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That makes too much sense, Sarah. I agree it would be great and fair. Mnemosyne Apr 2014 #1
It would totally take the President out of the decision making yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #27
I understood this to be more of a local/state solution. nt Mnemosyne Apr 2014 #28
What if only actual public school teachers LWolf Apr 2014 #2
The people that have to pay for should have a place at the table nt hack89 Apr 2014 #3
The people that have to pay for? LWolf Apr 2014 #8
Yes - parents should have a say hack89 Apr 2014 #11
I disagree. LWolf Apr 2014 #24
Do you hold the same thoughts on civilian leadership of the military? Mr_Rogers Apr 2014 #32
You're kind of all over the map there. LWolf May 2014 #35
They aren't exactly a disinterested party though either... Mr_Rogers Apr 2014 #13
welcome to DU. please tell us more! nt alp227 Apr 2014 #21
There's nothing more than that. Mr_Rogers Apr 2014 #22
You're right about that. LWolf Apr 2014 #25
Excellent idea, but I'll accept even public school teachers that went beyond teaching nt Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #6
To a point. LWolf Apr 2014 #9
"If we're going to accept as leaders those that "go beyond" teaching, I think those leaders.... Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #16
It takes a restructuring of the system. LWolf Apr 2014 #23
I support public schools. But I would attend most ivy league schools in a heart beat... Gravitycollapse Apr 2014 #4
The question was not "do you wish you could've attended a wealthy and expensive school so you too Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #7
Certainly, food for thought. nt UtahLib Apr 2014 #5
So, since President Obama sends his daughters to private school, Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #10
Arne Duncan certainly isn't useful hobbit709 Apr 2014 #12
I agree. Arne Duncan reminds me of that definition of insanity: Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #15
Bingo. HooptieWagon Apr 2014 #26
That's not a really good example, the PRESIDENT of the U.S., who requires huge amounts of security, Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #14
Should 1-percenters such as Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Alan Grayson Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #17
YES! The ones deciding what is best in education should be TEACHERS. nt Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #18
And presumably military policy should be decided by GENERALS, ADMIRALS, COLONELS and BRIGADIERS (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #19
This conversation has become ludicrous and it's over. I've seen your previous posts so I know nt Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2014 #20
Obama listens more to business leaders such as presidents of testing companies more than he liberal_at_heart Apr 2014 #29
Sounds at first like a good idea ... LeftishBrit Apr 2014 #30
I completely agree. I think public schools should be required of public servants, or they should Sarah Ibarruri May 2014 #40
Seems a bit unfair, as kids don't generally choose their schools. Orsino Apr 2014 #31
So because of a decision by a child's parents (going to a private school), that child will be Jgarrick Apr 2014 #33
You're not wanting to get it, are you? You don't like it, and by golly, you're going to pretend you Sarah Ibarruri May 2014 #39
This would exclude all who went to catholic and other religious schools? FarCenter Apr 2014 #34
ALL who did not attend public school. nt Sarah Ibarruri May 2014 #37
related: LWolf May 2014 #36
Horrific. That's like allowing welders to perform open heart surgery on Cheney nt Sarah Ibarruri May 2014 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What if those making educ...»Reply #35