Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bimmicus]

http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=10112007

So, is Ray a closet Bill Gates fanboi seeking cosmic retribution for his scorned idol? Or is this merely a testbed for another one of his million-dollar ideas?

Ooooohhh gaaawwwd I am SO lost. Or maybe bored. Yeah, definitely bored.

[theinevitable]

damn. Steve Jobs is way too old to be doing stuff like this.

I am imagining him wearing a very specific brand of shoe, and I can't remember what it is. the one where the tread is a billion interlocking zig-zags?

[V-Adore]

There is something about this strip that weirds me out. I'm not sure what it is.

[linnea]

The image of the fountain pen that cost more than any vehicle I have ever owned, just HOVERING there...thinking about a person with that kind of power to alleviate suffering but does not...that gives me acid in my tummy. However, from what I understand, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has done a wonderful amount of philanthropy. That is awesome. I have a lot of respect for folks who try to make the world a better place.

I think the tummy acid is because I'm still fuck*ng angry about this, an obscenely wealthy man who just fought and won to have NYC schools pay for his son's private school education. I mean, what the fuck. Disabled kids deserve a fair shake, but for someone of obscene wealth to siphon money out of impoverished kids' education is just the most insanely selgiraffe thing I've ever heard. The court said that the burden of proof will be on the parents to prove that the private education will be better for their child, but christ - how could it not? Of course private school is going to be better for just about any kid. This sounds like it's going to be disastrous to the school district. Having known several people with disabled children, finding appropriate care for them is almost always a huge struggle and huge burden, but I fail utterly to see how this is going to be fair legal precedent.

[robot_god]

damn. Steve Jobs is way too old to be doing stuff like this.

I am imagining him wearing a very specific brand of shoe, and I can't remember what it is. the one where the tread is a billion interlocking zig-zags?

Keds?

I ain't sure about the tread, but it has to be Keds.

[colmore]

Ray just knows who has more money to spend on a vanity book.

Also, Gates has never been cool, and the internet has had a bead on his forehead since 1996 or so.  Jobs has a cult.  It's more fun to make fun of someone like Jobs than someone like Gates.  Onstad likes to irk the easily made indignant.  Hence the Vegan jokes.  Microsoft doesn't really have "fans" so much as people who find Office adequate.  Say bad things about apple and messageboards heat up.  It's a lot funnier.

I'm saying this using Linux on an iMac.

I used to really hate Microsoft until I realized that they're pretty innocuous as far as megacorporations go.  There are plenty of businesses out there that do to... say... the farms of indigenous peoples what Microsoft does to computer desktops.  Bill Gates is definitely not the worst richest person in the world we could have.

And I don't even think he's actually the richest person in the world.  Many countries don't have institutions quite like the IRS that require such precise reporting and bookkeeping by their most powerful citizens.  That is, in many parts of the world, Gates would BE the government and probably wouldn't be taxing himself.

[jay-ell]

I think the tummy acid is because I'm still fuck*ng angry about this, an obscenely wealthy man who just fought and won to have NYC schools pay for his son's private school education. I mean, what the fuck. Disabled kids deserve a fair shake, but for someone of obscene wealth to siphon money out of impoverished kids' education is just the most insanely selgiraffe thing I've ever heard. The court said that the burden of proof will be on the parents to prove that the private education will be better for their child, but christ - how could it not? Of course private school is going to be better for just about any kid. This sounds like it's going to be disastrous to the school district. Having known several people with disabled children, finding appropriate care for them is almost always a huge struggle and huge burden, but I fail utterly to see how this is going to be fair legal precedent.

Here's how: he forced the NYC school system to admit that his kid couldn't get a quality education at their public schools, and to pay for an alternative situation.  The fact that he could afford to pay for it himself doesn't matter.  Next time a parent can prove that his disabled kid can't succeed at his school, they're going to have to obey precedent and pay for his tuition elsewhere too -- or else provide adequate facilities for disabled kids in the public system.  This guy had the money to fight that legal battle.  The next family probably won't. 

I'm lucky to live in a place where the public school system has a great program for dealing with my particular child's particular disability.  But if I didn't, I'd sure as hell fight as hard as necessary to make sure that he had every opportunity the "typical" kids have -- it's his right under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

What I don't get is why the court was split.  Just because the guy is a jerk and a millionaire doesn't mean he has any less of a legal case.  The same welfare state that provides education for impoverished children is obligated to provide for the children of the wealthy as well.  It's the only way to provide for equality under the law. 

[Arachno-capitalist]

What I don't get is why the court was split.  Just because the guy is a jerk and a millionaire doesn't mean he has any less of a legal case.  The same welfare state that provides education for impoverished children is obligated to provide for the children of the wealthy as well.  It's the only way to provide for equality under the law. 

And she used to be a Marxist

[jay-ell]

There are no millionaires in true communism. 

I see my argument as being pretty consistent with socialism.  The question is not whether or not the guy can afford to send his kid to private school -- the question is whether or not the state should provide an appropriate educational environment to every child regardless of race, color, gender, creed, disability, or income. 

If you're a socialist, the answer is yes. 

If you're a libertarian, the answer is no. 

Black/white, the way I sees it. 

[littlefallsmets]

Yeah, arachnocapitalist, of course. Of course, pure Marxism doesn't work.

Of course as you live life, you realize the way that nothing is as cut-and-dried as an -ism.

Nothing works in real life the way that it works in a classroom or in a book.

But what what jayelle is saying and what happened are both basically humane and that's what matters.

Not what sounds nicest in a lecture, what helps the most people the most times.

[linnea]

I do not understand the huge sense of entitlement people have in this country. Yes, everyone wants the best for their child, and it must suck to have a disabled child, but it doesn't seem fair to shortchange other kids to provide luxury care to specific children. Just because there are expensive programs out there doesn't mean that the taxpayers should have to foot the bill.

 
I'd sure as hell fight as hard as necessary to make sure that he had every opportunity the "typical" kids have -- it's his right under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The reason why I fail to understand this ruling is that while the law stipulates that children have a right to education, it is discriminatory against the other children in the district to pay for luxurious private schools for certain children. I don't think it's fair at all to siphon money out of the public school system and pump it into private schools, although with the voucher system it happens a lot. Any child is going to excel in an expensive private school, so why should disabled kids get such luxuries? Yeah, it sucks to be disadvantaged, and I'm sure that special education could be improved, but come on. If the litigants prevail, the number of allegedly disabled children will skyrocket.

I'm sure that it really sucks for parents of disabled kids, but the attitude of entitlement is pretty ridiculous. I am sure that any child - whether disabled or "normal"/neurotypical - would benefit from highly intensive, one-on-one training, but it's still unfair to expect taxpayers to foot the bill. With enough money and schooling, any child could probably grow up to be a Rhodes scholar. It is natural for parents to want their disabled child to be high-functioning, and every child has a right to a basic education, but it's just unfair to expect luxury education as a free handout.

[theinevitable]

With enough money and schooling, any child could probably grow up to be a Rhodes scholar.

wow, you have a lot of belief in modern educational systems.

[jay-ell]

The thing is, while any kid would benefit from one-on-one attention, for some kids, that's the ONLY way they can learn.  My son has a one-on-one therapist at his preschool, but if he didn't, it wouldn't be a question of whether or not he's getting some luxury the other kids aren't getting -- without that personal attention, he wouldn't be able to attend preschool, period.  He would be too anxious, too disruptive, too out of control to be allowed to stay in the room, let alone learn anything.  Is this an extreme case?  Actually, for a two and a half year old with autism, being able to attend half-day preschool twice a week (even with a one-on-one) is damn good. 

And there are many kids who still need this kind of attention into their teens.  A young man with autism that I know, after being denied access to services through the public schools, is now being accompanied to the tenth grade by his father -- every day, every class -- because he is not capable of participating in the public school programs available to him without full-time, one-on-one assistance.  Here's another case of a Dad who can afford to rearrange his work schedule and cut his work hours significantly to provide for his disabled son. 

Besides, what do you think is more expensive: sending a couple of kids to private school, or developing, staffing, and executing a comprehensive special-education program for a school system as big as the NYCPSS to address every possible disability?  You can't just stick kids with autism in a classroom with the kids who have Downs syndrome, hearing impairments, visual impairments, and cerebral palsy.  In order to serve the kids -- in order for them to really learn, a little thing we idealists like to call equal educational opportunity -- you've got to group them according to their abilities and needs (a dash of Marx bastardized just for you, arachnocapitalist). 

I am a big believer in the public schools.  My dad has been a public school teacher for forty-three years.  My brother is in his nineteenth year as a public school teacher.  My sister-in-law just started her fifth year in the public schools.  I am just starting the complicated process of navigating the special education programs in my county (Little P ages into the program this February.)  I am pretty well in touch with what public schools are all about.  Ideally, all kids with special needs could be served in their neighborhood school by qualified, well-paid professionals with sufficient resources and adequate funding.  But sometimes it makes more sense, particularly from a financial standpoint, to send kids who need extra help and attention to a private school. 

Regarding the "attitude of entitlement," I do not believe that equal education is a luxury.  (I also don't believe that health care is a luxury, but I realize that this puts me in a certain political camp with which not everyone here agrees.)  While many private schools offer students opportunities public school students don't get -- specialized coursework, smaller classes, etc -- as I've pointed out previously, some kids actually require these kinds of adjustments to be able to participate.  I don't know the diagnosis for the kid involved in the lawsuit, and just from the photo I can tell his Dad is probably a big-time asshole, but clearly, if he can't learn in a public school environment, then to deny him access to an environment in which he can learn (either by improving the public schools or paying his tuition to a private school) is discriminatory. 

Just because there are expensive programs out there doesn't mean that the taxpayers should have to foot the bill.

But taxpayers should foot the bill to provide hot lunches to poor kids?  Nobody's raising a fuss about free and reduced-priced lunches for kids below the poverty line.  And you can bet that if some poor child from a broken home who lives in a one-room apartment in Harlem were getting sent to a private school because he's got a learning disability, people nationwide would be cheering.  Taxpayers have already agreed to foot the bill for the education of children.  If this guy can't prove that the program he's sending his kid to is necessary, he should be required to pay for it himself.  But if there's no acceptable program available at the public school, the school system needs to step up to the plate and fulfill their obligation to educate this kid, regardless of his socioeconomic status. 

If the litigants prevail, the number of allegedly disabled children will skyrocket.

My only response to this is that I know that you don't have kids, so I can only assume that you are incapable of imagining how deeply and irreparably one's heart breaks when someone tells you that your son is broken. 

I can't imagine a parent seeking a special-ed label for her child just for the sake of getting a free ride at a ritzy school.  Those kinds of labels are often permanent, and they're not exactly the fast track to an Ivy League university.  They place an incredible burden on the parents and they place limits on the potential of the child.  Any parent who would seek a false diagnosis for a perfectly normal child is either incredibly selgiraffe or incredibly ignorant.  Even with a private-school education, the special-ed label would close far more doors than it would open. 

[KeithHernandez]

United States public schools are socialistic, and have been that way from the start, on purpose.  It is one of the things that makes it possible to have a half century of shittiness and still be a decent country.

[lprkn]

I guess my personal philosphy, besides general apathy, has devolved to a quote I saw that basically stated. "Liberals make mistakes, conservatives prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - Some Guy

Except for police brutality, man that shit pisses me off.