So...the cancerous growth of government, hand in hand with the burgeoning, anarchic public employees' unions, are destroying Los Angeles and ultimately California as fiscal entities, as effective forms of governance, as ethical institutions, and as cooperative constituents of the United States. The entirely self-serving "educators" would seem to be the new Bolsheviks, determined to thieve California into bankruptcy while dragging their liberal friends to the gallows. If these bogus public servants act quickly they will find Mr. Obama willing to thieve from the rest of the country in order to buy their votes. Or, perhaps Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder will secretly sell the unionists a lot of guns with which to make a revolution. Better yet, let us give the moral dump that is contemporary California back to Mexico and let the drug cartels straighten it out.
Would you let your child be educated by such people? The only sane answer is no - and what will happen, and what is probably happening, is that parents who are concerned about their child's education are fleeing Los Angeles. Same with businesses - why would any business remain in an area where they are overtaxed, over-regulated and publicly flogged. Who needs Los Angeles? PLENTY of places in the nation/world where business is welcomed with open arms.
Here's the bottom line: like all places where Democrats get the upper hand, the trend toward Detroitification becomes paramount. Someone far smarter than I can lay out the steps in the process - which would of course include Democrats taking control, imposition of ever higher taxes and business and family unfriendly measures, then crime rises as families are destroyed, so more people and businesses leave, until there is a core of needy people, surrounded by well off bureaucrats and a few wealthy too stupid to leave. And of course this drives out Republicans, who are the only ones who provide any check on the insanity brought to government by Democrats.
Once Democrats are in full control, the poverty pushers are brought round to help out the 'victims" and to get money into the hands of those who run these things
And no matter how bad it gets, no matter how ineffective the anti-poverty, jobs and education measures, and no matter that decades and decades pass, Democrats controlling the cities never admit anything other than that more money is the answer. I've seen it here in New Jersey - in city after city the Democratic poverty pushers are firmly in control, and year after year nothing improves, despite each city being a money pit and drain on the area around it. Cities are supposed to be centers of commerce and prosperity, not engines of poverty. And yet year after year goes by and we hear and see the same thing, and nothing that is ever attempted, no program, no method, no person nothing ever works.
Here in Newark, the school system was recently given a $200 million grant by a wealthy donor, a third of which was immediately spent (so far) on studies oh how to spend the other two thirds. You can't make this stuff up - no one would believe it.
And that's where Los Angeles is headed, if it is not already there, a permanent state of neediness and poverty that is never ending. Only the election of Republican Rudy Giuliani prevented this from happening in New York, Los Angeles will not be so lucky.
Don't agree with this assessment? Find a place where the anti-poverty, and education measures have worked, find a big city that made its way to prosperity with a typical poverty starting point, where the children of all races and ethnicity are well educated, prosperous and under Democrat leadership. What a laugh - of course you won't find any place like that, since under the Democrats the anti-poverty measures are meant to fail - success would be the worst of all outcomes, why should they succeed since that would mean the end of the gravy train? After all, these places already vote almost 100% for Democrats, and make boatloads of money for the poverty pushers (a nice way of calling these pimps what they really are) - there isn't a problem here for the Democratic party to solve!
After all prosperity might turn some of these people to vote for Republicans.
Once you understand this analysis you understand everything about Democrats and the cities - heck you understand everything about Democrats. And if there weren't children involved we could say, well these people are stupid enough to vote for the same people who do nothing but destroy them year after year, so why care? But there are children involved too, who have zero chance of a future, who since government has destroyed family they will substitute gangs for family since to be human is to want family. These children will grow up inside a society affected by unbelievable amounts of violence, whose fate will be in the hands of the bureaucracies and institutions within the government poverty industry complex, including "Youth Houses", prisons, schools where learning is secondary to security, and all the rest.
In short, there has to be a special place in hell for the Democratic Party, which imposes this future on children, when solutions are so easy. Fix the family, fix the problem - but you will never fix the family if the Democrats are in control. Such a solution goes against everything Democrats believe in - family is superfluous to these people, since it means something other than money or racism is the problem, and that Republican pro-family policies were correct. And since family, or rather keep families together is the key to solving the problem, nothing ever changes - it just gets worse, and all the money is wasted.
See where this goes? Haven't you ever wondered why nothing ever changes in the inner cities, why nothing ever works in the five decades now that Democrats have been in control since the civil rights era? Now you have the answer - and the same poverty methodology applied to African Americans is now being applied to Latinos.
Obviously that should be 'fellows'. It is very late at night. Sorry.
I do not understand Goldurs's comment. Seventy years ago when I was a schoolboy, our teachers taught us reading, writing and arithmetic, and geography, spelling and grammar and some higher maths a bit later, and history, and then they tested us on these subjects. If Mr Goldurs and his fellow is doing this, he is doing his job. If they are not, they are not doing their jobs. Teaching to the test was the whole point of teaching those subjects since testing is the only way to determine how effective the teaching was, and how responsive we were to the teaching. So, just what is Mr. Goldurs's complaint?
I am an LAUSD teacher and all I do is teach to the test.