City Journal Winter 2014

Current Issue:

Winter 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Larry Sand
Firing Offenses « Back to Story

View Comments (3)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 3 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
I just got finished reading the "The Beholden State" great read
interesting point Ms MacDonald makes concerning English as a second language
Spanish is taught in the lower grades but all the technical classes math science etc are taught in ENglish no wonder the Hispanic kids are not doing well in the technique subjects. It is difficult to find teachers who are fluent in Spanish that teach math science etc.
Another interesting point in the Navy we would say "there are no interpreters on the battle field English or else
Another interesting point, Do you think Google Facebook Microsoft have interpreters for the Spanish EMployees? I would guess no.
There are many advantages to learning English it is a uniting element. we waste so much money in Healthcare on interpreters. In cases of emergency, there is no time to gather interpreters
But yet the teachers union still insist that the Hispanic kids not take time to learn English. All the standardize tests are in English. What a shame that hispanic kids are being held back and when this piece of logic is presented, we are called racist
Hey, when you allow one party - the Democratic - to have access to taxpayer funds in massive massive amounts by funneling these funds through public unions then this is what you get. Am I wrong about this? Why isn't anyone talking about the inherent conflict of interest and corrupting influence of de facto public funding of one party over another?


Because, if this is the way it is, then nothing is going to change - scream all you want but the ability of public unions to buy elections means that the public officials recieving those funds are going to dance - heck they do dance - to whatever tune the unions are playing. Doesn't mattersurd the policies, the politicians will not do a thing to jeopardize the flow of money. Call it what it is, doesn't matter as long as the money keeps rolling in from the taxpayers to the Democratic coffers, with a nod to the union along the way.


And the other party is automatically handicapped - it has to get its funds from the private sector, and has does not have a direct pipeline to public funds like the Democrats have. They will always be second in this winner take all system, always.

Again, is this the way it is? Because if so then forget about everything else - government funding of one party means that that party wins - all it need to is keep the money flowing by keeping the unions happy, even better it can make the unoins part of the party by hiring relatives and friends. And it has a vested interest in making sure the union grows and grows and grows - the more members the more people voting for the Democrats

This isn't a democracy, it's not a Republican form of government, the people who live under this kind of a regime are not citizens, they are subjects. And yes, this note does not directly address the issues in the article, but then again, why bother? When one party has access to unlimited public funding (and of course that party argues for "campaign reform" in an effort to make it even more difficult for the other party to get campaign funds) then it is game over, the government is bought and sold, and time to go some other place. Because, the citizen..er..subject can never win - he will always be squeezed and squeezed.

I mean really, shouldn't people be talking about this, maybe if you have public unions, then prohibit them from buying the very politicians who determine their wages and benefits - otherwise what you have corruption by definition. But I don't hear it mentioned - anywhere. Am I wrong about this system?

Because, no one is even talking about the foregoing- why? Do I have it wrong? Is there something missing in this analysis? Politicians can be bought cheap (for an example of that look how much it cost the Japanese to buy off Hawaiian Democratic politicians), and the huge amount of dollars the union tosses into these elections buys them whatever they want.

The public unions now run California, and that isn't changing - ever, not unless something changes fundamentally. But Detroit shows you just how bad it can get - even today the people of Detroit vote back in the the very same people who destroyed the city - why would California be any different?

But, if people aren't even talking about the unoins ability to filter tax money to Democrats, so then nothing will ever change - nothing. If I am right, then this is the issue, all else is just noise.
Gee, doesn't modern journalism know that pedophilia is isolated solely among Catholic priests? Where have you guys been? When will we now ever see the knee-jerk reaction by the public to associate the crime with the school district rather than the profession? As the ignorant always do against the Church rather than the homosexual parading as a priest?