On trains they call those devices 'dead man switches' - when the engineer's foot comes off the spring-loaded switch, the locomotive slows down.
It's for profit.
Fuck trickle down economics. Schools should be mandatory.
They are - education is mandatory in every state of the Union.
Schools should be funded equally.
Are you serious? If that were implemented inner-city schools would see funding slashed... In my previous home state of New Jersey there were these failing districts referred to as 'Abbott Districts' (after a court case) which resulted in spending in those failing districts to increase to almost double what the average NJ school district spent per-child. Equalizing spending across all schools would hurt the students in inner-city schools. (The schools in the city of Baltimore, where Democrats insist an increased investment in education (among other initiatives) could prevent tragedies like the death of Freddy Grey - which sounds great, until you realize that in Maryland, home to some of the wealthyest counties in country, the Baltimore city school system is the third highest-spending district per student n Maryland.)
And if rich fuckers want a better education for their kids, key them improve the whole system.
Do you understand what 'rich fuckers' do now? They pay property taxes at an obscene rate to fund their local public schools and then leave the public school system to privately fund their children's education elsewhere, leaving more money in the school system for the other students.
If a 'rich fucker' lives in a house that is valued at twice the average value in their community, then they pay twice the property taxes to help fund public schools their 'average' neighbor pays. (There are no deductions or loopholes.) If that 'rich fucker' then turns around and enrolls their child in a private school they are 100% responsible for the tuition costs and get NO deduction or credit on their property taxes.
The real motivation for change/improvement in public education will be school choice/vouchers - that will allow concerned parents to abandon failing public schools for better ones, and as failing schools are shuttered bad teachers can be weeded out of the system. Competition is healthy, the lack of serious competition is (contributing to) our currently failing public education system.
They possibly see a public good in this 'Khan Academy' model of education, but I'm put off at the for-profit motive.
Many argue that public schools are failing our children, but few agree on the cause, so standardized tests have been rolled out to evaluate and quantify the various levels of achievement in the various school systems at both the state and federal level.
That in and of itself isn't really a problem, the problem (IMHO) with standardized testing is that it has become the only way to evaluate career teachers since the teachers and their union groups have typically rejected every other form of teacher evaluation.
For example, in one famous example a new superintendent walked into a major metropolitan school system and was confronted with the reality that some 60% of high school graduates failed to perform at an 8th grade level, yet some 90% of the teachers had peer-evaluated each other to be 'Excellent' teachers.
The issue isn't standardized testing, it is the importance the test results have to the teachers that causes great stress in the children.
That said, I'm not altogether convinced your average suicide bomber would be the giving, sensitive type.
You understand they, by definition give their life to further their beliefs - that beats anything your average Prius-driving, granola-munching, green peace member would ever do.
The NUMBER of gun crimes increased, and you have to do hand-wavy math factoring in population size and gun ownership rates to try and support your position?
If gun control worked the way you and countless other gin control advocates argue it does, the NUMBER of gun-related crimes should have shrunk when gun ownership rights in GB were aggressively curtailed.
Not by a long shot.
Turns out criminals don't obey gun laws, and they commit more crimes involving guns when they can be relatively certain their intended victims are unarmed. When was the last time there was a mass shooting outside a declared 'gun free zone'? (Reminder, aft. Hood shooting occurred in a prt of the base where soldiers are NOT permitted to carry guns, same at the DC Naval Yard.)
You apparently equate 'educated' with 'intelligence' - that doesn't hold up in my opinion. If that were true, if greater education meant a person was more intelligent than someone with less education, then it would be true that George W. Bush is demonstrably more intelligent than John Kerry, since both attended the same schools, but Bush had higher grades.
Because the terrorists didn't actually get inside. Had they done so, they would have been even more thoroughly ventilated.
The shooters were taken down with just two single shots, within 45 seconds of their first (and only) shot fired.
The only victim was an unarmed security guard, who returned home about 12 hours after he was shot.
So I was wrong about the reason Texas was chosen but the fact that it was the same venue as a previous opposing muslim rally pretty much backs up that they wanted a confrontation.
You missed the part where the preceding event at the same location was called "Stand With The Prophet" - it was in support of Islam, it was against those that mock the prophet...
The cop is an unarmed security guard, and he is already out of the hospital.
Yes. On both sides of the fence. Intentionally holding an event intended to offend religious ideals is as stupid as those intent on hurting people simply because they're offended. Asshats.
Really? Holding an open forum that may offend some people is the moral equivalent of taking up arms and trying to kill people because they offended you? If that's the case, is it open season for religious individuals to take up arms and fire into the crowd at a bill maher performance because his book a 'Religiosity' (or whatever it's called) offends them?
And let's hear it for the local police! They were brought in as additional security for the event, and when something bad happened (a shot rang out, hitting an unarmed security guard), the local police put down the shooters with two quick shots less than 45 seconds after the guard was shot.
The guard is already out of the hospital, the two terrorists with a religious motivation we fear not mentionare at the morgue.
Why do you think ANY of the books will be textbooks? Those are already being bought by taxpayer-funded school districts.
Recreational reading? They can't find free ebooks on the Internet? Is Gutenberg really THAT hard to spell?
This is a nothing program - publishers are encouraged to donate, no money allocated to buy anything.
How many times will politicians announce yet another initiative to bring broadband internet access to schools and libraries, especially in lower-income neighborhoods? They have been beating this drum for what, 10, 15 years now?
I'd really like politicians to explain why programs like e-rate have failed to achieve their goals and describe how this new program addresses the problems in existing programs.
Oh, and he's 'encouraging' publishers to 'donate' $250M worth of e-books... All Obama has done is asked for donations, nothing more - why limit the donations to $250M? Why not ask for $1BN in donated books and services?