Such surgeries are rare and - gasp - occurred under Trump's first term. It was the law.

You might think that all inmates are monsters and do not deserve health care, but the fact remains that nearly all inmates will one day be released and if they are healthy and truly rehabilitated, then that is good for society. There is definitely a strong anti-trans movement in the U.S., but I don't think it was the issue that cost her the election.

Ah, yes, that critical of all presidential qualities, the sound of their laugh...

...you mean jobs such as, lawyer, physician, consulting, publishing, finance...those kinds of jobs (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brown.edu%2Fundergraduate-programs%2Fgender-and-sexuality-studies-ab)?

You totally nailed it. A company that has 2000 under-performing employees is a systemic company problem, not a "few bad apples" problem...

There's an old joke, where the guy who is getting married for the fourth time says something to the effect of, "you know, I'm starting to get the idea that this is my fault!"

A company that produces this many "under-performers" needs to do something about its culture, leadership, and management.

I do not care one bit where a film is made. Zero cares. With modern equipment and technology, it is easier than ever to make a great movie anywhere in the world.

That said, I DO care that the people who worked on a movie were paid fairly, were given a safe working environment, were not exploited or pressured into activities that they did not want to do, and that the movie production respected the environment and treated humanely any animals that were involved in the production. As a result, I am not in favor of tariffs based on where a movie is made, but I AM in favor of additional taxes, fees, or penalties for movie productions that violate these expectations.

Of course it isn't just the school budget where the advantage of money is obvious. It's also in sports (the biggest predictor of getting a D-1 athletic scholarship is family wealth), in health (better access to healthy food, more opportunity for recreation, live farther away from pollution), and many other areas of life. And that's part of living in a capitalist society, that some have more and some have less.

But school is supposed to be about leveling the playing field, offering those who have the ability to maximize their potential, to transform lives and give those who have the drive and the ability to thrive and grow. But instead it is too often just yet another place where the wealthy increase their advantage by grabbing and holding a bigger piece of the pie for themselves.

How about better schools? Haha.

Changing society is very difficult. We need better leaders who care about the success and health of the population rather than their own ego and enriching themselves. We also need to be better neighbors and citizens ourselves, watching out for each other and being willing to sacrifice for the good of a stranger. We are a self-preoccupied society right now, and it's hard to make changes that require sacrifice when it's all about me me me me me.

Change is possible. There is a public school district near me that had problems with gangs, so they now have school-wide uniforms (basically khaki pants / skirt / shorts and a polo of a few allowed colors and no logos). Enforcement is a pain and the school board annually gets complaints and makes tweaks, (such as should there be limits on shoes, jewelry, sleeveless, etc.), but it works. It is possible.

Just like James Bond, who never misses a shot, is impervious to all machine gun fire, and always has a clever way out of every situation no matter how preposterous...why don't people have a problem with him as a "man boss"?

The other important thing to note when trying to figure out school quality is to recognize that the U.S. has some of the greatest schools in the world (some public, some private), that would be the envy of anyone in the world. AND, the U.S. has some absolutely terrible schools (some public, some private), among the worst in the world in comparison to other high income countries. Trying to make policy based on the "average" of these schools - some of the best in the world and some of the worst in the world - ignores this variation and hides the truth of what is happening. I would argue that yes, we need to spend more on schools, but what we are seeing with schools is as much a symptom of broader societal, policy, and cultural problems rather than the inherent failure of the schools themselves. For example, our communities and neighborhoods (and therefore schools) are increasingly segregated by income (and also by race / ethnicity). And when schools are partially locally funded, that makes disparities in school spending inevitable.

So at the highest levels, I do agree, that although many schools are perpetually under-funded and that increasing school funding can make a difference, we cannot solve all of society's problem by simply increasing school budgets. We have to change policies, systems, and society itself to really see wide-scale change.

Yes, especially for special education students who often cost 3-4 times more per student than a non-special-education-student. Private schools will either not admit them or will require the public schools to provide all the intervention services (where the public school pays, for example, for a paraeducator and other special services for a special education student while they are attending a private school). Look, I'm not anti-special education, and I'm not even anti-private school. Everyone has a right to the best education they can get, and families have a right to private religious education if they want it. But I'm just pointing out that private schools try to claim they provide a good value while they don't actually serve the most expensive students or routinely expel any student who becomes too difficult (which public schools cannot do nearly as easily).

That ALEC report is so dumb. They need to go back to school themselves. They claim that because SAT scores are not increasing, that suggests that schools are failing. You do know SAT scores are essentially designed to stay the same over time, right? And it is a voluntary test, only taken by a small sample of students, right? And you do know that parents who send their kids to private schools tend to be more wealthy, right? (Once you control for individual level factors, any "advantage" of private schools disappears - I've done these analyses myself using millions of students and thousands of schools.)

In terms of spending on schools, your suggestion that rich people don't send their children to schools that spend more per pupil is laughable. Ridiculous. Take any large city in the United States. Let's say Chicago. The Chicago Public Schools spend, on average, around $20,000 per pupil per year (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.illinoisreportcard.com%2FSchool.aspx%3Fschoolid%3D150162990252086). New Trier Public Schools, in the Chicago suburbs, spends $33,000 per pupil per year (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.illinoisreportcard.com%2FSchool.aspx%3Fsource2%3DPerStudentSpending%26amp;Schoolid=050162030170001). The average family income in Winnetka is $155,000 (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcensusreporter.org%2Fprofiles%2F16000US1782530-winnetka-il%2F) while the average family income in Chicago is $48,000 (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcensusreporter.org%2Fprofiles%2F16000US1714000-chicago-il%2F).

You can't tell me $13,000 PER PUPIL PER YEAR makes no difference whatsoever in school quality. It's smaller classes. It's being able to recruit the best teachers. It's newer books, updated computers. It's warm, welcoming, comfortable buildings. It's music equipment that works and theater spaces and athletic facilities.

And this repeats over, and over, and over, and over again all over the U.S.

You do not have to define "rich / average / poor" to see how obvious it is that people with more money work hard to attend schools that spend more per pupil.

Actually, schools do have the ability to punish or discipline students for certain kinds of speech on Instagram (or other social media), but much speech on such forums would be considered protected. It's complicated with lots of grey area (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2021%2F06%2F23%2F1001382019%2Fsupreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment).

If money doesn't matter in school quality, then why do the rich send their kids to the most expensive schools?

"Put your phones away and get busy doing your 'work' on your Chromebooks, kids!"

Never miss a chance to attack the teacher's union?

Classroom engagement is a shared responsibility, between the student, the parent, the other students, the teacher, and the school. I guarantee the union has never told teachers to let students be distracted and disruptive during class.