Nancy Pomeroy (left), spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education, said the referendum was not unexpected and that "greed" is the underlying motive.Source: Deseret News
That's a pretty ironic comment coming from a known Ferengi.
Come on Nancy, it's about Ferengi elitist profiteering off of public tax dollars.
6 comments:
This is rather distasteful and inappropriate from someone who is always talking about civility and is always criticizing Republicans for being hypocritical.
Besides, instead of
Nancy Pomeroy (right)
it should read
Nancy Pomeroy (left)
because the picture is to the left, not the right.
Did it not occur to you that Pomeroy may actually believe in her cause and is not doing this because of "greed"?
Before you say "hey, this is just a joke", read again your posts on Ann Coulter.
Who said I was joking?
Rob is not always criticizing Republicans for being hypocritical, and it is your assumption that this is a partisan issue. .
Comparing Rob to Ann Coulter is also a laugh. Using terms like "fagot", and "media whore"; saying "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."; calling liberals "Godless", just shows the lack of respect Coulter has for the LGBT community, for the wives of those killed on 9-11, for life, and anyone who thinks differently than she does.
Rob appropriately hit the mark with this one, and nothing is more hypocritical than Pomeroy calling Public School advocates greedy. Pomeroy also said,
"It's the parents and children versus unions and educrats,". Pomeroy has again proved that she could care less about the 95% of parents and children are benefiting from public schools.
The lies and tactics that Parent's for Choice (a name that is also hypocritical) have used should to discount public educators and public schools needs to be addressed, and Rob's "Very Funny" and appropriate satire has only upset you because he has hit the nail on its proverbial head.
OTT,
I completely agree that Pomeroy should be looking for solutions than calling people "educrats". It belies an otherwise excellent aim, in my opinion.
Steve,
I agree that invoking Ann Coulter as a positive in any debate is not of very great worth or very accurate.
I am not sure how elitists are profiteering off public tax dollars, though.
Frank,
Thanks for your comments. You shouldn't have to apologize for the hatred that spews from people like Ann Coulter and Nancy Pomeroy.
I've seen PCE up close and I can tell you they do *hate* public education. Their motive for pushing vouchers is to start the process of dismantling our public schools and replacing them with market solutions. National dollars from folks like Walmart flow to the movement because it is a union-buster.
This is much bigger than encouraging competition. These people truly hate public education. To say anything less is disingenuous.
These people aren't trying to make nice. They want to end public education. They play on folks' genuine commitment to competition and innovation and take these good intentions to unnatural extremes. I've heard them call our caring educators Communists and Socialists and of course have heard ad nauseum the demeaning claims that teachers are mediocre and lazy simply because they belong to an association that fights for their rights.
The Hannity-like use of degrading terms such as "educrat" isn't a slip of the tongue. This is the core belief system of the inner circle of voucher advocates.
A careful analysis of vouchers indicates that the end result over time can be nothing BUT the elimination of public schools. If you follow the logic (I'll post on this sometime soon), vouchers do not work unless society completely divests itself of public schools. Vouchers are merely a hoped-for catalyst by supply-siders to start this chain reaction. The late Milton Friedman would have nothing less.
Thanks...Craig.
Thanks Criag,
As I have said many times this whole ugly debate has nothing to do with education--it is squarely a political issue.
Ironically, so-called conservatives see our own government as the enemy and attack our social institutions as obstacles of free choice and then create what is little more than another tax-funded and government managed entitlement program.
And it is true as Craig implied, if you look at the money and powers behind the so-called "parental choice" movement. It is about dismantling the institution of public education.
In fact, the term they use in their own literature is "defunding".
Such hate and contempt--why? And what power do they claim teachers have over everyone? What is this mysterious monopoly?
I would love to just have all my students do their homework? Where can I get some of that power?
Post a Comment