Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Gates Foundation Engages Its Critics

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the almost-as-easy-as-just-buying-them-out dept.

Education 216

sam_handelman writes "The Gates Foundation responded to the critiques of its policies (previously discussed here) by inviting its critics at Education Week Teacher to a dialog on its own site. Edweek blogger Anthony Cody answered the challenge. The two sides negotiated a five-part series of post and counterpost, which can be viewed on both sites. Previous exchanges include Cody's question, Can Schools Defeat Poverty by Ignoring It?, and an answer from the Gates Foundation's Global Press Secretary, Chris Williams, Poverty Does Matter — But It Is Not Destiny. The final round of the dialog has begun, and is available for comment on the Gates Foundation's own blog. Slashdot readers may not know about Gates' sponsorship of specific edutech industry partners, such as Rupert Murdoch's Wireless Generation, and Pearson Education. Cody poses tough questions, including, 'Can the Gates Foundation reconsider and reexamine its own underlying assumptions, and change its agenda in response to the consequences we are seeing?' According to the agreement, the Gates Foundation will answer in the coming week, concluding the series."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

charity (0, Troll)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229263)

Charity is a band-aid over the wounds of capitalism.

Re:charity (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229463)

I see your a college freshman that's never taken an actual course in economics in your life. I am too, we should get together and form a club! Maybe we can discuss how to make things better for the class of people that aren't rich. Really work on this thing. Revolutionize how people think about their position in life, you might say. After all Capitalism is a system of oppression! Not say, a proven scientific theory with decades of incredibly complex research to back it up as a model of how wealth flows and is generated.

Re:charity (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229497)

Economics scientifically proven!?! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's a knee slapper!

Re:charity (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229553)

Not say, a proven scientific theory with decades of incredibly complex research to back it up as a model of how wealth flows and is generated.

A theory on how wealth flows - interesting. It's an interesting theory - wealth flows up - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich fuck the poor and middle class to get richer. The rich got rich by lieing and cheating. Hard work? Everyone works hard! To get rich you have to fuck thy neighbor - up the ass.

Is Capitalism evil? Yes. Is it the worst system on Earth? No.

It's the best economic system we bald apes have. Which is fucking pathetic. After all these centuries, Capitalism is the best we can come up with?

We humans are stupid.

Re:charity (1)

fsck1nhippies (2642761) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229665)

Not say, a proven scientific theory with decades of incredibly complex research to back it up as a model of how wealth flows and is generated.

A theory on how wealth flows - interesting. It's an interesting theory - wealth flows up - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich fuck the poor and middle class to get richer. The rich got rich by lieing and cheating. Hard work? Everyone works hard! To get rich you have to fuck thy neighbor - up the ass.

Is Capitalism evil? Yes. Is it the worst system on Earth? No.

It's the best economic system we bald apes have. Which is fucking pathetic. After all these centuries, Capitalism is the best we can come up with?

We humans are stupid.

What do you define as rich? 150k? what about the guy that makes 149k? Capitalism is not evil by itself. It needs people to beg for its products and demand its products before it becomes evil. How do you get rich by fscking thy neighbor? what is the process? how did it get to the point where they were fscked?

Not everyone works hard. There are a lot of people that are happy getting by. The problem you describe with capitalism is simple... People hate it because they have to work to acquire wealth. Give me one bad thing about capitalism without going into some political rant. Pick a point, lets discuss.

Re:charity (0)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229943)

Give me one bad thing about capitalism without going into some political rant. Pick a point, lets discuss.

The capitalist health care system, as implemented in the U.S., costs twice as much per captia as the socialist health care system in any other developed country. And their results are just as good as ours, sometimes better.

Re:charity (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230057)

The capitalist health care system, as implemented in the U.S.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...he said "capitalist" and then "as implemented in the U.S. Oh shit, he made a goddamned funny

I hope you were going for ironic pun but in case you thought you were saying something intelligent to say, please allow me to stop you right there. Much of "capitalism" in the US is such in name ONLY. The insurance industry in league with trial lawyers have perverted health care in this country so badly that it is a miracle that it even functions at all. Is health care important? You goddamned right it is because if you don't take care of yourself I know damn good and well the government will be more than happy to take money out of me and my children's mouths to pay for your sorry ass to get a quintuple by-pass and then give you a SSI check for the rest of your miserable life. Since the government is going to rob me anyway, they might as well get it over with and maybe somewhere between your HSA and your fucking Obamacare, I might have a chance to get robbed a little bit less by not having to put you up for the last 30 years you have on this earth like you was another child or something.

And you call that capitalism? Yeah right, it's ROBBERY (and uncouth at least that's what my captcha thinks about it)

Re:charity (0)

buybuydandavis (644487) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230379)

The capitalist health care system, as implemented in the U.S.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...he said "capitalist" and then "as implemented in the U.S. Oh shit, he made a goddamned funny

You can't buy what you want without government permission, corporations can't sell what they want without government permission, and they can't even *speak* about their products without government permission.

Yessir, that's one "free" market.

Where is this? (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231099)

You can't buy what you want without government permission, corporations can't sell what they want without government permission, and they can't even *speak* about their products without government permission.

Yessir, that's one "free" market.

The ones I'm familiar with are Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Perhaps you could enlighten me on the one you're describing.

Re:charity (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230427)

So where is the magic land that actually has a capitalistic system?

Or is capitalism just impossible?

Re:charity (4, Insightful)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230965)

Like Communism, its an ideology that isn't practiced in reality anywhere. Mainly because the pure forms of both are unworkable and inhumane.

Re:charity (2)

fsck1nhippies (2642761) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230235)

anyway, excluding the AC. I have one Question and I beg a simple, one line response. Who are the payees in the healthcare systems you describe?

Re:charity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230297)

The payees are the taxpayer. Don't you see what he is after??? You should pay for that guy to have ball elargement surgery. Don't argue, just pay... You are a citizen??? why are you complaining? You could have a heart transplant, don't worry.. you paid for it already.

Re:charity (2)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230413)

Under capitalism, people who can afford it pay about $10,000 per capita per year to insurance companies for health care (depending on the year you measure).

Under socialism, people pay about $5,000 per capita in taxes for health care of the same (and sometimes better) quality. http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1 [openmedicine.ca]

Re:charity (1, Informative)

fsck1nhippies (2642761) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230967)

yes, but they take home less than 1/3 their normal salary as the average tax rate is 31%. Lets put this in perspective;

1. (your view)
      a. $40000 income
      b. 31% tax rate (-13.3k)
      c. Healthcare charge (Your number) -5.0k
      d. Take home $21700
2. (A more conservative approach)
      a. $40000 income
      b. 19% tax rate (-$2.2k)
      c. Healthcare charge (Your Number) -10k
      d. Take home $27800

In the end there is $6100 in savings to do it yourself. Yes I understand that we have to support those who can't support themselves, but holy carp... I can do better myself

Re:charity (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231057)

Uh oh, 19% of $40,000 is not $2,200, it's $7,600. That gives you $22,400 as the final take away, only $700 more than the first example you gave.

Re:charity (1)

zer0sig (1473325) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231063)

Math fail. 40000*.31=12400 40000*.19=7600 Plugging the other factors in, you get 22600 for the socialist example, and 22400 for the capitalist example. Even if your math were correct, these tax figures are not. In any case, please check your work next time. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, and if the USA system were less poorly/greedily administered the numbers could be notably better for its citizens, at almost any income level.

Re:charity (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230593)

I would not hold out the US health care system as representative of "capitalism".

Re:charity (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231203)

These dipshits actually think that what they did to America is capitalism.. and then blame capitalism for what they did to America.

Re:charity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229975)

"Capitalism"

Human beings love to pretend they understand something when they finally succeed in sticking a label on it. The problem is, they aren't "understanding" at all. They have the concept and can describe some of the superficial aspects of it but as soon as you get out of what they've memorized, they're lost.

Funny thing about the demonization of capitalism. Back when almost everybody was self-employed, when there were smiths, and masons, and farmers, and tailors, and all that shit, do you think capitalism was this vile wretched thing that some sets little more than spit between their teeth between sipping a latte? Of fucking course not. But nowadays everybody's soft and instead of 90 percent of the population being self-employed, only 10 percent of the population is. People are too goddamned good to get their precious hands dirty. Why do you think by the third generation the wealth is usually gone? Because the great-great grandaddy was willing to get off his ass and make it happen. That's what capitalism is. Investing and increasing production. You stop that and the fucking world stops.

Re:charity (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230363)

What do you define as rich? 150k? what about the guy that makes 149k?

My definition would focus not on a specific number: I'd consider somebody rich if: (1) They pay for a full-time household staff-person, such as a housekeeper or nanny, (2) They can buy everything they want to comfortably stock at least 2 homes without the slightest bit of difficulty, or (3) They could choose to not work at all and have enough from their investments to live comfortably and end up with more than they started with.

Give me one bad thing about capitalism without going into some political rant. Pick a point, lets discuss.

Consider a really smart kid who was born into a dirt poor family, call her Jane. Under pure capitalism as witnessed in US cities around the year 1900, and many poor countries today:
* Jane would have received no pre-natal care whatsoever and probably doesn't get all that much health care after she's born, so there's a significant chance she dies before she reaches age 5.
* She might be taught to read at some point in her early childhood, but mostly would be taught whatever her mother knew about home skills like laundry.
* When she turned about 13, she would likely be sent to work in a factory of some kind, where her bright mind hurts her because she's perceived as a potential threat by management.
* By the time she's 18, if she's lucky she might have the chance to marry some guy who's not going to abuse her, where she then proceeds to have kids of her own and lives an adult life that's not significantly different from her mothers'.

That situation is not only bad for Jane, it is bad for the world as a whole, because we've just wasted a bright mind that might have been able to, say, cure a disease, and instead used her to make coats for J.C. Penny.

Re:charity (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231163)

I'd consider somebody rich if: (1) They pay for a full-time household staff-person, such as a housekeeper or nanny

There are plenty of examples of families living about 1900 who lived in absolute squalor, yet employed someone full time, who lived with them. By absolute squalor, I mean 1 room for the entire family, no running water, etc. I learnt about this through a radio programme which concerned crime - one of these maids was accused (and convicted) of theft. Originally sentenced to death, her sentence was commuted (some would say ;)) to expatriation to Australia.

Anyway, the point I was making was that there have been plenty of situations in the past in which employing a person full time most definitely did not qualify you as rich. There are not as extreme examples now, but there are still countries in the world now in which a large proportion of families employ someone full time, and these families are not considered rich.

Re:charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41231169)

why write "fsck" instead of "fuck"? it comes of as no less offensive(that is, if you are a crybaby word-moralist) and makes you look like a condescending douche (thanks for protecting our dear, virgin eyes from the filt....oh wait, you really didn't).

Re:charity (-1, Troll)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229721)

Nope - private school scholar, mathematics to postgrad, previously worked on producing accounting systems and played with larger numbers on a day-to-day basis than you will probably see in a lifetime. Founded and sold a fairly successful business during the first dot-com boom. Thought about being an actuary once, but was well-advised against it by an ex-actuary who had gone into university lecturing - did do some preliminary qualification and achieve top mark in the country that year, though.

I wouldn't claim to have the genius of some of my ex-colleagues at school and in work, but my record suggests numerical proficiency and I have been as capitalist as a person can be.

These days I'm taking life a lot easier and, among other things, in the middle of a law degree.

After all Capitalism is a system of oppression!

It's a method of exploiting laziness in the privileged which sometimes works.

Not say, a proven mathematical model with decades of incredibly bullshit research to back it up as a model of how wealth flows and is generated.

FTFY. Microeconomics can be thoroughly useful, but macroeconomics is as scientific as theology. Sure, it involves numbers and even some funny symbols, but so does astrology.

Re:charity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230111)

Nope - private school scholar, mathematics to postgrad, previously worked on producing accounting systems and played with larger numbers on a day-to-day basis than you will probably see in a lifetime. Founded and sold a fairly successful business during the first dot-com boom. Thought about being an actuary once, but was well-advised against it by an ex-actuary who had gone into university lecturing - did do some preliminary qualification and achieve top mark in the country that year, though.

You forgot immodest.

Re:charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230153)

Sometimes I get bored with the "winners support capitalism" meme. I wouldn't be immodest if my real identity were obvious - it is indeed an ugly trait.

(Not that I ever said I was beautiful.)

Re:charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41231145)

The fatal flaw with all those big numbery numbers that economics is full of is that it deludes people into believing that it's some manner of hard science, or an irrefutable implementation of mathematics. However, it is, at best, a soft science. A soft science that could benefit a great deal from recognizing its own softness.

You see, what most economists and hard-core capitalists fail to realize is that economics doesn't hinge purely on the statistics lying about it, but on sociology and psychology, as well. Economists seem to be enthralled by the notion of the invisible hand of the market and all that, to the point where they believe said invisible hand to be infallible, hence the whole-hearted embrace of near-unfettered capitalism. But economics is at best a tool, which can be used as intended or manipulated to suit the purpose of those powerful enough to pervert it. If you attempt to infer based on the more proven elements of economics greater social implications, like the market will eventually correct all ills sans regulation or that the use of taxes to benefit the poor, sick, or infirm is the road to economic ruin, then you have failed to understand what economics is. Or, more importantly, what it isn't.

Re:charity (1)

fsck1nhippies (2642761) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229479)

Charity is the only product of government(when you get it)

Re:charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229513)

Umm, what does this have to do with the Gates Foundation where most of the aid goes to 3rd world countries? These countries problems are generally NOT caused by over consumption due to it's economic model but rather through political instability, or lack of natural resources to expand the economy on and trade on the global market, or general corruption.

Capitalism can definitely cause wounds but there are greater problems to these countries then just that. No matter the economic model, assholes will always be assholes.

Re:charity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229583)

Gates Foundation where most of the aid goes to 3rd world countries?

Yeah but only if they agree to buy Microsoft licenses and Bill Gates gets aggrandized. It's just another racket to Billy boy.

Re:charity (1)

fsck1nhippies (2642761) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229681)

Capitalism can definitely cause wounds but there are greater problems to these countries then just that. No matter the economic model, assholes will always be assholes.

Capitalism causes wounds? What wounds? Describe your personal experience with the wounds caused by "capitalism"

Government of choice is not the issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229651)

No, charity is charity.

Any government I would assume you could propose as opposed to capitalism that would prevent these supposed "wounds" would simply be forced charity.

If you have an issue with capitalism I happen to love talking about government philosophically, and would argue governments purpose is to protect freedom.

Protect us from what?

The bad? Or the "better"? As some would argue.
The fittest that is.

You could narrow it down to corruption.
Humans are highly susceptible to corruption. It's in our nature.

From being intelligent we understand merely taking for ones self isn't progressive in terms of the evolution of society.
So what's more important?
The individual? The society?
Should giving be forced?
Or should one want to give?

Should government enforce freedom of the individual?
Or should it be progressive and enforce the evolution of society?

Does the evolution of society lead to everything becoming artificial life and humans obsolete?
We are just animals.
We might make computers but can we control them in the long term?
Integrate them?
Eventually just become them?

Then what?
Could we still be corrupt?
Would we behave as a single entity?

Is that ideal?
Or is self satisfaction all that really matters and anything that builds (government, religion, society) due to us being here is just a fluke?

The form of government is not the issue.
The issue is corruption.

Any of the most known forms of government would do better than any of the country's implementing them now if there was no corruption.

Capitalism would work better than Communism if the capitalistic country has no corruption and the communistic one was corrupt.
Likewise, Communism would work better than Capitalism if the communistic country has no corruption and the capitalism one was corrupt.

Totalitarianism would work better if the leader wasn't corrupt and cared about freedom.

Re:charity (2)

agm (467017) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230547)

The foundation of civilised society is voluntary action and compassion. Capitalism and charity are two sides of that coin. One cannot succeed without the other.

Isn't Gates a big lib? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229267)

I have a response to my liberal friends when they say, “But you are so smart. Why aren’t you a liberal?”

I tell them that I got tired of being told how smart and good I was by the liberal left (yes I used to be a democrat/liberal). I tell them that I felt like a dog that had done a good trick for his master. That the liberal elite was standing over me and patting my head and saying in that smarmy, high pitched baby talk voice how smart and good I was for voting for them.

I then proceed to tell them that because I actually am a smart person those platitudes fell flat. I started to feel abused by the patronizing condescension that was being lavished with such abandon. I go on to let them know, in no uncertain terms, that anyone who believes they are smart because the left has told them so is deluded. They so want to be intelligent that they will fall for the simplest of tricks, being told that they are intelligent.

So, while my liberal friends can believe that they are the smartest people in the room because they are all told they are smart I shall despair for them. I will use logic and reason to come to my conclusions. I will use the classroom of history to make my case. I will watch for results and not be satisfied with good intentions or the platitude of “they tried to do a good thing.”

I shall watch and see through the words of the brain-washers and know my enemy. For that enemy is the scourge of us all. It is called feel good politics. It is called progressivism. It is called failed practices that never bring about good returns. It is called chains, chains so adamantine that they could end freedom as we know it forever. It is called the liberal left. They tell you that you are smart. Go ahead and believe them and watch your country die around you. How smart will you feel then?

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229339)

*mindboggle*

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229445)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html

"The United States Treasury reports that the total public outstanding debt is: $16,015,769,788,215.80. This is the first time in American history debt has eclipsed the $16 trillion mark.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009."

Yes, quite a mindboggle citizen.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (5, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229669)

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

And none of it was because of the wars, tax cuts, etc., starting before that date.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/07/238653/animation-tax-cuts-deficit-debt/ [thinkprogress.org] (watch animation)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cbppdebtchart.jpg [thinkprogress.org] (static display of same plot)

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/06/cbpp_deficit_factors_2011.jpg [crooksandliars.com]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/govt-spending-per-capita.jpg [thinkprogress.org]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-thumb-560x622-58477.gif [theatlantic.com]

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/02/wsj_deficit_obama_2013.png [crooksandliars.com]

So, before you talk about how shockingly the debt has risen in the past four years, tell us about the prior four years, and the policies from 2001-2008 that are still costing us out the wazoo.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229689)

So, before you talk about how shockingly the debt has risen in the past four years, tell us about the prior four years, and the policies from 2001-2008 that are still costing us out the wazoo.

Yeah! Our guy might be a steaming pile of smelly shit piled a mile high but your guy is a steaming pile of smelly shit piled a mile and an inch high. Two totally different things!!

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229727)

No. I am talking about the past four years, if you don't like that then tough.

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office" Obama Feb. 23, 2009.

Stuff it. This is Obama's economy, his policies, his executive orders, his parties control of the senate and house - for two years a supermajority.

This is Obama's economy and Obama's FAIL. We are tired of the blame, it don't fly anymore drone.

It is you who is choosing to ignore facts, not I.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229925)

And your telling me bush was better? ok... yea... they both suck. Fighting over it makes no sense. Stop voting for democratic/republican canddiates.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229949)

And what exactly will that accomplish? Have you actually thought this trough or did Jon Stewart tell you to do this?

Sounds like the plan of a loser to me.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230077)

And what exactly will that accomplish? Have you actually thought this trough or did Jon Stewart tell you to do this?

Sounds like the plan of a loser to me.

Yes, casting a presidential vote for a third party is something on Quixote could be proud of. But, fuck people, we have a thing that's a lot like that parliament Europeans have that you libtards love to worship so much. It's called Congress! Get some third party people in there. It'll be a hell of a lot easier than getting one in the white house and when critical mass is achieved then you can start thinking about the Ross Perots and the Ralf Naders of the world.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (3, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230375)

This is Obama's economy, his policies, his executive orders, his parties control of the senate and house - for two years a supermajority.

You mean his supermajority for four months?

http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/the-four-month-supermajority [washington...endent.com]
The Four-Month Supermajority
By David Weigel
Friday, January 15, 2010 at 9:03 am
In the final stretch of the Massachusetts special election for Senate, Republican candidate Scott Brown has focused on “restoring balance” to Washington. He’ll be the “41st vote” to filibuster legislation; the Democrats’ hold on 60 votes has let liberals run the country into the ground. “That’s not what the founders intended,” he said Monday during the final debate.
The irony is that if Democrats lose the seat, they will have had a working 60-seat majority for all of four months — much of which was spent with the Senate in recess. They opened the Congress in January with 58 votes, counting the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), not counting Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), whose razor-thin victory was held up by lawsuits from former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). On April 28, 2009, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) switched to the Democratic Party, bringing the Democrats to 59 votes without Franken. When Franken was finally sworn in on into the Senate on July 7, 2009, the badly ailing Kennedy was unable to vote and break filibusters

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230511)

You mean his supermajority for four months?

Shouldn't four months be long enough to fix eight years of fucking things up?

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230645)

You have to subtract the blue dog Democrats, who are just as bad as Republicans.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231193)

You have to subtract the blue dog Democrats, who are just as bad as Republicans.

They *are* Republicans, for all practical purposes.

And Democrats helped with a lot of the 2001-2008 that's got us in such a jam.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230161)

Welcome to the exponential function. Debt doubles roughly every 8 years or so.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230385)

Yeah, but what has Obama done about it? Nothing. And when Congressional Republicans wanted to do something about it? He called them "extreme" and "unAmerican." If you include publicly held debt, the debt to GDP ratio is already over 100%. So keep pointing your fingers. This is going to be hilarious.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (-1, Offtopic)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229373)

Being AC is one thing, but can you at least state where you are from?
Liberal in Yurp doesn't mean the same as liberal in the Yousay.
For example, the dominant liberal party in the Netherlands (VVD) is considered to be a rather rightwing party, much to the likings of the Democrats in the Yousay. And then I dont know about Asia and other places at all. Please enlighten us with your view of "liberal" and its defenition.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229523)

You are correct. I live under the rule of king Obama, that should narrow it down for you.

Yes the term "liberal" has been perverted, classic liberalism refers to the rights of the individual over those of the collective. Yet here in the states if you refer to a liberal you deemed to be referring to a leftist, socialist political philosophy.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229439)

You're a dumbass.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229537)

Ahh the intellectual apex of the leftist.

Kind of proves my point if you actually understand it, which no doubt you do not.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229611)

I have never seen a sadder bunch of Debbie-downer bad news bears human beings than hard-core liberals in the United States. Every little thing is a catastrophe, every species is going extinct, every other country is better, and on and on and on. They reek of self-loathing. It's sick.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229643)

Indeed, and it really is a trial attempting to try and engage them in honest discussion as well.

Sigh.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230373)

They reek of self-loathing. It's sick.

To be fair, self-loathing is the one honest, correct, and appropriate belief for any liberal.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (5, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229477)

Did I read that wrong or did you just day that you became a conservative because you were tired of liberals telling you you were smart? If so, you're still not doing any of your own thinking.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229679)

Did I read that wrong or did you just day that you became a conservative because you were tired of liberals telling you you were smart? If so, you're still not doing any of your own thinking.

Think what might have happened if they had told him he was dumb.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230145)

Think what might have happened if they had told him he was dumb.

I would be honored for a liberal to call me dumb. Because if the liberal in question is so vehemently against my viewpoints to the point of childish name calling then I must be doing something right! So pass the peace pipe around one more time my liberal friends while the conservatives show you how to get things done and pull your candy asses out of the fire once again. I'm sure you will waste not a moment in your renewed vigor at making sure the good dead does not go unpunished.

Speaking of which, I'm glad that conservatives can be the liberals' punching bags. See, we can take it. The more you preoccupy your feeble little minds with what we're doing the less you can fuck shit up.

Excuse my french, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230425)

You fucking americans wouldn't know what a "liberal" (is that the new word for faggot or nigger now?) or a socialist if one jumped up and bit you on the balls. Turn off Fox News and open a fucking book.

Re:Excuse my french, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230957)

Turn off Fox News and open a fucking book.

HaHAHA you fucking dumbass. Get off your high horse there fella because we don't sure need to go far from Fox to get our daily dose of propaganda [bpc-world.co.uk] .

Re:Excuse my french, but (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231249)

True Socialism is people standing around with their hands out demanding products and services made possible by the minority of people who actually contribute to society. True socialism rests on the belief that everyone is equal and that is not true. If you were a microchip design engineer would you be happy making the same amount of money as the person bagging your groceries? Communism is not even worth talking about since it has never been truly tried outside of a few communes in the 60's. Economic systems like those in the small scandinavian countries do not scale up to large and more populous countries. If you want a better life you should get an education, either formal or from experience. And try to major in something other than English Lit, Political Science, or Art History. Start taking responsibility for your own well being instead of expecting the "state" to do it for you.
You could take all the wealth in the world and divide it equally among everyone and the only thing you would have is everyone would be equally poor. You start taking away the monetary incentives that drive some people to excel in their chosen field and pretty soon no one will bother and you will end up with a society where everyone is on the dole until the war starts. The current economic systems all fail to take into consideration the one thing that will without a doubt lead to the next free for all war and that consideration is population control. There are just to many fucking people on the planet for any economic system to handle. The poorest countries and segments of society on earth have the highest birthrates. If they spent more time trying to improve their situations instead of fucking 24x7 or spending a good part of the day on their knees praying to their chosen diety they could probably have time to work on making a better life.

As it stands people seem to have put their faith on technology being able to solve our natural resource problems without realizing that our technology advancements depend on ever increasing amounts of natural resources. Petroleum products, metals, and rare earth elements are all being depleted at record pace trying to feed our technology advancements.
Gates made his money within the system and if he wants to give some of it back in whatever form why denigrate it. The system was in place long before he came onto the scene. When MS first started IBM was the goliath in computer market but they were top heavy, overly buracratic, unbending, and royally fucked up when they decided the desktop PC was a deadend and decided to focus on the mid-range server market. By the time they realized their mistake MS and Apple had bought the rights to technology held by IBM and Xerox who considered the technology worthless. MS secured the rights to DOS for 50K and Apple snagged the UI tech from Xerox for almost nothing. No one with the kind of wealth Gates has amassed is required to give 1 single penny back but a lot of them do it anyway.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229485)

Sea kelp.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229551)

(yes I used to be a democrat/liberal)

I hope you're not implying that those are the same thing, or even strongly correlated.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229595)

See reply above by Razgorov Prikazka, yes its very confusing to so many.

In the states, Democrat, socialist, liberal are all the same; statists.

Conservative, best demonstrated by the Republican party (albeit pathetically, but the closest we have right now) stands for individual liberties, and yes is classic liberalism. The liberterian shares much of this ideology, byt departs on many critical issues. That is a discussion for another time.

Why do you think that is (the confusion regarding the term liberal)?

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229767)

Fuck this liberal conservative Republicrat Democran bull shit. My politics are simple. Leave me the fuck alone and I'll leave you the fuck alone. That includes robbing me by proxy if you know what I mean. If somebody is in need I'll help them but don't hold me at gunpoint and force me to because I will resent you and will try to get from under your thumb in any way I can. As far as what you do in your own home, I could not give a flying fuck less. If you're doing it outside and blocking traffic then I might have a problem. Depends on how good the show is. Basically, I'm probably an anarchist at heart but until we're all invulnerable post-human Gods impervious to each other that isn't a workable political system. I say government keep me safe, build some infrastructure then get the hell out of my way. How hard is that?

So who do I vote for? Oh, that's right, no-fucking-body because they are all full of shit. (Except Ron Paul. He's cool.) Have a nice day.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229903)

Forget Ron Paul. Listen to me.

If Obama gets another 4 years consider this.

Treaties are signed by the executive and voted on by the senate, if the senate refuses to vote the executive signature is all that is needed. This is essentially an end run around constitutional limits on power (yes I know there is more detail to this, but that's not relevant to the point).

There are already a number of treaties in the works that will severely limit the liberties and rights of the citizens that you libertarians so enjoy.

You need to ask yourself one question, Romney or Obama, one of them will be a better judge of this power and it will be one of them that wins. Your choice Paulian.

Go ahead, make my day.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230171)

Yeah. I get worked up sometimes but believe this: I don't care if Jimminy Cricket was running against Obama. I will be damned if I help vote that bastard back in office.

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229645)

Well, sounds like you're probably less than left-wing and you may be intelligent, but one thing is certain: you're skilled at coming off as a self-righteous, hyperbolic d-bag. That monstrosity of a post shows you're not doing much thinking for yourself and you seem to be suffering from the worst kind of delusion...namely being so arrogant and smug you've convinced yourself you're the only one who "gets it."

Re:Isn't Gates a big lib? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229831)

Who said hate? You did.

I reject all wasteful spending, by Republicans or Democrats.

But you cannot deny that the left has more blame than any of them, and more lies to boot.

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office" Obama Feb. 23, 2009.

Stuff it. This is Obama's economy, his policies, his executive orders, his parties control of the senate and house - for two years a supermajority.

This is Obama's economy and Obama's FAIL. We are tired of the blame, it don't fly anymore drone.

As Steve Jobs might conclude (1, Flamebait)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229271)

Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. The Gates foundation is self serving, promoting tax shelters through trusts, and self promotion masquerading as charity. their " charity" amounts to token amounts compared to their corporate investments. Regardless, the world will never love Gates, the road to personal redemption will be long and lonely.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (3, Insightful)

1000101 (584896) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229385)

F-you. Comments like these are so, so easy from arm-chair quarterbacks who look at the world through a pin-hole lens. The Gates Foundation [wikipedia.org] might not donate to causes that you believe in, and it might provide tax shelters for some individuals (based on current U.S. Tax Law I might add), but I'd rather see the kind of work that they do and the funds they provide than nothing at all.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229641)

No fuck you motherfucker. It's donut stuffing middle class SUV driving, fat and comfortable sacks of shit like you that let people like Bill Gates get away with dressing wholesale exploitation up as "charity". The B&M Gates foundation is corrupt. It has been shown to be corrupt many times yet fucks like you will argue with their very last breath (in between french fries of course) that Gates is somehow some kind of saint because his PR has told you what to believe. Fucking arrogant puke.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (4, Interesting)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229879)

Stripped of the invective, AC is 100% correct - did you actually READ any of the articles above?

  In either story?

  The fact that the Gates Foundation can do more-or-less whatever it wants (Karl Rove is an even more egregious example [wonkette.com] ) and deduct that from their taxes is a minor problem. The real problem is that they're using their combination of leveraged money and free P.R. from fools like you to take over vast quantities of [b]our tax dollars[/b] and redirect that money into their coffers and the coffers of their allies like Pearson Education, Murdoch, etc.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (5, Informative)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229911)

A lot of the reforms the Gates Foundation has brought about in public education are actually bad. The "Criticism" section in that Wikipedia article doesn't begin to describe it. The best explanation you can easily get is by doing a Google or Wikipedia search for "Diane Ravitch" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Ravitch [wikipedia.org] and her longest explanation I know of, outside of her books, is her New York Review of Books article.

She refers to Gates as a member of the "billionaire boys club" that is "reforming" education according to some fads that they picked up, which aren't supported by scientific evidence. Ravitch was an assistant secretary of education under GHW Bush and Bill Clinton. She started out believing in charter schools, free market incentives, high-stakes testing, and all the other neocon reforms. But she said that when the data came out, it didn't support those reforms.

The one factor that is most strongly associated with student achievement, according to Ravitch, is family income. So when you reward teachers for raising student test scores, you're mostly rewarding them for having high-income students, and when you fire them for missing the test targets, you're firing them for teaching in poverty schools.

The Gates education reforms depend heavily on high-stakes testing. But according to repeated analyses, the tests they use today to fire "underperforming" teachers are statistically invalid. There was a debate over that in Science magazine last year, in which the author who was defending the tests admitted that they weren't valid, and his argument was that we should continue to use them and try to improve them.

New York City gave all its math and English teachers rankings based on their students' scores in a standardized test (which wasn't scientifically validated), and education commissioner Joel Klein made the results for individual teachers public, despite the risk of unfairly shaming teachers. One fundamental problem is that they don't have enough statistical power to evaluate individual teachers. A science teacher did a standard statistical analysis, and he found out that they had an essentially random distribution. He made the point that every teacher knows that beginning teachers improve a lot from their first to second year (conversely, most teachers agree that they had a lot of trouble in their first year). But yet, when you compare the scores of the teachers in their first year to the same teachers in their second year, the correlation was random. According to these tests, teachers don't improve with experience. It doesn't make sense. And yet, NYC is firing teachers on the basis of these tests.

Financial incentives and bonuses for teachers have been tested in randomized, controlled studies -- and they don't work. Students don't perform any better when their teachers get bonuses for higher test scores. OTOH, it's hard to be a dedicated teacher if you don't know whether you'll have a job in 10 years, your pay is going down because NCLB has destroyed your union, and politicians like Joel Klein attack you, call you incompetent, and humiliate you.

If you needed proof that these reforms aren't working, look at Michelle Rhee's experience in the Washington DC schools system. Her followers were touting her as a genius who was tough on students, got rid of incompetent teachers and principals, and rewarded the master teachers and principals who raised the test scores with generous financial bonuses. They it turned out that the teachers and principles were raising their tests scores by cheating, which was picked up by the internal verification procedures in the tests -- and Rhee knew about it. There have been cheating scandals in high-stakes testing schools around the country. When you fire teachers who don't raise test scores, what do you expect them to do?

Bill Gates and the other "reformers" have turned teaching from a comfortable, respected job where people were paid well but not extravagantly, and motivated by the pleasure of teaching, into a test-based assembly line where people are getting fired.

You can look up the scientific research on testing, charter schools, and all of Gates' educational reform. It doesn't work. Charter schools don't work. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/ [ed.gov] High-stakes testing doesn't work. Teacher bonuses don't work. Even worse, as the Education Week article says, many of the people who were promoting these "reforms" were driven by an anti-government ideology driving them to destroy public schools and unions, to replace them with "market-based" alternatives which have never worked anywhere in the world. And many of the "reformers" in the GWB administration openly admitted that.

That's what the Gates Foundation is doing.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

Alan Shutko (5101) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230087)

If, as you say, the teachers are not correlated with student results, we'd might as well have cheaper teachers and get the same results.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (4, Informative)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230331)

Teachers' ability is correlated with student results. The tests that they use to measure teachers' ability is not correlated with student results. The same teachers rank in the top 10% one year, and the bottom 10% the next year. Obviously the tests aren't measuring the teachers' ability.

The effect of student poverty is far greater than the effect of teachers' ability. The test scores are primarily measuring student poverty, according to Ravitch.

Teachers' ability is correlated with experience. Teachers who have been teaching for 20 years can get better results than charter-school teachers who are on the job for 3 years and quit, as many of them do. If you want teachers to stay on the job for 20 or 30 years, you have to pay them enough to raise a family and send their own kids to college.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230491)

Two flaws in your premise. The first is that NYC is firing teachers based of statistically irrelevant results. The truth is that they've finally got an excuse to finally fire misdemeanor level bad teachers. Felonies were, until this, the only way to get rid of a teacher, short of the completely unfair harass until they quit approach.

The second is that you have proposed no measurable way to determine if the students have learned anything. Standardized tests are bad, in the same way democracies are bad. There just hasn't been any better way demonstrated. I'd love to ditch the stress of standardized testing. However, I've got nothing else to measure, in any objective way, student learning. Essays? Standardized tests that measure vocabulary (parental income) and attention span. Orals? Not at all objective. Give me something to use.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231219)

The problem with standardized tests is when they start being the tail that wags the dog. The same is true for any assessment. They are a good way to test education systems, provided the system does not focus on standardized tests. "Teaching the test" is a real danger. Teachers shouldn't care how their students perform on standardized tests, nor should students. It's bad science to care how your results turn out.

A second-order criticism is that they tend to encourage a narrow focus. It's "unfair" to test a wide curricula, because it's unfair to ask offbeat questions which some students will ace simply because they happened to study an offbeat thing. But it shouldn't matter if standardized tests are "unfair" to individual students, as they are only good for testing the system.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230533)

These "reforms" fail because they are running into the same problem that all central planners run into. There is no objective way to assign value. It's impossible. Value is completely subjective and is based on human choice. There is no way to create a test, flow chart, matrix, or anything else to figure out if a teacher is doing a good job with a particular student.

It's would be like having a board whose job it is to determine where you should have dinner and how much you should pay and how much tip the server should get. It is impossible and everyone restaurant, server, and customer would all be unhappy in such a situation.

I realize that having people be free to chose and pay for their own school isn't going to happen in my life. But at least if people understand the problem they can make a rational decision. One can argue that having inefficient schools that cannot do a good job is preferable to having parents choose where and how to educate their children with the means they have. At least that's being honest. But pretending there is some way to centrally plan schools to make everyone happy is illogical.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (3, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230785)

Sometimes central planning works, sometimes it doesn't.

In medicine, doctors use a lot of drugs, but don't know whether they work, or whether they're actually harmful. The best way to find out is with a randomized, controlled trial. For the most part, these trials are funded by government agencies. They collect the best experts in the country (or the world), figure out how to design and run the trial, and do it. In other words, they create a central authority to collect all the evidence and report their recommendations. They found out that a lot of drugs were actually killing more people than they were helping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoetin_alfa [wikipedia.org]

Then after they find out that the drug is killing people, there are still a lot of doctors who just want to continue using it, either out of habit, or because they make a lot of money out of it, or because they really believe in it. If you want to stop doctors from prescribing drugs that kill people, the first thing to do is to have a central authority, like a medical association or government agency, recommend against it. When you leave it to doctors to decide by themselves, you're more likely to die. When you leave it to patients to choose for themselves, they really don't know what they're doing. There have been good studies of this. Most patients can't make good medical decisions. Those who do know how to make decisions follow the recommendations of the central authority.

I'm using medicine as an example because I know more about medicine than education, and because in medicine, where peoples' lives are at stake and they have lots of money, they do very rigorous studies.

There are good central authorities and bad central authorities. If you have a central authority that makes their decisions on the basis of the scientific evidence, they can do a good job. If you have a central authority that ignores the scientific evidence and follows the politics, as the Obama and GWB administration did with Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind, and firing teachers on the basis of test results, they're going to do a bad job (as they did).

There's no simple way to make policy. You can't just say, "Central authorities are good" or "Central authorities are bad." It depends on whether the central authority is independent enough from politics to collect the best-informed experts and follow their advice.

A lot of big science came from central authorities and probably wouldn't have been possible without a central authority. The Manhattan Project and NASA were highly centralized.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230939)

Let's take your drug idea. Here are a list of questions no central authority can answer:
Is the rigor that is applied today is too strict or not strict enough?
What is the optimal amount of rigor to benefit the most people?
What conditions can be permitted to try riskier drugs with possible benefits?
Is it more beneficial to have a long life or shorter more active one?

The problem is all of the answer to these questions depend on the individual. All things in life have risks and rewards and costs and benefits associated with them. Each individual makes a decision based on their own subjective value of these. To youit may not seem informed but it's not your life. No central plans can satisfy all individuals. You may see some positives like keeping harmful drugs off the market but there are some people who would prefer to try those drugs because they evaluate the risk diffent than you.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

ndykman (659315) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230881)

But, there is a flip side to this coin. Too many teachers' unions are focused on protecting those with seniority who have been burned out and have no business being in a classroom, much less drawing a salary to do so. Thanks to union protections, teachers that have ceased to function can draw a salary for months and months while an insane process moves slowly forward. Also, too many unions create and promote barriers to entry into the profession for those without education degrees, even though there is some evidence that a short period of training combined with on the job evaluation may be just as effective in creating good teachers.

Teachers with advanced degrees in education recieve additional salary, but there is no evidence that degrees make teachers more effective in the classroom. However, there is evidence that advanced degree in a specific field (especially in STEM fields) does positively impact classroom performance.

I agree that there is no evidence that the current test-based metrics are actually effective. But, there has to be some way to evaluate teachers that doesn't boil down to taking their word for it. 360 evaluations involving students, peers and parents seems like a good start.

Too many teachers' unions were interested in protecting the status quo and ensuring lifetime employement of their members and reinforcing the absolute value of an education degree, even as it diminished in real value and usefulness and became entangled in abstract theories unrelated to the core goal of any teacher which is to transmit knowledge to others.

It is truly laughable to me that a teacher certification is needed for a MS or PhD to teach a subject in high school. At some point, we need teachers that actually know the subjects they are teaching. For all the criticism of testing, it shocks me that to become a teacher, one has to pass a test that may have nothing to do with actually being able to teach and certianly nothing to do with the subject they are teaching.

We need more trades based teaching with non degree (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41231297)

We need more trades based teaching with non degree based classes and non degree teachers who have skills in the area they are teaching.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230891)

You know, I never knew that having good parents was racist, but recently I have been informed that this is so. Why? Because black kids don't have interested parents and therefore do badly on tests. Proof positive of racism, right there. How does one even begin to argue with such a viewpoint?

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230421)

F-you. Comments like these are so, so easy from arm-chair quarterbacks who look at the world through a pin-hole lens.

It's fools like you who fail to realise that everything is in perfect focus thanks to my pin-hole vision. If we could just get everyone to see everything through pin-holes, then everything would always be perfectly clear!

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230829)

F-you. Comments like these are so, so easy from arm-chair quarterbacks who look at the world through a pin-hole lens

Right back at ya!

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229415)

OF COURSE their corporate investments are larger than their givings. this is how foundations without a steady stream of new income work.
they do their charitable work using their investment incomes.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229667)

OF COURSE their corporate investments are larger than their givings.

No, you stupid ass, this isn't like some group of self-supporting do-gooders like the Red Cross. The bill and melinda gates foundation only provides "aid" if you sign binding pro-patent agreements and agree not to pirate software and to buy Microsoft products. It is a sick self-serving scam. The things you think you "know" about this group is what their PR people want you to know. No investigative reporting is done anymore especially to somebody doing "so much good" as the mighty Bill fucking Gates. And you useful idiots just lap it all up. You should be ashamed

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229819)

How about disclosing your obviously superior sources of information?

even if everything you said was true, big effing deal. I think all the organizations receiving hundreds of millions of dollars for disease research can live with buying a copy of Vista or two.

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230259)

even if everything you said was true, big effing deal.

Guess what, bucko, this is a little bigger deal than the last time that ladyboy rolled you in the parking lot of the Purple Oyster and ran off with your wallet. See, at this level, shit that happens effects everybody. So fuck you and your "big deal, man...pass the hooka.." cynicism.

I think all the organizations receiving hundreds of millions of dollars for disease research can live with buying a copy of Vista or two.

You fucking moron. When corruption like this gets truly entrenched and enough of the chain has greased palms do you really believe we're talking a couple of copies of Vista? Are you fucking retarded? Ever heard the term "too big to fail"? If this is allowed to fester, it will take half a century to root it out of the system. Imagine trying to shut down the revolving door prison racket in the US. You'll have corrections officer, police officer, and whoever else thinks they can get in on it unions on your ass faster than you can blink. And now it's too late. The complex is built and it is entrenched. So now we have to lock people up for having a 2 grams of weed and keep them there lest some fucking 300 pound desk jockey down at the local jail lose his job for lack of anything to "do", i.e. look at. Look how much hemming and hawing goes on over reducing arms levels. You think that has anything to do with "need"? It's about the fucking money. And you advocate just sitting idly by while another monster is hatching. ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED??

Re:As Steve Jobs might conclude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229917)

Most of the world doesn't hate Gates. Most of the world doesn't hate Windows or MSO either. Most of the world doesn't give fuck all about the shit you geek keep rambling on about. This is the whole truth and this is the reason that most geek concerns are glanced over. Go fuck yourself. Most people don't care about you and your pseudo-techno-politics.

all they needis nasguls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229299)

and its all the evil in the universe in one place.

Index of Posts and Responses (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229577)

Yeesh, what an IA mess. Duplicate blog posts and comment threads across multiple blogs, duplicate author names on blog posts... and if there's an index to the entire discussion, I couldn't find it. So I made my own.

Here are all the posts and responses thus far:

1:
Anthony Cody: How Do We Build the Teaching Profession?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/dialogue_with_the_gates_founda.html [edweek.org]
July 23, 2012

Ivrin Scott responds for the Gates Foundation: How Do We Build the Teaching Profession?
http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/07/A-Response-to--How-Do-We-Build-the-Teaching-Profession [impatientoptimists.org]
July 30, 2012

2:
Vicki Phillips writes for the Gates Foundation: How Do We Consider Evidence of Student Learning in Teacher Evaluation?
http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/08/How-Do-We-Consider-Evidence-of-Student-Learning-in-Teacher-Evaluation [impatientoptimists.org]
August 7, 2012

Anthony Cody responds: How do we Consider Evidence of Learning in Teacher Evaluations?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/08/responding_to_the_gates_founda.html [edweek.org]
August 8, 2012

3:
Anthony Cody posts: Can Schools Defeat Poverty by Ignoring It?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/08/can_schools_defeat.html [edweek.org]
August 13, 2012

Chris Williams responds for the Gates Foundation: Poverty Does Matter--But It Is Not Destiny
http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/08/Poverty-Does-MatterBut-It-Is-Not-Destiny [impatientoptimists.org]
August 20, 2012

4
Irvin Scott for the Gates Foundation: K-12 Education: An Opportunity Catalyst
http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/08/K12-Education-An-Opportunity-Catalyst [impatientoptimists.org]
August 28, 2012

Anthony Cody responds: What is the Purpose of K-12 Education?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/08/Gates_Foundation_Dialogue.html [edweek.org]
August 29, 2012

5:
Anthony Cody asks: What Happens When Profits Drive Reform?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/09/the_dialogue_with_the_gates_fo.html [edweek.org]
September 03, 2012

Gates response to come.

Re:Index of Posts and Responses (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229797)

Gates response to come.

"To come?" Here, let me save you the trouble. Bill Gates (maybe in not so many words) will say:

"Fuck you. Pay me. And by pay me I mean agree to purchase Microsoft software, agree to draconian anti-piracy restrictions, and oh yeah, sign this other thing that requires you to be a full-on defender of pharmaceutical patents so that when the free charity shit we're giving you dries up you'll know the right place to buy some more."

There's his response written in blood on the wall.

Re:Index of Posts and Responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230787)

Informative? Get AIDS.

Re:Index of Posts and Responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41230977)

Get AIDS.

Ha. I already did. Thanks to a generous donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation I was cured! And the best part is I only had to agree to sign 500 people up for Zune pass for each monthly injection. No problem. Right? Right??

Gates link to No Child Left Behind (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229601)

From the article:

"In the name of reform, the Gates Foundation has wielded its political influence to effectively shift public funds, earmarked for the service of poor children, away from investment in those children's direct education experience. Through the Race to the Top and NCLB waiver conditions, the US Department of Education has instead dedicated public resources to creating state and federal mandates for the Gates Foundation's costly project"

Wow. I'd read the Gates Foundation had links to some shady corporations and projects, but I had no idea they were in league with Bush's discredited attempt to gut public education through the "No Child Left Behind" program.

The fact that Obama pretty much continued and endorsed Bush's program with his own so-called "Race to the Top" program only puts another nail in the coffin of the argument that Obama is some kind of "extreme Leftist" instead of a Bush-lite (in some ways he's even more conservative than Bush).

And the Gates Foundation has links to "Race to the Top" too.

Outrageous!

Has anybody read this? It's extremely relevent! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229823)

http://slashdot.org/submission/2242227/possible-new-theory-of-everything

Cody claims teacher performance doesn't correlate (3, Interesting)

EMB Numbers (934125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41230611)

Cody claims teacher performance doesn't correlate with student achievement. I believe him. I don't agree with his assertions that schools are underfunded and couldn't educate poor students even with more funding.

There is even less correlation between cost per student and student performance than between teacher and student performance.http://www.npri.org/blog/does-more-spending-increase-student-performance [npri.org] http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/24/us-usa-education-spending-idUSN2438214220070524 [reuters.com] http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/03/02/opinion/doc4f51a55f28207547363660.txt [delcotimes.com] http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Little-correlation-found-between-per-pupil-823833.php [ctpost.com]

It is common for urban poor school districts to cost much more per student than the surrounding suburbs. Look at Kansas City or Washington DC for stark examples.

Seriously, spending more than $10,000 per year per student is a travesty. A class with 30 students should not cost $300,000 and the money is not going to the teacher!

I agree, end the war on drugs and greatly reduce parent incarceration rates.
I agree, find employment for everybody that raises them above poverty.
I agree, support family planning, pre-natal care, nutrition, and free pre-school or head start.

But, it isn't poverty exactly or school financial resources that predict student performance. It's culture. There is an urban poor culture that doesn't exist among poor rural students, and the outcomes differ. How can we change the culture that devalues education? How can we change the violence and street power culture? How can we convince people not to have children that are later neglected and abused?

college has to much Profits and lacking real learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41231281)

college has to much Profits and lacking real learning

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?