Wednesday, October 02, 2013
John Stossel expresses a preference for the phase "government schools" over the
more common "public schools" in his latest column:
I call them "government" instead of "public" schools because not much is "public" about them. Members of the public don't get to pick their kids' schools, teachers, curriculum or cost.He also does a nice job of calling into question a favorite kind of leftist "argument" he found in a "bizarre column in Slate" I also encountered, thanks to a reader:
By contrast, supermarkets are "private" yet open to everyone. You can stroll in 24 hours a day. Just try that with your kid's public school. You might be arrested.
The columnist wrote, "If every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve ... It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good."Of course, they also don't seem to realize that the improvements don't take "generations" to occur.
This is how leftists think. Everyone must jump into the government pot. Even if it is mediocre (or worse), we're all in this together. Otherwise, the rich will get all the goods, and the poor will suffer.
Don't they notice that cellphones, cars and air conditioning keep improving yet poor people are able to buy them? No.
Unlike the good Mr. Stossel, however, I am more prone to yield to the "temptation" he refers to in his last sentence.