Howie Bin Laden?
EDITOR AT LA SOCIALISTA COMPARES MANHATTAN SCHOOL CHOICE SUPPORTER TO OSAMA BIN LADEN
FITSNews - July 13, 2008 - We already knew that Brad Warthen - the whiny, one-issue editorial page editor over at La Socialista - doesn’t like the notion of parental choice very much. He’d rather keep pouring billions of additional tax dollars down the same “government school sinkhole“, and his editorial board has written at least eleventy kabillion columns to that effect. We also already knew that Warthen doesn’t like school choice supporters very much, unless you consider calling someone a “cancer” to be a compliment.
Well, this week Warthen took his visceral hatred for a parent’s right to choose to a whole new level, comparing school choice supporter Howie Rich to terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. Which is even more insulting when you consider that Rich is from Manhattan, where bin Laden’s “planes operation” killed 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.
Warthen made the comparison in this column, but quickly removed the link after receiving some criticism and inserted this disclaimer:
Sheesh. Some of y’all were so sensitive about the link I put on that last sentence, that I cut it out, even though it was simply a straightforward link to what this video reminded me of.
First of all, Brad, don’t be a pussy. If you’re going to compare someone to a mass murderin’, America-hatin’ no good terrorist son of a rag-head bitch (just because you don’t agree with them), then stand by it … and leave it up there for people to see it.
Second, and most importantly, thank you for demonstrating once again what the “pro-public education” movement in South Carolina is all about - demonizing anyone who dares to offer real solutions to their ongoing and increasingly expensive failure to educate our children.
Comments
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on July 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Wow! Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. sic(k) willie claims that a responsible mainstream journalist and editor went over the top.
This from the scam miester who promised details about a Midlands elected official he claims has a Strom problem. We could go on and on and on with examples of other willie scams.
But, what’s the point?
Brad’s right. Howie doesn’t give a kumquat from Flopeye, S.C. what is best for kids in S.C. All he wants is to impose his voucher scam.
Bet he doesn’t even know what a kumquat is or where Flopeye is.
(Right now sic(k) willie is Googling “kumquat” and “Flopeye” in hopes of finding more porn pictures for his pathetic little blog.)
Here’s truth.
The real problems facing public education include poverty, latent racism, the shameful “minimally adequate” standard and a host of social ills sic(k) willie can’t understand with a silverspoon upbringing.
More truth.
Howie must really be desperate if he came down for a love fest with K.D. And, K.D. must really be feeling heat if he’s willing to go public with his support for Howie’s scams. Last but not least is the fact Jakie pointed out: pack up your “baggies” of carpetbugger money - the voucher scam is dead in S.C.
BIN News Editorial Staff
Always with Flare and Balance
By G.L. on July 13th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Warthen should resign. That comparison was disgraceful. I hope The State hurries up and goes broke.
By MMS on July 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
The irony is The State would have exciorated anyone else who made the Obama connection, especially anyone from the conservative side
By MMS on July 13th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
that should have said:
The irony is The State would have exciorated anyone else who made the Osama comparison, especially anyone from the conservative side
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on July 13th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Such fake outrage. sic(k) willie has made far worse comparisons.
Gettin back to Howie. sic(k) willie and K.D. seem to think what he’s doing is okay. They’re wrong.
Let’s imagine what would happen if some out of state millionaires decided they wanted S.C. to give tax vouchers to kumquat farmers.
It could happen, you know!?
Some millionaires from Chicago, L.A., Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Nashville and Hooterville could get together and decide to support S.C. Legislators friendly to kumquat vouchers.
How would they get started? Easy. There’s already a model.
First they’d hire a local front man, and he’d rent an office with phone and fax. He wouldn’t need a big office. A phone booth would do.
Then he’s set up an organization called “South Carolinians for Responsible Kumquat Vouchers” (SCRKV). Then set up another group called Voice for Kumquat Farmers (VforKF). Then another called Club for Growing Kumquats.
Creating so many fake groups helps pretend that eleventy brazillion S.C. citizens have joined. But he won’t release member lists.
Then he’d set up web sites and be in business. All the front man would need would be a steady flow of out of state cash to contribute to candidates and officials who are friendly to Kumquat Vouchers.
Seriously, what if dozens (or more) out-of-state Howie’s popped up trying to influence S.C. by sending carpetbugger money to politicians to buy their votes (strike ‘buy’ and insert influence - just as bad).
S.C. needs laws with teeth to control carpetbugger money. Particularly kumquat scam supporters. And voucher scam supporters.
For more information on kumquats try: http://www.kumquatgrowers.com
By Silence Dogood on July 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Now if we could just get VP Cheney to also say that a vote for a Howard Rich Candidate is a vote for terrorist and a “terrorist act,” like he did with the Connecticut Senate Campaign, then we would really be cooking!
By Ron on July 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Thanks Will,I don’t even buy “la socialista” liberal rag anymore. Occassionally i’ll go to “thestate.com” to read gamecock sports. THAT’S IT! Keep up the good work tiger!
By SC Lawyer III on July 14th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
If someone could explain to me why a parent doesn’t already have the right to choose, I’d appreciate it.
I’ve yet to quite understand why conservatives want to create a taxpayer backed subsidy for private schools.
If you want to send your kids to private school, go right ahead. Save your money, make sacrifices, do what you have to do. Just don’t expect the taxpayers to fund it.
Also, please stop telling us how this will help kids who are being left behind. In reality it will remove kids who aren’t problems, leaving those who need the most help stuck in now increasingly underfunded schools.
The final problem i have with the rhetoric is the idea that 1) all public school are bad and that 2) all private schools are good. In reality more than a few private schools suck and most public schools perform about how the demographics would lead you to expect that they would.
By for the children on July 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“…. most public schools perform about how the demographics would lead you to expect that they would.”
This is so incredibly racist, ignorant and WRONG. The left has to stop blaming children for adults not doing the job they are paid to do. Just because a child lives in poverty or is of color does NOT mean that they cannot achieve academically.
There are many public and private schools that are examples of this. The Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta is a private academy in Atlanta that serves financially disadvantaged children of color. KIP schools are public charter schools that serve these same demographics. All of these schools are achieving higher levels of academic success with their students than people like SC Lawyer III expect.
I am so sick of self-righteous people of means looking down their middle class noses at children who have no choice but to attend a school where the success rate for children like them is only one in ten. (The reading proficiency rate for SC’s black 8th grade boys on the NAEP.) These sanctimonious people shake their heads back and forth saying, “What do you expect?” The implication is that the children are defective or come from defective communities and therefore we can’t expect these children to learn.
This is beyond vile. Maybe SC Lawyer III only expects this. I sure don’t.
By Not Only That on July 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
SC Lawyer III: That was one of the most reasonable posts I’ve ever seen on this site, from either side of the school choice question.
The dirty little secret no one talks about is that the vast majority of private schools — especially the small “white flight” academies formed in rural areas after integration — not only aren’t better than public schools, they’re not nearly as good, even though they get a whole lot more desirable crop of kids. Schools like Heathwood and Hammond MAY be better (who can tell, they get the best of the best to start with) but no tax credit in the world would cover the cost for a poor parent (or even most of the rest of us) to send their children there.
The only reason people think private schools are better than public is that private schools do none of the achievement reporting that public schools do. And here’s the real kicker — under Howie Rich’s legislation, they wouldn’t have to do it even if they started receiving public dollars.
By Cindy Lou on July 14th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
SC Lawyer III:
I beg to differ on the “Underfunded schools” part. The schools are already receiving a large portion of the state’s budget. Check it out. Also, in most of the bills that have been introduced, there is a cap on the salary of the parents, so the tax-credit would only go to those who cannot “save your money, make sacrifices, do what you have to do.” This is only one avenue for trying to make our schools better. It seems that since no one else is coming up with any ideas, this is the only one that keeps coming back around.
By rick on July 15th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I haven’t figured out how voting with your tax dollars is bad. Since public education is no longer accountable to the taxpayers that they supposedly serve, how does a parent demonstrate dissatisfaction? Removal of the child and the attendent tax dollars make the school choice issue more like the free market at large. We choose which car to buy, which brands of foods, gorcery stores….why not schools? There will always be high performing and low performing students, largely based upon parental involvement and availability of quality teaching tools. We cannot dumb down the entire student body just because some students don’t perform. While I believe that the majority of school teachers begin by being fully engaged and dedicated, it soon becomes an uphill struggle when the political reality begins to set in. Why do administrative personnel receive more pay than the teacher in the classroom? Where are the resources the teacher needs? Why is there increased hiring of tertiary level employees when we have an increased student body and the need for teachers, classroom? Where is the challenging programs that shake out the performers from the non-productive? Oh wait, everyones a winner, right? Until either the State or the local board is held accountable to the people paying the bill, nothing will be done. Say what you want, it’s all about money and power. People, as we allow people to make decisions for us with no responsibility for the results, we will continue to have failing schools that dumb down your childs education to meet the non-performers level of achievement. The education system is only worried about their power base and how much more money they can extract from your wallet. Beware “it’s for the children” label, look at Washington DC with the highest cost and the lowest results.
By baker on July 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
“for the children” — I don’t think SCLawyer’s comment was racist.
Sure, it’s a fine line. It would be bigoted to say that kids from poor schools CAN’T learn or don’t deserve high standards. Sure. But it’s simply realistic to note the challenges and realities faced by poor children and the schools that serve them. That’s what NCLB is all about — acknowledging the complexity. NCLB has its critics, but I think the general thrust of it is appropriate.
As for the bin Laden link, I don’t like that kind of thing, either. It wasn’t cool what the GOP did to its opponents in the 2002 election (Max Cleland), and it’s not cool to compare Howard Rich to him. Whether or not you think his influence in SC is on the up-and-up.
According to Will’s pals at Barbecue and Politics, Spartanburg Senate candidate Lee Bright had money from Howard Rich pour (TONS of it) into his campaign after the last disclosure period before the primary. Did he really just need an infusion cash, or was this simple dishonesty? If the SCRG/Rich agenda is so good for SC, why mislead people in this way?
By Silence Dogood on July 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
How does funding a private school with public money keep it private, and how is expanding government funding to private schools a “small government solution?”
By Mincing Words on July 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
#10-
Why ever would you assume that SC Lawyer III is “blaming” anyone, much less the children for the failure of schools to perform?
Ask any teacher, any teacher at all in a Title I school, and s/he will tell you that the greatest obstacle to educating children of low SEC (socio-economic class) is the lack of involvement of the PARENT(S). While this characterization does not apply to every family of low SEC, it does apply to a great many. The Atlanta school works because parents had to apply to have their children admitted, which indicates they place a high value on the education their children receive. Involved parents help children with homework, place emphasis on learning, and are in communication with the school regarding their child’s academic progress and behavior.
So instead of lecturing the “middle class,” how about encourage parents to involve themselves in their children’s educations, to help them with their homework,to actually attend parent/teacher conferences, to return phone calls to concerned teachers, and to ensure their children actually go to school?
By SC Lawyer III on July 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
When I say demographics, I am thinking of socio-econmic factors like income, education level of the parents, and time resources of the parent to interact with the children.
I don’t know why you chose to interpret that as an indictment based on racial classifaction.
The best predictor for success in a child can be made by looking at the figures at home who are responsible for setting the child’s goals.
There is only so much that a teacher can accomplish with children who have not had people at home preparing them for school and almost nothing a teacher can accomplish with children whose parents do not instill the importance of education in them.
The only solution for that would be a massive infusion of pre-school education, which unfortunately, if not mandatory, would only help those who took the initiative to take advantage of it.
…………….
As for accountability, there are few things more accountable than schools, which are managed at the district level with policies set by school boards, with PTAs having significant influence over schools and principals. Moreover, on the state level, policy is advanced and made by your own legislators. Public education is every bit as accountable as any other public endeavour.
Those who are dissatisified, can and do seek alternative schooling. Now, proponents of that approach desire their choice to be subsidized by taxpayer money, despite the fact that the taxpayer subsidies are extremely unlikely to help those who are already without means.
Those wonderful private schools that are always illustrated as the example of why public school is terrible aren’t something that a tax credit or a voucher is going to enable those with the biggest problems in the public school to take advantage of.
In the same way that the lottery takes money from those foolish enough to spend their money on a financially ridiculous proposition to subsidize higher education, so too would the allocation of taxpayer money to subsidize private education be a rather cynical distribution of revenues.
If the state wanted to do something to help failing schools it would be an investment in mandatory preschool education where children who will go on to fall behind their peers might be given the basic skills necessary to succeed.
But that would be too expensive and too intrusive for those that aren’t really the problem.
Trackbacks