From this article:
"In the pre-dawn hours of June 5, 2013, a legislator quietly slipped the retroactive immunity provision drafted by NL Industries into a 532-page budget bill. The retroactive provision had no authors or sponsors and no notice was given to the public that it was under consideration. Public records showed that NL Industries' lobbyist handed the statutory change to top legislators in a memo with 'NL language' handwritten on top. The suggested change was fast-tracked through both houses of the legislature and enacted into law on January 27, 2011," testified Earle.
Uhhh...what? Was the tracking so fast that it spun backward some time/space continuum?
You seem pretty eager to speak for this site's entire "target market." It wasn't "off-putting" to me, and I happen to know how to use the internet to look up both United Fruit Company and Chiquita Brands International. Spin your sophistry somewhere else. Or are you a member of the Advertising and PR cult that deifies Bernays for teaching weasels how to manipulate mass psychology through words and images (Propaganda) -- i.e., how to lie without being called a liar. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Peace be with you.
You're assuming that schools without first year dates listed never opened, but that's not correct. Most schools with no first year dates listed simply opened before the data started being collected. Some simple Google searches verify this.
It looks like you are assuming that if a "YEAR NEW" date is not listed for a school, that school never opened. That may be true in some cases, but given that most of the "ENROLLLMENT FINAL YEAR" numbers for schools without "YEAR NEW" dates are non-zero, I don't think your assumption is valid. It's more likely that most of the schools without "YEAR NEW" dates simply opened before the data started being collected. That seems to be true for the first few schools listed that don't have "YEAR NEW" dates. For example, Takonta Training Center Charter School opened in 1996 and closed in 2001. In any case, the sentence in the article beginning with "As CMD has calculated, nearly 2,500 charter schools have shuttered between 2001 and 2013" should be edited, as it is misleading. Having said that, the vast majority of the schools on the list were open and then closed. The others seem to have received money without ever opening.
If unions can't survive without stealing from non-union members or people who don't want anything to do with the union, I saw let them go. If you can't survive as a business without theft, your business model is outdated or broken. Forced union dues are merely Unions using government to fix a problem that they created for themselves (free-riders). The only reason free-riders exist is because unions demanded to be the official representation for all workers instead of just the ones who joined their union. Think about it like this - if I owned a bakery and decided I want to be everyone's personal baker, I said - government, designate me the universal baker, and they did, but lots of people didn't like my product, so they left, I'd probably have a financial issue. To fix this issue, I demand government allow me to steal money from everyone, regardless of whether they wanted to buy my scones or not. Doesn't that sound insane?! That's the way unions work.
Pages