less cars : roll on $2 per litre

LotteBum wrote:


I'm happy to chat about it with you on a bike ride some time Lotte.

It's intriguing the opinions people hold on how others should and do
spend their money. Would I have got the same reactions if I spent money
on house renovations, white goods especially really big TVs, cars,
skiing trips? Either way, it's all personally directed. Not too much
consideration of the effects of rising petrol prices on all sorts of
folk.

Donga

scotty72 wrote:
It is not a problem of teachers being attracted anywhere (esp by
money) as there is little demonstrable difference.

What is different is A) the resources available to the kids and b)
the discipline able to be enforced upon the kids

Absolutely.

My wife is doing her masters in teaching at the moment, and the
top graduates do tend to go to the top private schools. Pay is a
little better, but more importantly they are better resourced
and most importantly they get better support from the school and
the parents. They are able to do their job, instead of spending
most of their time on crowd control. These are things that could
be fixed in state schools. It is not just money.

I am currently a govt HIGH school teacher - so I have a fair idea.

I know a lot of teachers in the state system. Great people, but they
will tell you straight that the system is going to hell in a handcart.
That is why I put my kids into private schools, although it is
bleeding me white.

scotty72 wrote:

The chances of being randomly snatched off the street are probably as
high as being struck by lightning whilst being eaten by a shark.

That would upset the shark.

theo

On 2006-08-17, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

This is so full of ****e...

It is not a problem of teachers being attracted anywhere (esp by
money) as there is little demonstrable difference.

What is different is A) the resources available to the kids and b)
the discipline able to be enforced upon the kids

Your idea that government abolish funding to the privates is as stupid
as it is destructive to the public system. A kid in a government school
gets at least twice the subsidy (all govts) that a private school kid
gets. If you force all those private school kids into the public
system, them the public system would collapse - TOMORROW. Do you really
think that govt would suddenly come up with the extra 100s of millions
that these newly public kids would be entitled to, new classrooms would
be whipped up with a click of the fingers.

Yes, it would collapse if students were to suddenly move into the
public system -- the public system has been under neglect for a couple
of decades now.

If more students went into the public system, and those who could
afford to pay more, were forced to pay more, then it wouldn't be in so
much neglect.

Then there is the ethical issue. My kid goes to a private school (we
cycle down and back every day - bar rain). Are you suggesting that she
is less deserving of taxpayer resources than your child? Is your child
more important than mine - will you look her in the eye and tell her
that the people think she is unworthy of society's help? If so, we
shall need to have words.

Hey, it's your choice to send her to a school that requires lots of
fees. You're free to send her to a "lesser" school. Then she'll get
twice the government spending, if that's what you care about!
Brilliant, isn't it?

Also, I am my wife pay huge taxes. So if we put into the system, are
we not entitled to expect the benefits afforded to taxpayers? Of course
we are.

We are not rich. We choose to put as many resources into our kid's
education as we can.

OK, so why do you think your child is more worthy of a good education
than a child whose parents or single parent have no money, and are
just living day to day? Parents who can't afford to put *any* money
in? Those who don't have the luxury of having their own home, been
renting all their lives. Too old and unskilled to get a job where
they aren't completely exploited? Fall through the cracks of social
welfare, because hey, they've got a casual job that employs them for a
day a week - thus they are employed!!11!elvenee! People don't put
themselves in that situation by choice, so why should their children
have to suffer the propogation of their poverty? If all children had
the same access to schooling (and tutoring, and access to sport, and
....) then

1) You don't get so much propogation of poverty from parents to child
2) If the influential rich voters' children have to go to the same
school as those of people who can't afford anything other than the
public system, then the public system will be fixed up a lot quicker
(it's harder to ignore voters when they are giving party contributions
and own stock in companies that effectively control the government of
the day).

It annoys me that people who sponge off a public school (refusing to
pay even the small govt school fees) complain about the private system
that actually props them up.

Props them up? How's that work? You have a pot of money. 2/3 of
that pot go to the public system. 1/3 go to the private system. The
private system also get an influx of money from their users fees.

That extra 1/3 of money that would otherwise be available? Not going
to the public system, oh no. That large amount of money that the
private users can demonstrably afford (if they couldn't, they'd fall
back to the public system), also don't go to the public system.

How's that propping up? Looks like taking away to me. Let me
demonstrate again. Those who can afford proportionally higher amounts
of their income to be directed to non-essential day to day living
expenses (roofs, walls, food, etc), direct their money to the private
system instead. What's left, the money of those who can't afford
anything extra, the measly dollars that the state governments
currently put in, goes into the public system. And you wonder why
it's falling apart?

Just because people like you didn't want their preciousness to mix
with the lesser aspects of society, those who belong to a lower social
class?

DON'T punish parents who sacrifice for their kids.

Sacrafice by sending them to schools that the rest of us go to --
those of us in lower socio economic groups. Then put your money into
the public system, and watch as it grows!

Punish those who see their kids as a liability rather than an asset
(bloody kids, can't afford me smoke now)

Absolutely. Figures I heard yesterday that 17% of pregnant women
smoke. But 40% of young unwanted pregnant women smoke. Evidentally,
if you're stupid enough to smoke (particularly while pregnant), then
you're stupid enough to get yourself into an unwanted pregnancy.

--
TimC
"How much caffeine do you consume on a daily basis?"
"Dependink on how you mean? Liquid, solid or gas? " -- Pitr/User Friendly

scotty72 wrote:
You know that the overwhelming majority of child abuse is by someone
within the family's circle of trust (uncle, scout leader, step father
etc.)

Our circle of trust is very small :-)

The chances of being randomly snatched off the street are probably as
high as being struck by lightning whilst being eaten by a shark.

Probably. Point is that the risk has increased. I am just making a
counter argument to the point that violent crime has not increased
in the past few decades, which is certainly true.

I think it is the horror of these crimes, rather than the statistical
risk, that causes parents to overcompensate.

Meanwhile I don't let my 7 and 9 year olds go any further than the
end of our (cul-de-sac) street alone. Maybe I am stunting their
development. My 9 yo daughter would certainly agree.

obcycling:

I do let my kids ride their bikes in our street. I would like them
to be able to ride to school, which is less than a km away, but
that would involve crossing North Lake Rd which is 4 lanes in a
nominal 70 zone, although traffic consistently speeds along
here and for some reason regularly runs the lights. I have seen
some nasty accidents, and we even got to see a dead motorcyclist
a few months ago. This intersection is about 20m from the
school gate. I wonder what it would take to get pedestrian
lights installed? Maybe a redlight camera while we are at it.

dave wrote:

On that front I found out. (From a guzzi owner who shall remain
nameless) that vmoto is an oz company. And their new retro 125
scooter arrives now. And one of their over scooters with remote
starting and other goodies costs just under 3 K and released in
sectember last year was supposedly the best selling scooter in Oz.

I believe the scooter market grew by 30 something % last year, after growing
by 70% the previous year.

Now its interesting that a couple of people at work are talking about
these. But the
people talking about the things are the big mercedes owners at work
who would never own a pushbike or a motorbike. And that is a major
major culture change.

My son and his wife have a Mercedes each. He has an SLK350, she has an ML320
diesel. They both get 10 l/100kms, compared to the new commodore which is
advertised to get 12 l/100kms. They have a VMoto scooter she uses to go to
thew local Gym and they have two bicycles and a kiddie trailer.

Theo

scotty72 wrote:
This is so full of ****e...

I'm with you, Scotty. I'm glad the ALP has finally abolished their
punitive policy on private schools. I can think about voting for them
again. It wasn't an economic option for the last couple of elections
purely because of what it would have done for my school fee bill (the
ones we pay for by not renovating my house, not buying new cars, not
going on holidays, or just about anything else that would be
discretionary).

It's quite funny how many ALP politicians' students were at private
schools while this policy was current.

Donga

TimC Wrote:
On 2006-08-16, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Resound wrote:

I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't
trust
*anybody*.

How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?

Travis


It's far easier than keeping them in sub-atomic form. Putting them
together
when you need them is soooo fiddly. Worse than making nori rolls.

That's true. Its so easy to ruin dinner when just a few of the
quarks
have the wrong flavour.

This tastes like bottom!

I ordered strange!

--
TimC
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely
charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but
up and down are forever." - The Laws of Physics

Very charming.


--
jur

Donga Wrote:
I'm happy to chat about it with you on a bike ride some time Lotte.
That would require riding at less than 19km/h as that is the only pace
at which I am able to participate in a coversation. I know you all
think I can talk under water, but that's not actually the case.

It's intriguing the opinions people hold on how others should and do
spend their money. Would I have got the same reactions if I spent money
on house renovations, white goods especially really big TVs, cars,
skiing trips?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you would :-)


--
LotteBum

Theo Bekkers wrote:

AndrewJ wrote:
Is it just my imagination, or are there actually less cars out there?
Seems to me that it is starting to reduce slightly.

Roll on $2 per litre.

And bananas at $20 per kilo.

Theo

Unless you know an a.b'er with a mini-plantation...

Tam