Private schools are only better because students come from richer families apparently

So the newest headline on CBC today says whether a school is public or private doesn’t really matter, what matters is how rich the parents of the students are. We’re supposed to believe this? I haven’t done specific research for this yet, but I intend to. Basically this new report by StatsCan says the main contributing factor to student success is what demographic they come from. The article, which is found here, doesn’t really go into much detail, except to say private and public schools are very similar in terms of:

 

-          Student-teacher ratio

-          Annual instructional hours

-          Number of computers per student

-          Percentage of teachers with an undergraduate degree.

 

But these data points don’t tell us much. I want to know more about the quality of education. There are factors which are not accounted for here. Private schools must accomplish the goals of its clients. Really terrible private schools will not persist, they must be the best in order to stick around. No such limitation exists for public schools which continue to exist regardless of how terrible they are.

 

Same goes for teachers. While it’s relatively easy to discipline or fire a private school teacher, this is simply not the case in public schools. Basically once teachers are in, they’re in. Firing them is very difficult and most schools don’t even bother.

 

Another point is that the study could have easily accounted for differing income levels. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics could easily adjust the results. Interestingly this study didn’t bother to do that. Either they did and didn’t like the results, or they simply didn’t bother. Either way it’s an obvious omission. By doing so, they could have a clearer picture of if their hypothesis is correct.

 

This all reminds me of a report which came out a couple of years ago which showed kids in BC from a polygamous sect attending their private schools did the best out of the whole province in every measure. The Fraser institute, a world-renown think-tank (ranked Canada’s best), declared Bountiful School in BC to be the best. After the report came out, the BC school board immediately lashed out saying the report didn’t measure everything and made up some nonsense about how it didn’t measure “all factors”. What these factors were depended on who the reporters asked, but they were certainly things you couldn’t measure.

 

I also question the data about the costs being the same. In NL, the government spends around $12,500 per student per year for K-12. It’s my understanding that St. Bonaventure’s, the capital city’s only private school, costs far less than this. Yet they outcompete government schools in every single category.

 

Public schools are a waste of time at best and dangerous indoctrination zones which are causing societal breakdown at worst. At the very least there should be school choice and school competition. The only reason for the current system is teachers like holding everyone hostage to pay their exorbitant salaries and to never be fired. Also, it allows (mostly perverse) activist groups to shape the opinions of children. That’s why the government is so desperate to take over daycare as well.

 

We should oppose government indoctrination centres at all costs!

The Nanny State Strikes Again!

Because adults are unable to think or act for themselves and are essentially children that need permanent parents, the Human Rights Tribunal has determined that some dress codes at work constitute human rights violations. Remember, employees voluntarily work at these places on a voluntary basis under a voluntary arrangement. But then again, children can’t really make free will decisions. And in the view of the statist, that’s what everyone is - children.

 

So according to this CBC article, a woman complained to the human rights tribunal that she was asked to wear a bikini top at work. A real human rights tribunal would have told her to quit and find work elsewhere. But this is Canada, so of course she was awarded $6000. Six grand – for what?? Being asked to do something you don’t want to do? She even refused to do it. Yet she still gets $6000!? That’s like 3 months salary on minimum wage!

 

If I worked at a company that asked me to do something I didn’t want to, I wouldn’t get $6000. I would either quit or be fired. And this has happened plenty of times in my life. I’ve worked in places where I cannot get along with my co-workers at all, yet I’m asked to work with them. I remember working at a job where I had to stand all day in uncomfortable shoes. I wasn’t used to standing that long, especially in those shoes and it was quite uncomfortable. I didn’t go to the human rights tribunal to complain. And I certainly didn’t get $6000.

 

Some people probably think the six grand is some kind of victory and depending on who you ask it’s a victory for different causes. Some will say it puts evil businesses in their place. Others will say it works toward ending sexism or “patriarchy”. But this is not a victory at all. Ultimately what it does is creates a population of dependents. Rather than stand on our own two feet, we rely on the government to take care of us. We become perpetual children. It’s like running to mommy when someone is “mean” to us.

 

A more effective solution to this is for the girl to quit and find another job. People should boycott the restaurant if they don’t want to go there. But maybe some girls want to work there and maybe some people want to eat there. Who is this group of bureaucrats to say that’s illegal? And let’s push this to it’s logical extension. What if someone refuses to wear a uniform that reveals shoulders? Do they get $6000? What if a very traditional Muslim woman wants to wear a burqa to work and thinks showing her face in public is wrong? If the boss asks her to wear a standard work outfit, should she have the right to sue the restaurant for $6k?

 

In the article they say in order for it to be considered a legitimate workplace demand, the same demand must be made of men. Of course, if our culture men and women are considered exactly the same. Does that mean if a woman must wear a skirt a guy must also? Otherwise, they can’t request it? What if a group of people believes it makes sense that men wear pants and women wear skirts at work? Is this a legal opinion? Nope, not under our system.

 

Also, with all these rules, there are other consequences. It puts a chilling effect on restaurants or other businesses who want to try new ideas. They will exist under the constant threat of a frivolous lawsuit claiming nebulous charges of sexism and other complaints. Some small businesses could be slapped with huge fines for even asking an employee to do something. Rather than simply refuse, she can just go to the human rights tribunal to collect thousands of dollars.

 

We need to demand to be treated like adults and to have self-ownership and responsibility and stop whining to the state and granting it these enormous powers to rule over us.

 

Here’s the story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/restaurant-dress-codes-open-to-sexual-discrimination-complaints-1.3012522

Some people think they own their own property AGAIN

So a couple of days ago I wrote an article about a property owner in St. John’s who thought he owned his own property on 25 Winter Ave. Of course he doesn’t. The city owns it and just graciously lets him live there. That’s why councillor Dave Lane and ex-councillor shannie duff both broke down in tears at the bulldozing of the old house that was there.

 

So the power-hungry bureaucrats are also around in Stephenville apparently. A young couple wanted to build a house on their family’s property. So let’s stop for a minute. They wanted to build THEIR OWN house on THEIR OWN property. Why this requires permission is beyond me. Oh right, we don’t own ourselves or our labour. We are just subjects of our overlords! That’s right!

 

But of course it gets worse. The council required they hook themselves up to the town grid. But then the council REJECTED their application because it would cost the town $2 million to extend the grid to their house. So now the couple cannot build their OWN HOUSE on their OWN PROPERTY! Even if they supply their own GOVERNMENT-CERTIFIED artesian well for water and septic tank for sewer.

 

To anyone who thinks we live in a free society, I have three letters for you: LOL.

 

Here’s the story:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/young-couple-frustrated-with-stephenville-council-over-new-home-build-1.3009754

 

Not at all shocking: Border theft

A newfoundland woman’s purse was stolen by US border guards because it was made from seal skin. Despite the fact that there are 12 times more seals in NL than people, and that the herd is gigantic, containing over 6 million individuals, the United States government has decided seals are endangered. So they stole the purse of a woman who legally owned a purse in Canada. Then they fined her $250. NOW they’re saying she has to pay the fine or she will never be allowed in the country again.

 

The most shocking part about this is not that it happens but that it happens so often. I’ve seen the border patrol shows and the agents get on such a high horse when they are confiscating things from people. In one show the border guard was so proud that he had prevented someone from fulfilling their dream of working part time in Canada at low wages to spend time with friends. They were unceremoniously sent back to their country of origin. Another woman’s thousands of dollars was stolen because she didn’t have a receipt for all of it. And she’ll never get it back.

 

This kind of thing happens all the time. And there’s way around it when you’re facing the behemoth known as Government.

 

More here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/i-m-shocked-corner-brook-woman-fined-250-for-sealskin-purse-1.3006358

Government oversteps again - puts people's lives at risk

The unaccountable initiator of force, also known as government, once again shows how inept and dangerous it has become. A 5-year old boy in England sought treatment for his serious cancer outside the country in Prague, Czech Republic. He had been in British socialist hospitals and was of course getting worse. By the way, in England people have terrible healthcare, but like in Canada they feel obliged to praise it because it’s “loving and fair”, even though it sucks.

 

So this kid’s family decides to go to Prague where it is not run by a totalitarian healthcare system which prevents people from seeking alternatives. But although the government didn’t like that its subjects left to seek a better solution, they let them go anyway because they are free, rational people right? WRONG! Nope, the government sent their thugs after them and had them arrested in a foreign country. That’s right, the arms of government can reach even beyond its own borders!

 

So anyway, after escaping this tyranny, the family sought proton beam treatment for their son. The result: he is cancer-free. Whereas before he couldn’t speak or feed himself, he can now talk again. Will the government of England now admit its mistake and declare that people are no longer domesticated animals and can make their own decisions? Of course not! They’ll continue to say that unless you submit to their “hospitals” which are horrendous, then you will be unsafe.

 

Had this boy died in a British hospital, there would have never been an article written about him. No one ever hears about stories like this unless it involves someone defying the all-powerful government. How dare they! Break free from the propaganda! Canada’s and England’s healthcare systems are not just terrible, they’re immoral! When “free” people cannot care for themselves or their loved-ones because some bureaucrats doesn’t want them to, that’s unjust and wrong!

You don't really own your property in St. John's

Heritage structures are a big deal in St. John’s. Most of the time when I hear about city council they are discussing whether or not some building or house or random structure is “protected” as a heritage building. It’s almost as though they’ve discovered a loop-hole in property ownership and are all too eager to exercise it. They love to get their meat-hooks into the private affairs of individuals and this is one area where they feel particularly powerful. One such case emerged recently where there is an old house on 25 Winter Ave. which was purchased. Remember, this house was sold from one private owner to another. Yet, somehow a bunch of bureaucrats feel they have some kind of say as to what happens with the property. The even weirder thing is that many councillors not only feel they have some kind of say into what happens to the house, but they have some form of ownership as well. This comes out in the reactions of some city councillors to the destruction of the property.

 

Shannie Duff, a former councillor, released a statement saying she “felt sick” about the destruction of the property. Dave Lane said “It hurts my heart to think of it.” These are the reactions of owners, and I’m sure these people have convinced themselves they in fact do own these properties and their subjects have been allowed to temporarily reside in them at their will.

 

One of the things that separates Canada from uncivilized countries is property ownership. In communist countries, things are all held in common. You don’t really own anything. But the result of not owning anything is people don’t care of it much. If a property cannot be changed or bulldozed, its value decreases. A rotting “heritage” house on prime real estate will have little value to someone who wants to live in a modern home. But it’s more than a practical matter, it’s a philosophical matter. To believe that the state owns everything and can, at whim, decide what its subjects can do with it, subjugates one group of people to another. And in this case, it subjects them to their inferiors. Politicians just have to have a nice smile and say things people like to hear to have massive power in our democratic system, while on the other hand for someone to legitimately purchase a large property, they have to have provided enormous value to society through their goods or services. The latter group should have almost full autonomy over what they do with their own property which they’ve purchased.

 

The whole “heritage” ploy in St. John’s is nothing but a charade designed to give functionaries who can’t make it in the real world enormous power over the lives of people. They have tried to make 20 year old buildings “heritage” buildings, they’ve demanded brand new buildings conform to standards of “heritage”. It’s just keeping everyone back in the past, in a super artificial way. It’s classic power-grabbing. Trust me, no one moves to St. John’s because on some obscure road, someone was prevented from modernizing a house.

 

Good:

 

(picture from CBC)

Test on bus

Testing bus