"He says that Putin has nothing to gain by using a nuke, and we have everything to lose by caving into nuclear blackmail."
The situation is asymmetric- and always was. We, the West, have far more to lose than do the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, etc. Play it out- Putin begins to lose in a rout and nukes Kiev, and promises to nuke Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, London, and Rome. What would we do in response? Would we really start a tit for tat nuclear exchange? What I find fascinating is this- people who whole-heartedly want to support Ukraine with weapons and air support are far more likely to describe Putin as a madman bent of reestablishing the USSR than not, but when critics of the present policy point out how all of this brings us closer to Armageddon, the war supporters suddenly revert to saying Putin isn't a madman at all and would never use a nuclear weapon- so, which is it, madman or not?
The two sides should have been brought to the table for a cease fire 6 months ago. That there have been no efforts to reach a cease fire is a moral indictment of our leadership in the West.
As for the public schools- there is no hope at improving them. Yes, intensive tutoring is the way to go, but it will never happen in the public school realm- they are beyond repair and reform. To institute it at the public school level, the schools would request vast increases in budget and employment (see Hutcheson below for the flavor), and then the money would be spent hiring another layer of incompetent teachers and admin with even higher salaries and benefits to only end up in exactly the same place.
The only way forward is for the parents to continue removing their children from these schools and placing them in private schools, or homeschooling them.
The main argument for supporting Ukraine is that it’s a nice way for a commentator/journalist/twitter head to signal their false moral superiority.
We live in a world where signalling a popular but deeply wrong moral theory that “Democracy” == “Good” and Autocracy” == “Bad”, is more appealing than truthfully acknowledging that ending our progress, and the progress of all known sentient life in the universe, should be avoided at all costs.
It is mind-boggling to me that Cummings still lives in a world where his preferred pandemic response was a success, and cites it as if others will agree.
We need to call Putin's bluff even if there is a measurable risk of him using nukes because we have to signal to North Korea and Iran that we will not tolerate the use by either of nuclear weapons. Restated, whatever the risk that Putin won't back down, the risk of either or both of Iran and North Korea using nuclear weapons if we don't hold steady against Putin wanders into the realm of plausible, if not likely.
Tutoring schoolchildren in groups of 6 sound great, but would it not require a huge increase in the number of teachers? To increase the number w/o a decline in quality (already a problem) would also require a huge increase in salaries. This will not be popular with public school skeptics.
We should not care whether there is regime change or not so long as RF returns to its 2014 frontiers. It true that if Putin were a Liberal Democrat he would not have invaded Ukraine, but that's water under the bridge.
"He says that Putin has nothing to gain by using a nuke, and we have everything to lose by caving into nuclear blackmail."
The situation is asymmetric- and always was. We, the West, have far more to lose than do the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, etc. Play it out- Putin begins to lose in a rout and nukes Kiev, and promises to nuke Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, London, and Rome. What would we do in response? Would we really start a tit for tat nuclear exchange? What I find fascinating is this- people who whole-heartedly want to support Ukraine with weapons and air support are far more likely to describe Putin as a madman bent of reestablishing the USSR than not, but when critics of the present policy point out how all of this brings us closer to Armageddon, the war supporters suddenly revert to saying Putin isn't a madman at all and would never use a nuclear weapon- so, which is it, madman or not?
The two sides should have been brought to the table for a cease fire 6 months ago. That there have been no efforts to reach a cease fire is a moral indictment of our leadership in the West.
As for the public schools- there is no hope at improving them. Yes, intensive tutoring is the way to go, but it will never happen in the public school realm- they are beyond repair and reform. To institute it at the public school level, the schools would request vast increases in budget and employment (see Hutcheson below for the flavor), and then the money would be spent hiring another layer of incompetent teachers and admin with even higher salaries and benefits to only end up in exactly the same place.
The only way forward is for the parents to continue removing their children from these schools and placing them in private schools, or homeschooling them.
The main argument for supporting Ukraine is that it’s a nice way for a commentator/journalist/twitter head to signal their false moral superiority.
We live in a world where signalling a popular but deeply wrong moral theory that “Democracy” == “Good” and Autocracy” == “Bad”, is more appealing than truthfully acknowledging that ending our progress, and the progress of all known sentient life in the universe, should be avoided at all costs.
It is mind-boggling to me that Cummings still lives in a world where his preferred pandemic response was a success, and cites it as if others will agree.
We need to call Putin's bluff even if there is a measurable risk of him using nukes because we have to signal to North Korea and Iran that we will not tolerate the use by either of nuclear weapons. Restated, whatever the risk that Putin won't back down, the risk of either or both of Iran and North Korea using nuclear weapons if we don't hold steady against Putin wanders into the realm of plausible, if not likely.
Tutoring schoolchildren in groups of 6 sound great, but would it not require a huge increase in the number of teachers? To increase the number w/o a decline in quality (already a problem) would also require a huge increase in salaries. This will not be popular with public school skeptics.
We should not care whether there is regime change or not so long as RF returns to its 2014 frontiers. It true that if Putin were a Liberal Democrat he would not have invaded Ukraine, but that's water under the bridge.