I’m sure the private sector will take care of it
Aaaany day now. When they eliminate public schools and replace them with private rather.
You think they won’t save money by putting lead in things?
Good point, and with the costs saved from removing flouride, they could further increase child-hydration profit margins by simply having them eat the paint off the walls instead.
Solution: don’t have children. Let some more intelligent species with kindness and empathy take over.
Darn, I already had one. I might consider handing them off to a more intelligent species though, if you have a recommendation? Bonobo maybe?
I suggest we do some genetic fiddling, like how scientists gave the NOVA1 gene to mice. They have been shown to have more empathy than humans.
Those same lead filled schools will be sold to private equity companies for pennies on the dollar because they will say they are full of dangerous chemicals. Those private equity companies will rent them out to charter schools and take in the same kids that were already going but charge the parents on top of taking the vouchers the govt gives out.
No one who unironically thinks the private sector will take care of everything knows what an externality is.
Everything about the current Republican party exists to break government to the point of it ceasing to function. When that happens, they can point at it and say “see? Government doesn’t work.”
Then they sweep in with a privatized solution to the problem they created, and they get richer.
They know it’s essential. They also know you’ll pay for it if they can kill the governmental solution.
So just like private equities.
I don’t see what the problem is.
The current administration grew up breathing air filled with leaded gas fumes and they’re just fine.
Just like all the people saying how “I was hit as a child and I turned out fine!” and then want to hit kids
Yes yes let’s all just make pithy comments and tut tut about those nasty repugnicans
How many of you have been to a protest in the last month?
The answer better motherfucking be all of you.
Word
The left needs to do with “waste, fraud, and abuse” what the right did with “woke”. I guess that might be tough because the left doesn’t mindlessly parrot talking points as prolifically.
Lead poisoning the youth is considered a desirable outcome for the current admin.
But if we DONT Poison our Kids HOW would we be Able to Afford ANOTHER MultiBillion Dollar contract for President Elon Musk’s companies?
Plus it’s only inter city, mostly minority children who are affected.
But if a thing isn’t making a rich guy richer should it really exist?
/s
The suffering is the point.
:(
I knew that was coming
The facist broligarchs don’t give an F
Honestly, big brain move. Poison everyone with lead, they become stupider, you get more voters, you add more lead to the water… Become the smartest man alive
ahh Mr Larson.
One of these days we’ll talk about what it means to accept a framing.
context?
Its Senator Chris Larson speaking (tweeting? tooting?)?
no. context for the rest of your comment. what does the second sentence refer to?
ahh Mr @[email protected].
One of these days we’ll talk about what it means to accept a framing.
/just kidding
First a few things. On specifying the context, that is “Senator Larson tweeting”, or whatever they are doing. So just, when you are asking for clarification on context, that is the correct answer.
But I understand what I think you wanted to ask, which is: What is framing?
Framing is a fundamental aspect of a rhetorical exercise. In a technical sense, the “framing” of an argument or discussion, conversation, whatever; its the series of lemmas that are to be assumed to be true for the argument to make sense. Think of them as the background assumptions underpinning the conversation.
So lets break down Mr. Larsons tweet:
Milwaukee Public Schools had asked the CDC for assistance in taking care of lead contamination in several of its aging buildings.
On April 3, the district received word that their request had been denied not because they didn’t need the help, but because the entire lead poisoning prevention branch of the agency had been eliminated by the trump administration.
I cant believe I need to say this, but federal programs to stop kids from being poisoned are not waste, fraud or abuse - they are essential tools to help our communities which have been recklessly cut.
So the last sentence is the one that matters. Mr. Larson is accepting a lemma that presupposes the arguments that the Trump administration and conservatives have been making about government for decades: that there is waste, fraud or abuse in government.
Its an implicit accepting of the conservative framing on the matter: that waste, fraud, and abuse exist --but that this isn’t it. These are “essential tools”.
When Mr. Larson accepts their framing, he also accepts their lemmas, which they need not do. When they do so, they’ve validated the arguments of administration, even though they are calling for exception in this instance. Mr. Larson isn’t “leading” in how to think about these issues; they are being led.
so you wrote all that to just jerk off instead of simply answer the plainly asked question. you are part of the problem.
edit: you know i made a point when they go and downvote things i’ve said in complete other locations.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I didn’t realize I was replying to a 🤡.
My apologies for taking you seriously, even in part.
If he had phrased it as “aren’t an example of waste, fraud, or abuse” then your long point might have some substance. That’s not what he said - he specifically and only says that protecting kids isn’t wasteful. You might want to step back and consider you might be trying to see more than what’s there for your own biases.
And all the sentences matter. Without context few would understand what he was talking about. The first describes the problem initially as presented to the CDC. The second is the CDC’s response in light of admin cuts to every damn thing they can. The last is simply stating that once again money is favored over public safety, even kids’ safety.
Btw, there always has been waste, fraud, and abuse in lots of places, including the government. How you determine what is and isn’t such things and do something about them is key to whether it improves or worsens things. And DOGE is neither of these, it’s an absolute money grabbing with no plan or structure. Hence the point of this tweet.
he specifically and only says that protecting kids isn’t wasteful.
Yes. So he’s accepted the Republican framing of the matter. And he’s pushing back on a conclusion made within that framing; but he’s still accepted their framing.
So it’s framing if he doesn’t include in a tweet specific about the CDC and leave a side note that all of the efforts to find waste and such is a sham. Which would remove the focus on the topic about the kids, and isn’t necessary because most anyone is going to know he’s talking about the subject of the CDC being cut and how it affects this singular issue.
Not everything can include all subjects, that’s almost a form of Gish Galloping where everything is mentioned but nothing is talked about enough to matter.
Congratulations, that was the most insufferable comment I’ve seen all week.
Same. In a good way. Lots of jargon(god I hope that was jargon) and was a challenge.
