No longer of famous New York Values--or Canadian, Bronx, or Brooklyn speaking--Senator Sanders is of Vermont. There, of course, everyone owns a gun(?). So maybe there is a little bit of New York values. Republicans apparently are just not on board with Schvartz owning guns(?). The Obamas do not appear to own any guns, for example. That may explain the overall hatred, and disapproval(?).
Regardless, the Sanders proposed solution for the $70 bil., annual college tuition bill is to get the federal government to pay 2/3, the states 1/3, and mostly to the already over-priced faculty. Magically, any lower caste or Schvartz level faculty do not get funded. Possibly that includes Hispanics and Moslems(?). How does that compare with Equal Opportunity employment, has not been asked. Nor will that likely be asked.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
So, is that Equal Opportunity, or Probably Not?!?! The full faculty retain their academic freedom to promote from within, likely their so many heirs. Anyone "other" gets no federal and state funding, and neither are administrators participants in the funding.
So Back to the general concept of U. S. "Equal Opportunity." Clearly, no one looks to Matthew 25:14-30. In the computing story, the top tier gets the five full talents. The lowest tier gets dispossessed altogether--cast out of the program. The middle tier is still of a lower order, likely to be dispossessed, soon enough. Equal Opportunity in the Western Democracies is like. It is subject to computing.
The Sanders Oligarchy is worse. The concept embraces a self-promoting faculty of heirs, fully funded with no basis in usual contract or other merit kind of evaluation. The private sector company of heirs can lose the funding. The concept of "tenure" does not apply in usual public employment funding. They are simply hard to get rid of, or the jurisdiction heads into bankruptcy. In the case of the pricey aristocracy of Oligarchic faculty, (1) there is no standardized measure of evaluation. And (2), the guarantee of funding is solid and specific in statute, and not contractual. There is no standardized measure of evaluation. There is subjective, case-by-case evaluation and promotion.
Can you feel how the Sanders people want the momentum to happen(?)!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Real Momentum comes from bow-string fully drawn, and well-aimed instead!)
Regardless, the Sanders proposed solution for the $70 bil., annual college tuition bill is to get the federal government to pay 2/3, the states 1/3, and mostly to the already over-priced faculty. Magically, any lower caste or Schvartz level faculty do not get funded. Possibly that includes Hispanics and Moslems(?). How does that compare with Equal Opportunity employment, has not been asked. Nor will that likely be asked.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file
So, is that Equal Opportunity, or Probably Not?!?! The full faculty retain their academic freedom to promote from within, likely their so many heirs. Anyone "other" gets no federal and state funding, and neither are administrators participants in the funding.
So Back to the general concept of U. S. "Equal Opportunity." Clearly, no one looks to Matthew 25:14-30. In the computing story, the top tier gets the five full talents. The lowest tier gets dispossessed altogether--cast out of the program. The middle tier is still of a lower order, likely to be dispossessed, soon enough. Equal Opportunity in the Western Democracies is like. It is subject to computing.
The Sanders Oligarchy is worse. The concept embraces a self-promoting faculty of heirs, fully funded with no basis in usual contract or other merit kind of evaluation. The private sector company of heirs can lose the funding. The concept of "tenure" does not apply in usual public employment funding. They are simply hard to get rid of, or the jurisdiction heads into bankruptcy. In the case of the pricey aristocracy of Oligarchic faculty, (1) there is no standardized measure of evaluation. And (2), the guarantee of funding is solid and specific in statute, and not contractual. There is no standardized measure of evaluation. There is subjective, case-by-case evaluation and promotion.
Can you feel how the Sanders people want the momentum to happen(?)!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Real Momentum comes from bow-string fully drawn, and well-aimed instead!)
