I've always thought it interesting that teachers unions throw all their weight behind Democratic candidates, who then send their kids to private schools! I don't blame the Clintons and the Obamas for sending their kids to Sidwell Friends, I blame the teachers unions for giving money to someone who doesn't value or trust public schools enough to send their own kids to them--you know, "good enough for thee but not for me". And from what I've read, good parents probably wouldn't send their kids to DC's public schools. I completely support school choice, and parents' right to choose where their kids go to school. The teachers unions, however, are being hypocritical.
So is Matt Damon, who has loudly (and foul-mouthedly) supported public schools but sends his own kids to private schools:
Actor Matt Damon is a strong supporter of America's public schools. Just two years ago, the star spoke passionately about the importance of public schools at a Washington DC "Save our Schools" rally. In fact, the actor is so impressed with public school teachers that he has demanded they receive a pay raise. That passion and conviction, however, does not apply to Damon's own children, who will not be enrolled into the Los Angeles public school system.I thought this tie-in to his most recent movie was pretty good, too:
In an interview with the Guardian published Saturday, Damon revealed that he had just moved to Los Angeles from New York, but that he didn't "have a choice" when it came to putting his four daughters into private schools. The multi-millionaire did say that it was "a major moral dilemma" and then made the bizarre excuse that the public schools aren't "progressive" enough.
According to early reviews, (the movie) is a big-budget action film that condemns a future Los Angeles where the super-rich use their wealth and privilege to separate themselves and their families from the city's poor.This, ladies and gentlemen, is hypocrisy.
Update, 8/9/13: So is this:
Hypocrite In Chief: 5 Limits On NSA Spying That Senator Obama Supported But President Obama Opposes
4 comments:
Hypocrisy raised to an art, sounds like.
It's only hypocrisy if you believe that Matt Damon isn't a special person for whom special considerations must be made due to his inherent superiority.
But that's a ridiculous point of view, now isn't it?
After all, Matt's good-looking, he's talented, he's rich. Isn't it clear that he belongs to a more refined, more evolved branch of the human race if not some other species entirely? People who, by virtue of their thrilling superiority inhabit a higher plane of existence and whom we should thank for making the world a better place by showing us what we can imagine but never achieve?
Matt simply wants what's best for his children, an urge ordinary parents no doubt feel much less strongly then Matt, so the public schools that are good enough for ordinary children are not good enough for the, definitionally, superior children of Matt Damon.
I hope this explanation clarifies the matter.
The thing you must remember is that rich liberals are better than the rest of us. They love telling us what to do, how to spend our money, but want the government to butt out of telling them what to do. Damon is just one example. Think of Barbara Streisand, well known friend of Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint the size of some small towns. Consider Al Gore himself who rather than traveling more efficiently in commercial airlines, uses a private jet because "he's important" as Darryl Hannah said of Gore in an interview. This is a theme that runs throughout the Obama administration. Nowhere is this elitism more apparent than the administration's waivers for Congress and their staffs on Obamacare. Instead their higher insurance costs will be subsidized.
Being in favor of better public education, and advocating it, is not at all hypocritical if you can afford something better than what you are offered. The question is if it's really better...
Post a Comment