More proof, if proof were needed, that human beings exist to serve TEH ECONOMY and not the other way around.
Because it’s OK to make children COMPLETELY MISERABLE as long as it’s GOOD FOR THE FUCKING ECONOMY.
Thank you. I feel better now.
More proof, if proof were needed, that human beings exist to serve TEH ECONOMY and not the other way around.
Because it’s OK to make children COMPLETELY MISERABLE as long as it’s GOOD FOR THE FUCKING ECONOMY.
Thank you. I feel better now.
She's a blogger, she's a grinner, she's a mother, she's a sinner. She plays her music in the sun.
Comments (0)
They should start work at 4 1/2, not school. That would be very good for teh economy. And if it’s good the teh economy, it’s good for the government. You know it makes sense.
Up the chimneys with ’em!
And down the mines!
YOu people are so unambitious!!! Its obviously time to give Winnie the Pooh the flick at bedtime and start reading the financial pages to Dolphin Girl (4)- and if I give her a wooden abacus we can call it “play based learning” and keep both sides of the childcare debate happy. Give her a year or so in this environment, and come 30 June 2007 she’ll be able to do my tax return – very economic!
one of my cousins learnt his numbers by watching Keno long before he started school. of course, he didn’t learn them in order…
why do they have so much trouble with the idea that kids develop at different rates and need to start school at different ages? most of the federal parliament have kids, surely they’ve noticed that some kids are bursting to get to school at 4 1/2 (I know a mother who begged to get her kid into school when she was ‘too young’ – she’s at Oxford now) and others are too shy to be in with all those other kids until they’re 6. it’s really not that difficult a concept.
INDIVIDUALISM MUST BE CRUSHED. Oh, except for individual consumerism, which we like.