CHINA JUST BANNED FOR-PROFIT SCHOOLS

OK, for a nominally Communist country like China, for-profit education exacerbates class differences, since only the rich can attend the better schools. Therefore, an egalitarian government should outlaw profit-oriented schools.

How about extending the ban to lower-middle-class countries like Cambodia or richer countries like the United States? The same class-dividing argument as in China also applies. In the United States, rich politicians will favor private schools for the own children to attend, but will de-fund public schools, forcing poorer children into worse and worse education. And, of course, in the end, the well-educated rich kids get the good jobs and perpetuate the class divisions.

However, there’s more to it than just the class angle. The whole motivation behind for-profit schools is to project a flashy image to fool parents into shelling out the cash for their kids’ schooling. Schools will spend more on advertising and on conspicuous vehicles and buildings than for actual learning or hiring good teachers.

Here are a few ways that for-profit schools fool parents:

  1. They inflate progress reports. They award fancy certificates and medals to almost every student, so that the parents think that their kids are real geniuses.
  2. They advertise their ‘international’ status. Almost every for-profit school in Cambodia has a display out front of “Our Partners”. This consists of perhaps dozens of logos of foreign schools. The modus operandi is to visit a foreign school, sign an MOU promising exchanges, etc., display the MOU prominently, and then forget about the foreign connection entirely.
  3. They advertise their expatriate teachers, using outdated photos of white-skinned teachers bending over a desk, explaining something to a cute kid. All this, even if in reality they have no expatriate teachers. Almost every for-profit school displays such a photo.

Generic photo with expat teacher

4. They lie. They advertise programs and services that do not exist.

5. They promote size and expansion at all costs. No student is ever denied admission, nor do students flunk out or fail to graduate. They focus on student number expansion rates, not actual achievement.

    Here are the results: the PISA organization ranks 81 countries’ schoolchildren in terms of science, math, and reading skills. Of the 81 countries, Cambodia ranks dead last (81st) in math and in science, and only slightly better in reading.

    A quick anecdote: schools in Cambodia are judged by the results of the government grade-12 leaving exam. I saw a ritzy, expensive private school that had a lower pass rate than the government school average. I thought, “That’s the end of that private school; why would a parent spend all that money to get a lower score than the cheaper government schools?” In fact, the results didn’t affect the school at all; parents send their kids there not for education, but for prestige. (Maybe not too different from many American colleges.)

    One other point: in Cambodia, for-profit schools are usually set up not by educators, but by entrepreneurs. Not only is their primary objective making money, but their knowledge and experience is in making money, not education. They usually know nothing about education.

    This raise a big question: is for-profit education NECESSARILY or INHERENTLY fraudulent? It could be argued that a highly selective (limited enrolment), rigorous school could gain such a reputation for excellence that it could be profitable. Some of the most selective and rigorous universities in the United States do turn a profit. Parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their children to Harvard, where fewer than 10% of applicants are admitted.

    However, I think that parents should be savvy enough to recognize the value of a truly high-quality education. In many not-so-rich countries, parents can be fooled. That’s the problem for countries like Cambodia, especially in rural or small-community areas. Perhaps only in more educated centers like the capital city are parents knowledgeable enough to understand the value of good quality and to see through the lies and fake images of most for-profit schools.

    HORMUZ MISINFORMATION

    It’s hard to learn the truth about what ships are or aren’t passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have told so many blatant lies; it’s difficult to believe anything.

    Let’s start with the Chinese-owned tanker Rich Starry. According to the Times of India, “The Rich Starry resumed its outbound voyage overnight and sailed out of the Strait on Tuesday. The vessel had initially appeared to abort its passage on Monday.”

    However, LogisticsMiddleEast.com. reported “Shipping data shows the sanctioned tanker Rich Starry, which exited the strait yesterday, was forced to turn around and re-entered Iranian waters on Wednesday.”

    Rich Starry? (www.vesselfinder.com/ship-photos/248407)

    There are varying reports of how many ships have passed through the strait, ranging from 0 to 20 ships.
    The BBC reports, “Four vessels with links to Iran have crossed the Strait of Hormuz despite the start of a US naval blockade, according to ship-tracking data.”

    What is really going on? Here are a couple of observations and questions:

    1. The Rich Starry was a Chinese-owned ship. Would the US attack a Chinese ship? That would risk Chinese retaliation, not Iranian, and possibly start WWIII.
    2. Even non-Chinese tankers are probably filled with oil bound for China. This oil has been bought and paid for by China. China would not like to see 100 million dollars of oil, which they own, destroyed or pirated. This again raises the specter of Chinese retaliation.
    3. What about other, neutral, ships? So far, there are no reports of Iranian attacks or threats, but such actions are sure to come. Iran would probably not hesitate to attack a Saudi or Kuwaiti tanker. The total number of ships passing the strait is reported as 45 since the ceasefire (Al Jazeera), still a far cry from the 100 or so ships per day before the war.
    4. American naval forces are actually hundreds of kilometers away from the actual strait. It would be difficult or at least time-consuming for them to attack vessels near Iranian ports. On the other hand, Iranian drones, missiles, and speedboats are stationed on the banks only a few kilometers away. They could attack a ship in seconds.
    5. One should not lose sight of the fact that the mere threat of attacks is enough to force a ship carrying 100 million dollars in oil to decide against running the gauntlet of the strait. The risk is too great. That’s why it’s easy to block the strait.

    The next step may be the blocking of the Bab-el-Mandeb on the Red Sea. That would cut off another 12% of the world’s oil supply. Blockage has already been threatened by the Houthis in Yemen, who are considered allies, if not proxies, of Iran.

    If both the Bab-el-Mandeb and the Hormuz Strait were blocked,

     the world economy would be in real trouble.

    (Note that I have not quoted any U.S. sources, especially the government’s CENTCOM reports, which are notoriously fabrications.)

    THE U.S. $2 BILL IS A GOOD LUCK CHARM IN CAMBODIA

    How odd! That the US two-dollar bill should become a good luck charm in Cambodia.

    When I arrived in Cambodia in January of 1995, the bills were everywhere. Every money-changing stall, and many other shops, had them on display — for good luck, not currency. There was a rumor that the United Nations UNTAC workers had been paid in $2-dollar bills, but I have never verified this.

    The bills are much rarer these days, but you can still see them in some money-changers’ shops. However, they are now appearing in people’s houses and even their wallets. They are often covered in mystic Buddhist symbols common to sak yant tattoos and those mysterious red yantras hanging in shops and houses. In fact, it is even possible to find a red yantra depicting a $2 bill hanging in someone’s private house.

    Speaking of sak yant tattoos – common in Cambodia and Thailand – the two most common forms are the butterfly fold and the corner fold-ins.

    The website spiritualnexus.net describes these as follows:

    One popular fold creates a bowtie shape, likely meant to symbolize gifts or special treatment one hopes to receive through associated fortune. Another common technique folds multiple corners toward the bill’s center, perhaps concentrating luck inward like a magnet. In some cases, the corners are actually cut off, in order to ‘punch out the bad luck.’

    The  Chinese community in Cambodia has a different use for the $2 bill. Bills, especially those with a red (=good luck) seal, are appropriate gifts for putting inside the traditional lai see red packets for young people at Chinese New Year. The term ‘lai see’ may be short for 壓歲錢; yāsuì qián, meaning “money warding off old age”.

    Chinese New Year version of $2 Bill

    In fact, the two-dollar bills are considered good luck in many cultures. In America, they have been used for decades by gamblers to bring good luck.

    The spiritualnexus.net website even ties the $2 bills to Christianity:

    • Firstly, Jesus spent two days deceased in the tomb before rising again, therefore the two dollar bill nods to conquest over death.
    • Secondly, there were two criminals crucified alongside Christ, but only one repented resulting in salvation, so the bill references the possibility of spiritual liberation.
    • Finally, Christianity teaches God’s kingdom has two realms – Earthly and Heavenly – hence the two dollar bill signifies movement between worlds.

    By the way, the $2 bills are still in American circulation, even though they are quite rare.  The Series 1976 $2 bill featuring a portrait of Thomas Jefferson on the face and the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the back was issued for the U.S. Bicentennial and remains in current circulation today.

    CARGO PLANES ON A      SEARCH AND RESCUE MISSION?

    Two C-130 cargo planes, like those lost in Iran. How?

    Why were cargo planes assisting in a search-and-rescue mission? And why were they actually on the ground inside Iran? The more I think about this story, the less sense it makes.

    1. These huge planes had to land deep inside Iran. This seems to imply there was a safe landing strip for them. The Iranians must have known about this.
    2. They carried cargo, or were about to load cargo. What kind of cargo were these huge planes carrying if they were on a search-and-rescue mission?
    3. Why were they destroyed? They cost $100 million each.
    4. What happened to the crew? In fact, there must have been many soldiers there to load or unload cargo. Were they rescued? How?
    5. Were there other C-130s that didn’t get destroyed? Did they fly away? There are reports of a third plane.
    6. The official American version is that the two planes got stuck in the mud, but could not be left behind because of sensitive communications equipment which had to be destroyed to keep them out of Iranian hands.

    Did you see the photos of the desert terrain? Doesn’t look like mud to me.

    The debris from the two planes is concentrated. If shot down, it would be scattered.

    The entire American official version stinks to high heaven. Iran’s version is that the planes were shot down.

    My own scenario is quite different. First, the destruction happened during the rescue, but there is no evidence that it was in any way related to the rescue. It could have occurred hundreds of miles away. If the above photo is accurate, the destruction took place far from any mountains, although the rescued pilot was hiding in the mountains.

    I see two possibilities. The first is that the US was setting up a base and unloading communications equipment and perhaps building materials. This would entail personnel, who would then remain on the site.

    The other explanation is that the US was delivering supplies to some rebel group like the Kurds, who might control some land for landing planes. I favor this explanation because it doesn’t really entail American ‘boots on the ground’ Let the Kurds do the dirty work.

    I think the Iranians destroyed the planes on the ground rather than in the air, as they claimed. Iran wouldn’t want the world to know that either the US or the Kurds controlled any territory inside Iran.

    By the way, why is the identity of the rescued pilot being hidden? Is it possible that the whole story is a fabrication? Or they don’t want him talking about what really happened?

    The American media are covering up this story. They don’t want Americans to realize that cargo planes can land inside Iran. Americans might ask too many questions.

    “NO MEN PLAYING WOMEN’S SPORTS”

    For culture warriors, transgenders in sports have been a hot-button issue. 180 schoolgirls murdered in Iran? Yawn! Child-rapist President? Bo-ring! But a transgender in women’s sports makes their blood boil.

    They have a point. Do you want your girls’ basketball team playing against a 110 kg (240 lb.) hulk like Luka Doncic, if he somehow declares he’s female? (He doesn’t, by the way.)

    Basketball star Luka Doncic

    The culture warriors are quick to ask ‘gotcha’ questions in debates or Congressional hearings, like “can you define ‘woman?’” Most people cannot give a clear answer. Genitalia? Can be changed. Hormones? Can be replaced. Is there one defining criterion?

    Actually, there is: the presence of an SRY gene. You inherit your genes at birth, and they cannot be changed. The Olympic Committee has decreed that if you have the SRY gene, you cannot qualify as a female athlete. Case closed; end of story.

    But wait, the culture warriors have more tricks up their sleeve. They point to the Mozambican/South African female runner Caster Semenya, who won gold medals and other championships. Here is her photo.

    The culture warriors shout, “Anyone can plainly see that’s a man.” In fact, she’s a woman, without an SRY gene and with female genitalia. Her difference is in an overproduction of the male hormone testosterone, which gives her many male characteristics. Culture warriors have attempted to force her to lower her testosterone, to no avail. She is, by definition, female, and must be allowed to compete.

    Some females have more testosterone than others, just by their genetic nature, just as some basketball players are well over 2 meters tall. You can’t ban Luka Doncic from competing just because his genes caused him to be too tall. Similarly, you can’t ban Semenya just because her genes caused her to have too much testosterone.

    Now what about all those sports that don’t require physical prowess? Ping-pong? Snooker? Why even bother having separate male and female ping-pong competitions? Even chess. There are significant mental changes when a person undergoes hormone replacement therpy. Could those changes give a transgender an advantage in playing chess? It’s all quite complicated, but at least, the SRY gene criterion is simple and applicable.

    IS TRUMP SCHIZOPHRENIC?

    Most Americans will recognize this photo. Trump had claimed that the hurricane would strike Alabama, but the weather service showed him the map with the projected path missing Alabama. Trump promptly took a sharpie and drew an altered black path that included Alabama. He thought that proved him correct.

    Was Trump lying? No, in his mind the storm was headed towards Alabama, and his sharpie alteration was just proving he was right.

    To tell a lie is to make a false statement in the full knowledge that it is false. Trump doesn’t do that. He invents a reality in his mind and believes it to be true. Every day he comes up with outrageous statements, even with detailed numbers and statistics that anyone can check as false, but fact-checking doesn’t matter to him. He has invented his own reality.

    Another silly example is his oft-repeated statement that he is going to bring prescription drug prices down by 500, 600, or even 1000%. The fact-checkers can point out that such reductions are mathematically impossible and are limited at 100%. No matter to him; he just continues to spout this branch of imaginary mathematics, which we might call ‘Trumpometrics’.

    Of course, the granddaddy of his ‘lies’ is the rigging of the 2020 election. I’m convinced he truly believes his own falsehood, and disregards mountains of facts and judicial decisions to the contrary. That is his own fantasy.

    And now we come to the Iran war, or ‘little excursion’, as he calls it. He makes up these fantasies, like ‘We won in the first hour’, but then reality and cognitive dissonance set in, and he has to correct his fantasy by stating that he is sending troops to his already-won war. As we have seen, his stories change by the day or even by the hour, but he appears to believe even the most contradictory versions.

    Living in a fantasy reality is a sign of schizophrenia. I’m afraid Trump may be schizophrenic, as he has lost touch with reality.

    The media have shied away from the word ‘schizophrenia’, but I fear we may be hearing it more and more, as Trump goes off the deep end with his flights from reality.

    That is why he is so dangerous. He may have a vision of an easy takeover of Kharg Island, and will parachute in troops. But then what will he do when those troops start to be killed en masse? He’ll invent some other fantasy, such as, “We have won a magnificent victory on Kharg Island.”

    A worst-case scenario is that he might actually get the idea to nuke Teheran. His sycophants might even egg him on: “Mr. President. What a brilliant idea! You are a true genius.” When I see his schizophrenic fantasies, I am actually becoming frightened that he might just do it. After all, attacking Iran for no apparent reason other than “I felt like it” was pretty off-the-wall. There’s no telling how far this madman will go. We’re in scary territory.

    IRAN PEACE TALKS — TACO?

    What to make of Trump’s announcement that the Iranians have called him and asked for talks?

    If Iran was throwing in the towel, they wouldn’t want these talks to be known. They would want to appear strong publicly while acting weak in private. This would explain why Iran is denying that any dialogues are taking place.

    On the other hand, why is Trump so openly bragging about these talks? Is there any other evidence or corroboration that the talks are happening? Knowing Trump’s past history, I’m guessing that it’s all lies.

    Trump must have realized that he could not possibly bomb all of Iran’s hundreds or even thousands of power plants.

    Wait! These are just Iran’s SOLAR plants.

    The world was coming to understand that his 48-hour threat was all a bluff, so he had to climb down somehow, while saving face. The announcement of peace talks was a way out of the trap he had set for himself.

    Dana Stroul, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, stated, “It is surely no coincidence that the announcement of a five-day pause and talks came right before markets opened in the United States on Monday morning.”

    In other words, classic TACO.

    At first, I wondered why financial markets reacted so positively to the announcement. The Dow Jones rose nearly 1000 from its lows, and oil prices declined about 10%. Did financial analysts around the world believe that peace talks were happening? No, I think they figured out that this was yet another Trump TACO, just like his tariffs, and that Trump was not going to bomb the power plants. [Recall that it was actually the stock market analysts who coined the phrase TACO after Trump threatened tariffs but then backed down.]

    Why five days, I wonder? A comprehensive cease-fire or peace plan certainly can’t be hammered out in 5 days.

    What will happen in five days, if there are no talks? Trump can probably string this out by claiming that the talks are going well, but that more time is needed. He could prolong his threatened bombings indefinitely.

    Or else, maybe 5 days is the time needed for the Marines to be ready to invade Iran, or at least Kharg Island or the shore along the Hormuz Strait.

    Meanwhile, the war goes on and the Straits remain closed. Nothing has changed.

    CAMBODIA’S COMING DEBT CRASH

    The rise in energy costs is going to hit Cambodia harder than other countries. This is because the country is already struggling with mountains of debt.

    My sister used to work for an American bankruptcy court, and she would tell me story after story of families who played by the rules, paid their debts, and were responsible enough to manage to keep afloat amid huge debts. But one day a ‘black swan’ event occurs, such as a gigantic medical bill. That completely destroys the family, and they must declare bankruptcy.

    I fear that the same phenomenon may happen to Cambodian families. Consider the following descriptions of Cambodian debt, as described in an article in Deutsche Welle:

    More families in Southeast Asia sinking into debt

    Across Southeast Asia, households are taking on debt just to cover basic needs. Analysts warn that the region’s growing dependence on borrowing risks triggering wider financial stress and long-term economic harm.

    From Phnom Penh to Bangkok, a growing share of mainland Southeast Asia’s economic story is no longer about exports, investment or factory growth, but about households borrowing simply to get by.

    Cambodia is at the center of the crisis. The country’s credit boom lifted the private debt-to-GDP ratio from 24.2% in 2010 to 134.5% in 2023, one of the region’s sharpest expansions. [Thailand, itself considered highly indebted, has a ratio of only 87%].

    According to Cambodia’s Credit Bureau, as of December 2025, the average outstanding personal loan per borrower was around $6,500 (€5,665). The garment-sector minimum wage is $208 per month.

    I have observed the Cambodian economy over the past several years. I know that salaries are only a few hundred dollars a month, but I see these same hard-working people driving conspicuous-consumption vehicles, for which they must have borrowed thousands of dollars at high interest rates. However, as in the stories my sister tells me, they have managed to make ends meet and keep afloat, that is, until the recent energy crisis.

    This rise in energy costs comes amid a perfect storm of economic hardships, based on at least two other ‘black swans’.

    First, the property market has crashed. Go to the outskirts of any Cambodian city, and you will see rows and rows of empty ‘boreys’. In the past decade, investors (largely Chinese, possibly interested in money laundering), have built thousands of these housing units, which no one wants to buy. If you have a house that you want to sell, lotsa luck!

    Typical Borey. These are mostly empty.

    Secondly, Trump foisted his tariffs on Cambodia. At first, it was 49%, but in order to pacify both Cambodia and Thailand at the beginning of their border war, he graciously lowered it to only 19%. The Cambodians were so grateful! I see it like this: Trump threatens to cut off your arm, but then he cuts off only your hand, and you are eternally grateful.

    The tariffs are hurting Cambodia’s lifeline – the garment industry. If garment exports to the US are heavily taxed, demand will go down, and many factories will be forced to close, sending young girls back to their villages into poverty and most likely prostitution or other degrading activities.

    I fear that the recent energy price increases may be the straw that breaks the back of working Cambodians. What are the implications of that? For one thing, banks may fail, due to an avalanche of nonperforming loans. For another, the conspicuous consumption in cars and houses may come to an end, as families are forced into much more modest lifestyles. One positive point: Cambodia produces a lot of its own food and other products. Cambodia may prove to be remarkably self-sufficient.

    WHY ARE MORE AMERICANS IN FAVOR OF THE IRAN WAR?

    Americans, at the start of the Iran war, were largely negative. On March 1, CNN reported 41% in favor, and 59% opposed (-18%).  More recently, however, the war has increased in popularity. RealClearPolitics lists recent polls, and finds that the average is 44.3% in favor, 47.7% opposed  (-3.4%). That’s still negative overall, but just barely, and in fact less than 50% are actually opposed to the war. The Washington Post, in its most recent poll of March 9, even gives 42% for and 40% against (+2%). The usually pro-Trump Rasmussen poll gives 52% for and 42% against (+10%).

    I was flabbergasted by this increase in popularity. Most of the articles I read consider the war an unmitigated disaster, which is looking more and more like a ‘forever war’ with global energy shortages and high prices, leading to possible economic collapse. How on earth could more and more Americans think this outrageous war is a good thing? This question has really puzzled me.

    I have two or three possible explanations, but there may be others.

    1. 13 American soldiers have been killed. Americans are angry and howling for vengeance. No matter that we murdered 170 schoolgirls, those 13 Americans demand retribution. The greater the US destruction and death in Iran, the more that vengeance will be satisfied.
    2. Trump has bragged about US successes, claiming victory. The Trump-controlled media are saying that the war is a great success militarily. This makes Americans feel good. “Let’s continue to kick more ass!” may be the attitude of many Americans.
    3. At first, Trump thought that Iran would roll over and die, and that the grateful Iranian people would welcome US intervention and overthrow the régime. That didn’t happen. Angry Americans may feel “How dare they refuse to submit and continue to defy American might. Let’s teach those ingrates a lesson.”

    Images like this enrage many Americans.

    One other point: this change in attitude is not just a change in Trump’s approval. RealClear has his average approval spread at a fairly constant -11%. Compared to the war approval spread of -3.4%, that means that 7.6% still disapprove of Trump but support the war. This constant -11% also indicates that Trump has not lost support because of the war.

    THERE WERE TWO STRIKES ON THE GIRLS’ SCHOOL

    Graves of schoolgirls killed by US Tomahawk missiles

    I have been reading many accounts of the bombing of the girls’ school in Iran. They all refer to the ‘strike’. None of them mention the second strike, some 40 minutes later, which killed many of the survivors of the first strike and those trying to rescue them.

    This second strike is important, because it gives the lie to the explanation that the bombing was a mistake. Even if the first strike was a mistake, the bombers would quickly realize it, and would not repeat the same mistake.

    One account claims that they were aiming at a nearby installation; while another account claims that an outdated map showed a military installation on the site; a third account claims that the destruction of the school was just collateral damage from a bomb strike nearby. The picture below shows that this was no collateral damage.

    Ruins of the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab

    None of these explanations satisfy me, especially after Trump tried to lie his way out of it by saying that the Iranians bombed their own school, and when shown evidence that it was an American missile, he claimed that he knew nothing about it. Suuuurre! Of course he knew. The alleged evidence of an outdated map sounds like the product of some backroom sessions trying to come up with an excuse that sounded credible.

    The US media have been boasting about how accurate American strikes have been, as evidenced by the precise targeting of the Ayatollah. I somehow believe these boasts, after I saw how precise their calculations had been in Venezuela. The New York Times noted that “a single errant missile wouldn’t have caused such precise and targeted damage to several buildings “. No, the US military didn’t make a mistake.

    The only other explanation is that the US knew that they were bombing the school – twice. Why would they do that? They haven’t told us, so there must be some secret. One theory, which I haven’t heard anywhere and just invented myself, is that there was actually some important person hiding in (or under?) the school. That person must have been so important that, even now, the US military refuses to mention any high-ranking figure in connection with the school. Has anyone asked whether there were tunnels beneath the school?

    Whatever the true explanation (which Trump is hiding), this massacre will go down as one of the most despicable acts of savagery in American history, and history will hold Trump accountable for this evil murder.