On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Level playing field of opportunity? Isn't college a little late to be > starting on the level playing field? Isn't that how we justify > socialist pre college education? And what has that gotten us with our > socialist pre college education? A piss poor educational system is > what it has gotten us. However, that rationale is what drives our > insistence on Socialist pre-college education. Are you suggesting we do away with Public Schools? Yes, it would be a little late to start on a level playing field. What I'm suggesting is that we're stopping too early with our socialized education program, that it should continue into college. If you don't believe in Public Schooling, what would you suggest replacing it with? > The fact is though, anyone (sadly enough) > who wants to go to school, can go to school today. I'm from a dirt > poor farm family. No way in a million years could my parents afford > to send me to school. My undergrad was paid with by pell grants (I > know, call me a hypocrite), and in order to get into law school I had > to make the decision of going into deep debt. My application was denied for Pell grants, and my credit was too poor to qualify for student loans. Because my family has a history of poor credit, I had no one to co-sign for me. Poor credit is something that is passed from one generation to the next in inner city families of poverty. It is part of that system of obstacles I was discussing. In both my and my parents' cases, the bad credit was directly due to medical bills caused by accidents; in my Dad's case, a small engine explosion, and in mine, a car accident. Education and healthcare, all wrapped up in one neat bundle. I was screwed by both by the time I was 19. > I'm not a 100% pure capitalist. I do think there needs to be checks > on it. But most of the time, the checks that I believe are > appropriate are the ones that help Capitalism work the way we believe > it should. Your cell phone example is a perfect example. We want as > many competitors in the cell phone business as possible, for the sole > purpose of creating competition and thus bringing about the best > technology. That is the very essence of capitalism. So where we > check capitalism is in the very place that capitalism works against > itself and begins to abandon its ideals. > > Socializing medicine and education is a step in the wrong direction. > Education is already too socialized. Medicine is getting there. I am > not espousing a complete privatization of education, so don't get me > wrong there. However, no child left behind isn't working for us > either. No child left behind is the perfect example of how socialist > education works. > I disagree with this premise entirely. I think NCLB is a perfect example of a feel good piece of legislation with no actual value. There is no reason at all to tie standardized testing to the concept of Public Schooling in general. My daughter goes to a magnet school here which chooses to be a non-participant in NCLB. It voluntarily forfeits the federal funds which come from participation in the program, and chooses to focus on education from a traditional perspective. It is still the recipient of state and county funds, and also relies on parent support, and fund raisers to make up for budget shortfalls. It provides an extremely high quality education. Why can't we adopt this paradigm in an accredited four year university setting, to give students like ME the opportunity to get a four year degree? Replace the janitorial and groundskeeping staff with students. Require adjunctships and such with other agencies, middle and elementary schools, etc. These are also socialist concepts. It's not just take from your paycheck to give everyone else something for free. > So, I essentially agree with you that everyone should get an equal > opportunity. I'm all about equal opportunities. I am not about > equality of results though. I think that what your aiming at is more > equality of results, and less equality of opportunity. If you can > come up with an idea that looks more like equality of opportunity then > I'm on board. I think if you got past the idea that I'm just trying to hand out free money, room and board, you would see that I really am just about equality of opportunity. You first have to accept the premise, however, that without basic healthcare, and education, there is no equality of opportunity, and that for a large slice of americans, those two things are simply unattainable. My girlfriend has no health insurance. I have no degree. No matter how much we want them, they are simply not attainable right now, not without cutting out things like food and power. Poor means a lot of things to a lot of people. Until you've experienced the factual inability to buy your baby the medicine he or she needs to get better, no matter what you do, because there's nothing to pawn, no bill you can delay, simply nothing in the bank, hell, no bank account to even write a bad check on, then you will continue to operate from the perspective that all poor people need to do is pick themselves up by their bootstraps and "choose" a different life for themselves. Believe me when I say, self determination only leads you to the port of Opportunity. You still have to wait for a ship to pull in. I've been hangin here harborside for better than a decade now. > However, only in so far as that promotes the principles > of free market capitalism. > > > On Jan 21, 6:00 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Straw man alert, my friend. > > I think the problem with the world is government in the wrong place. > > > > Let government mind three things: > > > > Preserve the domestic tranquility. > > > > Guard from foreign threat. > > > > Establish a level playing field of opportunity. > > > > The third is as important as the first two. Do you disregard the > importance > > of the trustbusters of the early twentieth century? The breakup of > Standard > > Oil? Deregulation of the telecom industry in innovation of cellular > service > > (which we are still 20 years behind Europe and the Far East...my little > > brother's phone from Japan is WAY cooler than mine). > > > > The ability to get a college degree should not be dependent on the wealth > of > > the parents. That's simply unfair. I know, I know, call me a bleeding > heart > > liberal. I need a little of that on here to counter balance Orn > portraying > > me as the jackbooted thug of the right wing. It's hard to be an issues > based > > free thinking independent voter. The lock stepping partisan folks always > > assume you're with the other team... big wink to the both of you. ;) > > > > Back to the topic at hand. If I maintain a 3.5 GPA and meet my attendance > > requirement and score a 1280 on the SAT, how is American Society made > better > > by my not being able to attend college due to not being able to afford > it? > > Before you tell me that doesn't happen, that's exactly my story, so > there's > > the context of my question. Education and Healthcare are the two biggest > > obstacles to advancement for the poor...they are a roadblock to class > > transcendence. > > > > Now, you see nothing wrong with the fire truck manufacturer being paid by > > tax dollars, nor the police car manufacturer, nor the military arms > > manufacturer being paid for by tax dollars, so the only delineating > factor > > here is the philosophy of what's for free. I'm not suggesting anyone at > all > > get a free ride through life. I'm suggesting that everyone get to start > at > > the same starting line at the beginning of the race. Everyone deserves > the > > opportunity to have a quality education, based on their performance in > > primary and secondary school, and everyone deserves to have rudimentary > > healthcare. Free breast jobs? Negative. Maintenance medication for > > fundamental quality of life? Most definitely. > > > > P.S. I'm in favor of scrapping the entire welfare program in exchange for > a > > government works program, just so you know. Don't confuse my socialist > ideas > > with gimme gimme handouts. I'm closer to Ted Nugent than Lenin. > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > So Chris, your saying the problem with the world isn't too much > > > government but too little government? I'd have to disagree with you > > > there. > > > > > I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you assume if something > > > exists everyone is entitled to it. Brain, heart, and lung transplants > > > may either be possible, or in the future possible, but they are modern > > > marvels. No one is entitled to these things. The procedures take a > > > lot of money, time, and expenses to research and implement. People > > > put their heart and soul into such ventures because they believe that > > > it will mean a big pay check in their futures. Not everyone is going > > > to be able to afford a heart transplant. The most obvious reason is > > > not everyone can afford one. Not to mention their aren't enough spare > > > hearts lying around. > > > > > The countries who have tried to implement socialism have ended up with > > > countries that cannot keep up with those who have not. The only > > > reason that medicine had continued to advance in today's modern > > > society is because America is still relatively capitalistic. We will > > > pay the big bucks for the research and procedures and so people still > > > keep working to make it happen. But if we adopt medical care like > > > Canada's and England's, I think you can kiss credible medical research > > > goodbye. > > > > > And Education in our society is already socialist. How are you going > > > to make it more Socialist? My contention is that the problem with our > > > education today is precisely because its Socialist. If we privatized > > > education, made the institutions compete, made the teachers compete, > > > then our educational system would be much more competitive. > > > > > On Jan 21, 2:25 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:17 PM, chazwin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 7:16 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I've always had trouble with "capitalism" - the word hardly > appears > > > in > > > > > > Marx and I've never seen any satisfactory definitions of it as a > > > > > > phenomena. > > > > > > > As a phenomenon it is highly misunderstood and applied for dubious > > > > > political purposes. On another Newsgroup I was shocked to see this > > > > > statement in response to my accusation that the writer had no idea > > > > > what socialism was except as a thing to be destroyed to protect us > all > > > > > from evil. > > > > > "I take socialism to be the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is > a > > > > > social system based on respect for individual liberty. Socialism > is a > > > > > social system based on lack of respect for individual liberty. " > > > > > (I shit you not!) > > > > > This is unbelievable that anyone could have such a stilted view > point. > > > > > Capitalism is not a social system, but a description of an economic > > > > > process. > > > > > > It all started when we were taught about the United Soviet SOCIALIST > > > > Republic, AKA The Dirty Commies... ;) > > > > > > As someone who's lived both here, and in many Socialist countries, I > > > think > > > > we could use a healthy dash of Socialism at home, particularly in the > > > areas > > > > of Education and Healthcare. > > > > > > > Performance targets? Tracking? Key Skills? Transferable Skills? > CPD? > > > > > Evidence based performance related target? BS? Mangement Speak? > > > > > > I believe I can create some effective 3-6 month trending reports > which > > > will > > > > help visualize the KPI in question. The data is indisputable. Metrics > > > don't > > > > lie. > > > > > > Of course, the people presenting them do... > > > > > > > People still > > > > > > managing express concerns that honesty is long gone, but do this > > > > > > quietly because they fear talking of it is career suicide. I > wonder > > > > > > if we have confused "capitalism" with some desire to be free of > > > power- > > > > > > > (See above!) > > > > > > > > freaks and somehow let it into our lives in ways we should have > > > > > > resisted? Everyone is admitting in private (questionnaires etc.) > > > that > > > > > > they are routinely lying - I actually find some very confused > people > > > > > > in my practical examinations of organisations - and would like to > > > > > > establish why I feel this is worse now than ever before in my > life. > > > I > > > > > > got used to lies as a cop, but this current stuff is something > else, > > > > > > more like a disease. > > > > > > It's pretty obvious that Enron was the key model underlying > > > > > > "capitalist" activity. In a similar sense Baby P is probably not > an > > > > > > exception but the rule. Lying connects activity in public and > > > private > > > > > > sectors, along with brazen denials that anything is going wrong. > Our > > > > > > bwankers have clearly been sitting on top of one hell of a barrel > of > > > > > > stealing that dwarfs Enron. > > > > > > I haven't heard the world stop as all this money drops from sight > > > > > > under the magician's cape. I wonder if we could start again > without > > > > > > these parasites? > > > > > > > Yes there is a place called Utopia. Get your one way tickets! > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
