One year after the most devastating hurricane to hit New Orleans and almost five years after the towers came crashing down, WE KNOW NOTHING. We've been distracted, disinformed, and obviously disinterested. Not only do we not know the answers, we haven't even asked the questions. We have collectively failed the people of New Orleans, New York, and New Baghdad. Our nation has an attention span of about 10 minutes. We're told more about John Mark Karr (who DID NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey) and what he ate on his first class trip from Thailand than we are about Ray Nagin's constant struggle, exactly what happened on 9/11, and why, OH WHY, we are fighting a war in Iraq. And it seems like that's okay with us because we don't ask. I am ashamed of us. Maybe we deserve what we get.
2,633 US Soldiers killed in Iraq
19,733 US Soldiers wounded in Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
I've done a post over at mine on the Iraq scenario and the shifting sands of US policy, go read and get cross.
Afghanistan, too.
"He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. "
I was looking through a collection of New Yorker magazines from the early 70s and a cartoon caught my eye. A curmudgeonly head of housdehold-type man in a tie was telling a pollster at his door, "And I want it down on record that, as an American, there is nothing which I will not tolerate!"
So true.
Daniel,
I usually agree wit you, so I can't imagine it'll annoy me too much, but I'll definitely read it.
Jessica,
It's true, I need to include them as well, but we DO actually have a reason to have been in Afghanistan.
Lately I've been reading a book by a historian named Niall Ferguson called "Colossus", where he talks about the American "empire". Fascinating stuff, which shows that Iraq is merely the latest of decades of the same damn thing over and over and over again.
Here's what he described as the usual pattern of American actions:
1. Impressive initial military success.
2. A flawed assessment of indiginous sentiment.
3. A strategy of limited war and gradual escalation of forces.
4. Domestic disillusionment in the face of protracted and nasty conflict.
5. Premature democratization.
6. The ascendancy of domestic economic considerations.
7. Ultimate withdrawal.
Jessica beat me to it... I was going to say don't forget "new" Kabul too - which, ironically, is looking more and more like Old Kabul circa 7th century, despite our attempts to "liberate" the people from the oppressive Taliban.
UWL: We have a reason to be in Afghanistan, sure. But we've abaondoned them once again. Nothing is changing. They have a great new constitution that none of the jurists know how to enforce because they ignore the state law in favor of customary law.
But the only thing we hear about that is the progress we're making.
GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!
Oppose, Oppose, Oppose!
We can change the course of things. Give no quarter. Donate as much money as your can to progressive candidates. Donate your time. Put a bumper sticker on your car, a sign on your lawn. Do something!
Everything this gov't has done is wrong. They are ruining this country. Scream down the wingnuts. Show your anger. Don't take their shit. We are right they are wrong.
Throw their religion right back in their face. Go read the Sermon on the Mount. It is the basic outline of Christianity. Jesus would be appalled at what they are doing in his name. Make sure they know that according to their own book they are the ones who will be left behind on rapture day.
It's our f&%king country!
Take America Back!
Dave: I wrote a post about that great book, can be found here.
I agree we deserve what we get. We put them in there. I hate the way the parties automaticly appose one another and don't ever resolve a fucking thing. One thing that I probably disagree with you on is the New Orleans thing. My question is why don't hear bitching and crying from Miss.? They were also devestated. It is our fault 100% that the NO folks are whining, we made them that way. That is the perfect example of the results of welfare and entitlements in my opinion. I have been gone awile I hope all is well with all of you, I will try to catch up.
jsull
The difference between the situation in Mississippi and the situation in NOLA is that of an Act-of-God, and and an Act-of-God-Combined-with-Monumental-Governmental-Ineptitude. Also, the rest of the Gulf Coast didnt baste for days in a toxic stew made with a special ACoE roux.
js - You missed the point that the concentration of devestation in NOLA had a far greater impact on a specific segment of the population than it did anywhere else.
The lesson of Katrina has been lost on you, as have many others.
Your world is a very hateful place I really don't understand.
JS: so glad Cranky spoke my mind when he got tough with your comment, which for the following statement alone: "That is the perfect example of the results of welfare and entitlements in my opinion." is a nasty piece of work.
Only in America do people still bang the drum that welfare somehow breeds negative behaviour, 37 million Americans living in poverty and they all can't be lazy.
Look at the system rather than blaming the individual at the bottom of the pile...
I wonder the "poor haters" explain poverty and hunger in places like Ethiopia that have no welfare system to "keep that way."
Cranky:
It is especially important to oppose vote counting where there is not a room full of humans doing the counting, watched by representatives of each candidate.
Machine vote counting is too easily skewed to suit the makers of the machines.
As for the poor, many were disqualified from voting for specious reasons.
Right on Bud. Big easy to read paper ballots with big black x marks indicating the voters choice that are counted manually in public and on film. Keep the ballots for as long they are needed to ensure nothing funny happened.
NO More Floridas! No more Ohios!
Don't stand for it. Pick up a brick if you have to.
This time round, keep a close eye on the exit polls, which are generally very, very accurate. In Ohio in 2004, I understand there was often electronic voting machines with large "errors" in the exit polls for those precincts.
"a brick"? Whoa, that's "terrorist talk". Best apologize right now to the boys at the NSA.
I read that in Venezuela, the last election result did not match exit polls, which were about 58% against Chavez instead of 58% for. They use voting machines, programmed by a company indirectly owned by the government.
You'd think George would be beating them over the head with this at every opportunity, just like the 100% vote for Saddam Hussein was laughed at.
It seems in the US, there is the assumption that the fraud is not that major, and that a landslide victory would not be fraudable. But as long as the counting system is opaque, it will only get more difficult to stop. Just like computer viruses, these systems will get smarter at producing a desired result, while minimizing the disconnect with exit polls.
For example, instead of simply counting some D votes as R, I would count some as Green or something else, thereby preventing D from winning, but the exit polls would still be accurate for the R vote, and let people assume the exit poll counted "R" vs "not R". "Greens are too embarrassed to admit their vote, so they said D"
The biggest problem is they have to produce an outcome quickly, and so the fraud only has to work for a short time. Not like my credit card statement where I have months to resolve errors. Yet a much higher stakes system like voting, does not even come close to providing the level of security that financial transactions have (and these get frauded all the time).
Wow now I'm a hater. Well I think that is inaccurate. I live in Florida, I have hurricanes, I have devastation on my property, I don't rely on the g'ment. That makes me a hater? I'm a hater because I don't suckle at the g'ment tit? Have you been to NO? I have, for 2 weeks, I hated them so much I went to help. On my own dime. Thank you very much. I have never ever heard so many people crying and whining about someone else diodn't do for them. The g'ment did fail. I agree. The ass of a mayor and governor did fail. They could have helped but they chose not to.
Want to know the difference? The week I was in Miss. the people who were devastated helped, they were right there, they said it was bad, it sucked etc then they pulled their panties up and toted boards and chain saws and got it done. They still arent repaired fully but their attitude and their resolve is so much greater than those in NO. The whiners are those that feel entitled, not everyone in NO mind you just those that feel the g'ment owes them something.
I don't appreciate the hate comment, I feel certain I sent as much money and spent as much time there as anyone who commented here.
DHG,
the system is flawed no doubt on that we agree, how could it not be flawed when people recieve gifts and money and entitlements from the g'ment that they don't earn? It has been flawed since the raw deal.
CY,
I don't know who runs ethiopia, do they vote for their leaders? Are they a capitalist society? Ethiopia is one of the oldest countries in history, looks like to me that if the US could adapt and adjust and invent in its mere 200+ years the ethiopians had plenty of time to do the same. Tell me the new innovations and new inventions that came from Ethiopia ever? Just a few. Anything. Come on. Tell me the farming implements they came up with to help feed their starving.
Your favorite one to hate,
jsull
JS - I guess I confused your own expressed selfish greed as hate. I'm sorry for that.
I'm glad you see my point on Ethiopia. Some people are not able top help themselves. That may be for internal or external reasons, but it doesn't matter. Sometimes people need help and that is what governments exist for. By your logic people should be able to lift themselves out of poverty if the government did not provide them a teat from which to suckle. In Ethiopia there is no teat and the people are starving. Your logic fails.
The U.S. Constitution says that one of the purposes for the government it forms is to provide for the general welfare of the people. That means all the people, especially the ones that need the help the most.
We are entitled to certain things from our government. When I lived in Atlanta we had a severe ice storm that knocked down trees taking out power and closing many roads. We expected the government to clear the roads. They eventually did. The people in the 9th ward are entitled to the government coming in and clearing the mess from the Hurricane. They are entitled to be able to go back to their homes over a year after the storm.
We are all entitled to suckle from the g'mint teat when we need to. It is why we have a government in the first place. The Constitution says so!
Again will say that I suspect I sent more of my greedy money to hurricane relief, the red cross actually, for Katrina and the tsunami than 99.9% of all others. If that is what greedy people do then I wish there were more of them. The goverment should clear the roads. They are the governments roads, paid for by tax payers. The government should not be responsible for permenant housing for the able.
I do feel sorry for the people in Ethiopia and other places where there isn't capitalism or some form of democracy. Heaven forbid any iron fisted dictators be over thrown by an outside force, women be allowd to vote and not be subject to rape and degradation daily as well as descrimination. If that happens some folks world wide will oppose it.
jsull
Some of us find it a bit untoward bragging about charity.
You still don't get it. Blaming the victims of a disaster doesn't help. I'll say it again your selfish greddy world is not one I understand.
It doesnt matter if the people in NOLA are a bunch of grasping whiney-babies. Maybe some are, that wouldnt be anything new. You'll find plenty of people whining in this country, some because their tax cuts are taking too much of the bonus they earned when they cut labor costs by sending jobs to Bangladesh.
The point is not the whining, the point is that government, whose function is to provide infrastructure, education and protection to all the People, is failing more and more at its task, and this failure is due largely to the "small" goverment philosophy of the Republican party.
Yes, you could make a good arguement that the Welfare System as created by Johnson in the 60's was a mess, that it created dependancies rather than offering a helping hand. But current the current goal (my money, precioussss!), which aims to throw the baby out with the bathwater, will cause far more damage to the country than dependancy ever could. The reforms of the Clinton era seem to have addressed at least some of the dependancy issues (though some of the progress has been shipped overseas, the better to get bonuses for Management to whine about taxing).
Bottom line: The levees failed because despite several years worth of warning (I remember fears of flooding during the '03 hurricane season) levee maintainance budgets were actually cut by the Bush Corp, and then after their failure the Government response to the tragedy was pathetic, delayed, and rife with giveaways (to both scam artists and corporate cronies). Yes, blame Nagen and Blanco, they dropped the ball (there was a story about a meeting between her and Bush where neither of them was willing to give up control of the LA Nat'l Guard units available, and so deployment was delayed 24 hours; I call that criminal.), but so too did BushCo. Get rid of the lot of them, as far as I'm concerned.
Ethopia's biggest problem is that they have no public education to speak of (like so many 3rd world countries, schooling is privately run), and rampant corruption on the part of government officials who are more interested in enriching themselves and their friends and families than they are in bettering their own country. Sound like a familiar direction, jsull, like perhaps the way the GOP would like to see things?
Finally, to jsull, kudos for your work in the Hurricane damaged area. That was probably more important and helpful than any tax you hate paying. I suspect that the reason you can help out, but call welfare (of any kind?) "suckling at the government teat" is because while you could see the effect/benefit of your work on the coast, you havent the vision to see how government spending on education, medical care, and infrastructure can also greatly benefit the nation as a whole, meaning you too. The solution to government waste is not to Starve The Beast, because the only beast you starve is the Nation. The solution is to make the government more transparent, make those who spend your tax money more accountable, and to come down hard on waste, corruption, nepotism, and unfair bidding practices. Those who say "run the Government like a business" seem to mean slash costs (and services) to the lowest tolerable level, while making themselves a tidy profit as they do so. What they ought to be doing is using their buying power to cut the best deals (medicare drug program?), demanding that bids are accurate and cost overruns and shoddy work are paid for by those to whom contracts are given (KBR/Halliburton, and almost every contract in Iraq?), and that those who defraud the goverment are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because they are, to an extent, traitors (Ann Coulter can go fuck herself).
First Ann is own her own because shes to ugly for me to do it for her!
CY,
I was simply trying to show the fact that I wasn't a hater.
Dave,
I am absolutely with you on throw the whole lot of them out. I also appreciate your thoughs and the way you present your points. Most people here want to call names and simply oppose one party or the other. I do still believe in personal responsibility, I believe that people should pay for their bad decisions and be rewarded for their good ones.
Everyone makes choices. It is up to them which side their choices fall on. I believe very few are victums of circumstance. Most are victums of their own bad choices.
The privately run schools which I advocate are not the same as are available in 3rd world countries. I don't advocate education for the rich only, I advocate private industry being in control of the local schools as a whole with g'ment regulations and funding provided by the feds but funding based on academic results.
Just for the record, I don't agree with most things either party does, I probably fall closer to the libertarians than either of the others.
I just happen to believe in individuals and their rights to have whatever it is they want and I believe that is entirely possible for Americans in this day and age.
I aslo do think Johnsons plan was with good intentions just poorly thought out and is a disaster.
Everyone, including the citizens of NO knew the levees were not able to sustain the storm surge. I agree that someone at sometime should have done something about it, but to put that blame on bush is flawed because all the priors had the same info.
jsull
@ jsull:
"I believe very few are victums of circumstance. Most are victums of their own bad choices."
What a load of crap! Would that be; like the bad choices made by the people of Ethiopia? We are slaves to circumstances, they are what drive our choices. And I agree that people can make bad choices. Daniel and I, for instance, have disagreed on the role/responsibility of culture in choice-making. But what bad decision are we talking about here? The decision to live in NOLA, even though it had a high flood zone potential? The decision to elect Lord Bush's Cabal for a second term? The decision to live in a town full of "sin" and be on the receiving end of God's wrath? The decision to be born poor?
How much of your own life was a result of your "decisions" and how much of it was just plain dumb luck?
"I believe that people should pay for their bad decisions and be rewarded for their good ones."
And yet you always seem to be apologizing for Bush. "[B]ecause all the priors had the same info", misses the point: that Bush cut the budget. A bad decision, in a series of bad decisions. And please dont tell me you think his "payment" for bad decisions is a lowered approval rating.
"The privately run schools which I advocate are not the same as are available in 3rd world countries. I don't advocate education for the rich only,...
Really? In third world countries you pay for the schooling that you can afford, and that's all you will get. You may not advocate education for the rich only, but that would be the result, or at least good education for the rich only. I cant help but think that either you havent thought this out (relying on GOP propaganda instead of logic), or that you simply dont care about the children on the bottom of society. Look, let me try again: The American Business model is a Market model of Supply and Demand. The most successful company has to sell the least product or service it can provide, for the most money it can charge. As a manager once said to me at one of the several service industry jobs of my youth, "we're not in business to undersell ourselves". That's Business in a nutshell, and that is the system to which you would entrust the future of our young, and therefore our Nation.
Let's take that analogy further: Let's talk about the food industry. It's almost completely run by the market (Chicago notwithstanding). When you look at restaurants in this country, what do you see? Not much that's healthy, and the lower the cost, the worse the food. Is this because poor people refuse to eat healthy food? Sure it is, just like women over size 12 refuse to wear high fashion. This is your market system in action. Personally, the idea of the children of this country someday going to the inevitable McSchool makes me want to run screaming in panicky circles.
Education is no place for the Market Economy because what Capitalism really translates into is Economic Survival of the Fittest. This is a good system for building cars, but a shitty system for building human beings.
Then there was this statement: "...but funding based on academic results."
Okay, imagine this: you are a manager in a company, building widgets of some sort. You have no choice in who you hire. You never know from one day to the next who you will have working for you. You cannot fire them, often you cant even send them from the assembly floor. Some of them come to you trained to do the job, some of them do not. Some of them are not actually even capable of doing the job, but you will be expected to act (and get results) as if they can. Some of them will even engage in criminal behavior, which often the company will hush up because it's bad for PR. But it's your division of the company, and you are "responsible" for production. Your bosses give you a quota that you must meet, the same quota that is given to every other division of the company, including the ones which employ only highly trained personel with the latest equipment. Your bonus will depend upon you meeting this quota. If you do not meet your quota, you will certainly face censure, perhaps even a loss of pay and resources.
Do you understand this business model? Would you work under these conditions? (and please dont call it a "challenge", or I'll be forced to call you some very bad names)
Public education will never be as cost-effective as privately run education, but then making money shouldnt be the point of Education, should it? If you think the educational system isnt being run properly, then instead of handing it over to someone who sees it as an opportunity to make a buck, get off your ass, wade into the muck, and start making an effort to clean it up. Would it help if you thought of it as the Gulf Coast?
How wrong can js be?
VERY!
Sadly, his objectivist conservative libertarian lines, gleened romanticly from Ayn Rand and Horatio Alger are often regurgitated by young people who have lived in relative comfort all their lives.
I have seen people like him grow out of it. So maybe there is hope. I hope it doesn't take a tragedy for him to see the light.
It doesnt require a tragedy. It requires critical thinking, and empathy.
Dave,
First I am no stranger to the biz model. I use one everyday. I understand what makes and loses money. I also understand what it takes to be successful, even being educated in a government school and without a post high school education.
I don't really follow your analogy about me being the boss of incompetants. I have never been in that situation. All of my employees are paid on a results based scale, if they don't produce satisfactory results they starve, except being kind and soft hearted I fire them prior to the starving to death and replace them. This takes a while to work out you need to weed through those that arent personly responsible and those that have no ambition and get those that are go getters. I assure you that nobody I pay isn't paid well.
There is no luck in biz, the time that I lost money was due to bad decisions and poor planning, not luck. Those who blame luck refuse to take responsibility.
If you want a bad luck scenario here you go. Someone coming home from work, through no fault of their own is struck by a another car and killed or maimed. They have bad luck. But in most circumstances it is choice not luck or fate.
I hate to write long posts and take up space but to put my thoughts out there I'm going to.
I never ever said the taxpayer shouldn't pay for education. Ever. Not once. All I said was that it would be more effecient and better if it was privately run. If the shareholders of the school had to turn out a quality product to make money they would. This is a no-brainer. If I had hair I would pull it out right now. How can this not be the case. The teachers would be paid better the students would get a better education, the money earned would be put back into the system to earn more.
Ok here you go.
we pay taxes.
The taxes for education are spent depending on number of stdents/special needs etc.
The end product, at the end of the year is judged by standardized testing. The test should be equivelent to whatever test it is our students take to compare them to world wide students. Then the next years budget rewards those schools that have high marks with a greater amount of money the next year, this money can then be used to pay teachers better, the ones that deserve it, or as dividends.
The reason the teachers will get the money is to keep them from being hired away by competing schools. Its your same supply and demand scenario. Good teachers are in greater demand therefore they will be paid better.
The owners/shareholders of the school will not continue to put money into a failing system and will fire/replace the substandared teachers/administrators until their product is good and their profits high. I can't see where I'm wrong. I don't know if the analogy you have put forth was about the school system if it was fire the bad instantly and give incentives for the good, bonuses/etc.
The people in NO live in a bowl. Everyone knew this. I don't live in a bowl, nor do I live on a mountain top. I have enough sense to know that neither are safe or are in my best intrest. Therefor I chose a place to live I felt safe of my own accord. I do hate that their stuff was wrecked thats why I went, but damn man dont build your house on the beach in Miami and then expect the g'ment to replace it when a hurricane wrecks it.
There is really no way to argue that private schools aren't better than government. How could it be when the test scores clearly show the difference??? Im missing something I guess.
Dave and the rest of you. Y'all miss my points sometimes because you are automaticly against what I think. Please open your mind. The result of education making a profit in my model would be best for the students! The result of people being paid for what they turn out is the best for them as well as their employers. I would never take a job that I wasn't paid commission or some form of per production pay. Ok I might have hit on something here.
Maybe I am abnormal, since I have drive and ambition and dreams and want more for my family and kids than I had and I want to give them more opportunity, then I want to be paid for what I produce (the whole reason I started the companies I have now and am in the process of opening more and not taking a good paying job with benefits.) because I choose to be responsible for me and mine! Ok are y'all saying that some people either don't care about these things or they aren't capable of making decisions that are in their best intrests? Are people not smart enough or driven enough to excel at a job where they are performance paid? That might be the case, if it is then I need to re-evaluate my stance. Being nationwide as a salesman I see and meet people from every political view and class and stature everyday. I see mostly 4 kinds of people. Those who want more and are willing to fight scratch and claw to get it, those who want more but aren't willing to do a goddamn thing to get it and want it givin to them, people who are completely satisfied in their jobs and life as a whole and those who aren't able to make more or do better due to mental or physical problems.
I pull for and believe in those that want,scratch and fight for more. Those that want it givin to them or aren't willing to go get it I have no use for and feel not one ounce of sympathy for, those who are tickled with their deal I high 5 more power to them (they don't lay awake at night wondering how they will make their payments or collect their money or replace the inept employee they fired or whatever). But these folks shouldn't bitch, if they are satisfied with what have/do should be tickled. And the unable for real reasons I am more than willing to help anyway I can.
Cy,
I haven't even a clue who those folks are you mentioned.
DHG,
At least you didn't call me an idiot this time I must be getting better!!!!!!
And Dave I do appreciate the debate without the name calling.
think about it,
jsull
@ jsull: I dont have time to deal with your whole comment right now, and I will resort briefly to name-calling...
"I don't really follow your analogy about me being the boss of incompetants"
Dumbass! The analogy was to that of a teacher who is judged by their "success" on a standardized test. Teachers dont get to choose their students except insofar as they get (a sort) of choice whether to work at a school or not (as opposed to working at the school they want, which is rarely possible). Teachers in poor schools have a handicapped beginning compared to those in wealthier schools, where students have often had access to early learning opportunities not generally available at lower socio-economic levels.
"The end product, at the end of the year is judged by standardized testing. The test should be equivelent to whatever test it is our students take to compare them to world wide students. Then the next years budget rewards those schools that have high marks with a greater amount of money the next year"
Thus guaranteeing that the most money will go to the wealthiest students, right from year two!. Good teachers, however valuable they may be, are not the whole story to academic success.
"The result of education making a profit in my model would be best for the students!"
No, No! NO! NO! In ANY profit-making venture, profit-making ALWAYS comes first. Any attempts to improve education will run head first into the drive for profit.
Oh, you say, go to another school.
Where the primary motive, PROFIT, will still exist. The only place where your model actually functions is at the top of the stack, that is, competition among the wealthiest private schools (and the greatest profits from people who can afford to have the best) where it already IS working. At the bottom will be a rotating crap-fest of profits-over-service, never getting any better as people shuttle from School-Mart to McSchool trying to get something better, always running headfirst into the phrase, "hey, if you dont like it, take your business elsewhere", uttered in the secure knowledge that elsewhere will be the same, or failing as a business.
FOR THE MARKET SYSTEM TO WORK, THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A LOSER. I do not want any children in this country to be those losers, because then the whole country loses. If you cannot separate contempt for lame-ass parents from compassion for their disadvantaged-from-the-start-by-having-lame-ass-parents kids, then I pity you, but I keep your goddamn hands off the schools because you have the ethics of a jackal.
Kathleen,
Maybe then we should begin with standard testing and have each school start with a score, then appropriate monies in line with the improvements made at each individual school. I don't claim to have the answers my only etched in stone absolute is that private schools do better so why not let private industry run them all?
Seems simple to me, your point though is good. I'm am just for each and every single child to have teachers that will b e compensated for their success, on the teachers merit instead of our current system where all g'ment students get a lesser education than the rich. I'm for equality. The reason I believe some people are against a level playing feild is that then there are fewer "causes" and z-e-r-o excuses.
Dave
Haaaaaa
atta boy I knew if I argued long enough even you would resort to name calling. When people run out of legit arguments they have no choice but to stop arguing or to begin insulting. All I can site are the facts that private school kids do better in tests and in life. I want that for all children.
Dave?
you made my point exactly, I appreciate it. I even had to get 2 other people to read it to be sure I read it right.
Of course the competition among private schools drives profits as well as educational value and it also turns out a better product!
Thank you Dave.
No, No! NO! NO! In ANY profit-making venture, profit-making ALWAYS comes first. Any attempts to improve education will run head first into the drive for profit.
Of course it does Dave. When will you people use the greed some people have to your advantage? Their compensation will only be increased when their product improves! (wants to resort to name calling here too but the argument speaks for itself) The only way that the schools profits increase is for the product to improve.
the product is the kid. I need not resort to stating the obvious and name calling so I won't. If the product gets better why would anyone care if this school or that school makes more money? Of course you will still have schools worse than others, do you know what will happen then? Someone will buy that school, fire the incompetant teachers, hire some good ones, put private money in, improve the school, make profits, improve the childs education, make the world better.
I wonder what it costs the taxpayers to educate one child for one year? hmmm surely someone out there knows
It could be a better system. Anything in this country that is run better by the g'ment (outside security) that couldn't be run better by private entities I havent seen it yet. Name 5 things you wish Bush and company would start running today.
I do agree that the lack of values in parents contributes greatly to the piss poor state of education, you hit that on the head. But there isn't any legislation that can help that. Maybe if you took the kid in kindergarden and tried to teach them common morals and (oh this is dreaded im sure) personal responsibility, if you took away the safety net of entitelments then maybe just maybe in a generation then you could change the outlook of those folks and make them responsible parents therefor teaching their children personal responsibility.
you also say for the market system to work there must be a loser.
I can agree with that, in any system there has to be a loser. I don't want to be or have average, I want everyone to have the greatest chance to be a winner, if you don't have losers you cant have winners. If all are winners then all are average. Some might settle for that, I never will. The american dream isn't about average. 10-12-20 million whatever number you want to put on the invaders from the south aren't risking life and limb to be average.
Lesson 1
to have winners you must have losers.
Thanks for being in agreement on several points dave
The Jackal
@ jsull: Except for the wealthiest private school kids, test scores of public school kids are as good as or better than private schools. Even BushCo admitted that, and it aint the private part that gave the wealthy kids the advantage (one of the nations best schools is a [wealthy enclave's] public school in the heart of Dallas).
I didnt call you dumb-ass because I've run out of legitimate arguements, but because you dont seem to get them. Or else you really are a jackal, and have no problem with the destruction of the young and weak.
"Their compensation will only be increased when their product improves!"
Just like McDonalds, eh? Oh yes, the quality there is practically through the roof! No wonder every goes there.
So, I'm done, now. I cant tell if you still dont get it, or if you actually approve of destroying children for money, but either way I'm tired of banging my head on your thick wall. You can go off now, count your money and your righteous blessings, secure in the knowledge that your privately schooled children will know nothing of community spirit beyond the Spirit of Enterprise.
Another Modest Proposal
from Swift Dave
How about this system for schooling our children? At the end of each school year, the children in lowest 10% of test scoring will be rounded up and euthanized. Parents of these children will be given $10,000 to make up for their loss (with a 6 child cap to prevent Welfare Queens from making an industry out of the process). While this $10,000 dollar payout may sound expensive, considering the (wasted) lifetime cost of educating these non-achievers (plus the potential expense of adult incaceration and welfare costs), the savings will be substantial. The bottom 5% of teachers can also be killed, providing both a carrot and a stick for the improvement of test scores (and reducing the need for pesky merit-demanded pay-raises and unemployment insurance costs). The number of losses will be large for the first few years (exciting public reaction), but as time goes by the pool of children will grow smaller, and thereby reduce the number lost each round, even as public resistance cools through familiarity with the system. Additionally, the culled children can be ground up and used in an expanded school meal program, ensuring that each remanining child gets a good, solid, protien-based dietary intake, while simultaneously cutting the bottom line on food costs.
The savings to tax-payers under this program would be substantial, reducing greatly the monies given away to the undeserving poor, and freeing up resources towards greater tax credits for the driving economic engines of this land, multi-national corporations and the patriots who invest heavily in them.
JS - Under your school for profit scheme would you require private companies to offer schools in all areas? What if a Company decided it was not making enough profit and closed a school? What if that were the only school in the area? Would your scheme require that school to remain open even if it did not conform to the profit model of the company?
Could Shareholders vote to close a school without regard to it's impact on the community? What about monopolies? Would your scheme allow for one company to own all the schools in a given area? What if they eliminate the competition? Without competition does your scheme not fall apart?
You make a lot of leaps of logic without sourcing any concrete evidence.
Witness the Walmartization of the retail industry. I live in a rural setting and have to do without certain things because I refuse to shop there. Suppose that happened to schools?
Supposed a fundamentalist religious group took over a company that owned all the schools in a given area and began inserting their religious dogma into the education? Suppose they threaten to close the schools rather than conform to separation of church and state sponsored education?
I'd like to hear your answers to these question, which you seem to be purposely ignoring.
He doesnt answer them because education is less important to him than Capitalist Dogma and the worship of the Almighty (Dollar).
First, I have never ducked a question here or anywhere else. I always answer, thank you.
The McDonalds model isn't comprable to my thoughts on education. But Mickey D's makes outstanding profits using just the same students the g'ment are turning out, so I guess there is something in common there.
On your second post I do have alot of problems with the way things are done.
Why in the hell would the bottom 5% of teachers be allowed to keep their jobs? Do they make a wage comprable to the education they provide their students? If they did they would either choose other employment or be fired or starve.
I also damn sure don't agree that welfare should be given depending on how many children someone has. No it's not the childrens fault but I know 3 different families that have adopted overseas children that would have gladly taken kids from here if they had been available.
I guess I still don't get it Dave.
All I want is for each and every inner city, poverty stricken, underloved kid in America to have the same chance at a quality education as my kids have, and I am more than willing to pay for it. I can see though why some would not want that. Then everyone would be on a fair playing feild, then those with easy menial jobs might actually have to produce to keep them instead of just cruising.
thats all I can figure.
If the majority could would they send their kids to private school?
then why won't the g'ment allow them to?
for the record, If you want your kid to get in any of the private schools around here you better put them on the list when they are born.
js
CY,
again I have never ignored any question, ever. If I don't answer a specific question then that is an oversite on my part. Sorry. You ask alot of questions here I will attepmt to answer without omitting any.
Under my program I believe that all areas would be covered. It might require that school ownership be similar to franchisee's purchasing an area. Alot of franchise opportunities come with stipulations,ie, if you get the xyz franchise in Bobo fl, (a thriving metropolis then you must also open in these other 3 towns) I assure you any successful biz owner will make their endevours profitable.
Question 2:
They would either be forced to remain open or be forced to haul the students to the next local school, they would only do this as a last resort because that would cost them more money so they would do everything withen their power to make the school profitable where it was to begin with. Or that school would be purchased by another entity that would be better than the idiots who couldn't make it profitable the first time, provided of course there are enough qualified teachers in the US.
question 3
The community will be best served by the students getting the best education possible, right? All students would be able to recieve an education always.
Question 4
The monopoly deal doesn't matter. IDGAF if one person owns all the schools provided the kids are getting an outstanding education.
CY the Walmartization??????????
WTF is that?
Wal mart caters to the exact people that you want to protect!
Sheeeeesh
I'm supposed to be against Wal-Mart, not you. Wal-Mart is killing the small biz owners like me. The have closed all the mom and pops that have for years made excessive profits. I don't shop there either but for different reasons I guess. Also I don't hold it against Sam, everyone has the same opportunity he was just smarter than the rest of us. He just figured out a way to make profits from the poor and down trodden.
Question whatever number
The religious thing would surely have to be addressed. With the multi layered bureaucracy that currently exists in the ed. system we could cut by 85% and still have plenty of folks to go over things such as this.
I hope I got to all the questions.
Sorry I am sometimes slow to answer, I try not to ever be on the computer at home so I can be with the kids and I haven't been in the office i awhile. I will always answer tho. Answer a couple for me CY,
What % of americans would send their kids to a private school?
Why doesnt the g'ment let them?
What % of Americans would send their kids to privates schools?
I don't know? I probably could afford to but I choose not to. I'm already paying for them to go to school in an excellent public school system. I think 3/4 of the people with 5 miles of me could afford to send there kids to private schools and don't.
We are all active in making our schools better through volunteerism and proper funding. We spend over $7200.00 per student. We hold our teachers and administration accountable through the School Board and the Teachers Union. The President of the Teacher's Union is my Karate Teacher. Our High School just ranked NUMBER 4 in the State of New Hampshire in the NCLB standardized testing.
So there is your proof; well paid Union teachers, with accountable administrations and involve community members yields results.
Walmartization mean driving competition out of a given area and then only offering products that are most profitable without regard to local needs. Once the store is no longer profitable you close it. It means being the only retail employer in an area and then driving down wages because employees have nowhere else to go. It means driving down a retail tax base through entry concession and then threatening to close and take the jobs elsewhere if the county wants you to pay you fair share of the taxes.
Read what I think about Walmart here.
Oh yeah, how the g'mint porevent you from sending your kids to private schools? Oh wait they don't they.
Red Herring...look it up.
@ jsull: I've spent quite a while working on a response to you comment, and feeling a strong sense of deja vu, and I'm tired of making the same arguements over and over again in various ways, so let's see what you or I are not getting here, and worry about the rest of the stuff after we establish a bit of common ground.
Can we agree on one thing, just to start out with? A simple definition of the Market System:
The Market System "provides a service or product made for the least possible cost, yet sold for the highest attainable amount."
Does this seem like a reasonable place to start?
And as for the second post, the "Modest Proposal"; that was satire, which I'm not sure you've completely grasped.
He still hasn't answered my questions. Or the n
ones he has don't make any sense.
According to JS on the one hand the government is too bad to run schools, but on the other they are the ones who would be measuring annual performance and rewarding the for profit schools with high performance with more money. Gee...no possibility of corrupt there. It also doesn't make any sense, because at some point profit has to flatten out. Tax payers don't have bottomless pocket and without increasing profits no business will stay in business for long. So what would they do? Cut cost... Fewer teachers, bigger classes, fewer books... etc..
His model is not very well thought and you can tell from his incoherent answers. He assumes that another company would come and make failing schools work without a proof. He also doesn't address the teacher shortage, which explain why the nottom 5% of teachers he decried are still employed.
He just doesn't understand the real world. His opinions are very immature.
I too am a small business owner and I have to compete in the niches that no one else serves. I don't make as much money as I could, but working for public institutions and "non-profits" has it own intrinsic reward. I'm doing good for the community while saving them money.
Ok I will try to answer all these. I'm not sure if I am smart enough to make my points so that even CY can understand but I will try.
First lets go back, I never said i had a plan that was foolproof. Nothing is. There is plenty of corruption already. There always will be corruption as long as there is an opportunity for it. I never claimed that I could run the schools or my basic truths was enough to carry my theory.
My arguments
#1 The g'ment has pretty my fucked up anything they have tried to do, almost all social programs are fubar.
#2 private schools without a doubt out perform public schools.
#3 there has to be taxpayer money (I submit the same amout) in my plan.
#4 I believe that if parents could choose schools and it not cost them a penny more they would, in most cases choose private schools.
#5 I believe in human spirit and the drive of most people to crave the best for themselves and their kids and the willingness to sacrifice and make good decisions to reach high goals.
Those are my beliefs
they might be wrong, I do live in a small world even though I assure you I talk to a very diverse group of people daily. I have stated before I am not educated and really don't worry about alot of issues unless they impact me directly or my local area, but i do see this as a no brainer.
Dave,
I did know that you were kidding in the second post. We can agree with some adaptation to your definition.
The simple definition doesn't address many issues that deal with the production and the costs therein of products.
In your simple definition it would appear that raises bonuses and the like aren't applicable when in the real world they are. Compensation is paid for services, bonuses given, raises given, promotions and perks given to employees that do their job the best. But on the basic definition we can agree.
CY,
as I said in my prior post, I didn't lay out an all inclusive plan that was unflawed. I never intended to do that, I'm not nearly smart enough to do that. You have raised one or two decent points that I answerd the best I could.
ok the profits would flatten out. Thats what profits do, then the shareholders/biz owners etc expand to increase market share hopefully creating new cash flow opportunities. They invest money to improve and gleen funds from other activities. Maybe they build a wing that teaches something all the other schools don't teach, lets say they have pre TV announcer program. They invest, build a set, hire Dan Rather to teach it. Students leave one school to go there because of this, the school has more students, student number is the basis for compensation in my model.
Cy, come on now. I don't know what teachers make, I haven't a clue but I was told that the teachers at the school my kids attend make more, have outstanding benifits and ARE on an incentive program. The reason the teachers are down (im taking your word for this) is because who the hell would take a job where they were limited in what they could make? I'd never do that. More people would teach in my model! If I knew all I had to do was teach kids and make them smart enough to excel on the tests and I would make say 75-100K, be off 3 months in the summer, 3 weeks at christmas, spring break and every friggin time someone historical died and I had insurance, retirement and 3-4 weeks vacation and I also knew that if i could turn my kids into real brainiacs I could even make more. Now there is a job some go getter would take.
lol@non-profits!
sometimes I think i'm running non profits!!!!
(thats a joke)
js
Ok there was some I didn't answer.
Are all teachers union?
Another thing I can't fathom is why anyone would be in a union. I guess they don't want to be responsible for their own decisions. Unions served a purpose once and were a good thing, if I worked somewhere there was a union I'd not join it. I could make a much better deal because my production and the quality of my work is far better than the average.
anyway
the wal mart thing it is a free market, if its so bad then don't shop there, if the employees are so mistreated then don't work there. Damn it aint that hard.
js
Wow. Can somebody translated that for me?
JS - I'd like to see you cite one actual case or statistic to back just 1 of your "givens." How do you address how successful the public schools in New England are?
And for the grand finale - "the wal mart thing it is a free market, if its so bad then don't shop there, if the employees are so mistreated then don't work there. Damn it aint that hard."
That statement right there shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Suppose there are no other jobs?
Seriously is this for real? I keep expecting Ahston Kutcher to jump out and tell me I've been punked.
Cy,
Suppose there are no other jobs?? Create one maybe. I have yet to be in any city anywhere and not see a huge amount of help wanted signs. With this current economy how can anyone be out of work that truely wants to work?
I figured you would need a translator, I did my best. I haven't a clue who the woman is that you are talking about getting punked????????
Which given do you refer?
the g'ment fucking up everything they touch?
The private schools out performing the public?
I only sited those 2 the others clearly stated "i believe" do you need me to translate I believe?
Surely you don't need examples of the others.
I can't imagine that anyone lives life with the attitude of "what if there are no more jobs" oh big mean wal-mart
big mean microsoft
b ig mean oil
big mean haliburton
damn let the fear go
take control of your life (not you CY the public at large)
don't fear
fear sucks
support yourself
help who you can when you can
lead by example
damn
I am so so glad I am not, have never been and will not ever be dependant on the g'ment for a damn thing outside of security.
I really and truely didn't know that there were people (more that 4% or so anyway) that had the views you have
I really didn't
damn thats gotta suck having that mindset.
I sure hope those people grow up and take the bull by the horns make good decisions and live free.
jsull
Once again...
I'll leave that last comment wafting in the air for all to enjoy...
@jsull: I'm so glad we agree, and your qualifications mean nothing - you still cant pay your profits away to your employees
The McDonald's model is comparable to your thoughts on education. You stress the idea that the free market will provide the best possible education for everyone. This is part of your philosophy that the free market provides the best everything for everybody.
McDonalds sells cheap food to the masses, food which is of poor nutritional value, yet is highly profitable to the company (something not practiced solely by Mickie D's). What you propose is to create a system that sells cheap education to the masses, and so what is to prevent the education from being as crappy as the food? Competition? McDonalds certainly isnt short of that, yet I see no raised bar there, so why would you assume there would be a different effect in education? Capitalism does not assure quality, it assures profits (and then only for the winners).
Wait, let me try to get the idea across from a different direction. Let's consider your employees (I believe you said you had some): As you probably have noticed, most of your employees do not work any harder than they absolutely have to, and yet will always believe that they are being underpaid. That is Capitalism. For your part, you will pay them no more than you absolutely have to, and will work them as hard as they will tolerate. That, too, is Capitalism. If you tell me any different, I'll say you are hedging. At best.
Capitalism is all about money, to which everything else is subordinate. No matter how high the quality of the work of your employees, you will never pay them more than you have to in order to keep them from taking their talents elsewhere. To do any different would be to unnecessarily reduce profit, something a successful business does not do.
Capitalism is not the way to get the best possible education, because every time there is a conflict between education and profit, education will lose. It will lose because, just like when paying your employees more than you need to, it will lead to unnecessarily lower profits, and so lead to an unsuccessful business.
higher employee pay = higher cost of education = higher charge for education.
You know this is true, because this is the basis for wanting vouchers in the first place - because you believe private enterprise can do it cheaper. But where are the costs to be cut, exactly? Teacher salaries? Support personel? Certainly not Management, not in this country! The schools that pay more to their teachers will charge more for their services, just like private schools do now.
You repeatedly say "private schools without a doubt out perform public schools", an arguement all voucher lovers give. But this statement is not a true statement. Rather, it should read, "students who come from a high socio-economic background and have had plenty of pre-school training before attending expensive private schools out-perform ordinary kids who go to public schools". That statement might be true, but yours certainly is not.
In Dallas, we experimented with having a private company, called Edison Schools Inc., run some of our public schools. It was, without a doubt, an unqualified disaster, in which costs went up half again, and results, at best, stayed the same.
"#4 I believe that if parents could choose schools and it not cost them a penny more they would, in most cases choose private schools."
Maybe so, maybe so. People would choose all sorts of things if they could have them for no extra cost. Personally, I'd choose a Lexus if I could get it for the same cost as my old Escort. Yeah, if I could send my kids to St Mark's, or someplace like that for the no extra money, I'd be on it like stink on shit. But guess what? That aint gonna happen. See, when people think of "private" schools, what they're really thinking of is "exclusive" schools, like St Marks. The kind of schools we would mostly get under a Market System would no more be like these exclusive schools than the average person's current shopping experience is likely to be a Fifth Avenue one. We would get Wal-Mart, not Nieman Marcus or even Sears; Motel-6, not the Waldorf-Astoria or even Holiday Inn; McDonalds, not Pappadaux's or even Denny's.
You're still not getting it, are you. I can feel it... New tack:
Were you aware that, right now, we already have school competition? That's right we do. It began in the 60's when court-mandated bussing began a process of flight to the suburbs that continues to this day. Where are the best public schools, generally? The suburbs (not completely true, but true enough), where the money is. Where are the worst schools? In the cities, where the money isnt. But why dont the poor people move to the suburbs? Because they cant afford it, duh.
Now let's look at retail. Where's the best retail shopping? In the suburbs, where the money is. Where's the worst retail shopping? In the cities, where the money isnt. Why dont the stores move to the poor parts of the city? Because there's no profit there, duh.
More money for buyers to spend = more profit for sellers to make = more competition.
Here's one other very important thing you've forgotten to factor into your thinking: a lot of people will take that voucher money, and add a bit of their own, thinking, "great, now this will put me in reach of that expensive, but really good, prep school!" Unfortunately, everybody will get this extra money, including really really rich people. In the market system model, we see that no successful company charges less than it can get away with, and with all this extra money floating about, the exclusive schools will be able to raise their tuitions. This wont bother the wealthy people who were already paying since the amount raised will correspond to the amount provided by the government, anyway. Sadly, the less wealthy folks with private school dreams will be in the exact same boat they are now. And dont give me that stuff about "shareholders/biz owners etc expand to increase market share hopefully creating new cash flow opportunities". With your plan they will have just gotten a fat cash flow opportunity courtesy of Uncle Sam; and what part of "exclusive" escapes you.
"They invest money to improve and gleen funds from other activities. Maybe they build a wing that teaches something all the other schools don't teach, lets say they have pre TV announcer program. They invest, build a set, hire Dan Rather to teach it. Students leave one school to go there because of this, the school has more students, student number is the basis for compensation in my model"
This one really makes me laugh. "gleen funds from other activities", like History, maybe? There will be no "better programs" where money will be spent. There will be big advertising budgets where flashy ad campaigns will convince people to choose schools with the same wisdom they use in choosing jeans, with the same level of logic behind it.
Look, one thing, and one thing only, will drive most schools built for the masses and run for profit, and that is PROFIT. Not community spirit, not altruism, not competition for good teachers, and certainly not education. Complaints from parents will be met with Customer Service... probably based in India.
The only way that privatizing education will make education better is if the parents of the children in that system get involved, comparison shop, make calls to customer service, buy stock and get on the board of directors or some advisory board. In short, all the things that they need to do now, with Public schools, but your way involves the school making profit a priority ahead of the education of our children.
"Unions served a purpose once and were a good thing, if I worked somewhere there was a union I'd not join it. I could make a much better deal because my production and the quality of my work is far better than the average."
Hey, I do quality work, too! Can I get a job in that place that actually wants to pay for quality? Where is it, anyway? Fantasyland? I know here in Dallas they're far more interested in paying mediocre workers small wages than they are in paying quality workers higher ones. I work the night shift where I do as much work alone as three people do during the day. My last four raises have been miniscule, and my boss once said (after hearing me bitch and moan about something), "there are lots of people out there who'd like to have your job."
"If I knew all I had to do was teach kids and make them smart enough to excel on the tests and I would make say 75-100K, be off 3 months in the summer, 3 weeks at christmas, spring break and every friggin time someone historical died and I had insurance, retirement and 3-4 weeks vacation and I also knew that if i could turn my kids into real brainiacs I could even make more"
Yep, that's Fantasyland, all right. Are you actually suggesting, that at the current funding level, teachers could make 1 1/2 to 2X what they're making now, and the schools would still make a profit??? We are still talking about school for the masses, right, I mean we havent gone off into a world of upper middle-class private schools, the kind that actually might get a bit of competition going, but will do 86% of the population absolutely no good?
You know what? I look on this monster of a comment, far larger than I intended, and I'm done beating my head on your brick wall. You obviously dont know anything about teaching, nor have you spent anytime at a school outside of picking up your kids and griping at a PTA meeting or something. You dont even comprehend Capitalism, except in a rose-colored-glasses-we're-all-free-to-make-money-wheee kind of way. It's tempting to not even bother to post this, but I hate totally wasting my time, so I'll go ahead.
Ok
Gonna try to take these one at a time I wont omit any on purpose. As stated prior ALL of my employees are paid per production. I do agree that if possible an employeer will pay the least possible to get the most possible. Here is my personal view on employees. I want to hire 5 work them like 10 pay them like 8. Thats what I would do if I didnt pay based on results. That might seem hard but the employee makes out too. The reason I say this isn't accurate is because the competition between schools for the best and brightest teachers would raise the pay scale. The same way a pro sports team operates. If the teacher produces results above and beyond the average or norm (and they aren't foolish enough to be in a union) then they can shop their talents on the free market.
(you make good points)
More money for buyers to spend = more profit for sellers to make = more competition.
But you have to include the increased profits when better results are present.
Better results=better profits=higher pay ======= better edyucation to attain better profits (in the form of dollars coming in from taxes)
Ok lets back and let me speak from my self preserving "greedy, hate" side. My kids education will be better without vouchers because I put them private schools and they will be ahead in life because of this. I have no stats to back up this next claim but I believe that people that come from private schools make more money on average. So vouchers would actually hinder my children because it would level the playing feild.
I don't know about some statements you make but I take you at your word. The mean income where I live is 30K, my parents and my friends parents were working class, maybe my statement should read "kids with parents who care enough to scratch claw and sacrifice to send their kids to the best school available to them score better" I'll damn sure agree on that.
You have low regaurd for the profit builders. Good biz men would do other activities to get more funds, better/more students and turn out higher scores. Why would they not. They want the most profits, they would do whatever it takes to get the best scores, to do this they would have to have the best teachers/resources.
gotta go meeting time
js
I think I read the next part correctly. You are correct it won't effect the very rich. I could care less about them. The thing I want to effect is the kind of education that the non-rich get. I'm not asking for a voucher, surely you know I wouldn't take it anyway. I will always pay my own way or I won't play. Thats how I am. I want the poor kids to get a better education ( I would insert another activity I am involved in but CY would say it was self serving)
my theory (flawed and idiotic as I'm certain you think it is would do this,or come closer to leveling the playing feild) It would bring up the scores/educational value of the schools as a whole.
You are 100% correct about the fat cash flow opportunity, thats how it should be. The owners/shareholders of the good schools should make money!!!!! It will cost them more to be great than it will be for the others to be average or lower.
You keep going back to profits ahead of education. I can't see where thet comes from. Profits are tied directly to education!!!!!! better education=better profits
I can't see why you arent for this.
The schools that pay more to their teachers will charge more for their services, just like private schools do now
Not true. It costs me 425.00 per month, I just read that it takes $7500. per year, now even with my g'ment education I can count money. The teachers at my kids school make more, and they charge less and they outscore the national average. It seems like a no brainer to me. (oh they also graduate 99+% and have 100% of applicants accepted at one of their first 3 college choices.
The way they do this for less money is they don't have as large a staff. They don't pay aids, they don't have deans, they have very few administrators, the staff teaches, the teachers also coach the sports teams.
I do know that some folks are in situations like yours. I couldn't work like that. I surely am not saying that every employer is good people and I agree profits drive the biz. Alot of jobs do pay production related though. I have said before my company reps manufacturers nation wide all of my emps make 100% commission, the more they sell the more they make.
I did say I had no clue what teachers made but I believe if paid by production teachers would put out a better product.
I don't think I addressed all the points and I will submit that we disagree on the way to make things better but I do appretiate the debate. I do think that you have tried to see it my way as I have your way.
Lets agree that the g'ment schools could should and need to be better so that we can compete in the global markets.
jsull
Okay, I'll agree that Government schools could be better, but you're wrong on how to do it.
"You have low regaurd for the profit builders"
No, I have low regard for people who see the market sytem as a panacea. To to say that Capitalism will automatically take care of everything is to propose a very simplistic solution to a very complex world. I think Capitalism is great, when used to make money, or improve material things; it is a materialist philosophy, and works best in that context. It sucks for social improvement though, because it requires losers, which negates the whole point of social improvement, which is generally aimed at life's losers. Public Education is a program for social improvement.
I also think you need to rid yourself of this idea that the government can do nothing right. The government is only as good as the people who empower it, just as a company is only as good as the stockholders who vote on it. If the stockholders dont pay attention, the company will go bad. In America, voters/taxpayers are like stockholders. We all have a stake, we've all invested, and we all have a say in what happens (more, actually, than in a company). Most people have simply chosen not to.
Oh, and dont anyone think I'm caving to jsull's arguements. I've simply gotten tired of going round and round. Maybe later I'll tackle something, like the lower per student cost at his single private school which probably gets a lot of (dedicated) parent voluteers, but not tonight.
It is a very narrow school of thought that holds an economic solution to every problem, especially social ones.
I think The Wu Tang Clan said it best, " Get, Grab, in, out. dolla dolla bil y'all"
I guess I'm a bad American, I mean capitalist, since I don't charge as much as I can for my service. Maybe I don't have the greed gene.
Oh yeah, I collected unemployment in the winter of 1983 for 2 months during the Reagan recession livin' off the g'mint teat.
It would have been 4 months but I took a job at a fast food restaurant because it paid more. The money really didn't matter. I only had to pay my share of the rent, buy food, beer and weed.
I got used to living on nothing while I was in the service. I lived in shitty neighborhoods and drove shitty cars. I never seemed to mind. Later in life with my education complete, living on a 6 figure income I was no happier. We gave it all up because the pursuit of the dollar is an empty endeavor.
Today I think my family is better off for us having been on both sides of the economic coin. Now we live somewhere in the middle and are much happy because money doesn't drive anything we do.
Well I didnt think anyone would respond again. I don't think you caved, hell ur still against it. I have decided I didn't explain my take properly. I'm happy for the debate, I'm glad it doesn't have to be about just hating the idea of another and can be a debate. Both of you made good points which I recognized, I'm not married to anyone, odds are I'll vote straight line Dem this time, just for a change. Anyway
thatnks for the mind tryst
jsull
Post a Comment