Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

 ... 434

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 15, 2008 09:33 PM

Alright, there's a lot here that's not going to be settled tonight or any time soon, but let me say I grew up in DC, so I'm well aware of a lot of the social issues.

livertarian said:
That is a very fair argument. My perspective is limited to my experiences - I live in D.C., where the per-child education spending has been in the top 3 nationwide for years, but we have one of the worst public school systems in the country, in terms of graduation rates and test scores. A teacher friend of mine told me, "Schools can't teach kids to value education." That makes sense to me, though it's sad. They pour billions into the system, but many parents are as distrustful of the system as the kids, and few benefit. My position is not to give up, however. I suspect that D.C. might have needs that are particular to D.C. NCLB is a notorious failure in the District, but the funding is deemed essential so they keep flogging a dead horse. I say, (and some D.C. area op-eds agree,) that we need to wean ourselves off the federal carrot and stick approach, and focus on finding something that resonates with the kids. I don't have answers, except that the billions spent are not worth the very few children who thrive in this environment.


1) NCLB is a fucking joke. I haven't met a single teacher who does not believe this. Just because this "answer" came from the FG doesn't mean there aren't solutions from the FG that aren't viable. It means Bush and his education advisers are fucking douches. That and the fact he needed a bunch of dumb HS grads to go to die in Iraq.

2) RE: "schools can't teach kids to appreciate education." No, it can't. But I'll refer to my previous comment. It allows those that do that opportunity, and among those children there are certainly those who's parents don't appreciate education that would otherwise be unable to obtain one.

Knowing several teachers, I'm well aware of many of the issues surrounding problems with education, but most of them don't stem from the education system. The problems stem from poverty and apathy. Certainly, ignoring these individuals won't make them less apathetic. It's not going to motivate them.

[side note: I don't agree with a "welfare state" but I don't agree with a "leave the fuckers behind state" either. There has to be an element of motivation and an element of support. Eradicating standards and practices of educating the public is a "leave the fuckers behind" approach.]

3) Surely, the "carrot and stick approach" isn't helpful. The system needs to be fundamentally revamped from within. It requires creative thinking in addition to incentives to those who give selflessly for the public (this is probably the thing I have the hardest time understanding about hardcore Libertarians. As humans, we're social. We're supposed to look out for one another. Saying I'm all set, fuck everyone else just doesn't jive. Hell there are monkeys in the Northern Japan that fucking drag their handicapped fellow monkey around the snow capped peaks of the mountains). Fundamentally revamped, however, does not mean abandoned. It's not the goal that's the problem, it's the approach. To lots of people swiping the Dept. of Educ. means erasing the goal as a society and leaving it to the individual, and practically speaking they're correct.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAY 15, 2008 09:33 PM

abbazappa said:

IDGAS said:

livertarian said: Do you really think we'd allow child labor laws to expire if we slashed government by 75%?



Do you think enforcement of child labor laws would occur without a national standard and enforcement.

You live in la-la land!


Actually yes I think it would not be a problem here in America:

First not many parents would let there kids work in a factory now a days. Then take into account that with the internet, communication and getting information is faster then ever before, so if a company was using child labor here in the States people will find out. Then lastly we have as citizens have the buying power which is a lot more effective then the Government. We get to decided where we spend out money so if a company is using child labor and we know about it we can decide to not spend our money there and then that company would fail.

Times have changed and it's not like if the Federal government was scaled back we as a society would all of a sudden change back to the days of child labor and no quality control. So thinking that with out the government being in control of every thing will bring about child labor and then pointing out the jungle is just straw man arguments since it doesn't take into account the change of society and how we view the world around us.








I can't read this without punctuation. Seriously, it's like ants crawling everywhere.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 15, 2008 09:43 PM

Old_Fritz said:
Alright, there's a lot here that's not going to be settled tonight or any time soon, but let me say I grew up in DC, so I'm well aware of a lot of the social issues.

livertarian said:
That is a very fair argument. My perspective is limited to my experiences - I live in D.C., where the per-child education spending has been in the top 3 nationwide for years, but we have one of the worst public school systems in the country, in terms of graduation rates and test scores. A teacher friend of mine told me, "Schools can't teach kids to value education." That makes sense to me, though it's sad. They pour billions into the system, but many parents are as distrustful of the system as the kids, and few benefit. My position is not to give up, however. I suspect that D.C. might have needs that are particular to D.C. NCLB is a notorious failure in the District, but the funding is deemed essential so they keep flogging a dead horse. I say, (and some D.C. area op-eds agree,) that we need to wean ourselves off the federal carrot and stick approach, and focus on finding something that resonates with the kids. I don't have answers, except that the billions spent are not worth the very few children who thrive in this environment.


1) NCLB is a fucking joke. I haven't met a single teacher who does not believe this. Just because this "answer" came from the FG doesn't mean there aren't solutions from the FG that aren't viable. It means Bush and his education advisers are fucking douches. That and the fact he needed a bunch of dumb HS grads to go to die in Iraq.

2) RE: "schools can't teach kids to appreciate education." No, it can't. But I'll refer to my previous comment. It allows those that do that opportunity, and among those children there are certainly those who's parents don't appreciate education that would otherwise be unable to obtain one.

Knowing several teachers, I'm well aware of many of the issues surrounding problems with education, but most of them don't stem from the education system. The problems stem from poverty and apathy. Certainly, ignoring these individuals won't make them less apathetic. It's not going to motivate them.

[side note: I don't agree with a "welfare state" but I don't agree with a "leave the fuckers behind state" either. There has to be an element of motivation and an element of support. Eradicating standards and practices of educating the public is a "leave the fuckers behind" approach.]

3) Surely, the "carrot and stick approach" isn't helpful. The system needs to be fundamentally revamped from within. It requires creative thinking in addition to incentives who give selflessly for the public (this is probably the thing I have the hardest time understanding about hardcore Libertarians. As humans, we're social. We're supposed to look out for one another. Saying I'm all set, fuck everyone else just doesn't jive. Hell there are monkeys in the Northern Japan that fucking drag their handicapped fellow monkey around the snow capped peaks of the mountains). Fundamentally revamped, however, does not mean abandoned. It's not the goal that's the problem, it's the approach. To lots of people swiping the Dept. of Educ. means erasing the goal as a society and leaving it to the individual, and practically speaking they're correct.



Libs definitely give off a vibe that can be anti-social, sure, and I am not a fan either. I simply remain suspicious of bureaucratic efforts to help. I will pick up that handicapped monkey and help get him home, every time. My beef is specifically and pointedly the federal government, because I am a self-employed person who has to file every three months, and then see how this money gets spent (Iraq, Drug War, and a whole shitload of programs that seem ineffective-to-harmful.) The states will come more under my scrutiny once I am satisfied that the federal gov't has been appropriately humbled for the people. This will likely never happen, but this is my concern Dude.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAY 15, 2008 09:43 PM

livertarian said:

wildswan said:

livertarian said:

wildswan said:

livertarian said:
[Do you really think we'd allow child labor laws to expire if we slashed government by 75%?



What an awkward question.

But, seeing as how you didn't include the Dept of Labor in your Antediluvian fantasy, I suppose I could cut you a break; but I won't, because I'm sure that it was merely an oversight on your part.


And to answer your question: Yes! I answer in the affirmative because I don't have much doubt that would be in keeping with the unreasonable 'philosophies' of the Libertarian 'movement.'



I don't get how reduction of government is a fantasy. It's not fantasy. It is simply an unpopular idea. Is there anything the government creates that you would take away? Dept of Homeland Security? IRS? Anything? Throw me a friggin' bone!





Why can't you people see that government is not some preternatural boogyman, and merely a mechanism/tool for 'real' people to help govern society? Its complexities and imperfections are merely reflections of the societies it exists in.



I agree with you if you are talking about local government, and in some cases state gov't. But Washington D.C. is a place that defies reality in my opinion.



I don't get the myth of state government being different and more effective than Federal Government. There can be, and are, many abuses on the state/local levels.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 15, 2008 09:48 PM

wildswan said:

I don't get the myth of state government being different and more effective than Federal Government. There can be, and are, many abuses on the state/local levels.



I don't buy that either. I will argue, however, that our votes are far more effective in smaller electorates. At the local level, I feel like I can make a difference. At the state level, maybe not so much. At the federal level, I may as well not exist.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 15, 2008 09:54 PM

livertarian said:

IDGAS said:

livertarian said: That is exactly what I am talking about. Didn't Ken Lay have a bunch of buds over at the Dept of Energy and the SEC?



So how did the SEC enable Enron and Lay? Your claim now it is time to backup your claim.

What do you think the role of the SEC is, how would it be better to have 50 mini-SECs, do you know what the cost of doing business would become?

If the ideas of you and your ilk were ever implemented the U.S. economy would vanish.



The SEC knew exactly how Enron's accounting worked; the accountants were tucking away money into loss-leader spinoff companies that paid the executives exclusively, and avoided reporting losses to the shareholders. This was legal. The SEC knows the loopholes. It took Enron's crash and the revelation of these procedures to convince the public that what the SEC deemed legal was, quite arguably, wrong. The SEC does not champion fairness in the stock market. Regulations only happen when the jig is finally up. Thanks, Joe Kennedy.



You need to provide support for your claims without the documentation you are just making $hit-up

You also skipped this: What do you think the role of the SEC is, how would it be better to have 50 mini-SECs, do you know what the cost of doing business would become?

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 15, 2008 10:00 PM

livertarian said:
Libs definitely give off a vibe that can be anti-social, sure, and I am not a fan either. I simply remain suspicious of bureaucratic efforts to help. I will pick up that handicapped monkey and help get him home, every time. My beef is specifically and pointedly the federal government, because I am a self-employed person who has to file every three months, and then see how this money gets spent (Iraq, Drug War, and a whole shitload of programs that seem ineffective-to-harmful.) The states will come more under my scrutiny once I am satisfied that the federal gov't has been appropriately humbled for the people. This will likely never happen, but this is my concern Dude.

Fair enough. Mind you: I'm against the War in Iraq, and the War on Drugs, but that doesn't lead me to believe the FG is the culprit. It's just misdirected, but that doesn't mean it's not effective or can't be more effective with the important issues.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAY 15, 2008 10:01 PM

IDGAS said:

livertarian said:

IDGAS said:

livertarian said: That is exactly what I am talking about. Didn't Ken Lay have a bunch of buds over at the Dept of Energy and the SEC?



So how did the SEC enable Enron and Lay? Your claim now it is time to backup your claim.

What do you think the role of the SEC is, how would it be better to have 50 mini-SECs, do you know what the cost of doing business would become?

If the ideas of you and your ilk were ever implemented the U.S. economy would vanish.



The SEC knew exactly how Enron's accounting worked; the accountants were tucking away money into loss-leader spinoff companies that paid the executives exclusively, and avoided reporting losses to the shareholders. This was legal. The SEC knows the loopholes. It took Enron's crash and the revelation of these procedures to convince the public that what the SEC deemed legal was, quite arguably, wrong. The SEC does not champion fairness in the stock market. Regulations only happen when the jig is finally up. Thanks, Joe Kennedy.



You need to provide support for your claims without the documentation you are just making $hit-up

You also skipped this: What do you think the role of the SEC is, how would it be better to have 50 mini-SECs, do you know what the cost of doing business would become?



I take a stab at it: Cause the number 50 is bigger than the number 1.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

MAY 15, 2008 10:03 PM

livertarian said:

wildswan said:

I don't get the myth of state government being different and more effective than Federal Government. There can be, and are, many abuses on the state/local levels.



I don't buy that either. I will argue, however, that our votes are far more effective in smaller electorates. At the local level, I feel like I can make a difference. At the state level, maybe not so much. At the federal level, I may as well not exist.

Following this logic, though, we should separate the US into regional principalities, which actually make ourselves and our resources weaker and less effective. In that vein, you want to retain the power of a strong centralized gov with access to lots of resources, but without the burdens. I guess you could say it's kinda like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

MAY 15, 2008 11:46 PM

wildswan said:
I take a stab at it: Cause the number 50 is bigger than the number 1.


If livertarian had his way, you wouldn't have to learn that in school if you didn't believe it!

LSlice

LSlice

Montclair, NJ
December 2007

MAY 17, 2008 05:12 PM

First off, I think the Barr campaign is a bit of a media creation. I've seen no real enthusiasm for him in the Revolution camp, and he hasn't even secured his party's nomination yet. Frankly, I don't even understand his motivation. He's obviously not going to win, and he's much less of a libertarian at heart then he is a republican. I think he may just want to punish the republican party for cowing to the neo-cons. As far as the state versus federal goes, I think there should obviously be restrictions on state goverments, as there are via the supremacy clause. I do think, from a practical standpoint, local governmeny serves as a check against federal power. The origional idea behind the grand experiment was that different communities may want to adopt different laws. I think that if implemented with a less powerful federal government, this could work even better in today's modern era where american culture is so divided. The Christians have a huge problem with pot smokers? Fine, let the pot smokers all move to one state and let the Christians have a different state. Instead, you get the one size fits all federal solution, where no one is ever satisfied, and you have a perpetual "culture war" that is exploited by politicians on both sides while the status quo remains unchanged and the elite and powerful reap the benefits.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 17, 2008 05:53 PM

livertarian said:
A teacher friend of mine told me, "Schools can't teach kids to value education." That makes sense to me, though it's sad.



That's not my experience. The fact that one particular implementation of a system is broken does not make the system invalid.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 17, 2008 05:57 PM

LSlice said:
The Christians have a huge problem with pot smokers? Fine, let the pot smokers all move to one state and let the Christians have a different state.



America: love it or leave it.

Really, do you think this is even vaguely realistic?

LSlice

LSlice

Montclair, NJ
December 2007

MAY 17, 2008 05:59 PM

I think the problem in focusing on arbitarty scores, and rewarding schools that meet those scores, is the incentive to have the kids simply perform well on tests, rather then comprehend the knowldge. I know at the high school I went to for awhile, the system had largely degenerated into one where the teachers turned a complete blind eye to organized cheating as long as the test scores resulted in money coming in. Wouldn't it be better if you had a system where the kids and parents graded the school and teachers?

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 17, 2008 06:26 PM

LSlice said:
I think the problem in focusing on arbitarty scores, and rewarding schools that meet those scores, is the incentive to have the kids simply perform well on tests, rather then comprehend the knowldge. I know at the high school I went to for awhile, the system had largely degenerated into one where the teachers turned a complete blind eye to organized cheating as long as the test scores resulted in money coming in. Wouldn't it be better if you had a system where the kids and parents graded the school and teachers?



Whoa, you're suggesting that testing and money allocation doesn't result in a properly organised school system? (I agree, I'm just surprised to hear it from you.)

The problem with kids and parents grading the school and teachers is that it's wide open to selective pressure by special interest groups. For instance, creationists.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next