what does uncle sam give us after all
Bellyup
matisse wrote in message <38BBDF44...@ameritech.net>...
>In any case dear oli, while our government doesn't do much, if you are
>a woman, at least the government is willing to give you birth control
>at a graduated cost. Too bad more people don't use it.
Hey, fuck you, matisse. The government doesn't "give" anything as if it
were some fucking Santa. The government takes from some people and then
gives it to others. Thank your stupid self for paying taxes and thank
everyone else who's forced to pitch in.
Moron.
matisse
Oli asked the other day what we get for paying into social security.
Well, i have first hand experience on what you can get because of the
taxes we pay. While we are still in the stone ages, and will most likely
always be there, I benefited directly yesterday from the tax system
(and in a few minutes, when i go to do my taxes, i am sure another smile
is going to come to my face).
In any case, i spent my afternoon at the Health department. I called
last week, was immediately given an appointment, and i only had to wait
2 hours. They tested my piss, took some blood, shoved that damn cold
thingie in me, as well as a hand, and then gave me a year supply of
birth control pills. Unlike the assholes down at school, these people
didn't care if i smoked. They weren't concerned about me having a
stroke at the age of 28. They have real "problems" to deal with, such
as young girls getting pregnant while doing crack.
In any case dear oli, while our government doesn't do much, if you are
a woman, at least the government is willing to give you birth control
at a graduated cost. Too bad more people don't use it.
The exam and tests (including all stds) cost them 200, it only cost
little old me 36 dollars, and i get a year supply of pills to go along
with that.
I even surprised the nurse when i told her i would be paying all of the
36 dollars. She even thanked me.
I just cannot believe that it took me so many years to figure out that i
am poor enough to be able to use such services.
I was hoping to have an angsty story to tell, but it was one of the
least painful doctor visits i have ever had.
At the end of the day, i want to give uncle sam a giant kiss and say
thank you motherfucker.
DP
---
Yes, i did lie on the questionnaire about my past drug use.
jonah thomas
>matisse wrote in message <38BBDF44...@ameritech.net>...
>>In any case dear oli, while our government doesn't do much, if you are
>>a woman, at least the government is willing to give you birth control
>>at a graduated cost. Too bad more people don't use it.
>Hey, fuck you, matisse. The government doesn't "give" anything as if it
>were some fucking Santa. The government takes from some people and then
>gives it to others. Thank your stupid self for paying taxes and thank
>everyone else who's forced to pitch in.
The government is what we've got to look at the big picture and take action
based on that. You could argue that it does a poor job at it, but it's
pretty much all we've got.
So for example, there's the problem of poor people. When there are too many
poor people and they're ready to take too much initiative, it's easy to get
things like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution. All it takes
is a bunch of desperate poor people and somebody to give them a lot of cheap
weapons, and they can take over and wreck things for the rest of us.
Trained professionals can be much more efficient at killing armed poor
people than vice versa, but trained professionals also know when they're
losing and know when to bug out. Desperate poor people are willing to
attack and die longer than trained professionals are willing to defend and
kill. It's important to everybody who isn't poor to keep that situation
from developing.
(David, I'm trying to say this in a way this idiot can understand, it isn't
written for you.)
As usual, rich idiots disapprove of any over-all plan that might save their
heads in the long run. They say things like "I don't want the government to
protect me, I want to get by with my own bodyguards or private army to
protect me from my fellow citizens" and "The government should do nothing to
help poor people, if I want them to survive I can give them private charity
or jobs or something."
The last thing a rich person should want is jobs for poor people. When they
get some self-respect and a sense of competence then they're dangerous.
Better to make them interact with a vast bureaucracy that treats them like
shit, that gives them minimal support while persuading them they're
basically worthless and incapable.
Similarly, rich people tend to be infertile while poor people breed like
mice. You can't depend on private armies to kill poor people, not private
armies of hired poor people. You have to raise enough sons to do it
yourself, and you don't do that. So it's *right* for the government to give
free contraceptives to poor women. This isn't rocket science. When a poor
woman has a son, that's likely to be one more criminal to pay for prison
space for; a daughter is one more mother on the welfare roles. It's *far*
cheaper to decide that child should never be born.
You seem to have the misunderstanding that the minor sums we spend on social
programs are designed to help poor people, instead of to help you. People
like you don't deserve to be rich, you don't even deserve to avoid
proletarian justice.
>Moron.
Ditto.
Melia
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, jonah thomas wrote:
> So for example, there's the problem of poor people. When there are too many
> poor people and they're ready to take too much initiative, it's easy to get
> things like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.
Fortunately, education provides an opportunity for the equalization of the
gap between rich and poor, which is, I believe, the real cause of events
like those you mention.
I'm not going to get into some debate about what the government should and
should not bother providing. Besides, you can probably guess what I think
about that. However, with the job market out here and to some degree all
over the nation as tight as it is, and the unemployment rate so low,
anyone who thinks that he or she is entitled to a free ride is sorely
kidding himself or herself. It's not always easy, and it's definitely not
glamorous, but there are ways to make ends meet everywhere, even here in
the Bay Area, for someone willing to work. Now, if other people vote that
the government should continue to support freeloaders, I can't do much
about that, but I, for one, will do what I can to try to put a stop to it.
If I were actually being paid what my contract says I am being paid,
rather than what's left after the
socialsecurity(entitlement)/welfare/defense/warondrugs/prisons/etc
"deductions", I would have been able to save more toward my own
retirement already, and I could also have helped my parents prepare for
theirs. I would be able to give more than I already do to
charities to support the groups behind which I can actually get. Companies
would be able to hire more employees, thereby further diminishing the gap
between the haves and the havenots. Instead, we're stuck in this seemingly
endless loop of supporting losing battles like trying to resuscitate
social security, which, by design and intent, should have been dissolved a
LONG time ago.
Argh.
On a related note: Paying for birth control is much cheaper than
supporting the unwanted children. It's more economical for the government
to subsidize this than for them not to do so.
$.02
matisse
Melia wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, jonah thomas wrote:
>
> > So for example, there's the problem of poor people. When there are too many
> > poor people and they're ready to take too much initiative, it's easy to get
> > things like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.
>
> Fortunately, education provides an opportunity for the equalization of the
> gap between rich and poor, which is, I believe, the real cause of events
> like those you mention.
>
EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to do so, and it
never will.
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
> matisse wrote in message <38BBDF44...@ameritech.net>...
>
> >In any case dear oli, while our government doesn't do much, if you are
> >a woman, at least the government is willing to give you birth control
> >at a graduated cost. Too bad more people don't use it.
>
> Hey, fuck you, matisse. The government doesn't "give" anything as if it
> were some fucking Santa. The government takes from some people and then
> gives it to others. Thank your stupid self for paying taxes and thank
> everyone else who's forced to pitch in.
>
> Moron.
<laughter>
i guess the hidden sarcasm wasn't clear enough.
matisse
You seem to have a problem with freeloaders. Might i ask whom you are speaking
about?
IS david a freeloader?
Am i a freeloader? Being on white collar welfare(governmental loans) and all ?
And after using public services for which i qualify?
IS a major corporation a freeloader when they get major welfare support for x and
y reason? More money is spent a year on corporate welfare than on feeding and
housing the poor. There must be good reason for this (besides the overall way in
which the old boys network and the military industrial complex tend to work). Not
sure what those reasons are, and i will have to ask my brother about that later.
I guess what i want to know is, who are the freeloaders? Little jane who cannot
help the fact that her mother is a stupid moron? More children are in poverty in
this nation than any other group. Children and single mothers. Should we go
along with the Million Man march and proclaim that men just aren't doing their
jobs? That men in general are freeloaders for allowing their children and wives to
be bottom feeders?
In other words, i am really confused as to what people constitute being
freeloaders?
I mean, when i see my friend's parents buying them condo's and getting them jobs,
i cannot help but think that they are freeloaders. But when i work P.A.D.S. (a
shelter), i tend to not think of those people as freeloaders.
Save me from my confusion with your wisdom, please.
You all seem to know something i just don't know. And given that election time is
near, and i am currently leaning towards giving my vote to any socialists on the
ballot (they are on there!), it would be nice if my wise elders could
enlightenment me on this very sensitive and important issue.
Damn, i'm getting snotty.
I'd better shut up now.
Intellegence=morality(protestant work ethic)= wealth.
That is the equation that was created at the beginning of this century, and that
is the equation people use to make themselves feel justified. In short, it is
the reasoning system people of privilege use to justify their superiority to
thereby free themselves from feelings of guilt. The privileged aren't privileged
because of any characteristics that they personally own, they are privilege
because money breeds opportunity breeds doors and breeds more money.
i will be the first to fucking admit that i am a princess. why? Simple, my
parents gave me a life that has allowed me to do things that not even 2% of the
world gets to do. IS this because i have more x, y, and z or is it because it is
all fucking circular! I mean hell, how many people in the world have internet
access? And why is there an English Language (mostly white) hegemony on the net?
(and i do not give a shit if it is a u.s. creation. I vote that U.S.A. has to be
at the end of every american address!) Are the peoples of the ex-third world
freeloaders because they are unable to pay off their debts? Is the U.S. a
freeloader because it has one of the largest debts around? How many African
Americans have internet access in the states? How many latina/os? How many people
in South America.
Or how about the thousands that are homeless right now because of major floods in
mozambique? Are they freeloaders, sucking away precious tax payer funds to
supplement the IMF? Oops, sorry, i cannot help but always blow up national
politics into international. What can i say, uncle sammy screwed lots of people
to get its money.
Again, please enlighten. I have no clue as to who these freeloaders are? Are they
corporations, the homeless, the unemployable, the mentally ill, children of
fuckheads? WHO? MAybe it is even us? Imagine that.
This to me IS what every presidential election really comes down to. It always
comes down to money and who is going to get more. So sad really.
DP
--
Looks like that Christian cult is going to help stab bush!
Pookiehead2
matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:38BC6952...@ameritech.net...
>
>
> Melia wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, jonah thomas wrote:
> >
> > > So for example, there's the problem of poor people.
> EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to
do so, and it
> never will.
>
>When "Coke," was building it's first plant in Moscow "60 Minutes,"
interviewed the project coordinator to ask how the project was going,
and what it was like to have Russian construction workers. The project
coordinator said that he had the highest educated work force in the
world; because most of his construction crew members held, at least, a
Master Degree.
Slavery of a member is a matter of kind, not degree.
Bellyup
jonah thomas wrote in message <89h4n8$1d8...@ix.netcom.com>...
>As usual, rich idiots disapprove of any over-all plan that might save their
>heads in the long run. They say things like "I don't want the government
to
>protect me, I want to get by with my own bodyguards or private army to
>protect me from my fellow citizens" and "The government should do nothing
to
>help poor people, if I want them to survive I can give them private charity
>or jobs or something."
Gosh, it's all so simple for you, isn't it? Rich=dumb. Poor=vengeful.
The notion that GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK never comes into your fucking
head...
Take L.A. this year...over one billion dollars in UNSPENT WELFARE MONEY and
the dumbfucks in county are scratching their heads, wondering, "gee, what
happened?" and desperately trying to find ways to get rid of the surplus.
>The last thing a rich person should want is jobs for poor people. When
they
>get some self-respect and a sense of competence then they're dangerous.
>Better to make them interact with a vast bureaucracy that treats them like
>shit, that gives them minimal support while persuading them they're
>basically worthless and incapable.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here...if you must be sarcastic
give it another shot.
>Similarly, rich people tend to be infertile while poor people breed like
>mice. You can't depend on private armies to kill poor people, not private
>armies of hired poor people. You have to raise enough sons to do it
>yourself, and you don't do that. So it's *right* for the government to
give
>free contraceptives to poor women. This isn't rocket science. When a poor
>woman has a son, that's likely to be one more criminal to pay for prison
>space for; a daughter is one more mother on the welfare roles. It's *far*
>cheaper to decide that child should never be born.
Oh good god. What makes you think some stupid bitch who can't get it
together enough to pay for contraceptives is going to actually use them
properly? And regularly?
>You seem to have the misunderstanding that the minor sums we spend on
social
>programs are designed to help poor people, instead of to help you. People
>like you don't deserve to be rich, you don't even deserve to avoid
>proletarian justice.
Wow, congratulations, you could really make a living writing bumpersticker
material.
Matthew R. Sheahan
> glamorous, but there are ways to make ends meet everywhere, even here in
> the Bay Area, for someone willing to work. Now, if other people vote that
> the government should continue to support freeloaders, I can't do much
> about that, but I, for one, will do what I can to try to put a stop to it.
the job market is really good, yes. remember that it recently got
so good that big capital started panicking? the American system
mandates that a minimum level of unemployment be maintained. it's
easy to understand why that would be, in psychological terms; whether
the mandate is more a matter of asshole suits dictating terms or just
one of those inexorable, disgusting-but-blameless reflexes which
systems of capital develop for their preservation, i can't really
say. but there it is.
given that the government (i.e., the American collective) has taken
on the responsibility of keeping this minimum level of unemployment
around, through the device of the Federal Reserve, i think it is also
the government's (i.e., the American collective's) responsibility
to ensure that it is maintained somewhat humanely -- that it enable
the people it forces to be unemployed to live with some level of
decency. of course, it is also necessary that they not live so well
that unemployment ceases to fulfill its psychological purpose; that
is, employment must remain generally preferable to unemployment. a
lot of people claimed for a long time that we had screwed that up;
as far as i can tell, correcting that is the point of recent welfare
reforms. it looks like it's largely worked. probably most of the
people with their hands on the feedback controls understand all of
this very well.
of course, this also works out wonderfully for people like TheDavid,
who wouldn't work even if the system would support 100% employment,
since the system can't easily tell someone it's forcing not to work
from someone who doesn't feel like it. but as long as they continue
to serve as a bad example, it all works out the same, and everyone
wins there.
which is probably why government spooks have arranged for David to
stop getting laid so much; his lifestyle wasn't coming across as
unpleasant enough. but it's serving just fine now. congratulations
on becoming a productive member of society, TD.
chiaroscuro
Bellyup
matisse wrote in message <38BC7454...@ameritech.net>...
>
>You seem to have a problem with freeloaders. Might i ask whom you are
speaking
>about?
Naivete alert! Somebody's been in school too long!
Pookiehead2
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.21.00022...@shell2.bayarea.net...
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, jonah thomas wrote:
>
too many
> > poor people and they're ready to take too much initiative, it's easy
to get
> > things like the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.
>
> Fortunately, education provides an opportunity for the equalization of
the
> gap between rich and poor, which is, I believe, the real cause of
events
> like those you mention.
>
and
> should not bother providing. Besides, you can probably guess what I
think
> about that. However, with the job market out here and to some degree
all
> over the nation as tight as it is, and the unemployment rate so low,
> anyone who thinks that he or she is entitled to a free ride is sorely
> kidding himself or herself. It's not always easy, and it's definitely
not
in
> the Bay Area, for someone willing to work. Now, if other people vote
that
> the government should continue to support freeloaders, I can't do much
> about that, but I, for one, will do what I can to try to put a stop to
it.
>
> rather than what's left after the
> socialsecurity(entitlement)/welfare/defense/warondrugs/prisons/etc
> "deductions", I would have been able to save more toward my own
> retirement already, and I could also have helped my parents prepare
for
> theirs. I would be able to give more than I already do to
> charities to support the groups behind which I can actually get.
Companies
> would be able to hire more employees, thereby further diminishing the
gap
> between the haves and the havenots. Instead, we're stuck in this
seemingly
> endless loop of supporting losing battles like trying to resuscitate
> social security, which, by design and intent, should have been
dissolved a
> LONG time ago.
Without Social Security, many retired folks would have starved to death.
Not everyone's retirement benefits were as well developed. Others had
their retirement benefits raided by the corporations they worked for.
Why do people believe in the honesty of corporations? Those who do, are
suckers.
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
I am in the mood to debate, so i am sorry beforehand for anything i may say.
You have nothing to do with anything that follows, this is the end result of
8 months of living in the suburbs and three dinner parties in a row where i
listened to wealthy republicans for hours on end. I need to purge. And my
post set this up most perfectly.
for starters, dear, I thought my post was amusing because of the inherent
IRONY in the whole idea of taxes and uncle sam giving us something.
But i don't care about any of that. What i do care about is your word usage,
and in particular, "forced." You aren't forced to pay taxes. To use an
argument conservatives use in a different place, if you dont' like it, then
leave!
America was created with the hope that this was going to be a dreamland, a
thought experiment where political freedom was going to allow for complete
human self perfection and thereby happiness. of course Descartes is basically
dead, but the idea wasn't even so much to control and conquer nature, but
rather it was to provide a place where the mind and the virtues could develop
thereby allowing for man to achieve a well-balanced being, and thereby
happiness. (i am running with Jefferson at the moment.)
Jefferson envisioned a land of yeoman farmers, who got together monthly to
make key decision effecting their lives. These meetings would have taken
place around the state funded schools (Jefferson's education bills didn't
pass, no matter if the federal/state levels would only be giving money). At
these meetings, people would have the chance to engage in that which we
fought so hard to have: political and intellectual freedom. The only freedom
people seem to care about these days is civil, as this is the arena in which
capitalism tends to breed. And most people stupidly equate choice with
freedom.
The importance of political and intellectual freedom go farther than ensuring
that our scientists can make discoveries without getting killed; the
importance had/has more to do with the inherent educational qualities these
two aspects would provide. With political and intellectual freedom,
individuals would be able to learn how to DISCERN and defend their interests.
They would also develop their reasoning abilities (as well as innate moral
sense). Now, while it is hard for me to go along with this type of thinking,
i think there is something to this (and in this).
I think there is something truly beautiful about the idea of creating a
nation that was to have EDUCATION and SELF-DEVELOPMENT as the main reason for
what was happening. This is the land of the pursuit of happiness, and
happiness in our founding father's eyes wouldn't happen with cities, it
wouldn't happen with big business, fancy cars, or any of the above. It would
happen when people were free, when people not only had a say over what
happened in their life (including in the work place. I can easily see
Jefferson arguing for workplace democracy), but when they also had similar
chances and opportunities.
Now, what your word" forced" fails to recognize is the basic requirements for
such a dreamland to really happen. In order for this experiment to work,
there must be (1) equality of opportunity and (2) justice. Without these two
things, there is no way that people can be equally free --which is, after
all, what this is supposedly all about. (sometime i will write up my critique
on both negative and positive freedom, i am a follower of Nietzsche after
all, and his critique against negative freedom (democracy) is rather
beautiful).
I am too tired to give you a basic sociological introduction as to how race,
class and gender tend to interact with equality of opportunity, thereby
giving certain groups more "chances" than others. That is something any
moron should already know. What i do want to say is this:
<rubs two fingers together> Can you hear my violin?
Get over it you fucking ass. I am going to make a big assumption here (one i
think i have enough evidence to run with). You are part of the privileged.
GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
NO ONE IS STEALING FROM YOU. ALL SUPPORT IS SUPPOSE TO BE DOING IS TRYING TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Which are the right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
If little JANE has no fucking food, then it is the damn obligation of the
rest of us fucks to make sure that JANE has some fucking food. It is her
inalienable right to LIFE after all. This is our social contract.
Strange, to me this has very little to do with basic democratic principles.
Instead it has to do with being fucking human and caring about your neighbour
as much as your fucking self.
EVERYONE is equal. and Everyone deserves a nice warm bed at night and food in
their stomach, and i do not give a shit if they murdered my brother. When WE
WAKE UP and REALIZE that CRIME and ILLITERACY are LINKED, and when WE start
fucking PAYING to really RAISE ALL our CHILDREN, not just the one's that were
"luckily" born into good "fortune", that is the day we can say we are fucking
human, and live in a democracy.
Everyone is equal, and everyone, i don't care about any details, deserves
certain rights. get over the fact that you were born with more than your
share and that some of it /must/ be given to others to at least give them a
chance to even TASTE FREEDOM.
I am so sick of fucking white, middle class america. You can all go fuck
yourself and get over it already.
Spoiled bastards with no fucking heart.
O.k. 8 months of living in the suburbs and this is what happens. I go off on
a rampage. Sorry about that.
I just cannot stand to hear one more person of privilege (with more than a
fucking enough) complain about having to share with our sisters and brothers
that have obstacles that we can't even imagine.
Take a look at what happened to that draft dodger. That story made me cry,
literally. Wake up white america, stop with the violin, and face the facts.
There is institutionalized racism, and as long as you fail to recognize that
things aren't neutral, you really don't deserve anything you've got.
wouldn't it be nice to actual run a fair race for once?
I sure would get a kick out of it. And i /know/ exactly where i would end up:
at the fucking bottom!!!
Oh well, i need a smoke.
I love election season. Oh how i love it. I am sure i will be writing more
and more posts where i whine like an ass. I have yet to even get started
with my views on these issues.
DP
"i shall stay the way i am, because i do not give a damn"
Pookiehead2
jonah thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:89h4n8$1d8...@ix.netcom.com...
> "Bellyup" <nononono> wrote:
> >matisse wrote in message <38BBDF44...@ameritech.net>...
>
> >>In any case dear oli, while our government doesn't do much, if you
are
> >>a woman, at least the government is willing to give you birth
control
> >>at a graduated cost. Too bad more people don't use it.
>
> >Hey, fuck you, matisse. The government doesn't "give" anything as if
it
> >were some fucking Santa. The government takes from some people and
then
> >gives it to others. Thank your stupid self for paying taxes and
thank
> >everyone else who's forced to pitch in.
>
action
> based on that. You could argue that it does a poor job at it, but
it's
> pretty much all we've got.
>
too many
> poor people and they're ready to take too much initiative, it's easy
to get
takes
> is a bunch of desperate poor people and somebody to give them a lot of
cheap
> weapons, and they can take over and wreck things for the rest of us.
> Trained professionals can be much more efficient at killing armed poor
> people than vice versa, but trained professionals also know when
they're
> losing and know when to bug out. Desperate poor people are willing to
> attack and die longer than trained professionals are willing to defend
and
> kill. It's important to everybody who isn't poor to keep that
situation
> from developing.
It follows that we would be wise to invest in education for the poor,
doesn't it?
Your argument is purely conjectural because the middle class will not
risk their three or four months of security to join with the poor.
Yes there are many more poor than there are wealthy, that's why it's
necessary to keep the middle class snowed into thinking that they have a
chance in hell of becoming wealthy, and that if they work hard enough
they need never worry about becoming poor. The middle class is only one
catastrophic illness away from poverty. Put another way, most people
are three to four months out from poverty. No need to remind me about
about those who have lifted themselves up by their own boot straps, they
are too rare a commodity to matter, (except at sales motivation
meetings,) besides, those who do, become insufferable snobs. I thought
everyone knew that there are only two groups that argue against social
democratic governments; marketing people and insurance companies.
>
> (David, I'm trying to say this in a way this idiot can understand, it
isn't
> written for you.)
It's not necessary to be condesending about your side of this argument.
This argument has been argued quite eloquently by others, for the other
side of this coin.
One last thing. Name calling does nothing other than make one
suspicious of the validity, and the purpose for your argument.
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
> jonah thomas wrote in message <89h4n8$1d8...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>
> >Similarly, rich people tend to be infertile while poor people breed like
> >mice. You can't depend on private armies to kill poor people, not private
> >armies of hired poor people. You have to raise enough sons to do it
> >yourself, and you don't do that. So it's *right* for the government to
> give
> >free contraceptives to poor women. This isn't rocket science. When a poor
> >woman has a son, that's likely to be one more criminal to pay for prison
> >space for; a daughter is one more mother on the welfare roles. It's *far*
> >cheaper to decide that child should never be born.
>
> Oh good god. What makes you think some stupid bitch who can't get it
> together enough to pay for contraceptives is going to actually use them
> properly? And regularly?
>
WHat makes you think that people who can't afford birth control pills are
stupid?
you call me naive. I had been in school too long, that i will admit to, but
what i won't admit to is being naive when you are saying that poor people are
stupid. Seems to me like our government has done a nice job brainwashing you in
their schools. Maybe you should try some more school. The longer you go, the
more you get brainwashed against the earlier rhetoric.
Doesn't it make you wonder that you are arguing rather republican type rhetoric
yet you say that there is a problem with government? You most like are a
libertarian, in which case then, we really should just drop birth control in the
water supply.
Now those guys are stupid. And you people think i am a walking contradiction!
>
> >You seem to have the misunderstanding that the minor sums we spend on
> social
> >programs are designed to help poor people, instead of to help you. People
> >like you don't deserve to be rich, you don't even deserve to avoid
> >proletarian justice.
>
> Wow, congratulations, you could really make a living writing bumpersticker
> material.
shit, yet another pinko wannabee.
I can't wait to go on holiday.
DP
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
So i guess it is safe to assume that you aren't going to enlightenment me
and save me from my stupidity?
I mean, i thought asking what a freeloader was was a reasonable enough
question.
I really don't know.
Jet, would you please explain this to me, as this ass would rather be a
pinko than an actual human being?
DP
matisse
Pookiehead2 wrote:
> jYes there are many more poor than there are wealthy, that's why it's
> necessary to keep the middle class snowed into thinking that they have a
> chance in hell of becoming wealthy, and that if they work hard enough
> they need never worry about becoming poor. The middle class is only one
> catastrophic illness away from poverty. Put another way, most people
> are three to four months out from poverty.
Hear, hear, finally some words of fucking wisdom!
DP
Matthew R. Sheahan
> I am so sick of fucking white, middle class america. You can all go fuck
> yourself and get over it already.
> Spoiled bastards with no fucking heart.
well, normally this is their cue to go on about how much they like
giving their money to charity, and how they'd give so much more if the
government didn't take it away. some of them might not even be lying.
with those, the thing they object to is that the current US government
is so tremendously inefficient at doing anything, redistributing wealth
included. they have pierced the first veil. if they were smart enough
to pierce the second veil, they would realize that the US government's
inefficiency is both by design and tremendously beneficial; the last
thing any sane person should want is an efficient, effective government.
chiaroscuro
Jyeshta
state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
to the Constitution. So, my question is, does this right extend
to unborn embryos? 'Right to life' is the anti-abortionist slogan,
but I'm embarrassed to admit I never considered it in the context
of the Constitution. (And I'll just mention, because I think the
anti-abortionists are abhorrent hypocrites -- not meaning you,
matisse -- that their 'right to life' doesn't extend to death
row inmates.)
>Bellyup wrote:
--
desnos
>
> >One last thing. Name calling does nothing other than make one
> >suspicious of the validity, and the purpose for your argument.
>
> thought whatsoever to the inherent validity of the argument. I saw no
> reason to imagine he would care about validity of arguments.
Somehow I thought the troll was a she.
des
jonah thomas
>I am so sick of fucking white, middle class america.
Well, then, just stop. What do you have to lose?
jonah thomas
>matisse wrote in message <38BC7454...@ameritech.net>...
>>You seem to have a problem with freeloaders. Might i ask whom you are
>>speaking about?
>Naivete alert! Somebody's been in school too long!
There's nothing wrong with using "whom". You knew perfectly well what she
meant.
But OK, I'll answer the question. Anybody who gets more from the government
in benefits than they contribute to the government in taxes etc, is a
freeloader.
When you consider everybody who uses the Interstate system or uses products
that have been transported over it, we're almost all freeloaders. (And no,
you didn't pay for the Interstates with your taxes. They were built with
government bonds, which haven't been paid off yet.)
Everybody who uses the products of government-funded research is probably a
freeloader. Nuclear power, advanced ceramics, the internet, the first
antibiotics -- all funded by government when private enterprises couldn't
raise the money.
Everybody who uses services provided by regulated monopolies is a
freeloader. It's government that keeps those monopolies from charging
whatever the market will bear. It was usually government that provided the
initial funding to get those monopolies started.
Everybody who benefits from national defense may be a freeloader. I don't
know. When you look at what we have here that could instead be a
radioactive desert (or could belong to foreigners who'd think of the
indigenous american population as slave labor), the national defense is
cheap at the heavy price. But it's hard to be sure we would have been
invaded otherwise. Maybe our defense actually increased the chance of it
turning into a radioactive desert. Hard to be sure.
Everybody who went to public school is a freeloader. You might have paid
more into the school systems later than you took before, but calculate a
reasonable interest rate and.... If you went to private schools, the cost
was far lower than it would have been if the public schools weren't there.
Many of your teachers were educated in public schools, for example, and they
were cheaper than they would be if there were fewer of them available.
I could go on at length but I won't. On average our government is probably
a good investment. It does things we wouldn't know how to do otherwise,
that enrich us. Of course we take it for granted, we notice the costs and
not the benefits. After all, when your car needs new shocks you have to
think about how much it costs and what you get. But when you happen to have
a road with only a few potholes it's just a road, the smoother the ride the
less you notice it.
Well, just one more thing. Anybody who isn't a freeloader has got a bad
deal. He's paying more than he gets in return. He should find a better
deal somewhere else and go away and never come back.
pinkorangered
the US government's
>inefficiency is both by design and tremendously beneficial; the last
>thing any sane person should want is an efficient, effective government.
Why?
jonah thomas
>> >You seem to have a problem with freeloaders. Might i ask whom you are
>> >speaking about?
>> Naivete alert! Somebody's been in school too long!
>So i guess it is safe to assume that you aren't going to enlightenment me
>and save me from my stupidity?
Probably.
>I mean, i thought asking what a freeloader was was a reasonable enough
>question.
>I really don't know.
>Jet, would you please explain this to me, as this ass would rather be a
>pinko than an actual human being?
There isn't much to explain. What you're looking at is a conflict of
ideologies. Usually with this sort of thing facts aren't very important,
what people are after is showing to their own satisfaction that their
ideology is better than the other guy's. This is important because they use
their ideologies to say who they are, and they want themselves to be better
than the other guy. Since people know from experience that any real
communication is very unlikely, they quickly settle down to stereotypes,
slogans, witty remarks that don't actually help express their points, etc.
If you wanted it to be some other way you could invite the other guy to a
real conversation. But to do that you'd have to make it clear that you
weren't just spouting your own ideology, that you really were open to being
convinced. You'd have to make it clear that you were really listening and
not just looking for the chance to spring your own polemical traps. And
even when you did all that, chances are it would still fail because most
people trapped by ideologies don't understand what they're supposed to
believe all that well, they only know how to do the slogans etc. So if they
are brave enough to plunge in and then fail to understand their position,
(and when you're then sympathetic about that!), they'll just tell you the
name of somebody they trust who understands it better. People mostly don't
use ideologies to predict how the world works, they mostly use ideologies to
define who they are.
Someone like Solilja could probably do the most good at this sort of thing,
if she was apolitical. She could tell people what she's seen in africa and
ask them what it would take to make those places as wealthy as we are here.
There's a reasonable chance that after a lot of thought and discussion they
might decide that land is vitally important. If you have great cropland you
might be able to grow food for export, and if you have none you have to do
something else to import food. And other resources are vital too, if you
have enough oil you can be independent of the arabs and partly independent
of world oil prices. Etc. If you lack both food and other resources then
you have to live by mercantilism, you have to persuade others to sell you
the resources that you will reshape to sell back to them. This is a form of
colonialism and it's an unstable way to survive -- at any time your
suppliers and customers might learn how to cut you out. Technology and a
workforce that can use the tech you need is essential to any economy. And a
collective ideology that can organise people is important too.
Somehow ideologists tend to talk as if the ideology is the only thing that
matters. Confronted with the reality of africa, occasionally they at least
get past that first hurdle.
To persuade them that their ideology is wrong and yours is right, though,
you have to catch them at a time when they're dissatisfied with their lives
to the point that they'd rather be somebody else. Then they might accept a
new ideology as part of defining the new self.
jonah thomas
>Gosh, it's all so simple for you, isn't it? Rich=dumb. Poor=vengeful.
...
>I don't even know what you're trying to say here...if you must be sarcastic
>give it another shot.
I think you've already proved my point, no need to keep trying. 8-)
jonah thomas
>> (David, I'm trying to say this in a way this idiot can understand, it
>> isn't written for you.)
>One last thing. Name calling does nothing other than make one
Matthew R. Sheahan
> ch...@crystal.palace.net raved...
> > the US government's
> > inefficiency is both by design and tremendously beneficial; the last
> > thing any sane person should want is an efficient, effective government.
> Why?
lots of reasons. easiest to explain is that it reduces the amount of
damage the thing can do.
most of the things we attempt to have a government do are bad ideas;
ill-considered, naive, simple-minded, vicious, or simply operating in
areas that are too damned complex to fuck around with. in recognition
of Sturgeon's Law, we will assume that 90% of ideas that government is
made to carry out are bad ones. i doubt this is far off.
efficient government:
1000 units of effort * 90% bad ideas * 50% efficiency = 450 units of
bad ideas implemented
1000 units of effort * 10% good ideas * 50% efficiency = 50 units of
good ideas implemented
inefficient government:
1000 units of effort * 90% bad ideas * 2% efficiency = 18 units of bad
ideas implemented
1000 units of effort * 10% good ideas * 2% efficiency = 2 units of good
ideas implemented
in my example, the efficient government implements 400 more units of
bad ideas than good ideas; the inefficient government only implements
16 more units of bad ideas than good ideas. this sounds like a big win
to me, in relative terms.
people who want efficient government generally assume that if things
were run the way they want, the 90% constant there would change. this
is because they are stupid and cannot learn from the example of history.
chiaroscuro
Bellyup
matisse wrote in message <38BC8241...@ameritech.net>...
>for starters, dear, I thought my post was amusing because of the inherent
>IRONY in the whole idea of taxes and uncle sam giving us something.
You have it wrong. I don't care whether you were being sarcastic or not in
the first place. It doesn't matter to me.
>But i don't care about any of that. What i do care about is your word
usage,
>and in particular, "forced." You aren't forced to pay taxes. To use an
>argument conservatives use in a different place, if you dont' like it,
then
>leave!
I would leave, if there was a better place to go. But I tend to think this
is the freest country I can be, and in fact I pay less taxes here than
anywhere else.
The funny thing is that I can admit this, but most liberals can't.
Now wasn't that silly of you?
<Lots of nonsense using phrases like "freedom of equality" snipped.>
>Get over it you fucking ass. I am going to make a big assumption here (one
i
>think i have enough evidence to run with). You are part of the privileged.
>GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
>
>NO ONE IS STEALING FROM YOU. ALL SUPPORT IS SUPPOSE TO BE DOING IS TRYING
TO
>MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
>
>Which are the right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
>
>If little JANE has no fucking food, then it is the damn obligation of the
>rest of us fucks to make sure that JANE has some fucking food. It is her
>inalienable right to LIFE after all. This is our social contract.
Hmm, little Jane sure likes to use capital letters a lot. Does little Jane
always like to yell when she tries to use big, grown-up words to prove her
point?
>Strange, to me this has very little to do with basic democratic principles.
>Instead it has to do with being fucking human and caring about your
neighbour
>as much as your fucking self.
So go do what you need to do to be human and caring...just don't insist on
taking me with you when you hand the condoms to "little Jane" who'd rather
spend her time being shtupped by Joe alcoholic than get a job.
>EVERYONE is equal. and Everyone deserves a nice warm bed at night and food
in
>their stomach, and i do not give a shit if they murdered my brother. When
WE
>WAKE UP and REALIZE that CRIME and ILLITERACY are LINKED, and when WE start
>fucking PAYING to really RAISE ALL our CHILDREN, not just the one's that
were
>"luckily" born into good "fortune", that is the day we can say we are
fucking
>human, and live in a democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen...Jesse Jackson!
>I just cannot stand to hear one more person of privilege (with more than a
>fucking enough) complain about having to share with our sisters and
brothers
>that have obstacles that we can't even imagine.
Am I really a "person of privilege"? This is honestly news to me. Do tell,
Matisse. Describe to me exactly what makes me such a person and why. It
would make me very happy to know that I'm no longer part of low-income
America.
Incidentally, you would have seemed less of a fool if you had shut up. But
as you say....
matisse
pinkorangered wrote:
> In article <38bc8...@nntp2.nac.net>, ch...@crystal.palace.net raved...
>
> the US government's
> >inefficiency is both by design and tremendously beneficial; the last
> >thing any sane person should want is an efficient, effective government.
>
> Why?
Very simple, if the government was actually to become efficient and
effective, those in power (including the middle class) would end up worse off
then they already are.
Any study of the U.S. system shows that it was designed to benefit certain
groups over others. The schools are the best example of this.
If we were to actually try to make things run better, those in power, those
trying to make things run better, would be worse off.
DP
bk...@cornell.edu
>
> Am I really a "person of privilege"? This is honestly news to me. Do tell,
> Matisse. Describe to me exactly what makes me such a person and why. It
> would make me very happy to know that I'm no longer part of low-income
> America.
if your income is so low, why don't you spend a little less time posting to
newsgroups and a little more time earning money?
i'm not saying you should leave, but if you're going to stay, don't bitch to
us about your lack of funds...
brian
matisse
Jyeshta wrote:
> This is a beautiful post. But I'm curious about something; you
> state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
> to the Constitution. So, my question is, does this right extend
> to unborn embryos? 'Right to life' is the anti-abortionist slogan,
> but I'm embarrassed to admit I never considered it in the context
> of the Constitution. (And I'll just mention, because I think the
> anti-abortionists are abhorrent hypocrites -- not meaning you,
> matisse -- that their 'right to life' doesn't extend to death
> row inmates.)
Of course i am not an anti-abortionist. The government cannot tell me what to do
with my own damn body. And this is a topic i have no desire to debate because what
it ends up coming down to is what constitutes "personhood" as only people have
rights. I also am against capital punishment.
I personally am not sure if i could have an abortion. I have friends that have
done such, and they would never go through that experience again. At the same
time, i am not sure if i could ever give a child away. As soon as i started having
sex, i thought long and hard about what i would do if i got pregnant. All i know
is that unless i can support another living being, i shouldn't get pregnant.
Besides that, i doubt if i will ever have children.
DP
Bellyup
bk...@cornell.edu wrote in message <89j4r4$mp6$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
>Bellyup <nononono> wrote:
>if your income is so low, why don't you spend a little less time posting to
>newsgroups and a little more time earning money?
>i'm not saying you should leave, but if you're going to stay, don't bitch
to
>us about your lack of funds...
>
>brian
It's not my lack of funds that bothers me. I can make do just fine.
What bothers me is that I have to give what I have to people who won't work
at all.
How's that education at Cornell coming along, Brian? I'm just a little
worried because I've noticed you haven't learned to read yet.
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
> bk...@cornell.edu wrote in message <89j4r4$mp6$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
> >Bellyup <nononono> wrote:
>
> >if your income is so low, why don't you spend a little less time posting to
> >newsgroups and a little more time earning money?
> >i'm not saying you should leave, but if you're going to stay, don't bitch
> to
> >us about your lack of funds...
> >
> >brian
>
> It's not my lack of funds that bothers me. I can make do just fine.
>
> What bothers me is that I have to give what I have to people who won't work
> at all.
>
If you make so little, then you get most of what you pay into the system back. I
did my taxes the other day, and after getting the earned income credit, i ended
up getting almost 80 percent back.
Besides, dear, capitalism needs a surplus unemployed army. It is essential to is
basic functioning.
matisse
jonah thomas wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >I am so sick of fucking white, middle class america.
>
> Well, then, just stop. What do you have to lose?
Nothing.
loosel...@my-deja.com
matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to
do so, and it
> never will.
Paulo Friere: 'The Pedagogy of the Oppressed'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pinkorangered
>
>pinkorangered (pinkor...@nospam.newsguy.com) wrote:
>> ch...@crystal.palace.net raved...
>> > the US government's
>> > inefficiency is both by design and tremendously beneficial; the last
>> > thing any sane person should want is an efficient, effective government.
>> Why?
>
>damage the thing can do.
>
>most of the things we attempt to have a government do are bad ideas;
Everything we attempt to have a government do is a good idea in somebody's
terms, and the converse also applies.
>ill-considered, naive, simple-minded, vicious, or simply operating in
>areas that are too damned complex to fuck around with. in recognition
>of Sturgeon's Law, we will assume that 90% of ideas that government is
>made to carry out are bad ones. i doubt this is far off.
I'd say I agree with about two-thirds of what our govt tries to do, though not
necessarily *how* and to what extent. Is 'ideas' your key word? Do you mean
90% of innovations, or 90% of the function they are required to perform?
[...]
>in my example, the efficient government implements 400 more units of
>bad ideas than good ideas; the inefficient government only implements
>16 more units of bad ideas than good ideas. this sounds like a big win
>to me, in relative terms.
Then abolish the government altogether and you'll have NO implementation of bad
ideas!
Apart from the spurious figure of 90%, you haven't considered the opportunity
cost of the associated *good* ideas which didn't get implemented.
I thought it was a bad idea for our govt to spend a $billion (or whatever) on
building 4 new submarines, but given that the idea appealed to a certain
section of the electorate who had the same democratic right to see submarines
as I do to see a new observatory, I hoped they'd be able to do it efficiently.
Of course they fucked it up and overshot by half a $billion (or whatever).
One function of government is to provide employment but that doesn't mean a
more efficient govt will employ less people. It could employ half a million
public servants to design crosswords and cut back on education, national parks,
arts funding and health; after all, money is only useful while it's changing
hands and for the people whose palms it's lubricating, the service they provide
is irrelevant. But so long as the money is moving it might as well be of
benefit to someone else and the more efficiently it's spent, the more benefit
they get. If it's going to be crosswords, the more the merrier - but I rather
hope it'll be medicine, and the waiting list for essential surgery is somewhat
related to the efficiency of the health system.
>people who want efficient government generally assume that if things
>were run the way they want, the 90% constant there would change. this
>is because they are stupid and cannot learn from the example of history.
A bad idea implemented efficiently still has to be preferable to a bad idea
implemented inefficiently. If you then tell me that a well implemented bad
idea leaves too much room for more bad ideas, I'd reply that most ideas are
election-driven anyway and few innovations are born AND implemented within the
same term of office. If the bad ideas are efficiently carried out that leaves
scope for budget surplus and if it also happens expediently, more time to
correct the damage.
But this 90% linchpin of your argument is remarkable. Who judges which are
good and which are bad ideas? Do you claim that any "reasonable person" can
choose 10 govt policies at random and find 9 of them to be "bad ideas"? I
cringe at my tax dollars being used to support professional athletes but I
wouldn't call it a "bad idea", I'd call it the right of a minority to get
funding for their bent, and I expect them not to complain about public money
also being used to support unsigned musicians. One thing we'd all agree on is
the more efficiently it's implemented, the more benefit we get from our
repsective wedge of the public money pie.
pinkorangered
thusly:
>Any study of the U.S. system shows that it was designed to benefit certain
>groups over others. The schools are the best example of this.
Explain.
>If we were to actually try to make things run better, those in power, those
>trying to make things run better, would be worse off.
So you said. But underpin this with facts and argument!
>DP
What is this DP? Have you finally seen the sense in adopting my code for post
content?
pinkorangered
thusly:
>
>shit, yet another pinko wannabee.
No, concensus!
Bellyup
matisse wrote in message <38BD2088...@ameritech.net>...
>If you make so little, then you get most of what you pay into the system
back. I
>did my taxes the other day, and after getting the earned income credit, i
ended
>up getting almost 80 percent back.
This is you don't know anything about investment. Let's say you get to keep
even half of what you will be paying in social security (prime money sink
for low-income fools like us) for the rest of your life. If you that and
invested it into one of the most unprofitable areas of investment
available--government bonds--you'd be getting at least three times what
you'd get from social security.
I don't know about you, but I'd like to just cut out the middle man
together.
>Besides, dear, capitalism needs a surplus unemployed army. It is essential
to is
>basic functioning.
What does this have to do with anything? Even if this were true (please
back up your facts, m'am), I doubt _everyone_ would be crazy enough about
work to be employed. You have Thoreau, you have your Johnny Appleseeds,
etc. I have no qualms with them, and in fact, I haven't found the pursuit
of material items all that fulfilling (aside from Diet Coke and
nice-smelling soap...oh the decadence!) I could do without this computer
especially, given how much time I'm wasting in idle chatter.
Not that I bought it. My boyfriend built it for me. (Yes I am a chick,
just to satisfy the curiosity of all you Bellyup fans out there.)
If you really want to talk about inequality, , I find that physical
attractiveness is more of an indicator of how far we get in life than not,
particularly if you're a woman. Not a complaint nor a boast. Just what
seems to be a fact.
Bellyup
Matthew R. Sheahan
> A bad idea implemented efficiently still has to be preferable to a bad idea
> implemented inefficiently.
this is where we trot out the Holocaust one more time.
you think governments just do prosaic things like employ bureaucrats
and build nuclear submarines. you're wrong.
> But this 90% linchpin of your argument is remarkable.
what i was saying was illustrative, not precise.
chiaroscuro
Melia
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, matisse wrote:
> EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to do so, and it
> never will.
Applied education does.
desnos
>
>
> EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to do so, and it
> never will.
Overheard in a coffee shop about a discussion of racism and the equalizing myth of
education:
Black woman: the policeman who pulls me over just because I'm black doesn't know
that I have a JD...
--
There's also this thing called "cultural capital" that people forget about. It
isn't just money, it's all the social connections, conventions, knowledge and other
things that are passed down through family and community life.
When I first graduated from college, I worked as a medical receptionist. One of my
co-workers was a very working-class woman who never got promoted and didn't
understand why. Her class status was visible in just about every aspect of her
person: the way she wore her hair, her clothing, the eyeliner she used, and all of
the mannerisms and social skills. It didn't matter that she was a hard worker, came
in on time, and tried to learn new tasks. She couldn't get along with the doctors.
She hated being talked down to by them, and would bristle whenever it happened. It
was that -- her "attitude" -- which kept her from succeeding in that environment.
{sigh}
des
Melia
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, matisse wrote:
> You seem to have a problem with freeloaders. Might i ask whom you are speaking
> about?
You can ask. I would say it's anyone who gets something for
nothing. That's the standard definition. I generally try to use those.
> IS david a freeloader?
Yes, but he's using the system as it allows him to do so.
> Am i a freeloader? Being on white collar welfare(governmental loans) and all ?
> And after using public services for which i qualify?
Yes. (see note above)
> IS a major corporation a freeloader when they get major welfare support for x and
> y reason?
They also put back into the economy by creating jobs, so they are hardly
getting something for nothing.
> I guess what i want to know is, who are the freeloaders? Little jane who cannot
> help the fact that her mother is a stupid moron?
Jane's mother is, and Jane will be when she grows up unless she learns
better. Afterall, without any model for working to make a living, it's
unlikely she wiull ever be prepared to do so.
> this nation than any other group. Children and single mothers. Should we go
> along with the Million Man march and proclaim that men just aren't doing their
> jobs? That men in general are freeloaders for allowing their children and wives to
> be bottom feeders?
Yes.
> In other words, i am really confused as to what people constitute being
> freeloaders?
Just about everyone you mention.
> I mean, when i see my friend's parents buying them condo's and getting them jobs,
> i cannot help but think that they are freeloaders. But when i work P.A.D.S. (a
> shelter), i tend to not think of those people as freeloaders.
They're not asking me and the rest of the tax-oaying, working population
to foot the bill, so I would say what their parents decide to do is
entirely up to them. You just sound jealous.
> Save me from my confusion with your wisdom, please.
HTH!
> Intellegence=morality(protestant work ethic)= wealth.
Intelligence, but actually...
Working+Education/Skill=Prosperity of varying degrees
> Again, please enlighten. I have no clue
That much is patently obvious, kiddo.
Melia
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Pookiehead2 wrote:
> Without Social Security, many retired folks would have starved to death.
> Not everyone's retirement benefits were as well developed. Others had
> their retirement benefits raided by the corporations they worked for.
> Why do people believe in the honesty of corporations? Those who do, are
> suckers.
I'm not talking about corporations. I am talking about starting young,
from the first time you ever get a job, and saving for retirement. Do you
think social security will be there when you retire? I'm 29, and I sure
as hell don't. The people who think we can fund it indefinitely are the
ignorant ones, or the suckers, as you call them.
Check your history books. It was never intended to be an on-going
program, as anyone can now see it should not be. However, the AARP is much
too powerful a lobby to allow it to fall, and politicians quake,
understandably, as soon as the AARP shakes its mighty, wrinkled arms.
Melia
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, matisse wrote:
> So i guess it is safe to assume that you aren't going to enlightenment me
> and save me from my stupidity?
I've seen several valiant efforts to do so, to no avail thus far. Seems
kind of like a waste of time. You just can't help those who don't want
help.
> I mean, i thought asking what a freeloader was was a reasonable enough
> question.
Look it up.
Melia
On 29 Feb 2000, Jyeshta wrote:
> This is a beautiful post. But I'm curious about something; you
> state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
> to the Constitution.
I think the real question is: What does the right to something really
entail? What does the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
entail, and what does it require of the individual.
Poor little Janey was born. There's life.
Janey is alive. There's the only degree of liberty any of us is
guaranteed, and the only "pursuit of happiness" any of us can expect.
Beyond that, Janey is a product of a mother and a father. They are
responsible for her, unless they turn her over to the state, and then the
state can determine how to care for her, but Janey's folks can't expect me
to willingly pay for them to raise her in their home. That's just
ridiculous.
Melia
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Bellyup clarified basic principles of investment for
matisse:
> This is you don't know anything about investment. Let's say you get to keep
> even half of what you will be paying in social security (prime money sink
> for low-income fools like us) for the rest of your life. If you that and
> invested it into one of the most unprofitable areas of investment
> available--government bonds--you'd be getting at least three times what
> you'd get from social security.
Truth. This is the point the government hopes won't get out. As long as
lemmings keep talking about how great their tax refund checks are, they
won't have to think about how crappy the entire system really is.
Micaiela
>EVERYONE is equal. and Everyone deserves a nice warm bed at
>night and food in their stomach, and i do not give a shit if
>they murdered my brother. When WE WAKE UP and REALIZE that
>CRIME and ILLITERACY are LINKED, and when WE start fucking
>PAYING to really RAISE ALL our CHILDREN, not just the one's
>that were "luckily" born into good "fortune", that is the day
>we can say we are fucking human, and live in a democracy.
Heh heh. This could've been me last night.
The Rich People who hosted that sushi-making party invited me to
another little orgy last night. They'd decided to get together
and review the propositions we'll all be voting on come March
7th. They were having the event <ack> catered.
Needless to say, I politely declined, having learned my lesson
over the weekend. But still, it could have been fun. I probably
missed my only chance all year to get really drunk, upend a tray
of snotty hors d'oeuvres, climb atop a table and rant at a room
full of conservatives. Damn.
Mica
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Micaiela
>(And I'll just mention, because I think the anti-abortionists
>are abhorrent hypocrites
Have you seen _Citizen Ruth_? Great flick. Does a spectacular
job of making both sides of the abortion war look like
hypocritical fools.
Jyeshta
>Jyeshta wrote:
>>(And I'll just mention, because I think the anti-abortionists
>>are abhorrent hypocrites
>Have you seen _Citizen Ruth_?
Nope.
> Great flick. Does a spectacular
>job of making both sides of the abortion war look like
>hypocritical fools.
In what ways? I'll try to catch the film if I can. The
reason I said that is that the anti-abortionists are
(as a political faction, although there have to be a
lot of individuals who don't fit the mold) pro-death
penalty, and right-wing. The right-wingers are against
the taxes for social programs which are necessary to
support all those kids once they're born, like public
education, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they're against
government regulations on industry to curtail environmental
damage. So while they're screeching about being "pro-life",
they couldn't care less what happens to a kid once it's
born, nor about all the species that are wiped out daily
by deforestation and pollution. I know you already
know all of that, but I'd be interested to know about
the hypocrisy of the pro-choice side, since that's
something I don't know about.
Gail
>Mica
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
Well, I'm glad for Social Security. Thanks to y'all
taxpayers I retired at age 24, 13 years ago. My Dad
worked all his life and, upon his "early" retirement
at 60, got only about $100 more a month than Social
Security pays me now.
Spend it while it's there, I say. Hear voices and
talk back to them in public, try to kill yourself
a few times, get arrested for silly shit like back-
sassing pigs over jaywalking tickets, try to kill
the only person in the world who gives a damn about
you and blame it on a CIA conspiracy to "divide the
Resistance", give headaches and TMJ to every shrink
you're sent to while bemoaning their incompetence
for being unable to agree among themselves on just
what kind of frigging lunatic you are, specialize
in warping vulnerable women's minds (until you're
middle-aged and toothless, whereupon you switch to
denouncing everyone who can still get laid), while
remaining convinced throughout your travails that
dammit you really *are* the promised messiah, and
you too can enjoy those same benefits of ill-paid
idleness that some poor fools bust their asses for
50 years to attain. (It's easy once you know how.)
But hey, it could be worse: I could stab your ass
in the employee cafeteria for telling people I'm
"not wrapped too tight", or maybe show up after I
get fired (for trying to buttfuck the mail boy in
the men's room, most likely) with that precious
artillery collection that I saved $50 out of every
paycheck for 'cuz I just knew the whole job thing
was a Satanic setup and by god I'll make everybody
sorry that I ever passed a piss test.
Every Republican whiner out there who hollers at
me to "Get a job!" is obviously trying to curse
the rest of you -- because you certainly wouldn't
catch HIM spending 40 hours a week around a loony
like me. He'll be safe in the (locked) executive
lounge, while you ordinary "working stiffs" will
worry about my stress levels even more than I do
till you live in constant fear that I might never
get the flu too bad to get out of bed.
As for you non-managerial types who think I should
be spending 52 workweeks a year one cubicle over
from you, I advise you to quit your jobs and apply
for mental disability: your stupidity, your lousy
judgment and your obvious death wish are all the
qualifications you need to be a hands-down shoo-in
for the Afflicted Psyche Stipend (just like ME).
And just think: if everybody quit taking real jobs
and so paid zip in payroll deductions I might very
well have an easy time losing my 15 extra pounds!
And hell, maybe some day you'll wise up enough to
overthrow the government (as I've been telling you
all along) and then I'll REALLY be up shit creek!
In closing, I'll leave you with the following hint:
if working is so great howcum Jonah doesn't do it?
Chortlingly,
TheDavid(TM)
P.S. Hello, Johnny Favorite (it means "bunghole
full of wisdom teeth")!
P.P.S. I had one 20-minute nap since noon yesterday,
apparently cheap wine and cold pills are just
empty calories these days, but at least I did
manage to walk up to that church basement for
free grits without getting into any trouble --
although I probably should practice restaining
myself from guffawing at what high-IQ coeds wear
on their feet these days, unless they're trying
to qualify for the Speedwalking-While-Peering-
Anxiously-Over-Your-Shoulder-At-The-Wildeyed-
Smelly-Bum Olympic event on purpose.
- --
"...Like glass breaking, and falling onto a rather vulgar plate."
..................................................................
Send tribute to: David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOL1lXhz40he1RakNEQJBlgCg4OFRnCYToleq1oH4TnVVNR1enjYAoIg3
WFVyFDFSVDGJ0T+X+GL/ej+U
=JfK8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Bellyup rumbled:
[...]
> I could do without this computer especially, given how much time I'm
> wasting in idle chatter.
Hey, "how can I miss you if you never go away?"
> Not that I bought it. My boyfriend built it for me.
Uh-huh. And what did you do for him that it's a reward for, hmmmmm?
> (Yes I am a chick, just to satisfy the curiosity of all you Bellyup
> fans out there.)
Bellyup...Bellyup... Oh, I get it! You mean you're a FLAT-BACKER!
So when you're not working hard at your precious employment you're
still a real hard worker -- and if you follow the old tradition of
working on the boss I'll bet you don't get many coffee breaks, huh.
> If you really want to talk about inequality, , I find that physical
> attractiveness is more of an indicator of how far we get in life than
> not, particularly if you're a woman. Not a complaint nor a boast.
> Just what seems to be a fact.
Of course it helps that you can cross your knees behind your head while
moaning "Oh studboy, it's so big! Oh split me open, studboy!", right?
(If you're REALLY good at that you don't even need TITS, right Layo?)
The
P.S. Your local Department of Public works is complaining that if you
don't go back to wearing out the sidewalks downtown late at night
the city will start raffling off its cement wagons and they'll be
unemployed. What's wrong with you? Think of all their children!
P.P.S. Your verbal skills are so inferior to Matisse's that you can
keep your jpegs private. (Hi Pinky!)
- --
"...Like glass breaking, and falling onto a rather vulgar plate."
..................................................................
Send tribute to: David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOL1rxhz40he1RakNEQLNIACfRv/JYWHgPzwf3rjc6x2CtwvIGDcAni9V
BreDfASZzwILvNxyocNIH8oF
=0yHg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Melia A. Kenny
On 1 Mar 2000, pinkorangered wrote:
> In article <38BD1631...@ameritech.net>, mat...@ameritech.net opined
> thusly:
>
> >Any study of the U.S. system shows that it was designed to benefit certain
> >groups over others. The schools are the best example of this.
>
> Explain.
That would be virtually impossible to do given that the fact of disparity
is hardly evidence of a government design to that effect. It is, however,
evidence of a number of peripheral societal factors that come into play in
the arena of public education.
Micaiela
>Micaiela writes:
>
>>Jyeshta wrote:
>
>>>(And I'll just mention, because I think the anti-abortionists
>>>are abhorrent hypocrites
>
>>Have you seen _Citizen Ruth_?
>
>Nope.
>
>>Great flick. Does a spectacular
>>job of making both sides of the abortion war look like
>>hypocritical fools.
>
>In what ways? I'll try to catch the film if I can.
It's long gone from theaters, but you can rent it if you've got
access to a non-mainstream video store.
>The reason I said that is that the anti-abortionists are
>(as a political faction, although there have to be a
>lot of individuals who don't fit the mold) pro-death
>penalty, and right-wing. The right-wingers are against
>the taxes for social programs which are necessary to
>support all those kids once they're born, like public
>education, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they're against
>government regulations on industry to curtail environmental
>damage. So while they're screeching about being "pro-life",
>they couldn't care less what happens to a kid once it's
>born, nor about all the species that are wiped out daily
>by deforestation and pollution.
Ah, so you've met my mom.
>I know you already know all of that, but I'd be interested
>to know about the hypocrisy of the pro-choice side, since
>that's something I don't know about.
Well, the premise of the whole thing is: young drug addict gets
pregnant, find herself being wooed by the pro-lifers and counter-
wooed by pro-choicers, none of whom seem to care as much about
what she wants as what sort of political mileage they can get out
of her. Lots of cash is offered up, the media is hyper involved,
and no one behaves 'honorably.' Now that I think about it, the
point may have been to highlight general human selfishness more
than to construct a solid argument against either side of the
abortion debate. Mostly it was just freaking hilarious. Burt
Reynolds plays an evengalist.
Melia
> matisse said, among other things:
>
> >EVERYONE is equal.
That's one of the most naive things ever written in this news group. Do we
have some sort of a prize for that?
Jyeshta
Well, if you vote Republican (which it sounds like),
beware, because one of these days one of them will
manage to repeal Roe v Wade. With the tax cuts they
like to talk about, there will be a lot more hungry
kids around. And you'll only end up funding the
obligatory prison-on-every block once those kids
reach puberty (by then it'll probably be 3rd grade).
Oh! Nevermind -- the prison industry will be privatized
too, I'll bet. Why miss a chance to make a buck? You
could probably get in on the ground floor -- build
a prison now -- you could probably get a government
grant from the small business administration to do it.
--
Melia
On 1 Mar 2000, Jyeshta wrote:
> Well, if you vote Republican (which it sounds like),
Wrong. The right to reproductive choice is reason enough to make me vote
democrat in presidential elections. Other than that, libertarian. HTH!
> beware, because one of these days one of them will
> manage to repeal Roe v Wade.
You really ought to read for a while before you post. No one is a greater
defender of reproductive rights than I am, hence my intolerance for those
with unwanted or unplanned children.
With the tax cuts they
> like to talk about, there will be a lot more hungry
> kids around. And you'll only end up funding the
> obligatory prison-on-every block once those kids
Prisons are full of nonviolent drug offenders. If you really want to
diminish the prison problem, you'll pressure congress to legalize, or at
least decriminalize, drug offenses. Violent and white collar criminals get
off easy. It's the (generally) poor people who get caught for drug
offenses that get to rot in prison.
> grant from the small business administration to do it.
And freeload? Nah.
Pookiehead2
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.21.000301...@shell2.bayarea.net...
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, matisse wrote:
>
are speaking
> > about?
>
> You can ask. I would say it's anyone who gets something for
> nothing. That's the standard definition. I generally try to use those.
>
> > Intellegence=morality(protestant work ethic)= wealth.
>
> Intelligence, but actually...
>
> Working+Education/Skill=Prosperity of varying degrees
>
> > Again, please enlighten. I have no clue
>
> That much is patently obvious, kiddo.
Intelligence = Weapons of Mass Destruction, (those homeless people in a
shelter didn't design these toys nor did valueless sloths on the dole,
and you can be certain that the uneducated played no role unless they
cleaned restrooms) + Ego x Greed(jingoism)(hatred) - morality
We have weapons designed to butcher many humans in the shortest possible
time. We have weapons designed with such accuracy that it is
practically unbelievable. Now we can deliver a two thousand pound bomb
within a few blocks of where we intend it land, from miles away.
Weapons, like designer drugs, made for their unique qualities, methods
of delivery, and severity of symptoms, are praised for their destructive
perfection. Who are designing these things? Scientists such as these
need to put in asylums, and cared for away from society, so they can
live out their days, in less ignoble pursuits. Who pays for this shit?
We can make people go into nervous spasms until their hearts explode
while they choke to death. We have gasses that literally absorb all the
oxygen from the air. The victims suffocate to death. Isn't that a cute
idea? And we have bacteriological warfare to fill in the scenario. We
can make peoples stomachs explode. We can literally begin a chain
reaction of rotting from the inside out. Cops are so well armed and
trained that they have been killing innocent people. I'm not interested
in racial overtones, it is the word innocent that troubles me.
We have capital punishment even though it's a fact that some innocent
have been killed by the state. Again it's the word innocent that causes
me some remorse. I don't have the faintest idea why innocent people
are numb to the idea that it could be oneself that is wrongly found
guilty. We must value killing the innocent person less than we value
killing the guilty. Revenge is ugly no matter what the reason, and
sometimes people have very good reasons, but if they act on it, they
will be charged with murder. State sanctioned homicide is revenge as
well. Therefore, if the government can kill for revenge, then why can't
ordinary citizens do the same. A person like Timothy McVeigh understood
that if the state can kill, so could he. Timothy McVeigh was the
nemesis of the perpetrators for the Waco, Texas slaughter. Fittingly,
he was trained by the government as an explosives expert.
As long as intelligence is used by some to perpetrate atrocities on
their fellow man, while the rest of us remain apathetic, and are willing
to pay for homicide and mass murder, at other people's discretion, I
find it difficult to accept intelligence as a virtue in and of itself.
matisse
"Melia A. Kenny" wrote:
I was sloppy, i was only referring to education. I tend to do that at times, as i
am mostly concerned with education, the great equalizer!
matisse
"Nathan D. Marsh" wrote:
> In article <89i43n$k68$1...@panix6.panix.com> g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) writes:
> >state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
> >to the Constitution.
>
> You dipshit. "Life, liberty," etc. is from the Declaration of
> Independence, which may be interpereted as a non-binding statement of
> principles.
>
i am the dipshit. I should have made it clear that it wasn't the constitution.
>
> The Constitution has this to say:
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
> establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> Lookee! "Welfare", right there in the preamble! I guess y'all are
> stuck with your "freeloaders"!
>
<laughter>
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
> matisse wrote in message <38BD2088...@ameritech.net>...
> >If you make so little, then you get most of what you pay into the system
> back. I
> >did my taxes the other day, and after getting the earned income credit, i
> ended
> >up getting almost 80 percent back.
>
> This is you don't know anything about investment. Let's say you get to keep
> even half of what you will be paying in social security (prime money sink
> for low-income fools like us) for the rest of your life. If you that and
> invested it into one of the most unprofitable areas of investment
> available--government bonds--you'd be getting at least three times what
> you'd get from social security.
>
i use to have lots of bonds, but i had to cash them in to pay rent. if i had
money to invest, i would invest it. I made 9k last year, and i had thought of
using loan money to invest, but then i realized that i would most likely only
get screwed over worse by investing money that wasn't even mine to begin with
(my brother told me not to play with fire like that).
>
> I don't know about you, but I'd like to just cut out the middle man
> together.
>
I have no problem with giving the government my money. I don't really care about
money. As long as i have a warm place to sleep, some food, BEER and SMOKES, i
dont' care. I give away most of the money i make to begin with. I buy friends
gifts all the time, pay for dinners i can't afford.
Don't you see, i don't care about money. I would happily live in a commune if i
could find one that matched my aesthetically tastes.
>
> >Besides, dear, capitalism needs a surplus unemployed army. It is essential
> to is
> >basic functioning.
>
> What does this have to do with anything? Even if this were true (please
> back up your facts, m'am), I doubt _everyone_ would be crazy enough about
> work to be employed.
If this is what you would like, i can easily get a reference, but i thought
references would just be offensive. Besides, i always thought that this was
basic micro-economics.
> You have Thoreau, you have your Johnny Appleseeds,
> etc. I have no qualms with them, and in fact, I haven't found the pursuit
> of material items all that fulfilling (aside from Diet Coke and
> nice-smelling soap...oh the decadence!) I could do without this computer
> especially, given how much time I'm wasting in idle chatter.
>
> Not that I bought it. My boyfriend built it for me. (Yes I am a chick,
> just to satisfy the curiosity of all you Bellyup fans out there.)
>
I knew you were a chick, it is the boys that never recognize chicks. They are
stupid, just so you know.
>
> If you really want to talk about inequality, , I find that physical
> attractiveness is more of an indicator of how far we get in life than not,
> particularly if you're a woman. Not a complaint nor a boast. Just what
> seems to be a fact.
I think there is some truth to this. More tellingly, however, isn't so much the
attractiveness of the person in general, but how they look in general, the
clothes they are wearing, etc. Cultural capital is more important in the end,
not how *cute* someone is.
DP
matisse
pinkorangered wrote:
> In article <38BD1631...@ameritech.net>, mat...@ameritech.net opined
> thusly:
>
> >Any study of the U.S. system shows that it was designed to benefit certain
> >groups over others. The schools are the best example of this.
>
> Explain.
Do you have like 40 hours? Tell ya what, this weekend, i will go through some
stuff and write up a condensed version of some notes i have. I did teach the
history of american education for 5 years, richard, so if you really want
information, i have tons of it.
>
> >If we were to actually try to make things run better, those in power, those
> >trying to make things run better, would be worse off.
>
> So you said. But underpin this with facts and argument!
>
O.K. when i have the time. Unlike you fucks, i actually have no computer access
when i am at work. And i am way too tired right now to discuss anything.
> >DP
>
> What is this DP? Have you finally seen the sense in adopting my code for post
> content?
darling pinko, stop with your crap, would you please. Can we have a normal
conversation for like 10 minutes?
Who knows, you might find that it is /more/ amusing.
DP
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Melia wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, matisse wrote:
>
> > IS david a freeloader?
>
> Yes, but he's using the system as it allows him to do so.
Oh I see. So what would you have me do instead? I ain't never
been much pluck at collecting education and work experience,
which for all practical purposes means a life of crime would
be my only option -- and since I can't even get away with jay-
walking anymore I'd soon wind up dead or in prison (and prison
is expensive, as well as another form of "free-loading"). Hell,
I don't even have the option (since "de-institutionalization")
of being committed for a long time to a mental hospital 'cuz
it'd cost too much to keep me there -- and thanks to the media
campaign after Hinckley's little debacle I could eject a few
bullets at some random politician and the best I'll get is a
"guilty but mentally ill" verdict, which mean I'd be kept in
a state hospital (at public expense) until I was "cured" and
then sent to prison for a long long time. I'll bet you also
think pan-handling and sleeping in doorways counts as "free-
loading" too huh, as would finding a rich patron/ess who likes
'em "weathered".
So let's see: the only thing I'm suited for that requires lots
of effort and that wouldn't wind up costing the taxpayers even
more money is a short crime spree followed by "suicide by cop",
which given my temperament and personal predispositions would
probably involve tedbundying for fun and profit. (You want to
volunteer? No? Didn't think so. So why wish it on other women?)
And to think that -- thanks to the taxpayers -- I've spent the
past several years secluding myself in tiny dingy rooms and only
letting my "inner demon" out to play on Usenet where it doesn't
really hurt anybody. As you'd obviously count that as "something
for nothing", I guess at least in your case (and Bellyflopper's)
chicks really DO jerks!
Sheesh, NOW youse tell me. "Support 'welfare reform'! America
NEEDS more knife-wielding weirdos victimizing women!"
The
- --
"...Like glass breaking, and falling onto a rather vulgar plate."
..................................................................
Send tribute to: David, P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOL3lwxz40he1RakNEQJTtgCgsLS0KtAMaexXS8BR9JuZ8XROkl4AoKpa
QoLzzjbS8OdeyiysIlAsZFQ3
=SI//
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bellyup
'David O'Bedlam' wrote in message ...
>> Not that I bought it. My boyfriend built it for me.
>
>Uh-huh. And what did you do for him that it's a reward for, hmmmmm?
Since it was given to me as I gift, _I_ was the one doing the rewarding.
Psst....I smothered him with kisses and said thank you. Sometimes my
lewdness surprises even me!
>Bellyup...Bellyup... Oh, I get it! You mean you're a FLAT-BACKER!
>So when you're not working hard at your precious employment you're
>still a real hard worker -- and if you follow the old tradition of
>working on the boss I'll bet you don't get many coffee breaks, huh.
I don't have a boss. Bosses as a rule tend to be...bossy. I prefer giving
orders...
That'll be decaf, you sassy thing, you.
>Of course it helps that you can cross your knees behind your head while
>moaning "Oh studboy, it's so big! Oh split me open, studboy!", right?
Aha, so that's how it's done! I always wondered what's exchanged during
those touching B-movie moments.
>(If you're REALLY good at that you don't even need TITS, right Layo?)
Maybe she was just "board"?
>P.S. Your local Department of Public works is complaining that if you
> don't go back to wearing out the sidewalks downtown late at night
> the city will start raffling off its cement wagons and they'll be
> unemployed. What's wrong with you? Think of all their children!
Why walk when you can post your penis size on usenet and advance
prostitution to the next level of technology?
>P.P.S. Your verbal skills are so inferior to Matisse's that you can
> keep your jpegs private. (Hi Pinky!)
Now that's funny.
Bellyup
Melia wrote in message ...
The devotion of the resentful proletariat generally comes to mind.
pinkorangered
>
>pinkorangered (pinkor...@nospam.newsguy.com) wrote:
>> A bad idea implemented efficiently still has to be preferable to a bad idea
>> implemented inefficiently.
>
>this is where we trot out the Holocaust one more time.
for shock value, you may, but it reduces your argument to emotive.
>you think governments just do prosaic things like employ bureaucrats
>and build nuclear submarines. you're wrong.
thanks for telling me what I think, I almost forgot.
>> But this 90% linchpin of your argument is remarkable.
>
>what i was saying was illustrative, not precise.
But if it reduces to 49% your argument flips out of phase, so it's sorta
important.
pinkorangered
>Do you have like 40 hours? Tell ya what, this weekend, i will go through some
>stuff and write up a condensed version of some notes i have. I did teach the
>history of american education for 5 years, richard, so if you really want
>information, i have tons of it.
Don't do it on my account, my interest is only passing and my attention span
short. It just seemed lame to make a bold statement without anything
underneath it.
>darling pinko, stop with your crap, would you please. Can we have a normal
>conversation for like 10 minutes?
I am. The question stands - you're sposed to just brush off the sarcasm like
excess sugar off a donut.
>DP
Hmm. I'll spare you the trite acronyms.
Matthew R. Sheahan
> In article <38bd3...@nntp2.nac.net>, ch...@crystal.palace.net raved...
> > pinkorangered (pinkor...@nospam.newsguy.com) wrote:
> > > A bad idea implemented efficiently still has to be preferable to a bad
> > > idea implemented inefficiently.
> > this is where we trot out the Holocaust one more time.
> for shock value, you may, but it reduces your argument to emotive.
um, no. it's just a really good example of a bad idea which is not
improved by being implemented efficiently.
> > you think governments just do prosaic things like employ bureaucrats
> > and build nuclear submarines. you're wrong.
> thanks for telling me what I think, I almost forgot.
glad to be of service. your first sample there is free, but if you want
to know how you feel as well, that's going to cost you.
> > > But this 90% linchpin of your argument is remarkable.
> > what i was saying was illustrative, not precise.
> But if it reduces to 49% your argument flips out of phase, so it's sorta
> important.
yeah, but i really don't see any danger of that. your argument about
every idea being good for some and bad for others can easily be turned
on its head to assert that an idea is bad if it's bad for anyone --
and that's probably a good idea. after all, one of the actual useful
functions of government is protecting minorities from the whims of the
majority. a focus on this feature is one of the positive side effects
of having your government designed by Freemasons, actually.
chiaroscuro
pinkorangered
[holocaust]
>um, no. it's just a really good example of a bad idea which is not
>improved by being implemented efficiently.
Well obviously that's a matter of perspective and you've chosen the example
that conjures *almost* universal contempt and regret. But the axle on which
this argument swings is this ratio of good to bad ideas and how they are
defined and measured, and you dodged that line altogether. Do you suppose that
more than half of voters consider more than half of government function to be
ill-conceived and ill-executed?
>your argument about
>every idea being good for some and bad for others can easily be turned
>on its head to assert that an idea is bad if it's bad for anyone --
Then why not do the converse and concede that any idea which is good for some
is good per se? Because not only is it dumb, it would screw up your argument.
A profiterole pyramid can be turned on it's head but that doesn't make it
logical, useful or even tasty.
matisse
desnos wrote:
> matisse wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to do so, and it
> > never will.
>
> Overheard in a coffee shop about a discussion of racism and the equalizing myth of
> education:
>
> Black woman: the policeman who pulls me over just because I'm black doesn't know
> that I have a JD...
> --
>
> There's also this thing called "cultural capital" that people forget about. It
> isn't just money, it's all the social connections, conventions, knowledge and other
> things that are passed down through family and community life.
>
And cultural capital is essential to succeeding in schools and in life, as your story
shows. It is rather sad.
J
matisse
Melia wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, matisse wrote:
>
> > EDUCATION DOES NOT EQUALIZE. It never has, it wasn't constructed to do so, and it
> > never will.
>
> Applied education does.
Care to explain to me what applied education is and how it equalizes? When i think of
applied education, i think of either using your education or i think of vocational
education.
J
matisse
jonah thomas wrote:
> matisse <mat...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >Bellyup wrote:
> >> matisse wrote in message <38BC7454...@ameritech.net>...
>
> >> >You seem to have a problem with freeloaders. Might i ask whom you are
> >> >speaking about?
>
> >> Naivete alert! Somebody's been in school too long!
>
> >So i guess it is safe to assume that you aren't going to enlightenment me
> >and save me from my stupidity?
>
> Probably.
>
> >I mean, i thought asking what a freeloader was was a reasonable enough
> >question.
>
> >I really don't know.
>
> >Jet, would you please explain this to me, as this ass would rather be a
> >pinko than an actual human being?
>
> There isn't much to explain. What you're looking at is a conflict of
> ideologies.
I hate to be pedantic, but there is only one ideology at work here, johan.
Liberalism. The differences are differences in perspective within the same
ideology.
matisse
Melia wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Pookiehead2 wrote:
>
> > Without Social Security, many retired folks would have starved to death.
> > Not everyone's retirement benefits were as well developed. Others had
> > their retirement benefits raided by the corporations they worked for.
> > Why do people believe in the honesty of corporations? Those who do, are
> > suckers.
>
> I'm not talking about corporations. I am talking about starting young,
> from the first time you ever get a job, and saving for retirement. Do you
> think social security will be there when you retire? I'm 29, and I sure
> as hell don't. The people who think we can fund it indefinitely are the
> ignorant ones, or the suckers, as you call them.
>
The largest growing sector in the economy is the service sector. (my data is
from 94) Now, most people in the service sector (those who work at Taco Bell,
etc) do make "decent" money, about 7 bucks an hour. Now times that by full
time employment, and do these people have money to save for retirement?
>
> Check your history books. It was never intended to be an on-going
> program, as anyone can now see it should not be. However, the AARP is much
> too powerful a lobby to allow it to fall, and politicians quake,
> understandably, as soon as the AARP shakes its mighty, wrinkled arms.
The old in this country are poor beyond belief. After single mothers and
children, it is our elderly that our poor. It isn't that they didn't save for
retirement, it is rather that they are out living their retirement savings.
Supposedly, the female teens right now may live to the average age of 105.
This means that we will have to work till we are about 80 to save for
retirement. Have any idea how expensive heath care is for the elderly?
If i was in government, one of the first things i would do is un-privatize
senior care. Before saying immediately that the government would do a shitty
job of taking care of the elderly, let me say that my county's nursing home is
one of the best in the area. it is able to provide good care at a responsible
price.
It makes me sick how we screw over the seniors in this country. To even think
that someone would be willing to make money off someone's else death! I just
read about these new investment plans where people buy other people's life
insurance policies. It began with the AIDS epidemic, when it became clear to
many of these dying dears that they had no family to leave the policy to. So
they sold it back for money to pay off immediate medical expenses, etc. I
guess the system is under major scrutiny at this time, but the thought of it
just sickens me.
To screw seniors for money is sick and a sign of just how fucking sick our
society is.
It would be wonderful to cut out the middle man, but as long as a certain
sector of our population makes around poverty level income, pulling out the
net will only cause worse misery than there already is.
About 2 years ago, i learned that about 60 percent of the population makes
under 40k a year. If this still holds true, we have a lot of people just
getting by, as these earners do have families to support, etc.
It is true, most people are about 3 months away from being poor.
J
matisse
pinkorangered wrote:
> In article <38BDC7AE...@ameritech.net>, mat...@ameritech.net raved...
>
> >Do you have like 40 hours? Tell ya what, this weekend, i will go through some
> >stuff and write up a condensed version of some notes i have. I did teach the
> >history of american education for 5 years, richard, so if you really want
> >information, i have tons of it.
>
> Don't do it on my account, my interest is only passing and my attention span
> short. It just seemed lame to make a bold statement without anything
> underneath it.
>
It was stupid for me to assume that many here would have a basic sociological
understanding of how things work. Sorry about that, i just figured that people
here were bright enough to understand how race, class and gender effect social
outcomes and the inner workings of the system. I hate to be pedantic, so i assume
to much. Sorry.
Let me just say this: the public school movement was first support by Horace MAnn.
He began his work in Mass. In any case, at the time, there was fear about those
stupid, dirty Irish, who seemed to have more allegiance to the Pope than to their
new country. When they first started to come over in droves (1820-30s), the old
timers were scared and feared these new comers were stupid and incapable of
self-government, for they lived in slums and appeared dirty, spoke funny, etc. The
churches tried to provide some schooling to the children of these immigrants,
thereby getting them off the streets (for cities were developing at this time,
nothing like what was to happen 100 years later, but).
So Mann got this brilliant idea, lets have public schools. He began with the
elementary school, and its sole task was to teach the "common elements," supposed
principles that all religions could agree on. Of course this led to the creation of
Catholic schools, as any reasonable person could see that the common elements were
WASP principles. I would give you a list, but i hate to be too pedantic. In any
case, "industrial morality" was a key element in the teachings, and all the
readers used at the time, were protestant, christian readers, that were to impart
good Puritan work ethic principles.
Part of the problem was that industrialization was beginning to occur(i am only
talking about Massachusetts, remember). The older workers were use to being crafts
men, thereby they weren't use to having to work for others. Mann came up with the
ingenious idea that if we taught these worker's children such things as
punctuality, high regard for authority, etc. that their children would be better
workers, and we could thereby create greater wealth. Mann was the first to call
the schools the great equalizer, but what he had in mind wasn't equalization. he
told the poor that their children would be able to move up the social ladder with
school, while telling the capitalists that they would have better factory workers.
What Mann failed to tell people was that the wealthy could send their children on
to private academies (high schools) or employ tutors. These schools weren't
designed to educate the wealthy, but rather to give the poor the proper training to
be good, docile workers. (As an interesting side, MAnn structured many of his ideas
off of the Prussian school system, including the doctrine of the "pedagogy of
love," whereby teachers would use affection to "mold" and "manipulate" the proper
behaviours in the children (almost a direct quote).)
Public high schools were Mann's next movement, and by 1880 public high schools were
throughout the North. Now, while some towns had laws requiring students to attend
these schools, most children did not attend high school until it became a universal
law around 1920. And of course the children that did have such an opportunity to
attend such schools were the middle class. This really cemented the "cultural
capital" and biased functionings of the schools to benefit middle class america.
At the turn of the century, when industrialization, urbanization and immigration
had fermented itself into the landscape to such a degree that crime, poverty, and
tension between the classes reached ungodly levels, this other guy Eliot came on
the scene. Now Eliot too was a Harvard guy, and in fact, he helped to put in place
the attempt to have "neutral" admissions at colleges (which Conant was later to
really do with the development of the ACT). In any case, Eliot had four major
purposes for schools: meritocracy, equal educational opportunity, employable
skills, and social stability. This is how he used these terms: everyone was going
to "have an opportunity to an education most appropriate to their 'life work'"
(this is a direct quote), and teachers were to decide when the children were
around 11 what this education would be. This would be meritocractic because the
differentiation of curriculum was to be based on ability and life prospects. By
providing such a differentiated education, we would be able to create social
stability by training each group for their destine place within society as a whole
(and Eliot loved talking about it in terms of destiny. For it was at the time that
Germany was building itself into Nazism, and an organic notion of society was the
dominate perspective on things almost everywhere). At the time, unions were
beginning to form, and the socialist party was born and really began to have a
strong effect on politics. In any case, Eltio too was going to instil "industrial
morality" into the group that was to be the workers of society. By convincing them
that that was their natural place in the hierarchy (which they were to come to do
by way of standardized tests (the U.S. army developed IQ tests during WW 1 to
differentiate between who would be capable of being a leader and who wouldn't), and
by teaching them "industrial morality," they were to solve the worker strife and
put an end to anti corporate sentiments. This is the place where Intelligence,
morality and wealth came to be directly link.
Interestingly enough, the tests used were completely biased, but these tests did
validated the people's established belief system, whereby the darker races (the new
immigrants from southern and eastern europe) were "proved" to be stupider and
incapable of self-government. Interestingly enough, Eliot's movement was the social
efficiency movement, whereby centralization of decision making firmly took root and
the ideology of an "expert" run society fermented itself.
And it is this ideology that gives birth the the military industrial complex (with
the help of Conant in education in the 50s and 60s).
To be more accurate, let me pull out the major ideological tenets at work here so
you can see what the ideology is doing given the socio-historical context. I said a
bunch about classical liberalism in my post about Jefferson and the American
Dreamland. What wasn't said was this. Our forefathers had "faith in reason," in
the ability of the common man to reason. Now while even Jefferson didn't believe in
the blacks ability to reason, or women, he did believe that those who were deemed
unable to reason in the old feudal system could in fact reason. For the first time
in history, it was believed that poor, white men could in fact become
self-governing. I mention this because i tend to think that Jefferson, while the
aristocrat that he was, was in fact less racist then many seem to believe
(evidence, wait for a friend of mine to publish his book). Unlike Madison,
Jefferson believed that poor white men could in fact reason, and when he tried to
set up the first public school system, he wanted scholarships for poor boys, so
that we could have a meritocracy. In any case, with MAnn, our faith in reason
begins to change. People did not think the Irish could reason, and with the
pedagogy of love, many believed that Virtue wouldn't come about through proper
functioning reason, but rather through "instilling" and "training." Education no
longer was the aim of schooling, it was rather "training."
In any case, when we get to the Progressive era, and the social efficiency
movement, belief in reason is almost non-existent (I'm talking about roughly
1890-1950). The only people deemed capable of reason are WASPS, and not even all of
them, just those with money, as thanks to our Protestant heritage, the chosen can
be seen through the signs of wealth. In other words, as these new immigrants were
different, darker in colour, dirty, uneducated, it was perceived that their bad
living conditions, well some of them, were the result of their inability to be
Moral and Rational beings. In other words, their capacity for self-government was
put into question, thereby resulting in a shift in the notion of reason. With
Jefferson, and classical liberalism, there was faith in the common "mans" ability
to reason. This was called into question by three dominate changed: (1) a
realization that our scientific results were only as good as our methods (thereby
putting faith in reason into question, i.e. death of God), (2) that some people
didn't seem to be as moral or as capable as others (thereby leading to the
development of SOcial Darwinism and IQ tests which proved this,) and (3) with the
change from faculty psychology (the mind is a muscle that needs to be exercised
and filled), we get the understanding that our brian isn't a muscle as we once
thought, but rather that we are only capable of doing what we are trained to do (no
transfer of learning, thereby justifying a differentiated curriculum).
What this all led to was a change in the notion of reason, in terms of who could
reason, and how reason can be best achieved, etc. For instance, prior to this time
period, everyone that went to school (a very small number of privileged children)
were taught the same thing. Since the mind was seen as a muscle, it was believed
that through its exercise and training, reason could be our natural guide (with
innate moral sense, of course). During the turn of the century, however, this all
came into question, and we not only lose faith in reason as man's most natural
guide, but we begin to question if different capacities for reason might account
for the radically different social conditions between people. In other words, one
explanation for the giant rich/poor gap during the Progressive era (like today)
wasn't that some were more educated than others, or that some were part of the "old
boys network," but it was rather that one's monetary success was supposedly
directly correlated with one's reasoning ability. The reason why the "new
immigrants" lived in such immoral conditions was not due to urbanization or
industrialization, per say, but rather due to their own inability to take care of
themselves.
And with the development of theories to explain these inequalities (Social
Darwinism and IQ tests proving that those with the money in fact are more
intelligent (well functioning meritocracy), we begin to see the development of
modern liberalism, which is to justify expert and bureaucratic control. Because of
social Darwinism, and because of the realization that conclusions are only as good
as our methods, the free market approach to ideas was deemed unreliable, and
instead, specially trained experts were needed to guide the masses, i.e. experts as
arbitrators of reason. Furthermore, since morality was historically linked to
reason, the experts would also be in charge of providing the masses with civic
morality, as reason no longer was the natural guide to moral behaviour.
What this all translates into is simple: their are radically differences in
ability, and because we need to retrain society into accepting new types of work,
the schools could be an efficient mechanism through which social stability could be
achieved. not only would the schools attempt to match students with their probable
destiny, but schools would provide students with the civic morality they would need
to fill these positions. What this translated into was using the vocational track
to help get further workers to accept their positions. This translated into the
schools training the vocational kids in "obedience" and "acceptance" of their
future positions, while training the higher level kids in the same classical
curriculum they had deemed unworthy.
Jeanne Oakes ( 84) shows in her work the different moral systems that are present
in the different track levels in the high schools. The higher levels are treated as
capable of being self-govering, while the lower track kids are seen as disruptive
and in need of obedience. The high group gets morals required for management, while
the lower gets morals required for being followers.
In short, tracking (differentiated schooling) comes to be justified by an elaborate
system whereby democracy comes to mean meritocracy and rule by experts, whereby
access to high status knowledge is going to be limited. In other words, reason,
freedom, and progress undergo such marked shifts that equal education comes to mean
differentiated schooling, whereby only a small percent get access to high-status
knowledge and training. ANd unless everyone has access to such knowledge, it is
hard to imagine that an actual meritocracy is at work, for the very knowledge
essential to doing well on the SAT/ACT etc. is limited to only a small group of
students. Interestingly enough, until very recently, African American's attended
Vocational schools, where almost no "high status" knowledge was even be taught.
Interestingly, this system has not changed since the progressive era. In the 60s,
however, theorists began to wonder why certain populations do markedly worse than
others. Critical theorists came about (since marxism was still popular) that began
to ask, "why do whole groups of peoples do systematically worse than others." This
is the question that many modern educators are concerned with, and it is the
question that has given birth to bilingual education and multiculturalism. (i of
course avoid these educators/academics as much as fucking possible!)
Last thing i am going to say, in the 60s, these grave inequalities were explained
away in terms of certain students having "inferior" intelligence. In the 70s, they
started to see their "culture" and "home" life as inferior, whereby their failure
was the result of having dysfunctional, inferior home lives, whereby then, it was
the result of their inferior culture.
It has only been in the last 15 years that people have started to wonder if maybe
it isn't due to some inherent defect in the child or in the child's culture, but
rather in how the schools are in fact structured. If you look at American schools,
minorities tend to be in the lower tracks, and african americans tend to score 200
points lower on the SAT then do their white counterparts.
The point of all of this crap, the schools were never designed to have meritocracy,
equal chances, because we never saw people as being equal. We thereby gave certain
groups access to high status knowledge, while attempting to "train' the rest to be
good, obeying citizens.
This discussion completely ignores the history of Afrain American education in the
South, and that in itself is very worthy of being looked at, as African Americans
were seem as inferior (and still are by many), and their education (thanks to
Washington) was to be solely in "industrial morality." The first black colleges,
especially Tuskegee, were to train teachers to teach "industrial morality," whereby
they weren't even concerned with giving them real vocational skills, but rather
with instilling the work ethic.
Enough bullshit for one morning.
DP
matisse
Bellyup wrote:
All i am going to say is this: when Justice is at issue, everyone must be seen
as equal.
Do i really think everyone is equal? Hell no! Of course not. Now that would be
stupid. It doesn't take a genius to see that many people are shitty readers and
thinkers. Where they born this way? Hell no. Where some maybe born with the
right ears? Possibly.
Since you used one of my favourite words, i am going to go off on yet another
tangent since i am manic and my mind just seems to be stuck in crappy pedantic
bullshit.
The thing about ressentiment is that while many see MArxism as brilliantly
capturing what ressentiment really is, it in fact is one of the weaker versions
of this awful disease that came about with Christianity. In fact, those who
only think with their Ego stuck out in front of themselves, those unable to
place some general Goal above their own particular interests, those are in fact
the most ressentiful because they fall into the trap of separating the "I" from
the "we" to such an extent that they come to see everything that isn't what
they want as an attack on their rights, etc.
In any case, it has been a pleasure having a discussion with both of you lovely
ladies, as there is no discussion taking place.
If and when you decide to actually make a point and run an argument, let me
know, it would be fun to have an actual discussion with brilliant minds such as
yourself. Until then, just remember, attacks that work against someone like
Pinko would never work against someone such as myself.
The only words i take seriously are one's that don't feel like spit balls being
thrown at me. I mean, really, girls, you have to have a brain in there
somewhere, why don't you show it to us?
or are you too busy enjoying your sweet soaps?
DP
--
The unreflective life isn't a life worth living
sollilja
> The point of all of this crap, the schools were never designed to have meritocracy,
> equal chances, because we never saw people as being equal. We thereby gave certain
> groups access to high status knowledge, while attempting to "train' the rest to be
> good, obeying citizens.
This isn't entirely true. Within each school system, students are
generally treated as equal, where everyone must follow the same
course, whether it is too hard or too easy. For poorer school
districts, it is difficult to find teachers who want to go there, and
the students often do not have the same support from their families.
Regardless of their original design (as in, regardless of the original
design of the Bill of Rights, &c) the country has been changing, most
notably since the 1960s, and equality has a greater push. The pull
down is the seemingly stagnant low-income status of minorities.
Affirmative action tries to be a fix all, and though its intentions
are good, it does fails in many respects to achieve its design. Other
programs that target the problems directly would probably have better
results, and people are working towards this. I don't think it is
wrong to train people differently, according to ability, but the
course should not be determined by economic status/color.
Vocational training is not something to look down on either. High
school students should be thinking about what they are working
towards.. what kinds of jobs are out there, what they want to do. It
is so often the case that the vocational schools are a subdivision for
the "dumb kids," which is ridiculous. Americans tend to be
overeducated, accumulating lots of debt in the process. It would be
nice to see work and school more integrated, and the structure of the
public schools tuned to help students follow the path of their choice.
Jyeshta
>Jyeshta wrote:
>>Micaiela writes:
>>
>>>Jyeshta wrote:
>>
>>>>(And I'll just mention, because I think the anti-abortionists
>>>>are abhorrent hypocrites
>>
>>>Have you seen _Citizen Ruth_?
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>>Great flick. Does a spectacular
>>>job of making both sides of the abortion war look like
>>>hypocritical fools.
>>
>>In what ways? I'll try to catch the film if I can.
>It's long gone from theaters, but you can rent it if you've got
>access to a non-mainstream video store.
I'd love to. We'll see, so far I can't seem to get a
working VCR.
>>The reason I said that is that the anti-abortionists are
>>(as a political faction, although there have to be a
>>lot of individuals who don't fit the mold) pro-death
>>penalty, and right-wing. The right-wingers are against
>>the taxes for social programs which are necessary to
>>support all those kids once they're born, like public
>>education, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they're against
>>government regulations on industry to curtail environmental
>>damage. So while they're screeching about being "pro-life",
>>they couldn't care less what happens to a kid once it's
>>born, nor about all the species that are wiped out daily
>>by deforestation and pollution.
>Ah, so you've met my mom.
Wow, really? Well, visits home must be fun. (kidding)
>>I know you already know all of that, but I'd be interested
>>to know about the hypocrisy of the pro-choice side, since
>>that's something I don't know about.
>Well, the premise of the whole thing is: young drug addict gets
>pregnant, find herself being wooed by the pro-lifers and counter-
>wooed by pro-choicers, none of whom seem to care as much about
>what she wants as what sort of political mileage they can get out
>of her. Lots of cash is offered up, the media is hyper involved,
>and no one behaves 'honorably.' Now that I think about it, the
>point may have been to highlight general human selfishness more
>than to construct a solid argument against either side of the
>abortion debate. Mostly it was just freaking hilarious. Burt
>Reynolds plays an evengalist.
Yes, thanks, I see the general point. It's true, the so-called
good guys (from my perspective) do pull a lot of manipulative
stunts. Usually, they're just as bad as the bad guys when
it comes to the means of reaching their goals. An example
would be Ted Kennedy (a Democrat) trying to trap Timothy
Leary into making a damaging statement regarding the use
of LSD in the '60s. Leary always said that black market
LSD was a danger and considered LSD, properly and legally
used, a powerful therapeutic tool in psychology. I'm getting
a little off track from the topic, but I do see what you mean.
Gail
>Mica
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Jyeshta
>"Nathan D. Marsh" wrote:
>> In article <89i43n$k68$1...@panix6.panix.com> g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) writes:
>> >state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
>> >to the Constitution.
>>
>> You dipshit. "Life, liberty," etc. is from the Declaration of
>> Independence, which may be interpereted as a non-binding statement of
>> principles.
>i am the dipshit. I should have made it clear that it wasn't the constitution.
I should have known or remembered, but I didn't. 'Dipshit' is
Mathan Swamp's wholly subjective projection. As my own best judge,
I can emphatically say that, while I may use numerous and varied epithets
with which to describe my failings, 'dipshit' has never, nor will
ever, be among them.
--
matisse
sollilja wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:05:18 -0600, matisse wrote:
>
> > The point of all of this crap, the schools were never designed to have meritocracy,
> > equal chances, because we never saw people as being equal. We thereby gave certain
> > groups access to high status knowledge, while attempting to "train' the rest to be
> > good, obeying citizens.
>
> This isn't entirely true. Within each school system, students are
> generally treated as equal, where everyone must follow the same
> course, whether it is too hard or too easy. For poorer school
> districts, it is difficult to find teachers who want to go there, and
> the students often do not have the same support from their families.
>
That isn't the case at all. If you actually look at what the students are learning, they
are learning radically different things. Most schools have at least 3 different tracks,
the honours, regular and vocational/basic. This is the norm across the nation, and in
many places, there are more tracks then this. Myhigh school had 5 different tracks, and
many in the lower two tracks barely achieved functional literacy.
>
> Regardless of their original design (as in, regardless of the original
> design of the Bill of Rights, &c) the country has been changing, most
> notably since the 1960s, and equality has a greater push. The pull
> down is the seemingly stagnant low-income status of minorities.
> Affirmative action tries to be a fix all, and though its intentions
> are good, it does fails in many respects to achieve its design. Other
> programs that target the problems directly would probably have better
> results, and people are working towards this. I don't think it is
> wrong to train people differently, according to ability, but the
> course should not be determined by economic status/color.
>
My dream would be to see all children at least trying to learn everything. We have
always assumed that many people aren't capable of calculus. It is hard to say that there
are radical differences in ability when we have never tried to see if this in fact is the
case.
>
> Vocational training is not something to look down on either. High
> school students should be thinking about what they are working
> towards.. what kinds of jobs are out there, what they want to do. It
> is so often the case that the vocational schools are a subdivision for
> the "dumb kids," which is ridiculous. Americans tend to be
> overeducated, accumulating lots of debt in the process. It would be
> nice to see work and school more integrated, and the structure of the
> public schools tuned to help students follow the path of their choice.
Two things: (1). are 16 year olds capable of determining what it is they want to do with
the rest of their life when many of us approaching 30s here still have no clue? and (2)
the most useful training we could give anyone is a liberal arts education that teaches a
wide range of skills. In fact, there was a major study on vocational education done
about 6 years ago. They found that the skills most employers want from their future
employees are skills that a liberal arts education would give them (i am talking about
vocational type jobs). Of course the only students to really receive such an education
are those in the higher tracks.
Wouldn't be more economical and wouldn't it make more sense if we just taught everyone
almost the same stuff and then let them go on for further training after high school?
This isn't what the schools are doing.
All i know is that there are too many high school graduates that aren't even functionally
literate. This disturbs me greatly.
sollilja
>>"Nathan D. Marsh" wrote:
>>> >state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
>>> >to the Constitution.
>>>
>>> You dipshit. "Life, liberty," etc. is from the Declaration of
>>> Independence, which may be interpereted as a non-binding statement of
>>> principles.
>I should have known or remembered, but I didn't. 'Dipshit' is
>Mathan Swamp's wholly subjective projection. As my own best judge,
>I can emphatically say that, while I may use numerous and varied epithets
>with which to describe my failings, 'dipshit' has never, nor will
>ever, be among them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed..."
This non-binding statement of principles became the Constitution (forming the
structure of a new government, and the Bill of Rights). The philosophy behind
the two is the same; the wording is different as the documents served different
purposes. The Declaration of Independence is as binding as people choose.
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."
Pookiehead2
desnos <des...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:38BD4B68...@my-deja.com...
She couldn't get along with the doctors.
> She hated being talked down to by them, and would bristle whenever it
happened. It
> was that -- her "attitude" -- which kept her from succeeding in that
environment.
>
I couldn't have been due to class distinctions in our "classless"
society. One's value as a human being cannot be measured with labels,
judgments, and criticism.
In some ways it is a shame that modern Americans have not experienced
war on our own soil. Many distinctions become blurred when survival is
paramount. The maid may be the one who saves the master's life. Class
distinction falls on it's face, except where there is coddling comfort.
Her "attitude," probably came from experience with those who are at home
with class distinctions.
Several years ago an Hispanic man who worked for me invited me to his
home. I was pleased to be invited because he saw that class
distinctions were not an operative part of my being. When I entered his
home his family members looked at me as if I was an alien. His family
was very cordial to me, in a sincere way. One talent he had that I
hadn't recognized before, was his ability to diagnose illnesses, and he
could prescribe appropriate action for that illness. When I commented
on this ability he said with a casual manner that because they were poor
they didn't have the luxury of running to the doctor whenever there was
a fever, cold or upset stomach. It was up to a family member to
determine what type of illness one of the others had, and if it required
professional medical attention, otherwise remedies that had been passed
down from the previous generation were applied.
I've never had a problem dealing with those who perceived themselves as
the upper class in our society. Those invitations meant very little to
me, but this invitation meant a great deal to me because he allowed me
to cross the barrier of poverty, knowing that I would not be judgmental,
and critical of him and his family. When he entered the military, I
lost touch with him. It was my loss.
Pookiehead2
sollilja <pol...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0k5tbs827fvht015c...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:05:18 -0600, matisse wrote:
>
> This isn't entirely true. Within each school system, students are
> generally treated as equal,
The Denver, school system is currently a blight against equality and
proper education. The disparity between the inner city schools and
those schools in outlying areas should be a criminal offense. The
efforts of a few dedicated teachers are the only reason these inner city
students have supplies for school projects, because the teachers buy
these materials themselves. To properly envision this imagine a school
without one computer for students. No remodeling or upkeep done on the
buildings since the sixties. These schools look more like prisons than
institutions designed to instill the will for education.
>
I don't think it is
> wrong to train people differently, according to ability, but the
> course should not be determined by economic status/color.
>
Affirmative Action was not simply a determinant for who was given a job
or education because of economic status/color; it was reparation both
because of rightly felt guilt by some, and because the minorities had
been deliberately held back by the majority, and when the majority
couldn't legally hold them back any longer, the majority did what they
could to put road blocks in the way of the minorities advancement. It
is pure propaganda to refer to Affirmative Action in the manner
expressed in this post. It ignores the existence of one of the most
reprehensible periods in American history. I realize that I'm not the
brightest apple to fall far from the tree, but I can be an impassioned
one; which I must say seems to be quite lacking in some of the posts
except when feeling passionate about self pity or when rewriting
history.
sollilja
> sollilja wrote:
> That isn't the case at all. If you actually look at what the students are learning, they
> are learning radically different things. Most schools have at least 3 different tracks,
> the honours, regular and vocational/basic. This is the norm across the nation, and in
> many places, there are more tracks then this. Myhigh school had 5 different tracks, and
> many in the lower two tracks barely achieved functional literacy.
This is a different failure than one that would imply "tracks are
bad." What it says to me is that the teachers in the lower tracks
don't care (or got there because of incompetence), and that resources
are directed away from the lower tracks, with the idea of having
quotes for the school "so-and-so many graduates went to Harvard."
> > Regardless of their original design (as in, regardless of the original
> > design of the Bill of Rights, &c) the country has been changing, most
> > notably since the 1960s, and equality has a greater push. The pull
> > down is the seemingly stagnant low-income status of minorities.
> > Affirmative action tries to be a fix all, and though its intentions
> > are good, it does fails in many respects to achieve its design. Other
> > programs that target the problems directly would probably have better
> > results, and people are working towards this. I don't think it is
> > wrong to train people differently, according to ability, but the
> > course should not be determined by economic status/color.
>
> My dream would be to see all children at least trying to learn everything.
EVERYTHING? This is ludicrous.
School is important for a few basic things: "reading, writing, and
arithmetic," no? Aside from that, it should be focused on teaching
people how to think for themselves, and how to learn on their own.
> We have
> always assumed that many people aren't capable of calculus. It is hard to say that there
> are radical differences in ability when we have never tried to see if this in fact is the
> case.
Everyone who wants to learn calculus should have the opportunity.
However, some (most) people have no use for calculus.. it is a subject
they do not want to study. Why force people to learn something for
which they have no use? How often do look at an integral table in
daily life? Why stop with calculus? How do people get by without an
appreciation for abstract algebra? Theoretical astrophysics?
> > Vocational training is not something to look down on either. High
> > school students should be thinking about what they are working
> > towards.. what kinds of jobs are out there, what they want to do. It
> > is so often the case that the vocational schools are a subdivision for
> > the "dumb kids," which is ridiculous. Americans tend to be
> > overeducated, accumulating lots of debt in the process. It would be
> > nice to see work and school more integrated, and the structure of the
> > public schools tuned to help students follow the path of their choice.
>
> Two things: (1). are 16 year olds capable of determining what it is they want to do with
> the rest of their life when many of us approaching 30s here still have no clue?
Why don't you have a clue? Has remaining in school helped you in this
regard? It doesn't seem so.
This also isn't set in stone. Exploring your options tends to be the
best way to find out what you like.
> and (2)
> the most useful training we could give anyone is a liberal arts education that teaches a
> wide range of skills.
Hopefully, a liberal arts degree teaches people to be critical, to
interpret their environment, to think, write and speak clearly. People
shouldn't have to pay for college to attain this.. it should be the
goal of high school.
> In fact, there was a major study on vocational education done
> about 6 years ago. They found that the skills most employers want from their future
> employees are skills that a liberal arts education would give them (i am talking about
> vocational type jobs). Of course the only students to really receive such an education
> are those in the higher tracks.
Again, this is a failure of the system as a whole, not specifically of
"tracks."
> Wouldn't be more economical and wouldn't it make more sense if we just taught everyone
> almost the same stuff and then let them go on for further training after high school?
> This isn't what the schools are doing.
Not at all. Usually people are 18 by the time they graduate high
school. Why waste so much time for smarter people who want to advance?
Why waste so much time for people who already know what they want to
do, and can start learning skills which are relevant to their living?
> All i know is that there are too many high school graduates that aren't even functionally
> literate. This disturbs me greatly.
This is a separate issue.
People should be literate before junior high or middle school. Wiping
out the track system in high school would not solve this problem at
all.. in fact, it would probably make it worse.
People do have different learning abilities, and "equality" has no
place here, aside from offering everyone the same opportunities and
the same right to a basic education. Schools should serve this
function, as they should serve the function of guiding people into a
track for which they are best suited.
People don't have "educators" following them around their entire lives
to make sure they are getting it "right" (replete with a little star
by their name). Education is a starting point, upon which people build
their lives. Basic skills that seem essential to functioning (english,
math), as well as an appreciation for the way the world functions
(history and science) should be part of everyone's education. Aside
from that, schools should provide a good bouncing board into life.
Yes, everyone should be literate. But, no, absolutely, no.. not
everyone should be required to learn calculus. If the school system
were functioning properly, people should feel that they graduate with
a sense that they are prepared to move on to the next step in their
lives, whatever that may be.
pinkorangered
>> Don't do it on my account, my interest is only passing and my attention span
>> short. It just seemed lame to make a bold statement without anything
>> underneath it.
>>
>
>It was stupid for me to assume that many here would have a basic sociological
>understanding of how things work. Sorry about that, i just figured that
people
>here were bright enough I hate to be pedantic, so i assume
>to much. Sorry.
The matronising self-righteous preamble is generally not a useful device for
capturing the attention and interest of your readers - may I suggest you ditch
it from your dis?
Incidentally not all this group is north american, so your social problems and
the history of your education system is not self evident to all of us. Also,
not everybody is interested enough to "understand how race, class and gender
effect social outcomes and the inner workings of the system" to the degree you
deem mandatory, any more than you've interested in how a carburettor or
the futures market works.
All that education and social conscience, and you're still too arrogant to
answer my question. I guess it's not your fault; I'll put it down to a lack of
education funding.
I found your essay interesting, informative and relatively readable.
Jyeshta
>In article <89mde1$t1v$1...@panix6.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...
>>>"Nathan D. Marsh" wrote:
>>>> >state that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, according
>>>> >to the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> You dipshit. "Life, liberty," etc. is from the Declaration of
>>>> Independence, which may be interpereted as a non-binding statement of
>>>> principles.
>>I should have known or remembered, but I didn't. 'Dipshit' is
>>Mathan Swamp's wholly subjective projection. As my own best judge,
>>I can emphatically say that, while I may use numerous and varied epithets
>>with which to describe my failings, 'dipshit' has never, nor will
>>ever, be among them.
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
>they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
>these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
>rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
>the consent of the governed..."
>This non-binding statement of principles became the Constitution (forming the
Oh really? I should have known (and I guess I did). Surprising
what old neurons can retain in spite of themselves.
>structure of a new government, and the Bill of Rights). The philosophy behind
>the two is the same; the wording is different as the documents served different
>purposes. The Declaration of Independence is as binding as people choose.
>"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
>is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
>Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
>in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
>Happiness."
--
sollilja
> In <89moeb$o...@drn.newsguy.com> sollilja <pol...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >This non-binding statement of principles became the Constitution (forming the
>
> Oh really? I should have known (and I guess I did). Surprising
> what old neurons can retain in spite of themselves.
I think it is good that people confuse the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution. The latter is supposed to be the implementation
of a philosophy, and when the government fails to live up to those
words, it is the right and the duty of its people to correct matters.
Of course, America is much more complicated these days.
matisse
sollilja wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:35:50 -0600, matisse wrote:
> > sollilja wrote:
>
> > That isn't the case at all. If you actually look at what the students are learning, they
> > are learning radically different things. Most schools have at least 3 different tracks,
> > the honours, regular and vocational/basic. This is the norm across the nation, and in
> > many places, there are more tracks then this. Myhigh school had 5 different tracks, and
> > many in the lower two tracks barely achieved functional literacy.
>
> This is a different failure than one that would imply "tracks are
> bad." What it says to me is that the teachers in the lower tracks
> don't care (or got there because of incompetence), and that resources
> are directed away from the lower tracks, with the idea of having
> quotes for the school "so-and-so many graduates went to Harvard."
>
I don't think it is because teacher in lower tracks don't care. We have expectations about what
lower track students are capable of, and as long as we see them as incapable of doing higher
track work, they will never get out of the lower track.
People seem to believe that tracks are for the different paces of the students, different
abilities, etc. They were supposedly designed to do this, but the problem is that we perceived
certain peoples are as having different abilities. In other words, the schools never were
structured for this to be the case. It shouldnt' be surprising that minority students and
lower class whites end up in the lower tracks. That is after all how we originally tracked. We
looked at what their parents did for a living and placed their children in the appropriate
track.
Bowles and Gintis (two political theorists) did a study some years back, and they found that
appearances was just as big a factor in placement as anything else.
And i can tell you from experience that this holds to be the case. That damn "cultural capital"
thing plays out everywhere. When i was a sophomore, i had an honours day (my school rewarded
students with good GPS with a blow off day). I went up to my art teacher, and asked him to sign
the necessary paper work. He laughed at me and said, you can't be an honours student. I was
very punked out at the time and i did hang out with all the burn outs in art class. Becky,
one of the supposed worst students in my class, was in fact one of the most brilliant people i
have ever met. She spent her last two years of high school at an alternative school for gifted
but troubled children. Luckily someone recognized her intellect, but most teachers took one
look at her and wrote her off as stupid.
I had a similar experience with many teachers throughout high school. My only saviour was that
they couldn't give me bad grades when i was doing well on test. Needless to say, i surprised a
lot of teachers. They had me read as stupid and a loser, when i was just a loser.
>
> > > Regardless of their original design (as in, regardless of the original
> > > design of the Bill of Rights, &c) the country has been changing, most
> > > notably since the 1960s, and equality has a greater push. The pull
> > > down is the seemingly stagnant low-income status of minorities.
> > > Affirmative action tries to be a fix all, and though its intentions
> > > are good, it does fails in many respects to achieve its design. Other
> > > programs that target the problems directly would probably have better
> > > results, and people are working towards this. I don't think it is
> > > wrong to train people differently, according to ability, but the
> > > course should not be determined by economic status/color.
> >
> > My dream would be to see all children at least trying to learn everything.
>
> EVERYTHING? This is ludicrous.
>
Maybe, but i would like to see us at least give it a try. Until the 1920s, students always
learned the same things. It worked for centuries, but as soon as more and more population
groups began to enter the schools, the curriculum became more and more diluted.
>
> School is important for a few basic things: "reading, writing, and
> arithmetic," no? Aside from that, it should be focused on teaching
> people how to think for themselves, and how to learn on their own.
>
What equates into being illiterate? Moses (a civil rights activist from the 60s) has been
going around this country with his "algebra project." he realized that most students do not get
to do algebra in junior high (thereby creating disparities in ability that will remain
throughout high school). And with our technologically driven economy, he sees algebra and
calculus as being essential aspects of what it means to be literate. I tend to agree with him.
>
> > We have
> > always assumed that many people aren't capable of calculus. It is hard to say that there
> > are radical differences in ability when we have never tried to see if this in fact is the
> > case.
>
> Everyone who wants to learn calculus should have the opportunity.
> However, some (most) people have no use for calculus.. it is a subject
> they do not want to study. Why force people to learn something for
> which they have no use? How often do look at an integral table in
> daily life? Why stop with calculus? How do people get by without an
> appreciation for abstract algebra? Theoretical astrophysics?
>
The point of doing calculus is to learn how to think in different ways. it isn't so much that
the information will be applied, it is rather that it helps one see things differently. In
other words, it may be an essential subject to learning how to think.
>
> > > Vocational training is not something to look down on either. High
> > > school students should be thinking about what they are working
> > > towards.. what kinds of jobs are out there, what they want to do. It
> > > is so often the case that the vocational schools are a subdivision for
> > > the "dumb kids," which is ridiculous. Americans tend to be
> > > overeducated, accumulating lots of debt in the process. It would be
> > > nice to see work and school more integrated, and the structure of the
> > > public schools tuned to help students follow the path of their choice.
> >
> > Two things: (1). are 16 year olds capable of determining what it is they want to do with
> > the rest of their life when many of us approaching 30s here still have no clue?
>
> Why don't you have a clue? Has remaining in school helped you in this
> regard? It doesn't seem so.
>
I do have a clue. I want to teach, but i am not sure i want all the bullshit that will come
with it.
>
> This also isn't set in stone. Exploring your options tends to be the
> best way to find out what you like.
>
Yes, and many times vocational programs "train" you for one thing as opposed to "educating"
you, whereby you can apply your learning to a variety of situations.
>
> > and (2)
> > the most useful training we could give anyone is a liberal arts education that teaches a
> > wide range of skills.
>
> Hopefully, a liberal arts degree teaches people to be critical, to
> interpret their environment, to think, write and speak clearly. People
> shouldn't have to pay for college to attain this.. it should be the
> goal of high school.
>
Yes, exactly my point.
>
> > In fact, there was a major study on vocational education done
> > about 6 years ago. They found that the skills most employers want from their future
> > employees are skills that a liberal arts education would give them (i am talking about
> > vocational type jobs). Of course the only students to really receive such an education
> > are those in the higher tracks.
>
> Again, this is a failure of the system as a whole, not specifically of
> "tracks."
>
I'm not so sure about that. It would be hard to imagine us having tracks that were free from
the consequences of lower expectations.
>
> > Wouldn't be more economical and wouldn't it make more sense if we just taught everyone
> > almost the same stuff and then let them go on for further training after high school?
> > This isn't what the schools are doing.
>
> Not at all. Usually people are 18 by the time they graduate high
> school. Why waste so much time for smarter people who want to advance?
> Why waste so much time for people who already know what they want to
> do, and can start learning skills which are relevant to their living?
>
Education as a waste of time? I am not saying that advanced students can't work at a faster
pace, all i am saying is that all children should be taught the same subject matter. And there
is no reason why they have to be tracked to do this --besides the fact that we tend to believe
this and that it would be easier on the teachers.
The class i taught for 5 years had freshman through seniors in it. It was difficult at times to
teach to such a wide ranging group of studnets (though they are the supposed cream of the
crop). But i actually found it more rewarding to deal with a variety of ability groups. And at
the end of the semester, most were doing the quality of work their "higher ability" peers were
doing, and the higher ability peers were doing significantly better work. I believed that they
all were equally able, and any teacher that goes into a classroom believing otherwise is going
to create radical differences in ability.
>
> > All i know is that there are too many high school graduates that aren't even functionally
> > literate. This disturbs me greatly.
>
> This is a separate issue.
>
Not really. It is the result of "tracking." The different track levels are correlated with
different levels of literacy. (fine, oakes)
>
> People should be literate before junior high or middle school. Wiping
> out the track system in high school would not solve this problem at
> all.. in fact, it would probably make it worse.
>
I am thinking that students should be critically literate, and i doubt children are ready for
such before high school.
It isn't that the tracking system should be wiped out, per say, it is rather that we need to
rethink our assumptions about ability and expectations. "Mixed ability grouping," whereby
students within the same classroom work at their own level, is still tracking, however, it is
tracking more like in the real world. And studies have found (Bigelow, Oakes) that mixed
ability grouping does not negatively effect the success of the higher track students, but it
does positively effect the self-esteem and performance of lower track kids. This is counter
intuitive because one argument used in favour of tracking is that the lower track students will
feel more stupid if surrounded by more "able" peers. No studies have found this to be the
case. (this is putting a lot of faith in sociology)
>
> People do have different learning abilities, and "equality" has no
> place here, aside from offering everyone the same opportunities and
> the same right to a basic education. Schools should serve this
> function, as they should serve the function of guiding people into a
> track for which they are best suited.
>
And who's to say what they are "best suited" for? We already do this.
As to learning disabilities, in many cases, these are students with above average intelligence
(if there is such a thing) that just learn differently than everyone else. I am an LD kid. In
fact, out of the 7 major clusters on the test most often used, i score significantly below my
peers on 5 of them. I was never in LD classes because my elementary school didn't have any but
i did get extra help and had extra tutors, etc. for a good 6 years.
ANd if i can get this close to a PhD, at a very distinguished college, in a very highly
regarded program, i just cannot see why mainstreaming won't work for most cases.
Besides, if we look at who is deemed learning disabled, they are disproportionately minority
and low income. Again, is this because they have less ability or is it because of cultural
capital, cultural issues?
Is there only one way to learn, or are they multiple? And why do we seem to reward one way over
others?
every child learns differently, but as the schools are currently set up, they rewards certain
ways of learning over others. The students who don't fit the mould are thereby labelled
disabled. because i read things backwards, or say the last part of a sentence first (a habit
of mine), does this mean i am disabled, or could it also be that my mind just processes things
differently? Why is different disabled?
>
> People don't have "educators" following them around their entire lives
> to make sure they are getting it "right" (replete with a little star
> by their name). Education is a starting point, upon which people build
> their lives. Basic skills that seem essential to functioning (english,
> math), as well as an appreciation for the way the world functions
> (history and science) should be part of everyone's education. Aside
> from that, schools should provide a good bouncing board into life.
> Yes, everyone should be literate. But, no, absolutely, no.. not
> everyone should be required to learn calculus. If the school system
> were functioning properly, people should feel that they graduate with
> a sense that they are prepared to move on to the next step in their
> lives, whatever that may be.
Well, we will just go around in circles here. I see the primary function of public education to
be educating for citizenship, not for work. I have major problems with the economy driving the
schools. Economics should not be a major aspect of early education. The point of early
education should be to help children learn how to be self-sufficient, self-thinking beings.
And in my book, the curriculum that most allows for this is the one that includes calculus, the
one that only high ability students seem to be getting.
J
loosel...@my-deja.com
pinkor...@nospam.newsguy.com (pinkorangered) took out a marker
and wrote 'fuckhead' on his brow:
> The matronising self-righteous preamble is generally not a useful
device for
> capturing the attention and interest of your readers - may I suggest
you ditch
> it from your dis?
You deserved it. As usual.
> Incidentally not all this group is north american, so your social
problems and
> the history of your education system is not self evident to all of
us. Also,
> not everybody is interested enough to "understand how race, class and
gender
> effect social outcomes and the inner workings of the system" to the
degree you
> deem mandatory, any more than you've interested in how a carburettor
or
> the futures market works.
But they're more than happy to snipe at considered responses to
questions they posed. Understanding the dynamics of race, class and
gender shouldn't be so hard for you pinko. After all you come from a
country which has shat on it's native population from a great height
for most of it's (european history) while simultaneously shitting
itself about the 'yellow peril', which concentrates power in the hands
of a tiny elite and which has a culture of machismo that puts South
America to shame.
Can you say 'white australia policy' for us?
Or maybe you'd like to go with 'jew bar' again?
> All that education and social conscience, and you're still too
arrogant to
> answer my question. I guess it's not your fault; I'll put it down to
a lack of
> education funding.
A paragraph so whiny it doesn't deserve a response. What's the matter
Dick? You didn't like being bitch slapped by a girl?
---
Though of course you did ask for it...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jonah thomas
>What equates into being illiterate? Moses (a civil rights activist from the
>60s) has been going around this country with his "algebra project." he
>realized that most students do not get to do algebra in junior high
>(thereby creating disparities in ability that will remain throughout high
>school). And with our technologically driven economy, he sees algebra
>and calculus as being essential aspects of what it means to be literate. I
>tend to agree with him.
Calculus as it's taught today, no.
>The point of doing calculus is to learn how to think in different ways. it
>isn't so much that the information will be applied, it is rather that it helps
>one see things differently. In other words, it may be an essential subject
>to learning how to think.
Lots of people learned how to think before calculus got invented. I think
it could be useful, but the trouble is, it gets taught *rigorously*. When
Newton and Leibnitz first invented it, they were pretty intuitive and they
said some things that they couldn't justify. Over a long time people
figured out how to plug all the loopholes, they made it just exactly right
for what it claimed. So now they try to teach it and show how it's exactly
right, when most people would be better off just getting the ideas.
If we taught algebra that way we'd be doing far more rigorous proofs. If we
taught geometry that way it would take at least 8 years to cover the topic
worth anything. If we taught arithmetic that way hardly anybody would
master arithmetic before high school. We don't explain exactly what
arithmetic means and how it works, we just show kids how to do it. If we
wanted to teach calculus that way we could put about half of it into grade
school. Likewise algebra/trig.
And it would take a lot of the mystery out of economics. Economists tend to
describe things with calculus just because it's cool and looks scientific
and the result is *mystifying*. They'd do better to use the parts of
control theory they could do without calculus -- but they don't. If
everybody who got through grade school could see that they're missing the
point they might do better.
The immediate problem is that primary school teachers tend to not understand
calculus themselves (since it doesn't get taught well). The "New Math"
showed us that it's no good trying to get stuff into the curriculum that the
teachers don't understand. It's a chicken-and-egg problem.
>And in my book, the curriculum that most allows for this is the one that
> includes calculus, the one that only high ability students seem to be
>getting.
Calculus is a high-prestige item. If everybody learned calculus then
something else would become the high-prestige item. Chaos theory or
whatever. You can't keep people from having extra topics they do for
prestige. The more you teach to everybody, the more esoteric the extra
stuff would get. That isn't a bad thing, though.
Matthew R. Sheahan
> blow off day). I went up to my art teacher, and asked him to sign the
> necessary paper work. He laughed at me and said, you can't be an honours
> student. I was very punked out at the time and i did hang out with all
> the burn outs in art class.
i had the same thing going on. after i took the ACT and word got around
about it, i had people coming up to me in the hallway congratulating me
and telling me about how surprised they were because they always assumed
i was stupid.
this great revelation also got me a spot on the academic competition teams.
then my mild-mannered fascist of a principal told me i wouldn't be allowed
to participate in state-level events, which only one other student from my
school even made it to, unless i cut my hair. fucker.
> What equates into being illiterate? Moses (a civil rights activist from
> the 60s) has been going around this country with his "algebra project."
> he realized that most students do not get to do algebra in junior high
> (thereby creating disparities in ability that will remain throughout high
> school). And with our technologically driven economy, he sees algebra and
> calculus as being essential aspects of what it means to be literate. I
> tend to agree with him.
i am the poster boy for the technologically driven economy, and at first
glance i never use calculus. (i use algebra continuously.) so i disagreed
with you until you wrote this...
> The point of doing calculus is to learn how to think in different ways. it
> isn't so much that the information will be applied, it is rather that it
> helps one see things differently. In other words, it may be an essential
> subject to learning how to think.
...which is another matter. i never use the technical tools of calculus;
i use the manners of thinking which i learned from it every waking moment
and consider them immeasurably valuable.
i would consider that less a matter of basic literacy, though, and more
to do with being a reasonably functional human being.
i do agree with you that enabling people to become reasonably functional
human beings is what education should be about, and i also agree with you
that it's about the last thing the American school system has on its mind.
i'm certainly not going to do anything about that -- i'm staying as far
away from public schools as i can get, and am really bad at teaching
anyone anything in the first place (very impatient) -- so if you're going
to, i wish you tons of luck.
you might want to consider alternatives to trying to change the system
from inside, though. that seems to mostly produce crumpled husks of
once-spirited teachers. and from the few "teacher education" materials
i've seen, the amount of doublethink required to survive the crushing
political correctness pressure would keep you from having any spare time
to think about your own goals.
the first thing that comes to mind is, of course, private schooling,
which in the typical model would be even worse for your purposes since
it means you only teach the privileged in the first place. maybe if you
had a different model; for instance, maybe if you hit up a lot of people
like me who have the same views on education as you do but don't have the
time or inclincation to do anything about it themselves, you could get
together a bunch of money to set up a free private school with entrance
by lottery or something.
of course, unless some of those people gave you _lots_ of money, the
fund-raising and administration would probably be several full-time jobs
and you wouldn't be able to actually teach. unless you hired yourself a
professional administrator to run the business end, which would generally
involve handing over control to that person, at which time they would
immediately begin corrupting the whole project away from the ideals it
was founded on.
i dunno, it's a tough one. i suppose if it were easy it would've been
done.
chiaroscuro
sollilja
> sollilja wrote:
> I don't think it is because teacher in lower tracks don't care. We have expectations about what
> lower track students are capable of, and as long as we see them as incapable of doing higher
> track work, they will never get out of the lower track.
>
> People seem to believe that tracks are for the different paces of the students, different
> abilities, etc. They were supposedly designed to do this, but the problem is that we perceived
> certain peoples are as having different abilities. In other words, the schools never were
> structured for this to be the case. It shouldnt' be surprising that minority students and
> lower class whites end up in the lower tracks. That is after all how we originally tracked. We
> looked at what their parents did for a living and placed their children in the appropriate
> track.
You are pointing to problems in the way the tracks are formed and
managed. That the system has problems does not mean that the solution
is to put everyone together.
> > > My dream would be to see all children at least trying to learn everything.
> >
> > EVERYTHING? This is ludicrous.
>
> Maybe, but i would like to see us at least give it a try. Until the 1920s, students always
> learned the same things. It worked for centuries, but as soon as more and more population
> groups began to enter the schools, the curriculum became more and more diluted.
How has the world changed since the 1920s? How is the economy and job
market different? Was high school mandatory in the 1920s?
> > School is important for a few basic things: "reading, writing, and
> > arithmetic," no? Aside from that, it should be focused on teaching
> > people how to think for themselves, and how to learn on their own.
>
> What equates into being illiterate? Moses (a civil rights activist from the 60s) has been
> going around this country with his "algebra project." he realized that most students do not get
> to do algebra in junior high (thereby creating disparities in ability that will remain
> throughout high school). And with our technologically driven economy, he sees algebra and
> calculus as being essential aspects of what it means to be literate. I tend to agree with him.
Algebra to calculus is a big jump. In between people study
trigonometry, geometry, mathematical proofs, limits and functions, &c.
I don't think literacy = calculus.
There should be a basic curriculum for everyone; however, the
curriculum as a whole should incorporate and allow for differences,
not only in learning ability, but in students' desire for learning.
> The point of doing calculus is to learn how to think in different ways. it isn't so much that
> the information will be applied, it is rather that it helps one see things differently. In
> other words, it may be an essential subject to learning how to think.
Weren't you saying that people learn in different ways? Why should
everyone be forced to think within a mathematical paradigm?
> > > Two things: (1). are 16 year olds capable of determining what it is they want to do with
> > > the rest of their life when many of us approaching 30s here still have no clue?
> >
> > Why don't you have a clue? Has remaining in school helped you in this
> > regard? It doesn't seem so.
>
> I do have a clue. I want to teach, but i am not sure i want all the bullshit that will come
> with it.
If you were more aware of the bullshit before throwing money into the
program, would you have made the same choice? Why not incorporate
experience with education?
> > This also isn't set in stone. Exploring your options tends to be the
> > best way to find out what you like.
>
> Yes, and many times vocational programs "train" you for one thing as opposed to "educating"
> you, whereby you can apply your learning to a variety of situations.
You continue to confuse particular failures with the whole notion of
tracks. Because they fail in some respects does not mean that they
could not be improved upon. The theory behind tracks is solid and
beneficial. That the theory is implemented incorrectly suggests a
reworking of the system, not a reversion to some misguided notion of
equality. People have different abilities. Some people are good
artists, others naturally excel at sports, &c.
People's minds do work differently, and do learn differently.. why
snuff those differences in the name of equality?
> > > and (2)
> > > the most useful training we could give anyone is a liberal arts education that teaches a
> > > wide range of skills.
> >
> > Hopefully, a liberal arts degree teaches people to be critical, to
> > interpret their environment, to think, write and speak clearly. People
> > shouldn't have to pay for college to attain this.. it should be the
> > goal of high school.
>
> Yes, exactly my point.
Do you see how this could be accomplished within the track system?
> > Again, this is a failure of the system as a whole, not specifically of
> > "tracks."
>
> I'm not so sure about that. It would be hard to imagine us having tracks that were free from
> the consequences of lower expectations.
This is lack of imagination.
> > Not at all. Usually people are 18 by the time they graduate high
> > school. Why waste so much time for smarter people who want to advance?
> > Why waste so much time for people who already know what they want to
> > do, and can start learning skills which are relevant to their living?
>
> Education as a waste of time? I am not saying that advanced students can't work at a faster
> pace, all i am saying is that all children should be taught the same subject matter. And there
> is no reason why they have to be tracked to do this --besides the fact that we tend to believe
> this and that it would be easier on the teachers.
My situation: by the time I completed 10th grade, there were only 3
classes I could possibly take, aside from gym and home ec, &c. I was
bored in school and doubled up on classes to keep myself interested.
The summer before 11th grade I told my parents that I was going to
leave school as soon as I turned 16 in October. *Because my parents
were very supportive of me* I was able to take classes at a nearby
college, and continue with other classes at my high school. They had
to drive me around (rural area = 1 hour each way to the college) until
I was old enough to get a drivers license. If my parents had not had
the freedom or desire to help me, I would have been stuck in 5 study
halls a day or out of school. Yes, that was a waste of time, and would
have been any other way. From 7th grade on, my parents were in
constant battle with the administrators to let me advance at my own
pace. I'm glad they did, because I probably would have killed myself.
I never did graduate from high school, which hung over me in college
at times when I wanted to leave. High school dropout. Not so good.
> The class i taught for 5 years had freshman through seniors in it. It was difficult at times to
> teach to such a wide ranging group of studnets (though they are the supposed cream of the
> crop). But i actually found it more rewarding to deal with a variety of ability groups. And at
> the end of the semester, most were doing the quality of work their "higher ability" peers were
> doing, and the higher ability peers were doing significantly better work. I believed that they
> all were equally able, and any teacher that goes into a classroom believing otherwise is going
> to create radical differences in ability.
College is different than high school. Your experiences are not as
applicable as you would like to believe.
> > > All i know is that there are too many high school graduates that aren't even functionally
> > > literate. This disturbs me greatly.
> >
> > This is a separate issue.
>
> Not really. It is the result of "tracking." The different track levels are correlated with
> different levels of literacy. (fine, oakes)
You are misinterpreting the literature. You deduce from this
correlation that tracking in itself is to blame.
> It isn't that the tracking system should be wiped out, per say, it is rather that we need to
> rethink our assumptions about ability and expectations. "Mixed ability grouping," whereby
> students within the same classroom work at their own level, is still tracking, however, it is
> tracking more like in the real world. And studies have found (Bigelow, Oakes) that mixed
> ability grouping does not negatively effect the success of the higher track students, but it
> does positively effect the self-esteem and performance of lower track kids. This is counter
> intuitive because one argument used in favour of tracking is that the lower track students will
> feel more stupid if surrounded by more "able" peers. No studies have found this to be the
> case. (this is putting a lot of faith in sociology)
Mixed ability grouping, within the context of the way classrooms are
run now, is different than managing a multi-track single classroom.
You are talking about reworking the school system, which is fine, but
it is a reworking and requires complete overhaul.. retraining
teachers, &c. It could work quite well.
> > People do have different learning abilities, and "equality" has no
> > place here, aside from offering everyone the same opportunities and
> > the same right to a basic education. Schools should serve this
> > function, as they should serve the function of guiding people into a
> > track for which they are best suited.
> >
> And who's to say what they are "best suited" for? We already do this.
The students. By exploring their interests and options at an earlier
age, with guidance counselors functioning in non-comical roles.
> As to learning disabilities, in many cases, these are students with above average intelligence
> (if there is such a thing) that just learn differently than everyone else. I am an LD kid. In
> fact, out of the 7 major clusters on the test most often used, i score significantly below my
> peers on 5 of them. I was never in LD classes because my elementary school didn't have any but
> i did get extra help and had extra tutors, etc. for a good 6 years.
The extra help and tutors is similar to a track, in my mind.
> ANd if i can get this close to a PhD, at a very distinguished college, in a very highly
> regarded program, i just cannot see why mainstreaming won't work for most cases.
It wasn't just mainstreaming.
> Besides, if we look at who is deemed learning disabled, they are disproportionately minority
> and low income. Again, is this because they have less ability or is it because of cultural
> capital, cultural issues?
>
> Is there only one way to learn, or are they multiple? And why do we seem to reward one way over
> others?
>
> every child learns differently, but as the schools are currently set up, they rewards certain
> ways of learning over others. The students who don't fit the mould are thereby labelled
> disabled. because i read things backwards, or say the last part of a sentence first (a habit
> of mine), does this mean i am disabled, or could it also be that my mind just processes things
> differently? Why is different disabled?
Why is different the same? I'm talking about recognizing differences,
and helping people learn in a way that is most beneficial.
> > People don't have "educators" following them around their entire lives
> > to make sure they are getting it "right" (replete with a little star
> > by their name). Education is a starting point, upon which people build
> > their lives. Basic skills that seem essential to functioning (english,
> > math), as well as an appreciation for the way the world functions
> > (history and science) should be part of everyone's education. Aside
> > from that, schools should provide a good bouncing board into life.
> > Yes, everyone should be literate. But, no, absolutely, no.. not
> > everyone should be required to learn calculus. If the school system
> > were functioning properly, people should feel that they graduate with
> > a sense that they are prepared to move on to the next step in their
> > lives, whatever that may be.
>
> Well, we will just go around in circles here. I see the primary function of public education to
> be educating for citizenship, not for work. I have major problems with the economy driving the
> schools. Economics should not be a major aspect of early education. The point of early
> education should be to help children learn how to be self-sufficient, self-thinking beings.
> And in my book, the curriculum that most allows for this is the one that includes calculus, the
> one that only high ability students seem to be getting.
You were linking what employers want to education. What is early
education? High school? What is citizenship? You are going in circles
here. Education can be more than one thing. It should have basic,
essential goals, such as teaching people how to think and learn. As
students approach adulthood, they should also be discovering the world
in a way that will help them find their place.
Jennifer Faucher
matisse wrote:
>
> sollilja wrote:
>
> > Everyone who wants to learn calculus should have the opportunity.
> > However, some (most) people have no use for calculus.. it is a subject
> > they do not want to study. Why force people to learn something for
> > which they have no use? How often do look at an integral table in
> > daily life? Why stop with calculus? How do people get by without an
> > appreciation for abstract algebra? Theoretical astrophysics?
> >
>
> The point of doing calculus is to learn how to think in different ways. it isn't so much that
> the information will be applied, it is rather that it helps one see things differently. In
> other words, it may be an essential subject to learning how to think.
I'm afraid it isn't. Abstract algebra involves far more
interesting ways of thinking than calculus does.
High-school calculus classes are usually set up to get
people used to the mathematical rigor they'll need
in college-level classes. It's silly, because all you
need for the rigor is basic logic, which is something
you could easily teach kids in 3rd grade. There is
nothing special about the calculus itself, the way
it's usually presented. The focus is primarily on
methods, not insights. Memorizing and applying the
Chain Rule involves the same thinking skills as
long division.
NoOneYouKnow
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, matisse wrote:
> And cultural capital is essential to succeeding in schools and in life, as your story
> shows. It is rather sad.
I'm going to break this down for you as simply as I can:
Life isn't fair. It's not the government's job to make it fair.
Period.
This is another life lesson brought to you by REALITY.
sollilja
> the first thing that comes to mind is, of course, private schooling,
> which in the typical model would be even worse for your purposes since
> it means you only teach the privileged in the first place. maybe if you
> had a different model; for instance, maybe if you hit up a lot of people
> like me who have the same views on education as you do but don't have the
> time or inclincation to do anything about it themselves, you could get
> together a bunch of money to set up a free private school with entrance
> by lottery or something.
>
> of course, unless some of those people gave you _lots_ of money, the
> fund-raising and administration would probably be several full-time jobs
> and you wouldn't be able to actually teach. unless you hired yourself a
> professional administrator to run the business end, which would generally
> involve handing over control to that person, at which time they would
> immediately begin corrupting the whole project away from the ideals it
> was founded on.
>
> i dunno, it's a tough one. i suppose if it were easy it would've been
> done.
Cooper Union? College, not a high school, but same idea. This is an
excerpt from their blurb about adult education:
"These programs are the legacy of a tradition that began in 1858, when
Cooper's adult education program was the first of its kind to become
available at an American college. Worried about the growing problems
of social inequality and class division in New York City, Peter Cooper
hoped that his institution, strategically situated at the top of the
Bowery, would provide a meeting ground for the working and genteel
classes, the immigrant and native born. The galleries, public reading
room, exhibitions and collections would draw all levels of society,
yet would operate without an eye to commercial return."
No One You Know
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, matisse wrote:
> > >> matisse said, among other things:
> > >>
> > >> >EVERYONE is equal.
...and then...
> Do i really think everyone is equal? Hell no! Of course not. Now that would be
> stupid.
Ayup. But YOU said it.
> Since you used one of my favourite words, i am going to go off on yet another
> tangent since i am manic and my mind just seems to be stuck in crappy pedantic
> bullshit.
Ain't that the truth.
> In any case, it has been a pleasure having a discussion with both of you lovely
> ladies, as there is no discussion taking place.
That's because you can't seem to get anyone else's point, and you don't
provide any support for what you claim to be facts supporting your
position. That's a really limiting factor in a "discussion."
> The only words i take seriously are one's that don't feel like spit balls being
> thrown at me. I mean, really, girls, you have to have a brain in there
> somewhere, why don't you show it to us?
You first, kiddo. I'll be looking forward to it.
<pulls up a chair>
<pours a drink>
<lights a smoke>
<waits>
<waits>
<waits>
Nothing. I see.
No One You Know
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, sollilja wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2000 10:21:25 -0500, Matthew R. Sheahan wrote:
>
> > it means you only teach the privileged in the first place. maybe if you
> > had a different model; for instance, maybe if you hit up a lot of people
> > like me who have the same views on education as you do but don't have the
> > time or inclincation to do anything about it themselves, you could get
> > together a bunch of money to set up a free private school with entrance
> > by lottery or something.
They're called Charter Schools, and they are popping up all over the
country using a combination of federal, state, and private funds, but not
having to adhere to the same antiquated standards as their public
predecessors and "peers." Some are good. Some suck. But the most
successful ones, without any exception based on race or SES, have an
increased requirement for parental involvement as a condition of
admission. Success=Parental Involvement. What a concept.
matisse
NoOneYouKnow wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, matisse wrote:
>
> > And cultural capital is essential to succeeding in schools and in life, as your story
> > shows. It is rather sad.
>
> I'm going to break this down for you as simply as I can:
>
> Life isn't fair. It's not the government's job to make it fair.
>
> Period.
>
> This is another life lesson brought to you by REALITY.
I never said life was Fair, dear, never said it once. Life would be overly dull if it was
Fair, and i refuse arguments based on claims of Reality. They are kinda like backwards
looking arguments. One can support Hitler with them, and i would hate to see myself fall
into some REALITY where millions of innocent people are being slaughtered all because of
what you what to call REALITY.
It is the government's job, though, to ensure there is Justice, which is a semblance of
fairness in certain aspects of life. While there will always be biases, and there is no
such things as neutrality, it would be nice if laws and practices/processes applied a
little more equally.
Doesn't matter, no point going on about it.
DP
matisse
loosel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <89n5e...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> pinkor...@nospam.newsguy.com (pinkorangered) took out a marker
> and wrote 'fuckhead' on his brow:
>
> > The matronising self-righteous preamble is generally not a useful
> device for
> > capturing the attention and interest of your readers - may I suggest
> you ditch
> > it from your dis?
>
> You deserved it. As usual.
>
> > Incidentally not all this group is north american, so your social
> problems and
> > the history of your education system is not self evident to all of
> us. Also,
> > not everybody is interested enough to "understand how race, class and
> gender
matisse
sollilja wrote:
<snip, snip --no time, sorry>
>
> > > > Two things: (1). are 16 year olds capable of determining what it is they want to do with
> > > > the rest of their life when many of us approaching 30s here still have no clue?
> > >
> > > Why don't you have a clue? Has remaining in school helped you in this
> > > regard? It doesn't seem so.
> >
> > I do have a clue. I want to teach, but i am not sure i want all the bullshit that will come
> > with it.
>
> If you were more aware of the bullshit before throwing money into the
> program, would you have made the same choice? Why not incorporate
> experience with education?
Even if i knew before hand what i was getting myself in to, i would still be doing what i am doing.
>
>
> You continue to confuse particular failures with the whole notion of
> tracks. Because they fail in some respects does not mean that they
> could not be improved upon. The theory behind tracks is solid and
> beneficial. That the theory is implemented incorrectly suggests a
> reworking of the system, not a reversion to some misguided notion of
> equality. People have different abilities. Some people are good
> artists, others naturally excel at sports, &c.
>
Didn't you read my post about the history of tracking? The theory behind it is based on racism!
>
> People's minds do work differently, and do learn differently.. why
> snuff those differences in the name of equality?
>
I am not for snuffing out differences. What i am actually for is for differences growing, becoming
even more extreme. Someone mentioned charter schools, well, there are these two schools in your big
city that are charter schools. This woman started an elementary school and it has now grown to
include two high schools. In any case, there are no tracks, and everything is portfolio education.
The parents must be involved, etc. the kids must sign statements saying they won't engage in such and
such behaviour, they also have to do citizenship classes, etc. The students also meet in small groups
with advisors every day.
Portfolio education. This allows for students to pursue their own interests while meeting a set
standard. At the high school i am thinking about, the students actually have to orally defend the 6
(i think) portfolios they have to do to graduate. It is rigorous, and it is working. In fact, some
students are even getting into Ivy Leagues (and these are low income, never gonna make anything of
your life, minority students).
>
> > > > and (2)
> > > > the most useful training we could give anyone is a liberal arts education that teaches a
> > > > wide range of skills.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, a liberal arts degree teaches people to be critical, to
> > > interpret their environment, to think, write and speak clearly. People
> > > shouldn't have to pay for college to attain this.. it should be the
> > > goal of high school.
> >
> > Yes, exactly my point.
>
> Do you see how this could be accomplished within the track system?
>
No, i do not. Separate education can never be equal (although immersions schools are rather
successful.)
>
> > > Again, this is a failure of the system as a whole, not specifically of
> > > "tracks."
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. It would be hard to imagine us having tracks that were free from
> > the consequences of lower expectations.
>
> This is lack of imagination.
I have known lots of educators over the years, and being in an education college, the one thing i
can say is that there is more likely too much imagination. Take me for instance, i say blow up all
the schools and start over. not very practical, but my job isn't to be practical.
>
> My situation: by the time I completed 10th grade, there were only 3
> classes I could possibly take, aside from gym and home ec, &c. I was
> bored in school and doubled up on classes to keep myself interested.
> The summer before 11th grade I told my parents that I was going to
> leave school as soon as I turned 16 in October. *Because my parents
> were very supportive of me* I was able to take classes at a nearby
> college, and continue with other classes at my high school. They had
> to drive me around (rural area = 1 hour each way to the college) until
> I was old enough to get a drivers license. If my parents had not had
> the freedom or desire to help me, I would have been stuck in 5 study
> halls a day or out of school. Yes, that was a waste of time, and would
> have been any other way. From 7th grade on, my parents were in
> constant battle with the administrators to let me advance at my own
> pace. I'm glad they did, because I probably would have killed myself.
>
Wonderful. I was bored in high school as well, most likely explains why i never went to class and was
always doing drugs. German class was always more fun while stoned. I must have been stoned
throughout the majority of my classes for 2 years. I read a lot of books while in school.
>
> I never did graduate from high school, which hung over me in college
> at times when I wanted to leave. High school dropout. Not so good.
>
Some people don't need high school.
>
> College is different than high school. Your experiences are not as
> applicable as you would like to believe.
>
I know there are major differences, but i still think that portfolio education makes more sense than
tracking.
>
> > > > All i know is that there are too many high school graduates that aren't even functionally
> > > > literate. This disturbs me greatly.
> > >
> > > This is a separate issue.
> >
> > Not really. It is the result of "tracking." The different track levels are correlated with
> > different levels of literacy. (fine, oakes)
>
> You are misinterpreting the literature. You deduce from this
> correlation that tracking in itself is to blame.
>
They make the deduction, and i have bought into their argument.
Pick up "Keeping tracking" by Oakes. It is a book everyone should read, as well as beals. Can't
remember the name of the Beal's book, but she was one of the little rock children.
>
> > It isn't that the tracking system should be wiped out, per say, it is rather that we need to
> > rethink our assumptions about ability and expectations. "Mixed ability grouping," whereby
> > students within the same classroom work at their own level, is still tracking, however, it is
> > tracking more like in the real world. And studies have found (Bigelow, Oakes) that mixed
> > ability grouping does not negatively effect the success of the higher track students, but it
> > does positively effect the self-esteem and performance of lower track kids. This is counter
> > intuitive because one argument used in favour of tracking is that the lower track students will
> > feel more stupid if surrounded by more "able" peers. No studies have found this to be the
> > case. (this is putting a lot of faith in sociology)
>
> Mixed ability grouping, within the context of the way classrooms are
> run now, is different than managing a multi-track single classroom.
> You are talking about reworking the school system, which is fine, but
> it is a reworking and requires complete overhaul.. retraining
> teachers, &c. It could work quite well.
>
It is working. There are schools all over this country that have thrown out the old way of doing
schooling. The beauty of it is that, in many cases, these schools are serving the very populations
that would never succeed in traditional schools or in life in general. These schools are serving
dominantly lower income, minorities and they are having such success that people are really starting
to take notice of alternatives to tracking.
>
> > > People do have different learning abilities, and "equality" has no
> > > place here, aside from offering everyone the same opportunities and
> > > the same right to a basic education. Schools should serve this
> > > function, as they should serve the function of guiding people into a
> > > track for which they are best suited.
> > >
> > And who's to say what they are "best suited" for? We already do this.
>
> The students. By exploring their interests and options at an earlier
> age, with guidance counselors functioning in non-comical roles.
>
I love the non-comical roles. My guidance counselor was terrible! In any case, sure Dewey type
directed guidance would work. What i mean by this is that Dewey believes that people have to learn to
DISCERN what in fact their own interests are. It is the role of the teacher to help students pick
activities and projects that will allow for progressive development of interests.
>
> > As to learning disabilities, in many cases, these are students with above average intelligence
> > (if there is such a thing) that just learn differently than everyone else. I am an LD kid. In
> > fact, out of the 7 major clusters on the test most often used, i score significantly below my
> > peers on 5 of them. I was never in LD classes because my elementary school didn't have any but
> > i did get extra help and had extra tutors, etc. for a good 6 years.
>
> The extra help and tutors is similar to a track, in my mind.
>
Except that in most lower tracks students do not get the extra help. I have a friend who teaches
special ed math. She has seniors that have been taking algebra for the past 4 years. The problem is
that many schools do not even have the resources to buy toilet paper let alone provide teachers with
any conditions that would allow for really teaching the students.
Another great book "Savage Inequalities" Kozol.
This of course brings up school funding being dependent on property tax. I am completely for
redistribution of funds for education. Shouldn't be a big surprise.
>
> > ANd if i can get this close to a PhD, at a very distinguished college, in a very highly
> > regarded program, i just cannot see why mainstreaming won't work for most cases.
>
> It wasn't just mainstreaming.
>
no, but i was completely mainstreamed by 6th grade, and i never received extra help after that
(besides from my father, which was dreadful because he would just yell at me!)
>
> > Besides, if we look at who is deemed learning disabled, they are disproportionately minority
> > and low income. Again, is this because they have less ability or is it because of cultural
> > capital, cultural issues?
> >
> > Is there only one way to learn, or are they multiple? And why do we seem to reward one way over
> > others?
> >
> > every child learns differently, but as the schools are currently set up, they rewards certain
> > ways of learning over others. The students who don't fit the mould are thereby labelled
> > disabled. because i read things backwards, or say the last part of a sentence first (a habit
> > of mine), does this mean i am disabled, or could it also be that my mind just processes things
> > differently? Why is different disabled?
>
> Why is different the same? I'm talking about recognizing differences,
> and helping people learn in a way that is most beneficial.
>
And i am saying the same thing. My basic point is that tracks do not allow for this.
>
>
> >
> > Well, we will just go around in circles here. I see the primary function of public education to
> > be educating for citizenship, not for work. I have major problems with the economy driving the
> > schools. Economics should not be a major aspect of early education. The point of early
> > education should be to help children learn how to be self-sufficient, self-thinking beings.
> > And in my book, the curriculum that most allows for this is the one that includes calculus, the
> > one that only high ability students seem to be getting.
>
> You were linking what employers want to education. What is early
> education? High school? What is citizenship? You are going in circles
> here. Education can be more than one thing. It should have basic,
> essential goals, such as teaching people how to think and learn. As
> students approach adulthood, they should also be discovering the world
> in a way that will help them find their place.
I always go in circles, especially when i speak about education. Everything is a circle, after all,
or at least it is in my mind.
I have to run to work now. No more time.
DP