thebreakfast.info
General Discussions => Spunk => Topic started by: jocelyn on November 09, 2008, 10:25:09 pm
-
I think that some fields require degrees, while others don\'t.
But that is an obivous statement.
The truth is that alot of kids do not know what they want to do FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS when they are 17 or 18. Socierty does not expect them to have the judgement to decide if they should drink or not, but expects them to know what they want to do for the rest of their lives. So a lot of people get degrees in subjects which they find fasinating and which are not, in themselves, employable. The benifet of these educations is the show the student that the world is larger than XYZ Highschool, offer them some insight into things that they previously had not explored and to teach them how to plan, manage and execute simple tasks, by themselves or in groups that are 2-6 man-months in effort.
The other side of that are the degrees which are directly employable. Basically; trades. I would list all of the "Engineering" degrees in this catagory along with "research" sciences of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc and the "practiced" sciences of pyschology/pyshckyitry/and maybe socialiogly.
That leaves the vast majority of degrees unemployable in and of themselves (with exceptions). To require that a job applicant has one of these degrees is really jsut saying "We want to know that you know how to handle yourself" - a histroy major who gets a job as a finicial anyalst, for example.
Then there is a whole range of careers based around 2-year degrees - commerial aviation, culinary arts, locomotive engineering are examples.
I guess that what I am saying is that requiring a degree of everyone in the society is saying "we want to make sure that you are doing more than the minimum expected of you." (when high-school is the minumum, college is above in previous generations anything was the mimumum so high-school was okay.)
Does making a 2 or 4 year degree the minimum make sense, no, not really. But asking a 17 year old to decide what they want to do for the rest of their life doesn\'t make sense to me either.
-
That\'s not really true Kindm. I know and work with many people that only have HS diploma\'s. And I\'m in an IT shop for a good sized company.
-
The main concern I have is that public education is in itself its own bureaucratic mess. The standards have increased, and accountability, which is good, but the No Child Left behind Act creates lots of red tape for school districts. Not to mention the standards are highly dependent on teaching ideals that are extremely socialist. Just try and find a professor who is conservative, and I mean NOT a neo-con. You won\'t find many in public schools, because big gov\'t is all the rage to many liberal professors.
Something to consider about Free/accessible education for all- if lots of people have degrees, the very value of a degree is reduced and therefore can create and influx of educated people competing in the marketplace for jobs. We all know someone who got a degree \'just to get one\', and now has much trouble finding a job, even one related to their particular field. A great example, the Liberal Arts degree. They may be overqualified or under qualified and it\'s often difficult to find a middle ground. I\'m not saying education is a bad idea, but putting people in college just for college sake would increase taxes for everyone, essentially socializing education.
I agree when everyone is "special" no one is. We already see this now.
When my parents were young they only needed a High School education to get a good job, Years later that became a College degree, Now your looking at Masters at least, next it will PhD if it isn\'t there already. All that really means is that the "exceptional" or "Educational Elite" will HAVE to spend more time in school in order to be recognized / rewarded for the work.
When everyone has a college degree it will no longer seperate you from anyone. There will have to be other "markers" to show potential success in the workplace. It will be a masters or PhD or some other form of credentials like they have in the IT worlds. CCNA, MCSE, etc etc
-
wait a minute. you WANT an uneducated generation to be running the country when you\'re retired?? or do you think that only certain people should be allowed to run for office?? because that\'s not segreationist at all! and "teaching ideals that are extremely socialist"?? do you even understand what that term means? they are not teaching popular control of corporations, they are teaching rote memorization to score a certain number on a test so that the school gets some of what nclb said they\'d get and so they don\'t lose accredidation. i make a very nice second income teaching unimportant things like reading comprehension and critical thinking because these things are no longer taught, yet you think that even fewer students need/should have the opportunity to learn these things???
i mean, seriously, you\'re joking, right???
-
The main concern I have is that public education is in itself its own bureaucratic mess. The standards have increased, and accountability, which is good, but the No Child Left behind Act creates lots of red tape for school districts. Not to mention the standards are highly dependent on teaching ideals that are extremely socialist. Just try and find a professor who is conservative, and I mean NOT a neo-con. You won\'t find many in public schools, because big gov\'t is all the rage to many liberal professors.
Something to consider about Free/accessible education for all- if lots of people have degrees, the very value of a degree is reduced and therefore can create and influx of educated people competing in the marketplace for jobs. We all know someone who got a degree \'just to get one\', and now has much trouble finding a job, even one related to their particular field. A great example, the Liberal Arts degree. They may be overqualified or under qualified and it\'s often difficult to find a middle ground. I\'m not saying education is a bad idea, but putting people in college just for college sake would increase taxes for everyone, essentially socializing education.
-
so what you\'re saying is that, as the plan actually stands, you have no problem with it. you just don\'t like the idea of what could possibly happen (even though the guy\'s not even in office yet, nor are any of his plans anywhere near finalized).
listen, i\'m not an obama fanatic, i don\'t believe the apocalypse would have come if mccain was elected, but there is still nothing about mandatory service, nothing about telling anyone where they have to do their service, nothing about which programs are acceptable, other than it is up to the schools to create the program. not big government, the schools themselves. it says that students should be "expected" to complete 50 hours a year. in my high school, 10 was required, 25 got you an extra half-a-grade (B to B+), any extra time was just great. so this says that they would like a program that doubles an already-existing program while adding a $4,000 college tuition incentive. there is nothing about expanding government, merely giving tools to schools for creating/improving their own programs. it says they "will develop national guidelines for service-learning" which is already done at the Dept of Ed, and "community service programs" which are currently under the auspices of HUD. so, there\'s already departments of education and hud, which means nothing needs expanding, its all already in place. the plan is to use the resources we have for the benefit of college bound students. you\'re just worried about \'what-if\'s\' which you are more than welcome to be worried about. i don\'t worry that the sky is falling, but you should feel free to.
and as much as the arguement about "BIG government" is bandied about, please remember that *every* administration has increased the size of the government. you may as well put to bed that red herring, because its like arguing against the sun rising in the east. instead of being worried about a big government that is going to exist no matter who gets in, why not work to ensure that its doing beneficial things for us, the citizens of the country, rather than handing out no-bid contracts to companies with no oversight, tax breaks to corporations in lieu of the citizenry and using its departments to subvert established laws (the epa comes right to mind)?
i simply see no problem with the concept of \'if you help out your community, you will be rewarded.\' i know bush would have politicized the process. in fact, we have clear evidence that he did exact that with his most of his policies, but i\'m pretty willing to suggest that obama is not going to use the same unsuccessful tactics as bush. seems like that\'s been pretty clear for two years now...
-
The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students
performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.
Under this plan, students would graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of public service experience under
their belts.
this is from your post. now, please explain where anything about requirements or mandatory anything is mentioned there.
Here:
Obama and Biden believe that middle
and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the
school year or summer months. They will develop national guidelines for service-learning and community
service programs, and will give schools better tools both to develop successful programs and to document the
experience of students at all levels.
and, since you don\'t have any info about the $4,000 tax credit that has been a part of this plan from the beginning, i would suggest you do a little more research before going off on anyone. i have no problem with you, but you do seem to be a shining example of folks who hear something, then get all gut-reaction pissed off, even though what you\'ve heard or been lead to believe is incorrect.
I didn\'t mention that because I have no issue with that aspect of his plan. I also didn\'t bring up the military section of the plan because I don\'t know enough about it (it\'s pretty vague as he has laid it out.) The incentive/tax credit is fine by me as long as it\'s truly incentive and thus not mandatory. I read his entire plan FOUR times. I think that\'s sufficient research.
i\'ll bite you all you want, but don\'t get all high and mighty just because i\'m pointing out that the info you\'ve been given is false. just like he\'s not a muslim, there is nothing about which charities or non-profits (in fact, charities and nonprofits aren\'t even necessary, you can volunteer elsewhere) you can use and absolutely nothing about being told where you have to do your service at. some people are spreading misinformation, so do yourself a favor and do some researching/thinking for yourself instead of simply parroting what you\'ve heard....
I\'ve done plenty of research. The only thoughts I\'m parroting are my own. It doesn\'t take a brilliant mind to come to the realization that someone is going to be deciding what is considered legit community service and what isn\'t, and that this could easily get political/sleazy/biased/bureaucratic/whatever.
as tyzak mentioned, most schools already require some community service, this is expanding that and saying, \'if you do 100 hours, we\'ll give you $4000 towards your college tuition.\' again, nothing is mandatory, but everyone participating is the end goal. if you, as a non-about-to-enter-college person want to volunteer, that\'s great. this program is about helping people of all income levels be able to afford a college education. that\'s all. and of all the things to attack about, education help (considering the worsening stance of american students compared to the rest of the world) really seems like an odd choice, to me.
Of course that\'s all you see when you see this plan. It\'s not significant to you if you have no issue with big government. I think most of the people on this forum LOVE big government. I, however, cannot just take this plan at face value, but must look at the precedent it sets, and realize what dangers it may be indicative of. But here we have a fundamental difference in your beliefs and mine, and what\'s important to me is clearly not important to you.
-
There is no "incentive" here, no tax credit, this is mandatory. So really, jking, **** bite me.
You guys are really ok with the government overseeing stuff like this? What happens when it\'s being run by an administration that you don\'t like? Would you want John McCain making these decisions for you? Deciding what programs are worthy, deciding who you should be volunteering for? You want to be given a list of which nonprofits qualify? Given incentive for certain volunteer work, but if you spent 8 hours a day working your own charity, picking up trash, whatever whatever, that\'s not good enough?
Don\'t you think the government is big enough already, that it meddles in your affairs plenty?
Jocelyn, you\'re my hero. :wave:
-
Group mentality terrifies me.
Group mentality only terrifies me when their beliefs differ from mine. I\'m all for the angry mob when they agree with me.
-
i HAD to do community service to get my degree. it was manditory because of Alan Fienstien..... some rich dude who gives my old college money but in return requires everyone to do something for the community. I donated some cloths to the Salvation Army.... that was my good deed. i got my BS and called it a win.
so do i agree with mandatory community service...... maybe in a way, it might make people stop and think about there actions next time they decide to throw something out of the window of the car or pick up a piece of trash rolling by them in a parking lot.
buuutttttt..... i don\'t think we need the government to tell us we HAVE to do these things. These are common scene things that should be taught by our parents, mentors and peers. A lot of people have become to self absorbed and i feel in a way we all lost touch with our fellow Americans. when was the last time anybody here stopped to help someone out that could be in need (hypothetical question) i really don\'t care about your answer it was more to make you stop and think about someone other than yourself.
-
The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students
performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.
Under this plan, students would graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of public service experience under
their belts.
this is from your post. now, please explain where anything about requirements or mandatory anything is mentioned there. and, since you don\'t have any info about the $4,000 tax credit that has been a part of this plan from the beginning, i would suggest you do a little more research before going off on anyone. i have no problem with you, but you do seem to be a shining example of folks who hear something, then get all gut-reaction pissed off, even though what you\'ve heard or been lead to believe is incorrect.
from his website~
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
Make college affordable to all Americans:
Obama and Biden will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit worth $4,000 in exchange for community service. It will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students
.
from 10/06/08
http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/10/06/News/Obama.Emphasizes.Tax.Credit.For.Community.Service-3470957.shtml
Obama strongly emphasized his plan to create a tax credit that will subsidize the college tuition of Americans who conduct 100 hours of community service.
"I make a solemn vow to the young people of America," he said. "If you serve your country or your community ? we are going to invest in you by making sure every single one of you can afford to go to college - no ifs, ands or buts."
from 11/07/08
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2008/11/08/obamas_promised_tax_cuts/
Other tax reductions would boost expenditures to more than $1 trillion, including a tuition credit equal to the first $4,000 paid by families to public and private colleges. The catch for students is that they perform community service.
i\'ll bite you all you want, but don\'t get all high and mighty just because i\'m pointing out that the info you\'ve been given is false. just like he\'s not a muslim, there is nothing about which charities or non-profits (in fact, charities and nonprofits aren\'t even necessary, you can volunteer elsewhere) you can use and absolutely nothing about being told where you have to do your service at. some people are spreading misinformation, so do yourself a favor and do some researching/thinking for yourself instead of simply parroting what you\'ve heard....
as tyzak mentioned, most schools already require some community service, this is expanding that and saying, \'if you do 100 hours, we\'ll give you $4000 towards your college tuition.\' again, nothing is mandatory, but everyone participating is the end goal. if you, as a non-about-to-enter-college person want to volunteer, that\'s great. this program is about helping people of all income levels be able to afford a college education. that\'s all. and of all the things to attack about, education help (considering the worsening stance of american students compared to the rest of the world) really seems like an odd choice, to me.
-
From Obama\'s plan:
II. INTEGRATE SERVICE INTO EDUCATION
Barack Obama calls his years working as a community organizer in Chicago?s South Side the best education he
ever had. He believes that all students should serve their communities. Studies show that students who
participate in service-learning programs do better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and go to
college, and are more likely to become active, engaged citizens. Schools that require service as part of the
educational experience create improved learning environments and serve as resources for their communities.
The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students
performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.
Under this plan, students would graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of public service experience under
their belts.
Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation?s Schools: In November, Barack Obama laid out a comprehensive
plan to provide all Americans with a world-class education and give our schools a substantial infusion of funds
to support teachers and principals and improve student learning. That plan conditions that assistance on school
districts developing programs to engage students in service opportunities. Obama and Biden believe that middle
and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the
school year or summer months. They will develop national guidelines for service-learning and community
service programs, and will give schools better tools both to develop successful programs and to document the
experience of students at all levels. They will encourage programs that engage with community partners to
expand opportunities for community service and service-learning opportunities, so that students can apply what
they learn in the classroom to authentic situations that help the community. These programs will also involve
citizens from the community engaging students in service opportunities through the Classroom Corps
There is no "incentive" here, no tax credit, this is mandatory. So really, jking, **** bite me.
You guys are really ok with the government overseeing stuff like this? What happens when it\'s being run by an administration that you don\'t like? Would you want John McCain making these decisions for you? Deciding what programs are worthy, deciding who you should be volunteering for? You want to be given a list of which nonprofits qualify? Given incentive for certain volunteer work, but if you spent 8 hours a day working your own charity, picking up trash, whatever whatever, that\'s not good enough?
Don\'t you think the government is big enough already, that it meddles in your affairs plenty?
That sounds extremely Soviet.
However, the highschool I went to had a "mandatory community service" program which was the biggest hack in the world. The only people it negatively affected were the "under performers" who didn\'t do anything anyway and had to come in on weekends to rake the school grounds.
Aside from that, I got my community service hours (equal per-term to twice the number of hours a week you spent in gym/study (so one gym/study = 10 hours) a term, or 40 a year) from working at CVS.
Selling people deodarant and preventing sophmores from buying cigs is hardly enriching to the community.
I agree with Joclyean on two points; 1.) the gov\'t has no business telling me i have to volunteer. 2.) even if they do, it will create a whole new courpt and loop-hole filled bueacarcy to enforce it.
-
Anyone having concerns with their child\'s behavior: There is a strong correlation to our parenting strategies and how the child reacts and acts. Behaviorism is the foundation for many studies on behavior modeling, reinforcement, and extinction. (basic psychology drawn out to very specific behavioral assessment and intervention management).
The whole base of my educational goals is to help define and implement practices that encourage socially appropriate behavior, to reward acceptable behavior, and to negatively or positively reinforce undesired consequences/outcomes.
If I can help a child with autism to talk, a child with emotional/behavioral disturbance to avoid fights, or a child with add/adhd to complete assignments, there\'s something to be said about the many possibilities this implicates for parents in general. It\'s all about analysis, inquiry, and figuring out why a behavior serves a certain function. Just another reason being a special ed. teacher can help out any frustrated parents out there! ;o) I\'m fascinated how it serves as a tool in relating with people in general. (this nerd needs sleep now).
Much love and guidance to all
-
Your Post is basically elitist in nature. Your saying your happy Obama won the election but you are questioning every persons reason for voting for him except yours. You voted for him because you are informed and know X,Y,Z but everyone else who voted for him and especially black people don\'t know shyte and that scares you. Young voters only voted for him because he was popular etc etc etc.
I hope this isn\'t how I sounded to everybody, because it\'s definitely not what I was going for.
Anyway, the simple point I was getting at 12 hours ago is that I don\'t like how the election went down for various reasons that I\'m not going to bother to outline again. Group mentality terrifies me: whether it is as complex as the demographics in a general election, or as simple as insulting anybody who disagrees with you about The Living Daylights on dotinfo. Maybe my mistake was bringing statistics into this (especially one that brings up race), so let me phrase it this way: Most of the people that I have spoken with who voted for Barack Obama don\'t seem to have a good answer as to why beyond generalities. Hopefully this is not indicative of the general public, but I fear that it is. Maybe that is how elections usually go, but I find myself far more aware of it this year than in the past.
That just about does it for my participation in this thread... being bored at work got me way more involved than I\'d like to be. It was fun bantering with y\'all.
-
Wow. That\'s exactly the mentality that makes my point valid. To your parents, you were/are their special little angel right? And exactly how special are you now? Probably not very. If you think you are then you either need to get checked, or you may be the exception. note: you is being used as the metaphorical you.
I\'m not really putting parenting down. Sure we need to further the existence of human-kind. great. I\'m all for it. The second part of my comment you quoted is a generalization. I have crazy love for my bfam for sure, and I would love to have you all as my personal friends. Thus, I would love to see any and all of you take control of the population. But in the generalization, there are going to be far more people having kids that fall out of the range of what you/us would consider good for our kids. Does that make better sense of my babble?
Much love.
So by your logic, I should be telling my daughter that she\'s nothing and that she\'s not going to amount to little more than following the flock. It\'s that kind of mindset that breeds the little Charlie Mansons of the world. Seriously, do us all a favor and don\'t go out ridig bareback; it\'ll be better for my daughter who is special and all the other children of people on this board whom they think are special.
Actually Charlie Manson was probably told he was special and was going to do great things. And he proved them correct.
You know...? I think you\'re right.
Yoda... you will see when your daughter grows up that there is a 50/50 chance that she\'ll maintain your ideals and will be the spitting image of what you have imagined her to be/become, or she\'ll either decide (as mine has at 15) or she\'ll react to rebel in some way. As far as I can tell and have read, it is purely chemical in their minds that they must do something at this "coming-of-age" time. That\'s why it is so easy for the media to present movies, music, and tv shows staging these exact events. If you let your kid watch it or not, it is ingrained in them anyway. They like that media because they feel they can relate to it.
Now, I do have a kid, she\'s 15. On the night of her 13th birthday we saw the change. I don\'t know how it worked out that way, but the hormones were in full flow. Until this point she was the sweetest, mature, kind, obedient child you have ever seen. Granted she still is very sweet, but something in her, even though she knew/knows better, her rebellious side has come out. She went from all As and Bs in school to Fs and Ds. She is constantly trying to lie and get away with very trivial things. Giving us excuses that we\'ve heard/used before and thinking (as we did at the time) that they will work. Needless to say, she\'s a handful. Still we love her very much and continue to try to give her our opinions on different aspects of life, it\'s now just getting to the point where she has to make her own decisions based on what she has learned... at least we hope that\'s how she makes these decisions.
So my point was to get to this anyway. As a warning almost of something to be aware of. This can and more than likely will happen, no matter how you bring your kid up and how "strict" you are.
:no: and says goodbye to the thread.
-
From Obama\'s plan:
II. INTEGRATE SERVICE INTO EDUCATION
Barack Obama calls his years working as a community organizer in Chicago?s South Side the best education he
ever had. He believes that all students should serve their communities. Studies show that students who
participate in service-learning programs do better in school, are more likely to graduate high school and go to
college, and are more likely to become active, engaged citizens. Schools that require service as part of the
educational experience create improved learning environments and serve as resources for their communities.
The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service, with middle and high school students
performing 50 hours of service each year, and college students performing 100 hours of service each year.
Under this plan, students would graduate college with as many as 17 weeks of public service experience under
their belts.
Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation?s Schools: In November, Barack Obama laid out a comprehensive
plan to provide all Americans with a world-class education and give our schools a substantial infusion of funds
to support teachers and principals and improve student learning. That plan conditions that assistance on school
districts developing programs to engage students in service opportunities. Obama and Biden believe that middle
and high school students should be expected to engage in community service for 50 hours annually during the
school year or summer months. They will develop national guidelines for service-learning and community
service programs, and will give schools better tools both to develop successful programs and to document the
experience of students at all levels. They will encourage programs that engage with community partners to
expand opportunities for community service and service-learning opportunities, so that students can apply what
they learn in the classroom to authentic situations that help the community. These programs will also involve
citizens from the community engaging students in service opportunities through the Classroom Corps
There is no "incentive" here, no tax credit, this is mandatory. So really, jking, **** bite me.
You guys are really ok with the government overseeing stuff like this? What happens when it\'s being run by an administration that you don\'t like? Would you want John McCain making these decisions for you? Deciding what programs are worthy, deciding who you should be volunteering for? You want to be given a list of which nonprofits qualify? Given incentive for certain volunteer work, but if you spent 8 hours a day working your own charity, picking up trash, whatever whatever, that\'s not good enough?
Don\'t you think the government is big enough already, that it meddles in your affairs plenty?
-
Wow. That\'s exactly the mentality that makes my point valid. To your parents, you were/are their special little angel right? And exactly how special are you now? Probably not very. If you think you are then you either need to get checked, or you may be the exception. note: you is being used as the metaphorical you.
I\'m not really putting parenting down. Sure we need to further the existence of human-kind. great. I\'m all for it. The second part of my comment you quoted is a generalization. I have crazy love for my bfam for sure, and I would love to have you all as my personal friends. Thus, I would love to see any and all of you take control of the population. But in the generalization, there are going to be far more people having kids that fall out of the range of what you/us would consider good for our kids. Does that make better sense of my babble?
Much love.
So by your logic, I should be telling my daughter that she\'s nothing and that she\'s not going to amount to little more than following the flock. It\'s that kind of mindset that breeds the little Charlie Mansons of the world. Seriously, do us all a favor and don\'t go out ridig bareback; it\'ll be better for my daughter who is special and all the other children of people on this board whom they think are special.
Actually Charlie Manson was probably told he was special and was going to do great things. And he proved them correct.
You know...? I think you\'re right.
Yoda... you will see when your daughter grows up that there is a 50/50 chance that she\'ll maintain your ideals and will be the spitting image of what you have imagined her to be/become, or she\'ll either decide (as mine has at 15) or she\'ll react to rebel in some way. As far as I can tell and have read, it is purely chemical in their minds that they must do something at this "coming-of-age" time. That\'s why it is so easy for the media to present movies, music, and tv shows staging these exact events. If you let your kid watch it or not, it is ingrained in them anyway. They like that media because they feel they can relate to it.
Now, I do have a kid, she\'s 15. On the night of her 13th birthday we saw the change. I don\'t know how it worked out that way, but the hormones were in full flow. Until this point she was the sweetest, mature, kind, obedient child you have ever seen. Granted she still is very sweet, but something in her, even though she knew/knows better, her rebellious side has come out. She went from all As and Bs in school to Fs and Ds. She is constantly trying to lie and get away with very trivial things. Giving us excuses that we\'ve heard/used before and thinking (as we did at the time) that they will work. Needless to say, she\'s a handful. Still we love her very much and continue to try to give her our opinions on different aspects of life, it\'s now just getting to the point where she has to make her own decisions based on what she has learned... at least we hope that\'s how she makes these decisions.
So my point was to get to this anyway. As a warning almost of something to be aware of. This can and more than likely will happen, no matter how you bring your kid up and how "strict" you are.
-
(https://thebreakfast.info/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu226%2Fsepiacuttlefish%2Flovethisthread.jpg&hash=3a7d7a9ac593025cfb18db1d97af5a1a8f78123b)
-
Wow. That\'s exactly the mentality that makes my point valid. To your parents, you were/are their special little angel right? And exactly how special are you now? Probably not very. If you think you are then you either need to get checked, or you may be the exception. note: you is being used as the metaphorical you.
I\'m not really putting parenting down. Sure we need to further the existence of human-kind. great. I\'m all for it. The second part of my comment you quoted is a generalization. I have crazy love for my bfam for sure, and I would love to have you all as my personal friends. Thus, I would love to see any and all of you take control of the population. But in the generalization, there are going to be far more people having kids that fall out of the range of what you/us would consider good for our kids. Does that make better sense of my babble?
Much love.
So by your logic, I should be telling my daughter that she\'s nothing and that she\'s not going to amount to little more than following the flock. It\'s that kind of mindset that breeds the little Charlie Mansons of the world. Seriously, do us all a favor and don\'t go out ridig bareback; it\'ll be better for my daughter who is special and all the other children of people on this board whom they think are special.
Actually Charlie Manson was probably told he was special and was going to do great things. And he proved them correct.
-
thanks!
one last question, though. if you acknowledge that with more than one black candidate the percentage of black voters going for one of them would drop, why is this still an issue for you? it is a one-time anamoly. if colin powell had won the republican nomination, do you still think 95% of the demographic would have gone for obama? if not, then what\'s the problem? i guess that\'s the part i don\'t get. this was the exception rather than the rule....
jking, I hope you find this discussion as friendly as I intend it to be; it\'s nothing personal.
Let\'s remove race/ethnicity/gender/class from the issue for a second. I guess my base fear is that the "uninformed voter" is becoming even more powerful. I used the 95% in this case because it was the most staggering statistic, but there are other things that fuel my concern as well. Think about the voters who were 10 years old in 2000. They have grown up hearing nothing by Bush/Republican bashing and, in most cases, not caring about the issues. Those 10 year olds are 18 and wanted to show their adulthood by voting. Who are they going to vote for? The black guy that everybody seems to like or the guy who the television said is just like George Bush? Let\'s also forget the people who were voting "to be a part of history": the bandwagon fans of the politics.
To put a point on it (after five hours and way too many words): I am happy that Obama was elected, and I think he was the better choice than McCain. I just don\'t think that is WHY he was elected, and that worries me. I hope you\'re right about this election being the exception rather than the rule in this respect, because it feels like the "popularity contest" aspect of the election got a little out of control.
I definitely take exception to your kids born in 2000 example. They have not grown up hearing only bashing. It all depends on who their parents are. The likes of Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, O\'Reilly, Malkin, Coulter etc etc etc are anything but Bush bashers. There are apologists everywhere. And don\'t forget that following 09/11/2001 Bush had the highest approval ratings ever! That is why roughly %48 of voters voted republican this go around.
Do you pay attention to politics at all ? What you describe is standard operating procedure.
Americans are by and large uninformed. They do not spend the time to get to know the policies of each candidate, they don\'t pay attention to this stuff at all really. If they did the propaganda, innuendo and outright lies from either party would carry no weight.
Your Post is basically elitist in nature. Your saying your happy Obama won the election but you are questioning every persons reason for voting for him except yours. You voted for him because you are informed and know X,Y,Z but everyone else who voted for him and especially black people don\'t know shyte and that scares you. Young voters only voted for him because he was popular etc etc etc.
And lets keep some perspective here. Black people only make up about 13.4% of total US population.
-
Wow. That\'s exactly the mentality that makes my point valid. To your parents, you were/are their special little angel right? And exactly how special are you now? Probably not very. If you think you are then you either need to get checked, or you may be the exception. note: you is being used as the metaphorical you.
I\'m not really putting parenting down. Sure we need to further the existence of human-kind. great. I\'m all for it. The second part of my comment you quoted is a generalization. I have crazy love for my bfam for sure, and I would love to have you all as my personal friends. Thus, I would love to see any and all of you take control of the population. But in the generalization, there are going to be far more people having kids that fall out of the range of what you/us would consider good for our kids. Does that make better sense of my babble?
Much love.
So by your logic, I should be telling my daughter that she\'s nothing and that she\'s not going to amount to little more than following the flock. It\'s that kind of mindset that breeds the little Charlie Mansons of the world. Seriously, do us all a favor and don\'t go out ridig bareback; it\'ll be better for my daughter who is special and all the other children of people on this board whom they think are special.
-
spe⋅cial /ˈspɛʃəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spesh-uhl]
–adjective
1. of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
2. being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You\'d better call the special number.
3. pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
5. distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.
6. extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial: special importance.
7. being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued: a special friend.
Every human - alive, dead, yet to be born, is special.
Therefore all children are special.
I agree with [inthewhitelodge] that i can\'t wait to have kids. How do you change the world? Exert your influence on those around you. Who do you have the most influence on? Your children. Do you want the world not to see race as any more importance than the color of a persons eyes? Teach your kids that. Do you want to teach your kids that working for the betterment of the people who are important to you is more pleasureable and rewarding than love of money? Teach your kids that. Do you you think that people should think for themselves, create their own boundaires and experinces? I would suggest a sand box in the summer and legos in the winter. Kids\' minds are much more creative than anything they will ever experince watching on TV or playing in a video game.
...and, at the very least, children will eventually be tax payers. Someone has to pay for us when we are old.
-
spe⋅cial /ˈspɛʃəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spesh-uhl]
?adjective
1. of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
2. being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You\'d better call the special number.
3. pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
5. distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.
6. extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial: special importance.
7. being such in an exceptional degree; particularly valued: a special friend.
-
Don\'t have kids. If you already have them, or you want to have them, just remember that they may be special to you, but they are not special.
That comment is really ass backwards. With your warped vision of children and life, I really hope that you don\'t have any. All children are special; not just to their parents or family, but to the community and world itself. A person doesn\'t have to be a unique or different from everyone else in order to be special.
Your comment is seriously F\'d up on so many levels that I\'m not going to waste my time writing anything more.
Wow. That\'s exactly the mentality that makes my point valid. To your parents, you were/are their special little angel right? And exactly how special are you now? Probably not very. If you think you are then you either need to get checked, or you may be the exception. note: you is being used as the metaphorical you.
I\'m not really putting parenting down. Sure we need to further the existence of human-kind. great. I\'m all for it. The second part of my comment you quoted is a generalization. I have crazy love for my bfam for sure, and I would love to have you all as my personal friends. Thus, I would love to see any and all of you take control of the population. But in the generalization, there are going to be far more people having kids that fall out of the range of what you/us would consider good for our kids. Does that make better sense of my babble?
Much love.
-
Don\'t have kids. If you already have them, or you want to have them, just remember that they may be special to you, but they are not special.
That comment is really ass backwards. With your warped vision of children and life, I really hope that you don\'t have any. All children are special; not just to their parents or family, but to the community and world itself. A person doesn\'t have to be a unique or different from everyone else in order to be special.
Your comment is seriously F\'d up on so many levels that I\'m not going to waste my time writing anything more.
-
I wish someone forced me to perform community service in my late teens. I believe it would have helped to focus me before heading off to college. I think it would have made a big difference. I don\'t believe that kids coming of age since the draft was done away with understand the meaning of self sacrifice, and I believe it shows in the morals of our society.
It makes me think of that "Myspace Toolbox" thread. So many kids, young adults and even those that have reached middle age are self obsessed, materialistic, and overly concerned with self gratification. 1 or 2 years of community service (working in a soup kitchen, animal shelter, welfare house, military service, or public works project) could really change someone\'s life.
Just my personal soapbox moment.
I agree with you and would hope it would be true. But, really I don\'t think it is true. My step daughter spends summers with her father and has volunteered for the last 3 years at a nursing home doing all kinds of odd jobs. from bringing books to the old folks, or just visiting with them, to running a cash register in the gift shop. While she was involved in it she was getting the benefits of doing a selfless act. However, now that she is not doing this everyday the materialistic, self obsessed thing is coming around. I think it probably has to do with just the not-fully-formed brains of adolescents. Needing stimulation at all times, one thing can easily take over the other. It\'s still too close to call if her volunteering will help her later in life. I really hope it does, but as of now, though she is not one herself, she\'d think those jackasses in the MySpace Toolbox thread were cool/hot.
Don\'t have kids. If you already have them, or you want to have them, just remember that they may be special to you, but they are not special. You\'ll see that 99% of them share a single mindset to achieve acceptance and popularity. Not until they release this will they actually come into their own and be unique. If you don\'t think that\'s true, then tell me why there can be 1000 "coming-of-age" movies, and shows on Mtv like "Sex: With Mom and Dad" aimed at teens, coming out every year. It gives them their goals and some obscure "path". It\'s all f\'d in my opinion. But I\'m living it.
Oh goodness, I cannot wait to have kids! Educating them is the best part of it; parents have a responsibility to help children through this crazy world. It\'s not the teacher\'s job or the community program\'s job, or the media\'s job to sell us "stuff we need". I will likely homeschool my kids, and in that sense, their life is their curriculum. Books will take precedence over watching tv shows. Playing in the dirt and forest will reign over playing with plastic lead-dyed toys. That\'s not to say that children should be protected from all of that stuff, because without some sort of exposure they may get "girls gone wild" on us. lol I personally think that children\'s media exposure without monitoring or supervision/reflection is a huge culprit of brat-like behavior.
-
nothing personal taken! i love a good discussion.
if anything, i\'d say his blackness only played a significant part to the black community. i can ramble off dozens of rep\'s that i\'ve talked to who are fine with obama being elected for the historical aspect, but who didn\'t vote for him due to policy matters. conversely, i haven\'t spoken to a single white dem who voted for obama because he was black. if history was the only voting motivation, why didn\'t all women vote republican so we could have the first female vice president? there\'s more women than blacks, so by your calculations (or rather, as i understand you) palin voters should have given the election to mccain.
i think all elections come down to popularity contests among the uniformed, frankly. i like to think (maybe a bit to sanguinely) that after hearing 8 years of fear mongering and divisive rhetoric, that everyone had finally had enough - dems, reps, inds, and even (and hopefully mostly) first time voters. the reason obama did so well, is because he ran a consistent, on-message campaign. he never let himself be dragged into the unimportant, emotional issues. people calling for him to be lynched? not worthy of a response. people focusing on a guy he met two or three times ten years ago? not worth the time to show the people mccain has had the same level of interaction with, who aren\'t/weren\'t angels. people saying that acorn was committing voter fraud? not enough time to explain voter fraud, nor was there enough to show mccain\'s support of them over the years. what did he have time to talk about? the economy. the war. health care. education. the issues. he maintained an even-headed, eloquent discourse that, i believe, the country found refreshing after 8 years of a yokel who can\'t form coherent, grammatically correct sentences.
but even in an election like this one, where the candidates stood very clearly on separate sides of most of the issues, there were still undecideds. mccain sealed up the nomination in what, march? obama had the upperhand since may. and yet people still had no clue which they were gonna choose? well, that\'s the evry definition of uninformed voter, right there! and yet, every election year, that\'s who gets the most attention. i\'d love to see only the issues matter and for us to have a reasonable discourse about those policies, but until people stop being swayed by inflammatory words and heart string issues (say no to tax increases for mandatory abortions for gay stem cells!), i don\'t hold out much hope....
as for the third party issue~ once they statr picking halfway decent candidates with platforms that resonate with a majority of voters, then they are marginalizing themselves! the choice of bobb barr for the LP just shows how clueless and out of touch they are. apparently, they\'d rather have someone who is vilified by both the right and left than a candidate who might actually be able to increase their percentage of the vote, and thus get them some political validity. and, since nader came in tops of the 3rd party folks, i can say i\'m right about that. there were rep\'s who weren\'t happy with mccain (or palin) and dems who weren\'t happy with obama and yet the LP still couldn\'t attract them. time for them to stop complaining about being ignored and start making moves to make themselves relevant for a change!
-
I wish someone forced me to perform community service in my late teens. I believe it would have helped to focus me before heading off to college. I think it would have made a big difference. I don\'t believe that kids coming of age since the draft was done away with understand the meaning of self sacrifice, and I believe it shows in the morals of our society.
It makes me think of that "Myspace Toolbox" thread. So many kids, young adults and even those that have reached middle age are self obsessed, materialistic, and overly concerned with self gratification. 1 or 2 years of community service (working in a soup kitchen, animal shelter, welfare house, military service, or public works project) could really change someone\'s life.
Just my personal soapbox moment.
I agree with you and would hope it would be true. But, really I don\'t think it is true. My step daughter spends summers with her father and has volunteered for the last 3 years at a nursing home doing all kinds of odd jobs. from bringing books to the old folks, or just visiting with them, to running a cash register in the gift shop. While she was involved in it she was getting the benefits of doing a selfless act. However, now that she is not doing this everyday the materialistic, self obsessed thing is coming around. I think it probably has to do with just the not-fully-formed brains of adolescents. Needing stimulation at all times, one thing can easily take over the other. It\'s still too close to call if her volunteering will help her later in life. I really hope it does, but as of now, though she is not one herself, she\'d think those jackasses in the MySpace Toolbox thread were cool/hot.
Don\'t have kids. If you already have them, or you want to have them, just remember that they may be special to you, but they are not special. You\'ll see that 99% of them share a single mindset to achieve acceptance and popularity. Not until they release this will they actually come into their own and be unique. If you don\'t think that\'s true, then tell me why there can be 1000 "coming-of-age" movies, and shows on Mtv like "Sex: With Mom and Dad" aimed at teens, coming out every year. It gives them their goals and some obscure "path". It\'s all f\'d in my opinion. But I\'m living it.
-
thanks!
one last question, though. if you acknowledge that with more than one black candidate the percentage of black voters going for one of them would drop, why is this still an issue for you? it is a one-time anamoly. if colin powell had won the republican nomination, do you still think 95% of the demographic would have gone for obama? if not, then what\'s the problem? i guess that\'s the part i don\'t get. this was the exception rather than the rule....
jking, I hope you find this discussion as friendly as I intend it to be; it\'s nothing personal.
Let\'s remove race/ethnicity/gender/class from the issue for a second. I guess my base fear is that the "uninformed voter" is becoming even more powerful. I used the 95% in this case because it was the most staggering statistic, but there are other things that fuel my concern as well. Think about the voters who were 10 years old in 2000. They have grown up hearing nothing by Bush/Republican bashing and, in most cases, not caring about the issues. Those 10 year olds are 18 and wanted to show their adulthood by voting. Who are they going to vote for? The black guy that everybody seems to like or the guy who the television said is just like George Bush? Let\'s also forget the people who were voting "to be a part of history": the bandwagon fans of the politics.
To put a point on it (after five hours and way too many words): I am happy that Obama was elected, and I think he was the better choice than McCain. I just don\'t think that is WHY he was elected, and that worries me. I hope you\'re right about this election being the exception rather than the rule in this respect, because it feels like the "popularity contest" aspect of the election got a little out of control.
This issue is the precise reason I posted such a long rant about Conservatives vs. neoconservatives, and the fact that the media did not focus on any other parties. Popularity has an agenda too. We do have a basis to question why this happened. I just hope if we plan on spending, we don\'t fund war and focus on our own country which is certainly suffering.
-
thanks!
one last question, though. if you acknowledge that with more than one black candidate the percentage of black voters going for one of them would drop, why is this still an issue for you? it is a one-time anamoly. if colin powell had won the republican nomination, do you still think 95% of the demographic would have gone for obama? if not, then what\'s the problem? i guess that\'s the part i don\'t get. this was the exception rather than the rule....
jking, I hope you find this discussion as friendly as I intend it to be; it\'s nothing personal.
Let\'s remove race/ethnicity/gender/class from the issue for a second. I guess my base fear is that the "uninformed voter" is becoming even more powerful. I used the 95% in this case because it was the most staggering statistic, but there are other things that fuel my concern as well. Think about the voters who were 10 years old in 2000. They have grown up hearing nothing by Bush/Republican bashing and, in most cases, not caring about the issues. Those 10 year olds are 18 and wanted to show their adulthood by voting. Who are they going to vote for? The black guy that everybody seems to like or the guy who the television said is just like George Bush? Let\'s also forget the people who were voting "to be a part of history": the bandwagon fans of the politics.
To put a point on it (after five hours and way too many words): I am happy that Obama was elected, and I think he was the better choice than McCain. I just don\'t think that is WHY he was elected, and that worries me. I hope you\'re right about this election being the exception rather than the rule in this respect, because it feels like the "popularity contest" aspect of the election got a little out of control.
-
I\'m still stuck on the fact that even despite the programs, I do not think that Obama will take us out of Iraq by any reasonable measure of time. That means more money for both items discussed, which is just overspending.
-
yes, he was discussing it, among many other things. in one draft was the word "require" which was quickly substituted for "allow the opportunity". but somehow, folks still find it to be a good idea to attack the half-formed ideas of a guy elected 6 days ago. what, he\'s not got his entire domestic agenda planned completely yet?? the slacker! let\'s attack him!!!
the plan, so far, is that once you graduate from high school, if you help out by performing 100 hours of community service, you will receive a $4,000 tax credit towards your tuition. the money comes from lessened spending in Iraq, as well, presumably, from the decreased expenditures on community benefits that could be alleviated with volunteer help. in the long term, you\'ll have a more prosperous citizenry (ie, people who live in the community, but who also help their community both physically and financially) and decreased need for assistance, thus paying for the program.
fascism gets thrown around when people hear half an idea, then spout off about it. (although, how its fascist to help people with their education - even if that help comes with a reciprocal work requirement - i\'ll never quite understand... methinks some people also don\'t know the meaning of the words they use/repeat) i know i\'ll sound like an old fuddy duddy, but i really miss the days when, if someone didn\'t know much about a subject, they knew better than to interject about it. although, free speech also makes it fun listening to people make fools of themselves. i mean, really, why educate yourself before speaking? you have an opinion, who cares if its informed!?! call me elitist, but i like my discussions to be knowledgeable ones.
(sorry if that sounds harsh, jocelyn - its not meant full-force at you, just at the myriad of people spouting off half-cocked about so many things these days)
-
drew~ first, if there were a black guy running on both sides, wouldn\'t that split the black vote? so your fear is only based on this one instance, when, finally, there was a non-honkey choice to be voted for. and are you really surprised that at the first chance to vote for a non-white, that blacks and latinos came out extra strong? like, they maybe felt like they finally had a legitimized voice in this country??
and its not 95% of an entire demographic, its 95% of that demographic which voted. i still don\'t see the difference between 95% of blacks voting for the black guy as opposed to 100% of whites voting for white guys. just because its bad that that has been the only choice doesn\'t negate that fact that until now, 100% of whites have voted for a white guy, who also happened to be their only choice. now, with one black guy to vote for, the blacks voted for that one black guy, just like whites have voted for their choice of white guys. if there were two choices, the percentage wouldn\'t have been nearly that high. i understand what you\'re trying to say, but your fear is an unrealistic one. you put two equal candidates up against each other, and the vote won\'t be so heavily weighted one way or the other.
kindms~ in a free SOCIETY people shouldn\'t have to be PAID $40 an hour to get them to volunteer to HELP their community. however, since no one is REQUIRING anyone to do anything, but rather are OFFERING a $4,000 tax incentive for a mere 100 hours of community service, i\'m not sure why y\'all are getting so riled up. don\'t want $4,000 for 100 hours of work, fine. of course, then you should also have no problem if your home value drops because of increased gang activity, vandalism, home invasions, car thefts, etc because you can\'t be bothered to help your community for $40 an hour for 100 hours. once you finish your FREE education, mind you.
this seems to be the biggest issue. people going with gut reactions, rather than actually knowing of which they speak. show me where anyone will be FORCED to do anything (forced at $40an hour!!! lololol), and i\'ll concede. otherwise, its just more inflammatory rhetoric from the right about something which won\'t happen in the first place.
Sorry. From the language that was being used. I was under the assumption that Obama or whoever was discussing mandatory volunteerism and from the posts I read it seemed that way.
So now I am more confused. Why were the terms Fascist being bandied about ? So this is a program designed to encourage community work that you get paid for ? I guess my only question would be where is the money coming from ?
-
From Obama\'s mouth himself:
"This is the home of the Harlem Children\'s Zone - an all-encompassing, all-hands-on-deck anti-poverty effort that is literally saving a generation of children in a neighborhood where they were never supposed to have a chance.
The philosophy behind the project is simple - if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can\'t just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community. And we have to focus on what actually works.
If you\'re a child who\'s born in the Harlem Children\'s Zone, you start life differently than other inner-city children. Your parents probably went to what they call " Baby College", a place where they received counseling on how to care for newborns and what to expect in those first months. You start school right away, because there\'s early childhood education. When your parents are at work, you have a safe place to play and learn, because there\'s child care, and after school programs, even in the summer. There are innovative charter schools to attend. There\'s free medical services that offer care when you\'re sick and preventive services to stay healthy. There\'s affordable, good food available so you\'re not malnourished. There are job counselors and financial counselors. There\'s technology training and crime prevention.
You don\'t just sign up for this program; you\'re actively recruited for it, because the idea is that if everyone is involved, and no one slips through the cracks, then you really can change an entire community. Geoffrey Canada, the program\'s inspirational, innovative founder, put it best - instead of helping some kids beat the odds, the Harlem Children\'s Zone is actually changing the odds altogether.
And it\'s working. Parents in Harlem are actually reading more to their children. Their kids are staying in school and passing statewide tests at higher rates than other children in New York City. They\'re going to college in a place where it was once unheard of. They\'ve even placed third at a national chess championship.
So we know this works. And if we know it works, there\'s no reason this program should stop at the end of those blocks in Harlem. It\'s time to change the odds for neighborhoods all across America. And that\'s why when I\'m President, the first part of my plan to combat urban poverty will be to replicate the Harlem Children\'s Zone in twenty cities across the country. We\'ll train staff, we\'ll have them draw up detailed plans with attainable goals, and the federal government will provide half of the funding for each city, with the rest coming from philanthropies and businesses.
Now, how much will this cost? I\'ll be honest - it can\'t be done on the cheap. It will cost a few billion dollars a year. We won\'t just spend the money because we can - every step these cities take will be evaluated, and if certain plans or programs aren\'t working, we will stop them and try something else.
But we will find the money to do this because we can\'t afford not to. Dr. King once remarked that if we can find the money to put a man on the moon, then we can find the money to put a man on his own two feet. There\'s no reason we should be spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to imprison one of these kids when they turn eighteen when we could be spending $3,500 to turn their lives around with this program. And to really put it in perspective, think of it this way. The Harlem Children\'s Zone is saving a generation of children for $46 million a year. That\'s about what the war in Iraq costs American taxpayers every four hours."
-
wait wait wait.....
so the fact that, until now, 100% of a demographic has voted for itself for the past 200+ years is ok, but now, all of a sudden, its a bad thing???? white men have voted only for white men until now. but all of a sudden, blacks voting for a black guy is bad for democracy????
You\'re twisting my words around: White men have only had white men to vote for (in the general election) until this year. It\'s no question that that fact, in itself, is a problem. But it\'s not the issue that I\'m talking about. 95% of whites didn\'t vote for John McCain this year. Maybe I\'m wrong, but I\'ll restate my concern: Seeing that any demographic voted 95% one way troubles me.
I hate that I always seem to come off as a right-wing nut job in these political threads, because I\'m actually pretty liberal. I just like to make sure that the underrepresented voice is accounted for, and on dotinfo, that would be the conservative voice.
First off, I don\'t think anyone is being a right-wing "nutjob" based on the notion that we are looking at things from certain socio-demographics. Conservativism once seemed to be the basis for the development of this country\'s republic. We are a republic, aren\'t we? That is surely diminished. The ideology is about ensuring personal freedoms that are not controlled by any one government office, and that we abide by the constitution. The key word is OUR CONSTITUTION.Certain "neo-Conservatives" have imho, given Conservatives a bad wrap because they often tend to be the preachy, evangelical, favoring war, and banning certain freedoms based on religious ideology. This is the neo-con base for Palin\'s side of politics. This is not actual conservativism folks.
However, I think it\'s interesting how the mass media shaped our tendency to vote a certain way. If it were truly about gender and race, then Cynthia McKinney (the green party) would\'ve won, based on her being an African American female. But, the media did not bother to highlight any other candidates except for Obama and McCain. It\'s not because people would think the third parties didn\'t have a chance, because if we the people knew more about the other candidates, we might have more likely voted for one of these third parties; it is more about the orchestration of candidates based on massive political agendas.
Ron Paul hosted a conference and invited all of the third party candidates, ranging from the constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin, libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader, to the socialist Cynthia McKinney. All of them agreed on four points:
1.) End the Iraq War now and withdraw all US troops from the region. Further, put an end to the philosophy which brings us into such wars.
2.) Protect civil liberties and privacy for all persons under US jurisdiction.
3.) Eliminate (or at least reduce) the national debt.
4.) Thoroughly investigate the Federal Reserve.
However, we did not see or hear about this conference, because both McCain and Obama have never represented our true voice. The true voice, as I\'m assuming both many liberals and true conservatives hold: We just want to leave others alone (end war NOW) and help our people grow and prosper!
-
In regards to the Harlem Children\'s Zone, I just found this passage from a recent article in the Baltimore Sun.
"In January of last year, Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall visited a Zone after-
school program for middle-schoolers that focuses on personal finance. In a campaign speech last year,
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wants to launch 20 others programs like the
Zone across the country. "
http://www.hcz.org/images/stories/pdfs/baltimore_sun.pdf
HELL YES!!!!
-
Tax incentive for community service = geniuous idea.
-
Amen Chags & JKing.
If I won the lottery one of the things I would do is fund this incredible urban mentoring program.
i stopped reading after this line...total bullshit
How is that total bullshit? It\'s true. I see how much people suffer and it sucks. It just **** sucks. I don\'t need a nice car, big house etc. I\'d much rather make a difference in society, no matter how big or small.
BTW this is the program I was talking about:
"reason: What reforms do you think are necessary? What can policy makers do to make public schools more effective?
Burns: Five years ago I couldn?t have given you an answer to that question. But I?ve learned about a program right now in Harlem. It?s been around for 12 years now. It?s called the Harlem Children?s Zone. The basic philosophy is so logical and so obvious. What works in the middle class is that you have input, the healthy positive input into an infant every day of that child?s life, as an infant and as a young child. Somebody?s always there. That?s how we raise our kids, and the success rate is very, very high. There are some failures in the middle class and the upper middle class, but the success rate is high.
That?s what they do in Harlem in the Children?s Zone?with about 35,000 kids. From birth, someone is with that kid until he gets out of college. They?re normal kids?not geniuses or anything?but they will be able to break the cycle of poverty and of drugs in those neighborhoods because those kids are not focused on drugs and poverty. They?re focused on the positive aspects that come from traditionally raising kids where you expect things from them. You tell them how good they are, you boost their egos, and you light the fires under them. That?s how you do it. That?s how it?s done in most middle class homes. I mean, that?s how simple it is. In Harlem, it cost them $4,500 a child.
And in talking with Geoff Canada, who runs the program up there, they?ve had 2,200 different groups?around 2,200 groups that have come to see their program. People who come to watch are impressed and want to go back to other states, to other countries, with the hope of implementing the program. Yet there isn?t another Children?s Zone that I know of anywhere in the country."
-
thanks!
one last question, though. if you acknowledge that with more than one black candidate the percentage of black voters going for one of them would drop, why is this still an issue for you? it is a one-time anamoly. if colin powell had won the republican nomination, do you still think 95% of the demographic would have gone for obama? if not, then what\'s the problem? i guess that\'s the part i don\'t get. this was the exception rather than the rule....
-
drew~ first, if there were a black guy running on both sides, wouldn\'t that split the black vote? so your fear is only based on this one instance, when, finally, there was a non-honkey choice to be voted for. and are you really surprised that at the first chance to vote for a non-white, that blacks and latinos came out extra strong? like, they maybe felt like they finally had a legitimized voice in this country??
and its not 95% of an entire demographic, its 95% of that demographic which voted. i still don\'t see the difference between 95% of blacks voting for the black guy as opposed to 100% of whites voting for white guys. just because its bad that that has been the only choice doesn\'t negate that fact that until now, 100% of whites have voted for a white guy, who also happened to be their only choice. now, with one black guy to vote for, the blacks voted for that one black guy, just like whites have voted for their choice of white guys. if there were two choices, the percentage wouldn\'t have been nearly that high. i understand what you\'re trying to say, but your fear is an unrealistic one. you put two equal candidates up against each other, and the vote won\'t be so heavily weighted one way or the other.
Points well taken... I guess we\'ve reached the old "agree to disagree" plateau. Here\'s to one day reaching the point where the best two (or more... perish the thought :wink:) candidates are nominated and race/gender/religion won\'t even be discussed.
Also, excellent use of the phrase "non-honkey".
-
drew~ first, if there were a black guy running on both sides, wouldn\'t that split the black vote? so your fear is only based on this one instance, when, finally, there was a non-honkey choice to be voted for. and are you really surprised that at the first chance to vote for a non-white, that blacks and latinos came out extra strong? like, they maybe felt like they finally had a legitimized voice in this country??
and its not 95% of an entire demographic, its 95% of that demographic which voted. i still don\'t see the difference between 95% of blacks voting for the black guy as opposed to 100% of whites voting for white guys. just because its bad that that has been the only choice doesn\'t negate that fact that until now, 100% of whites have voted for a white guy, who also happened to be their only choice. now, with one black guy to vote for, the blacks voted for that one black guy, just like whites have voted for their choice of white guys. if there were two choices, the percentage wouldn\'t have been nearly that high. i understand what you\'re trying to say, but your fear is an unrealistic one. you put two equal candidates up against each other, and the vote won\'t be so heavily weighted one way or the other.
kindms~ in a free SOCIETY people shouldn\'t have to be PAID $40 an hour to get them to volunteer to HELP their community. however, since no one is REQUIRING anyone to do anything, but rather are OFFERING a $4,000 tax incentive for a mere 100 hours of community service, i\'m not sure why y\'all are getting so riled up. don\'t want $4,000 for 100 hours of work, fine. of course, then you should also have no problem if your home value drops because of increased gang activity, vandalism, home invasions, car thefts, etc because you can\'t be bothered to help your community for $40 an hour for 100 hours. once you finish your FREE education, mind you.
this seems to be the biggest issue. people going with gut reactions, rather than actually knowing of which they speak. show me where anyone will be FORCED to do anything (forced at $40an hour!!! lololol), and i\'ll concede. otherwise, its just more inflammatory rhetoric from the right about something which won\'t happen in the first place.
-
Amen Chags & JKing.
If I won the lottery one of the things I would do is fund this incredible urban mentoring program.
i stopped reading after this line...total bullshit
-
so, getting $40 an hour in addition to helping the community of which you are a part is facist??? l o l
some of y\'all sound selfish and spoiled as hell. you realize that you are citizens of this country and, by very definition, are supposed to put into this country so that you can take out of this country all that it offers, right? or do y\'all think you should just be able to take and let someone else get around to helping pay back what you\'ve taken?
or would you just prefer to be lazy and let your communities continue to stagnate, just so you wouldn\'t have to spend one hundred hours in the course of an entire year doing something to help out? oh, and getting paid $40 an hour while doing something good for more than just you? i\'ll tell you what, as someone who volunteered throughout college, i would have loved to have made $4,000 over a summer for tuition doing something i was already doing. but i guess you (or your parents) are all rich and don\'t/didn\'t need any tuition assistance, ever?
The idea of volunteerism is great. However in a FREE society NO ONE should be FORCED to participate. It is the same idea as the draft. People should have the ability to choose if this is what they want to do, not be mandated by the government.
Just because you are more comfortable with the focus of this "volunteerism" doesn\'t make it OK. You cannot force people in a free society to do things against their wishes. I don\'t care what the cause is.
-
wait wait wait.....
so the fact that, until now, 100% of a demographic has voted for itself for the past 200+ years is ok, but now, all of a sudden, its a bad thing???? white men have voted only for white men until now. but all of a sudden, blacks voting for a black guy is bad for democracy????
You\'re twisting my words around: White men have only had white men to vote for (in the general election) until this year. It\'s no question that that fact, in itself, is a problem. But it\'s not the issue that I\'m talking about. 95% of whites didn\'t vote for John McCain this year. Maybe I\'m wrong, but I\'ll restate my concern: Seeing that any demographic voted 95% one way troubles me.
I hate that I always seem to come off as a right-wing nut job in these political threads, because I\'m actually pretty liberal. I just like to make sure that the underrepresented voice is accounted for, and on dotinfo, that would be the conservative voice.
-
Amen Chags & JKing.
If I won the lottery one of the things I would do is fund this incredible urban mentoring program. David Simon, Co-creator of the Wire, talked about it in an interview once. Apparently this program, which is located in South Bronx pairs up disadvantaged African-American youths with mentoring parents at a young age. The mentoring parents then make a commitment to stay with this child up until 18 ie being a part of his/her life, helping them with school, pretty much acting like a pseudo parent, but most importantly giving them unconditional love and stability. Mind you the mentors aren\'t legally adopting the child. Anyways, this program has been a huge success in deterring some of the nation\'s most troublesome demographic from going down the dark road of self destruction of gangs, drugs etc.... If I had the money I would try to implement this program in every major American city and also open up meditation and wellness centers geared toward said population. Living in St. Louis I\'m prevued to a lot of social issues, which aren\'t as outspoken back East, and it breaks my heart to see America turning their backs on them. Hopefully Obama\'s program will actively address these issues.
-
wait wait wait.....
so the fact that, until now, 100% of a demographic has voted for itself for the past 200+ years is ok, but now, all of a sudden, its a bad thing???? white men have voted only for white men until now. but all of a sudden, blacks voting for a black guy is bad for democracy????
-
I can\'t help but worry when 95% of any demographic votes for one candidate. 95% of any large demographic (large = race, gender, religion) voting one way is probably enough to strongly impact if not flat-out decide an election, and it doesn\'t give the vibe of folks voting based on the issues. Political strategists would be smart to use this precedent to their advantage, but it would be bad for democracy if it were to continue.
Please don\'t misconstrue this as a racist comment, as the demographic in question just happens to be the black vote in this case. I would feel the same way if 95% of whites, Asians, Christians, Jews, men, women, etc. voted the same way.
-
As for giving back something in return for citizenship, I would like to introduce the notion of taxes.
:point:
-
I am not against community service, I also think it is a great thing and I volunteer all that I can.
However, I have never been forced to do it.
As for giving back something in return for citizenship, I would like to introduce the notion of taxes.
I think that community service is provides much more "self gratification" than anything materialistic. Would you rather have someone compliment you on a new set of clothes, or smile and say "Thank you" when you give them food in a soup kitchen?
-
so, getting $40 an hour in addition to helping the community of which you are a part is facist??? l o l
some of y\'all sound selfish and spoiled as hell. you realize that you are citizens of this country and, by very definition, are supposed to put into this country so that you can take out of this country all that it offers, right? or do y\'all think you should just be able to take and let someone else get around to helping pay back what you\'ve taken?
or would you just prefer to be lazy and let your communities continue to stagnate, just so you wouldn\'t have to spend one hundred hours in the course of an entire year doing something to help out? oh, and getting paid $40 an hour while doing something good for more than just you? i\'ll tell you what, as someone who volunteered throughout college, i would have loved to have made $4,000 over a summer for tuition doing something i was already doing. but i guess you (or your parents) are all rich and don\'t/didn\'t need any tuition assistance, ever?
-
I wish someone forced me to perform community service in my late teens. I believe it would have helped to focus me before heading off to college. I think it would have made a big difference. I don\'t believe that kids coming of age since the draft was done away with understand the meaning of self sacrifice, and I believe it shows in the morals of our society.
It makes me think of that "Myspace Toolbox" thread. So many kids, young adults and even those that have reached middle age are self obsessed, materialistic, and overly concerned with self gratification. 1 or 2 years of community service (working in a soup kitchen, animal shelter, welfare house, military service, or public works project) could really change someone\'s life.
Just my personal soapbox moment.
-
Dear Mr. President,
Don\'t shut down Nasa\'s Constellation program as a way to pay for your education reform as you proposed in your budget.
Seriously.
As to the original post:
Required "volunteer" service is not volunteer. It\'s consription.
It doesn\'t sound partically facists - that would be killing you if you don\'t volunteer - it sounds more Soviet.
Not that there is that much of a difference between the two.
-
Dear Mr. President,
Don\'t shut down Nasa\'s Constellation program as a way to pay for your education reform as you proposed in your budget.
-
Selfless service is a key component to spiritual fulfillment. I think this is a brilliant idea.
But is it "selfless" if it\'s required? People aren\'t being selfless when they perform court-ordered community service... how is this different?
-
Selfless service is a key component to spiritual fulfillment. I think this is a brilliant idea.
The outcome is certainly brilliant, but the prescription for such brilliance could cause a disdain or resentment to be forced into public service. If people choose by their own forces to be charitable, the need for programs could be eradicated! <---Not likely to occur.... but in reality the gov\'t tends to add more bureaucracy/red tape to the elements of getting things accomplished.
Did anyone hear about the uproar concerning Obama\'s campaign "volunteer/workers"? I heard a recording of some very disgruntled campaign workers who showed up to get a check and practically demanded to get paid, waiting in lines and yelling about "where\'s my money?". I wasn\'t sure if they were under the pre-supposition of getting paid or not.
-
Selfless service is a key component to spiritual fulfillment. I think this is a brilliant idea.
-
Since the election is over, I guess a new thread is necessary, unless we go back to the "pissing contest" thread. I\'m not too fond of that title or that thread so, I\'ma startin a new one. Soooo...
Anyone else think requiring community service is...
fascist!?
Yes, i totally agree. Its up to the individual. No one should be forced to help their community. It defeats the purpose of volunteering.
This is just the philosophical aspect of it. On a political level, it\'s much more scary.
-
Since the election is over, I guess a new thread is necessary, unless we go back to the "pissing contest" thread. I\'m not too fond of that title or that thread so, I\'ma startin a new one. Soooo...
Anyone else think requiring community service is...
fascist!?
Yes, i totally agree. Its up to the individual. No one should be forced to help their community. It defeats the purpose of volunteering.
I mean, i went to private catholic school....and to graudate it was required to have 120 hours of community service done before the end of senior year. I get that, cause they were nuns, and well, its a really nunny thing to do.
I really hope Obama proves me wrong on some things...... its just the beginning.....
-
Since the election is over, I guess a new thread is necessary, unless we go back to the "pissing contest" thread. I\'m not too fond of that title or that thread so, I\'ma startin a new one. Soooo...
Anyone else think requiring community service is...
fascist!?