The public school system was created by capitalists FOR capitalists. It's a direct product of the industrial revolution.
Unfortunately, most people don't really grasp why the public education system even exists in the first place. People don't question why high school kids aren't taught basic finance and investing. People don't question why entrepreneurship is barely mentioned in high school, let alone encouraged. The list goes on and on and the result is exactly as the creators of the system expected. Kids graduate with the hope of finding some kind of job, then doing some pathetic version of that for the rest of their lives. It fills the factories and service jobs. Rarely is the mold broken, and that is 100% by design.
The public education system is designed specifically to churn out worker drones. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. If you want to make it to middle management, you go to college. Beyond that, there is little unless you are truly motivated.
The most successful (and happiest) people I know are those who either jumped ship early on and started their own businesses, or those who refused to let the system destroy their creativity and used that to either create or demand a job of their choosing.
It may be a socialist system, but it was created for capitalism.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 27.02.2008 @ 01:06
I live and breathe capitalism. However, unregulated capitalism will systematically destroy everything it touches. On the other hand, intelligently regulated capitalism is probably the best working system the world has yet produced. The U.S. is somewhere in the middle.
I understand the flow of money. Corporations go green for one of two reasons. It makes them look better to their customers, or the resources they use are becoming scarce. Either way, itâ€™s about money. ISO compliance is intelligent and saves money in the long run, which is the whole idea.
I don't really think you understand what the word fascism means. Fascism is corporate run government. Thus, there can't be "Liberal Fascism." Socialism is completely outside the bounds of this discussion. Fascism is a trigger word in todayâ€™s politics used to cause particular emotions. (Islamo-fascist, Lib-fascist, etc.) It's rarely used in proper context.
I don't really understand how the ACLU applies here, but I also don't really understand the point youâ€™re trying to make either. It seems like you're taking a jab at so called "political correctness." I'm actually a big fan of political correctness. Why? Because it's another way of saying "use common sense and don't be an asshole." In the real world, it makes good business sense to treat people with respect. You make more money that way.
This is the point where you might tell me of some extreme example of political correctness that's either didn't actually happen, or is completely blown out of proportion. If you're tempted down that road of logical fallacy, I'd advise against it. Another option would be to point out some case where the ACLU defended some horrible person and about how morally wrong that was. Donâ€™t go there either, itâ€™s pointless.
I agree with you that sensitivity training is ridiculous, but for different reasons. I think it's ridiculous because people should have the common decency to not be horrible to each other. We shouldn't have to go through training, but alas, we do.
I'm a capitalist. I'm a fiscal conservative. Political correctness makes sense to me. The ACLU is a good organization to have around. They do far far more good than harm. So is the Electronic Freedom Foundation. They do good work as well. Why is it that to be a republican it almost seems mandatory to loath such organizations? That's one of the reasons why I'm not a republican.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 25.02.2008 @ 02:00
It always baffles me why you guys seem to fear socialism so much. It's an idea that will ultimately fail every single time, no matter what. It's a convenient boogeyman in the closet. Sounding off in worried tones about it is like Carl Rove getting gay marriage on a ballot. Scare the people! Fire them up!
Socialism will never work in the US, no matter how many socialist professors are spouting off, and no matter how many people who have been screwed by corporations decide to fight back. It doesn't matter how many ridiculous extreme sounding stories you heard from a friend of a friend who heard someplace that some liberal public school kindergarten teacher was teaching sex ed to 5 year olds.
It's nonsense. Look at the wealth distribution. That's the way things are around here, scary stories about wealth redistribution via taxes are just that. The fact of the matter is this: A fat middle class prevents civil war. It allows the rich to keep being rich. Keep the middle class placated, and the system continues to chug along just fine. If some tax dollars need to be shifted around to accomplish this, then that's what happens.
Fear of liberalism is insane. Fear of socialism is even more insane. This country will go down in flames before socialism ever has even a snowballs chance of taking hold.
Seriously. How hard is it to follow the money? A moderate dose of liberalism keeps the class balance in check. Nobody knows that better than the people who run the show.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 24.02.2008 @ 04:06
* "You cannot tell me, and the rest of the patrons of the board, that in the last 35 years there hasnâ€™t been ONE thing that the USA has done to be proud of?"
The logical fallacy above is called a Straw Man. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
I did not say that there was nothing I was proud of, but you knew that. You've created an emotional appeal that verges on yet another logical fallacy.
People who say "Shame on you for not leaving" don't seem to grasp the basic tenants of the constitution itself. The founders put together a beautiful document. They said, here are the rules, all written down for you. But, the best rule of all of them is the rule that says you can change the rules. There is nothing in there that says, if you don't like it, get out. The founders dealt with that in England, and specifically designed the system to avoid that mentality.
People who say "Shame on you for not leaving" would do better to say "If you don't like it, then try to change it." To me, that's a far more patriotic and truly American thing to say. Much better than hiding behind the guise of patriotism and launching poorly thought out attacks at vocal people unhappy with certain aspects of their government.
The thesis of the piece is that Michelle Obama's words matter, which I agree with. The thesis of your post is that based on your straw man I hate America and should have left already, which I do not agree with.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 21.02.2008 @ 10:53
His examples are right on the money. I can think of several more that have occurred within the past seven years too.
We are a democratic republic. Our elected officials represent us both internally and to the rest of the world. When they behave like assholes, it reflects poorly on us. Because of this, some of us feel a degree of shame when someone we've chosen as our advocate goes and does something counter to what we believe.
I'd argue that events like those cited caused one version of our country to die and get replaced with another. The world sees us differently, treats us differently.
At first glance, it's easy to not care if the world sees us differently. As second glance, this affects us in countless ways, commerce and security being chief among them. Then the altered perspective cascades down to every other aspect of our interaction with the world.
The examples cited are not ridiculous. I felt some degree of shame or embarrassment when reading them. Embarrassed that I'm part of a country that elected those people that pulled that crap.
So, if Michelle Obama hasn't felt proud of her country, maybe she's got her own list. Maybe it's longer, or other things affected her more deeply. I don't know, but what I do know is that her words affect us because of who she is, our potential first lady. Thus they matter.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 21.02.2008 @ 03:55
"He must be exposed for the inexperienced, shallow thinking, ultra-liberal politician that he is."
You keep saying this, and I keep reading the only three job requirements for president as written in the Constitution. Still can't find anything indicating he's not qualified for the job.
I can't fathom why the founders would have left something so crucial as experience, conservative, or deep thinking, out of the job requirements.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 16.02.2008 @ 17:15
Our founding fathers only saw fit for three requirements to become president...
(Section 1 of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution)
* be a natural born citizen of the united States
* be at least 35 years old
* have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years
I don't see anything in there about being a full vessel, or real life learned lessons. Maturity is apparently covered by the 35yr age requirement. Honesty is supposedly ensured by the check and balances of the other two 'coequal' branches. None of those requirements says anything about "political worth" either.
Why do you suppose the founders left out such important things as you described? Only three requirements are needed to hold the highest office in the land. How exactly do you quantify real life lessons learned in a person?Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 15.02.2008 @ 02:30
"And most importantly, he is so vague and nebulous in his politics that, like an empty vessel, you can fill him up with just about anything your heart desires."
Because of the above, I took a trip to his website. I read through his 64 page "Blueprint for Change." Turns out he's not so vague and nebulous in his politics after all. The approach is increasingly granular as you get further in. I particularly liked his stances on tech related issues. Though I don't agree with some of his ideas, I'd hardly call him an empty vessel.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 14.02.2008 @ 18:07
For as long as I have tried to follow this insanity, I swear to jebus that I still have no idea what Republican actually means.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 10.02.2008 @ 03:14
If the party wants to be known as a conservative party, then actually being conservative might be a good place to start.
Otherwise, all I see is GOD GOD GOD! GAY GAY GAY! ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION! Followed closely with massive hypocrisy.
Republicans had almost total control of every branch of government for almost seven years. If they were enacting their ideals in that time, the fruit of that labor certainly doesn't align itself with any form of conservatism I'd like to be a part of.
All it does is make me feel disappointed and bitter and totally betrayed because I actually voted for some of them. Sigh.Comment Posted By tHePeOPle On 4.02.2008 @ 17:11