Lets discuss social issues in America

[Apotheosis]

I would like to start this thread for people to discuss social issues in America.

Rules: #1. ABSOLUTELY NO FOREIGN POLICY. Yes, the world is intertwined, but let's set that aside for the time being.

#2. If you do not have something intelligent to say, do not say it.
(ie, OMG U R WRONG, I AM RIGHT BECAUSE: a) I R NRA MEMBER, or b) I R COMMUNIST/ANARCHIST

#3. Please no flaming. I agree that it can be "amusing", however, no one really arrives at a conclusion except that flamer #1 is belittling flamer #2

I cannot enforce those rules, but I would appreciate that people at least keep breaking them to a minimum.


Few topics that would be interesting to hear people write about: public & private education in America, socioeconomic discrimination vs. racial discrimination, "consumerism", nepotism (in the workforce, or elsewhere), the future of America. But ummm, feel free to vent/rant about anything.

[Back]

I’ll be happy to contribute.

Its a toss-up between lack of education and inbreeding.

[Atlanteax]

It is unchecked litigation that is bringing this country to ruins.

It is damaging education, employment, healthcare, and other matters to the extend that common sense has been effectively completely eliminated from the big picture, and it'll take a whole generation, if not more, to implement the necessary reforms... which (perhaps not so) ironically can be tied up by litigation.

[Warriorbird]

How is it ruining the country? Honestly, I'd say the current "LAW BAD!" movement has indemnified most everyone apart from doctors and lawyers themselves. It seems more like the whole thing is an effort to keep corporations from responsibility for anything. I don't see it as a particularly conservative/liberal issue but a personal freedom vs. corporate entity issue.

Litigation is one of the ways the most basic fundamental issues facing our society are decided. A fair number of Republicans even realize that, hence the tremendous focus on the Supreme Court (which I think is an excellent strategy to make their policies have a long term effect).

[Stanley Burrell]

Our current administration?

That and the south.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I have a real issue with our school system, to be quite honest.. the way they are set up, is to work for an industrial society. America is turning faster and faster away from Industrial/Workline professions to more Information/Service/Technology professions.

I think we need major school reform, and need to re-organize how we do schools. I like the A school and B school system used in Britain-- children are seperated into classes according to ability and learning type, not just age. Therefore, gifted auditory learners aren't placed in classes with gifted visual learners. On top of that, extensive testing is done to give the child an option to go to either an A school or B school. The A school is more for someone who is proficient at what we would call "white collar' work.. and once they get on from there, they get government grants to pay for their college. The B school is for those who want to learn a trade and become craftsmen/craftswomen.

The only issue with this is that people in the US are highly sensitive to equality. Unfortunately, lots of blue collar workers are looked down upon by some white collar workers, therefore.. the idea of seperating our children into those two groups (no matter how much sense it makes) will make some people balk because they believe someone good at welding could JUST as easily be a Lawyer.. the truth is that we all have innate talents, and instead of funneling children through a program intended tohalf prepare us for college, half prepare us to work on an assembly line.. it'd be better suited to find a way to help each child learn their special talents so that they can build careers.. our current school system lets those who don't fall perfectly in line flounder.

I'm a firm believer that in order to fix society, we have to work bottom up. That means we have to start with our children, so that our nation GROWS to be better.

[Apathy]

Why am I not allowed to endorse anarchism?

On another note here's the transcript from Bush's speech last night
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/bush.immigration.text/index.html

I was impressed, simply because he made actual points instead of just broad generalizations (if anyone saw Howard Dean on the Daily Show last night you know what I mean). Makes me wonder if they have a new speech writer.

Can't say I put a whole lot of stock in "robotic flying machines" patrolling the border, though.

[Wezas]

Nepotism, ftl.

1) I had a temp job that I worked at for 6 months. Did an excellent job, everyone said how they wished they could hire me on a more permanent basis.

Until the summer came and I was told that I was being replaced by my Supervisor's daughter, who was out of school for the summer. But they'd keep me in mind for the fall when she leaves to go back to school.


2) My previous job. Company was founded by two men, lets call one of the men "Dick". Dick's wife was hired to do admin work and son was hired to do the IT-related jobs. Dick's brother was hired along with his brother's wife. Soon after, Dick's niece and two nephews joined. Dick's other son started working there. Dick's other niece also started.

Out of our section of the company (the part that Dick has control of) approximately half of the staff is his family.

[Skeeter]

Steinbrenner is killing baseball

[Gan]

I have a real issue with our school system, to be quite honest.. the way they are set up, is to work for an industrial society. America is turning faster and faster away from Industrial/Workline professions to more Information/Service/Technology professions.

Basically any secondary education system is geared towards the industrial sector minimums and service sector minimums, which still employs part of our economy of scale. Those who are looking to advance in the technology sector or service sector maximums (healthcare etc.) have to seek further education/training in post-secondary educational institutions.



I think we need major school reform, and need to re-organize how we do schools. I like the A school and B school system used in Britain-- children are seperated into classes according to ability and learning type, not just age. Therefore, gifted auditory learners aren't placed in classes with gifted visual learners. On top of that, extensive testing is done to give the child an option to go to either an A school or B school. The A school is more for someone who is proficient at what we would call "white collar' work.. and once they get on from there, they get government grants to pay for their college. The B school is for those who want to learn a trade and become craftsmen/craftswomen.

I agree that we need primary and secondary educational reforms, but I do not think the solution is to be found in a socialist model. Furthermore I dont believe that all answers lie in testing. Not all children take tests the same way, and not all tests are absolute in judging ones ability, in the present or the future. If you spend a lifetime telling a child they're stupid, eventually they will belive it. Segregating students involuntarily by a measure of intelligence is doing just that.



The only issue with this is that people in the US are highly sensitive to equality. Unfortunately, lots of blue collar workers are looked down upon by some white collar workers, therefore.. the idea of seperating our children into those two groups (no matter how much sense it makes) will make some people balk because they believe someone good at welding could JUST as easily be a Lawyer.. the truth is that we all have innate talents, and instead of funneling children through a program intended tohalf prepare us for college, half prepare us to work on an assembly line.. it'd be better suited to find a way to help each child learn their special talents so that they can build careers.. our current school system lets those who don't fall perfectly in line flounder.

Equality is a major tenant of our society. Unfortunately there are some who display a lack of education or a lack of maturity and therefore must prop up their insecurity by finding someone or something to look down upon.



I'm a firm believer that in order to fix society, we have to work bottom up. That means we have to start with our children, so that our nation GROWS to be better.

Agreed

[Apotheosis]

Why am I not allowed to endorse anarchism?

On another note here's the transcript from Bush's speech last night
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/bush.immigration.text/index.html

I was impressed, simply because he made actual points instead of just broad generalizations (if anyone saw Howard Dean on the Daily Show last night you know what I mean). Makes me wonder if they have a new speech writer.

Can't say I put a whole lot of stock in "robotic flying machines" patrolling the border, though.

No one takes anarchists seriously

[Warriorbird]

I'll definitely agree with that.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I agree that we need primary and secondary educational reforms, but I do not think the solution is to be found in a socialist model. Furthermore I dont believe that all answers lie in testing. Not all children take tests the same way, and not all tests are absolute in judging ones ability, in the present or the future. If you spend a lifetime telling a child they're stupid, eventually they will belive it. Segregating students involuntarily by a measure of intelligence is doing just that.

That right there is the problem of our CURRENT system. They test one way-- paper and pencil with proper English, on broad generalized subjects in massive amounts. Auditory tests, visual tests, written tests done on a smaller, you wouldn't even know they were testing you scale could be VERY helpful to determining a student's ability. Also-- you're not seperating students by intelligence at all, you're seperating them by ability and specific talent. You're not spending a life time telling a student their stupid at all-- you're spending a life time nurturing their individual talents and telling them it's ok to be good at what they may be good at, instead of forcing on them something that may be all wrong for them.

The problem with our school system is that it works for one type of learner and it emphasizes the importance of cognitive subjects over subjects that encourage more physical, visual/spacial skill. It hurts you to either be a) too smart or b) have a different learning style/ability than what is deemed appropriate for your age.

The idea that "blue collar" and tradeskill is stupid and that white collar "business" is smart is a preposterous idea. I've met plenty of idiot white collar workers and plenty of highly intelligent blue collar workers, but this country, like I said before, reacts violently to segregation no matter how much sense it makes. As far as I'm concerned, if a child wants to go to an A or B school, it is entirely in their hands to make it so. I see no reason to bar a kid who may have excellent skills with their hands from going to a school geared more for those who are seeking to become the lawyers and doctors. At least with this system, they're not given the choice of "Either it's college or you'll fail at life" as they are in the current system.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

No one takes anarchists seriously


I'll agree on this one too, heh.

[Latrinsorm]

Why am I not allowed to endorse anarchism?Hobbes got one thing right. Anarchy is a pretty piss-poor way of living.
You're not spending a life time telling a student their stupid at all-- you're spending a life time nurturing their individual talents and telling them it's ok to be good at what they may be good at, instead of forcing on them something that may be all wrong for them.This is incompatible with capitalism though. It just takes more education to be a good brain surgeon than to be a good plumber or a good physicist, and education has costs to it. Even if you make all education free, you can't turn back time. In truth, not all skills are equal. Further, not all people have useful talents. If I happened to be especially good at balancing on one foot with my eyes closed, why would I get paid for or trained in that? What application would my talent have? If instead I was trained from an early age in a variety of subjects such as math, english, and science, perhaps I could find that I was decent at math if I put my mind to it and should devote my career to that as opposed to balancing.

[Allusion]

I think a huge social issue that we face today is the sense of entitlement that many people have. This one issue affects the entire country. A few (non-inclusive) examples:

- litigation (people feel entitled to be able to sue for anything and for huge amounts)
- services/quality of life (feel like they are entitled to the best cars, the best clothes, paid vacations, cell phones, internet etc etc etc)
- good jobs (good pay, benefits, vacation, easy etc)
- healthcare (this one is huge, everyone thinks they should get free unlimited cost healthcare...where do you draw the line?)
- multi-lingual services (sorry folks, I speak 2 languages fluently and am working on a third, if you live in the US, learn english)


Now don't get me wrong. I think some of the things above SHOULD be available, with work and dedication. I do not think they should be available just because you are in the US and are able to breathe. Superlative jobs/school/quality of life should be things you work for. Not things that the government hands you just because.


Allusion

[Jorddyn]

We're too concerned with rights, and not concerned enough with responsibilities.

For example, while I believe adequate health care should be a right, I feel that everyone has a responsibility to try everything in their power to earn health care before relying on the government. I believe employers have a responsibility to provide affordable heathcare for all employees.

I believe that free education is a right. I believe that students and parents both have responsibilities they should live up to - attending, studying, trying.

And so on and so forth. I know this isn't the best explanation ever, but I think the concept is decent.

Jorddyn

[Skirmisher]

I think a huge social issue that we face today is the sense of entitlement that many people have. This one issue affects the entire country. A few (non-inclusive) examples:
...
- multi-lingual services (sorry folks, I speak 2 languages fluently and am working on a third, if you live in the US, learn english)
...
Allusion

I have to say that much as i love the US, we are probably the western industrialized nation with the WORST rate of natives who speak a second language.

[Sean of the Thread]

English mutherfucker.. do you speak it?

[DeV]

It is appropriately, motherfucker. And there is a reason second languages are taught in high schools and universities.

However, when it comes to immigration I agree that non-natives should be required to learn and speak the language, period.

[Tsa`ah]

We're too concerned with rights, and not concerned enough with responsibilities.

Unfortunately we also, or rather our administration and the army of yes men that support it, don't really believe in responsibility for those who make X dollars or on the corporate level.


For example, while I believe adequate health care should be a right, I feel that everyone has a responsibility to try everything in their power to earn health care before relying on the government. I believe employers have a responsibility to provide affordable heathcare for all employees.

And this is where responsibility for corporation, and our government, kicks in.

We have a system in place to deny employees their afforded rights (see temp services). A person working through a temp service doesn't receive the full time benefits that the person next to them receives. They don't have the umbrella of coverage provided by unemployment ... despite paying into it on many levels. A person can't really persue a wrongful termination case against the client, and because a temp service will never fire anyone ... one can't really persue a case against the service.

Let's not over look the fact that you'll never get healthcare unless it's provided by an employer to begin with. Or at least restrictive coverage unless you lie (see pre-existing condition).

Even our medical system needs a kick in the ass. Did you know people with insurance will always get preferential treatment? No lie.

If three people in need of hospitalization enter an ER, one with insurance, one with state provided healthcare, and one without insurance ... the patient with an insurance card will be admitted, the person with state coverage will be admitted only if they can't be stabilized or X amount of beds are available, the person without insurance will be discharged ASAP unless they can't be stabilized and go into a critical condition. The person without insurance will receive the barest form of care while in the ER, the person without insurance is likely to be denied for a follow up exam unless they have the cash with them, and then (depending on the illness) will have to get subsequent exams and testing that they really can't afford and can't get without having cash up front.

There is a reality to all of this, as there is with any social service. There is a rather large gap in coverage amongst the poor. It's a crappy system just like our taxes and the poor. Believe it or not, you can make too much money to be eligible for social service, yet lack ability to pay for your own coverage and day to day expenses.

This should be motivation to get out of that gap through education, but if you're in that gap ... you're likely in the same gap for tuition assistance.

So let's not get into "trying" to get healthcare until we remove the obstacles and rationalize the costs of healthcare.

[Latrinsorm]

Excellent use of letter coloration, DeV, but I must point out that the education in second language programs I've seen have been extremely lackluster. I took 6 years of Spanish, but I couldn't carry on a conversation for more than 20 seconds in Spanish. The requirements to take second-language classes don't really result in learning the second language to any appreciable extent. I don't know what their intended purpose is, but learning isn't a common result and this isn't exactly a big secret.

[Sean of the Thread]

NOTE: I actually agreed with Latrinsorm on something.

[Apathy]

Ouch. I guess I got put down by those who like order. I think of anarchism as a philosophy of life moreso than a government structure, so talking about it here isn't really appropriate anyways. Unfortunetly the only anarchy connotation that ever makes to the general public involves a lot of fire and a lot of death.

It's really a quite conservative philosophy, much more so than you would think. But alas, I am getting off-topic...

The American school system is not good. That's no secret to anyone. And both sides arguing their points right now are right. That's how broken our schools are.

We teach memorization and book skills. Street skills (common knowledge) are heavily ignored. People skills and problem solving skills are widely ignored until college. Technology is only available at schools wealthy enough to afford it, which creates a massive gap in society.

Our children are taught to believe the same things, to want the same things, and to think about the same things. That'd be great if we were omnipotent, but we're not. It's not fair to them and it's not healthy for society read: that german culture which has quite a bit of influence in the modern day school setup.

Schools kill creativity, teach children there is only one-way, and help make America less of a melting pot.

That rant felt pretty good :)

[DeV]

Excellent use of letter coloration, DeV, but I must point out that the education in second language programs I've seen have been extremely lackluster. I took 6 years of Spanish, but I couldn't carry on a conversation for more than 20 seconds in Spanish. The requirements to take second-language classes don't really result in learning the second language to any appreciable extent. I don't know what their intended purpose is, but learning isn't a common result and this isn't exactly a big secret.Interesting points regarding your indivudual experience with learning a second language, but so what? It doesn't change the fact that foreign language requirements are a staple in most high school curriculums and most definitely a requirement for graduation, even so far as being a requirement for continuing education on college levels depending on ones major. Some people go on to master the foreign language of their choosing. Just because you invested 6 years into something and got nothing out of it doesn't mean the same rings true for everyone else. Try to keep your individual accomplishments or lack thereof to a non-generalizing degree.

Btw, the English language is the most taught foreign language in European schools.

Furthermore, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/58733.htm -- One of the Bush administrations initiatives I fully support.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually, the anarchy I have in mind only involves fire insofar as it would be the only form of light and heat we'd have available to us. It involves quite a bit of death, yes, but more importantly the lives of humans are nasty, brutish, poor, and short. Why do you think government is so prevalent?

[Latrinsorm]

Just because you invested 6 years into something and got nothing out of it doesn't mean the same rings true for everyone else.I've met one person ever who continued their foreign language learning (my mom), though I'm sure a nonzero percentage of people do the same. Everyone in my Spanish class (over 20 kids) did very poorly on the AP test (I think one kid got a 3) and I would be hugely surprised if any of us could pass Spanish muster for more than a minute.

Just because schools demand people sit in a particular classroom at a particular time doesn't mean that schools care about people learning a particular field. Like I noted earlier, it's no secret that appreciable learning doesn't occur.
Try to keep your individual accomplishments or lack thereof to a non-generalizing degree.The general statement was "the education in second language programs I've seen have been extremely lackluster." To buttress this statement, I gave the specific example of myself. The second is not the basis of the first.

[Atlanteax]

It is appropriately, motherfucker. And there is a reason second languages are taught in high schools and universities.

Because it's politically correct. There's no practical reason for Americans to learn a non-English language if Europeans and Asians are required by their school systems to learn English as a second language.


However, when it comes to immigration I agree that non-natives should be required to learn and speak the language, period.

Agreed.

To make it effective, I'd modify law that employers, when hiring employees (and thus doing all that standard paperwork), aside from verifying that the individual can work in the U.S. legally, the individual also speaks English.

For the housekeeping/lawncare industry, the "work-around" there is to pay in cash.

[Jorddyn]

There is a reality to all of this, as there is with any social service. There is a rather large gap in coverage amongst the poor. It's a crappy system just like our taxes and the poor. Believe it or not, you can make too much money to be eligible for social service, yet lack ability to pay for your own coverage and day to day expenses.

This should be motivation to get out of that gap through education, but if you're in that gap ... you're likely in the same gap for tuition assistance.

So let's not get into "trying" to get healthcare until we remove the obstacles and rationalize the costs of healthcare.

First, I did say that I believe it is an employer's responsibility to offer affordable benefits to all employees. Seriously, remove the 90 day waiting period, remove the full time restrictions, remove the temp restriction. If they work for you, you offer them health care. Do I think it is enough to fix the whole system? Nope. Do I know what is? Nope.

Second, I completely agree with you that there are issues with the system that need fixed, and I didn't mean to toss out the old "get off your ass and get a job" card. My point is simply that I believe it is reasonable to require people to try to get healthcare via their own means before they are offered ongoing governmental assistance. There is room in there to allow for those who work and still cannot afford it, there is room in there for people who cannot work, there is room for extreme circumstances, there is room for slip ups, there is room for short term or one time assistance. There is little in there for people who are perfectly able but unwilling to work for years on end. In that case, sure, patch 'em up and ship 'em out. Luckily, I believe that to be the smallest group.

Jorddyn

[DeV]

I've met one person ever who continued their foreign language learning (my mom), Ok, that's nice to know. I know more than one, horray for me? My statement stands.
Everyone in my Spanish class (over 20 kids) did very poorly on the AP test (I think one kid got a 3) and I would be hugely surprised if any of us could pass Spanish muster for more than a minute. That's just terrible. :thumbsdown:


Just because schools demand people sit in a particular classroom at a particular time doesn't mean that schools care about people learning a particular field. I never said otherwise. And that has nothing at all to do with my earlier comment.
Like I noted earlier, it's no secret that appreciable learning doesn't occur.That can occur in any subject matter addressed in classroom learning. Foreign language is certainly not the only subject that could be affected by appreciable learning.
The general statement was "the education in second language programs I've seen have been extremely lackluster." To buttress this statement, I gave the specific example of myself. The second is not the basis of the first. At least you admit the statement was general. I guess I can sum it up quite easily by saying, that is a very unfortunate personal account. I'm glad the administration is recognizing that foreign languages are becoming more necessary than ever with the onslaught of a truly global society.

[DeV]

Because it's politically correct. There's no practical reason for Americans to learn a non-English language if Europeans and Asians are required by their school systems to learn English as a second language.
We are required to study many subjects we may never have any practical use for.

As Americans it’s very easy for us to barracade ourselves into the English only world. I also feel this is an ethnocentric attitude, which furthers the notion that our language is the only acceptable one.

I think you set your standards pretty low by thinking it is simply "politically correct" to require at the very least minimal foreign language study. I think the advantages of knowing a second language far outweigh the dissadvantages, if any.

[Latrinsorm]

That can occur in any subject matter addressed in classroom learning.Of course it can, the point is it does happen in 2nd language and none of the others. This is an a posteriori argument.
I'm glad the administration is recognizing that foreign languages are becoming more necessary than ever with the onslaught of a truly global society.I would use the term "onset" rather than "onslaught", but either way the only way we're going to have a truly global society is with one language; be it English, Spanish, or the human equivalent of Maylee. Increasing the per capita incidence of translators/multilinguals doesn't make a global society.

[Sean of the Thread]

>>that our language is the only acceptable one. <<

It IS the only acceptable one (unless you're in Miami then God help you). Welcome to America.

[DeV]

What you posted.The fact that you took 6 years of foreign language and you're only able to communicate a 20 second conversation in that language speaks volumes, Latrin. Most high school students only take one or two years at most and the retention level is expected to be extremely low. I am also almost certain your case is exceptional simply because you didn't stop at one or two years.

If the youth of our nation plan to take on challenging roles in the rapidly expanding global economy they will need to possess an understanding of other cultures, geography, history and language. It is not a luxury, it is a neccessity, imo. Apparently our administration agrees with my point of view.

It is highly understandable why you'd disagree and your position is noted.

[DeV]

>>that our language is the only acceptable one. <<

It IS the only acceptable one (unless you're in Miami then God help you). Welcome to America.Xye, I don't disagree with you regarding that. English is the only acceptable language in the United States. Not worldwide, yet. And I agree that it should be. Are you going to discourage your daughter from learning a second language when she is grade school ready?

[Alfster]

How do you say illegal immigrant in Spanish?

Would have been nice to learn that one in high school

[Apathy]

Actually, the anarchy I have in mind only involves fire insofar as it would be the only form of light and heat we'd have available to us. It involves quite a bit of death, yes, but more importantly the lives of humans are nasty, brutish, poor, and short. Why do you think government is so prevalent?

Are you implying that most of the world doesn't have a life that is nasty, brutish, poor, and short? Tsk.

So anarchy = caveman? Right on I guess... NO U R WRONG I R ANARCHY

I have a feeling the only reason you ask is so you can argue with me, but I'll humor you anyways. Oh, by the way, I'm on a federal level with all of this.

Government is the realization of our social being and people's instinct to stereotype - meaning our brains naturally categorize things into groups to make them easier to comprehend. This is the reason that while we know it's Beggin Strips, dogs don't know its not bacon. Keep that one in mind.

A person can fall into the category of leader for whatever reasons the group he is attempting to lead considers important. Relating this to your caveman example = Unga bunga me strong me leader. And others recognize that, so they follow. Order within the pack.

Eventually, two tribes of caveman will clash because their leaders most likely argued over who has bigger genitalia. This would lead to a battle, where the winner would become the leader of both. Unfortunetly for those of us who are of white desent, this did not always mean the leader with the bigger genitalia (damnit).

Of course we have become smarter (not evolved) since those days but our leaders are still considered to be the archetypes of the qualities we desire (role models), or the majority desires (democracy, republic), or what they should desire (communism, theocracy, dictatorship). Morality, intelligence, determination, fairness, etc. all equal out to that quality we today call leadership.

This is a long-winded way of saying that Anarchy as a form of government is an impossibility because 1) uhh duh it's an oxymoron and 2) with the way we are wired it will not work.

Anarchy as philosophy means complete absence of pre-determination in life. An easy way to put it is the opposite of fate. Fate is control, what will happen will happen, you are powerless to change that. Anarchy is the absence of all control.

Extend fate beyond its religious connotation and too much of government is "fate-driven." Very similarly to many conservative viewpoints, this would make goverment much smaller and completely out of one's personal life insofar as it affected oneself. Some form of tax would still be present, because it is a necessity. Most would be eliminated. The role of the federal government would be to protect the nation from others PERIOD. State's rights take care of everything else. If you want to slippery slope this down, it would fall into precincts and cities and townships and villages that control themself. I don't think so see:cavemen.

I'm wondering if in my first post I said "Aww, only democrat and republican thought? No independence?" if we'd even be having this discussion. I suppose I could use a different word besides anarchy but it really grabs people's attention. Words like independent, deist, and secularist tend to fall on deaf ears.

To make this relevant to the topic of immigration, took me long enough, no special treatment should be made for them. NONE. Immigrants that live here illegally would be immediately deported upon discovery because they are making it more difficult for others to live by taking jobs and/or occupying space, regardless of what that job or space may be. Upon becoming a citizen, said immigrant would still have language requirement, but no special catering to them through means of social security would create a necessity to learn SOMETHING. On the other hand, if that immigrant practices salsa while worshipping the east while brewing his own liquor in his basement, that is his right.

So, if that isn't clear enough let me know. I'm drinking, I'll be sure to waste some more time explaining and arguing ideals, because that's what they are. Don't think of a lack of government with anarchy, think of government removed from the outcome of your life. This is a tall order. Abortion is legal, social securities and welfare are abolished, drugs are made legal. I can smell the fire and death already.

And it kind of smells like bacon.

[Latrinsorm]

So anarchy = caveman?Not really. Civilization is a shiny veneer of trust masking our dark and squalid imaginations of what we can all do to each other. Even WITH the threat of prosecution, we have people who murder, rape, steal, torture, etc. Remove the threat of prosecution, and the only way to achieve safety is by pre-emptive strikes. It is our super-caveman ability to imagine outcomes that makes unimaginable violence necessary in a world bereft of law.
I have a feeling the only reason you ask is so you can argue with meI ask so that you can expand your understanding like the glorious wings of a mighty dragon.
our leaders are still considered to be the archetypes of the qualities we desireBy whom?
Morality, intelligence, determination, fairness, etc. all equal out to that quality we today call leadership.Leadership is entirely distinct from the qualities you list. A smart, determined, fair person doesn't necessarily make a good leader, and a good leader is not necessarily smart, determined, fair, or even moral.
Anarchy as philosophy means complete absence of pre-determination in life.If you want anarchy to mean something besides "no government", ok, but this is why people won't let you talk about it: communication presupposes shared meanings for words. If you're just going to make up any old meaning you'd like, communication cannot exist.

Humans do have the capacity for self-determination, and it is vital that this be protected. The paradox is that to do so necessarily requires us to restrain and limit our own self-determination. This is *sort of* what your philosophical anarchism is like, and insofar as it is alike I agree with you. Humans are not entirely self-determined, however, and can never be. We cannot will ourselves to survive without food, for instance. We are both animal and super-animal, and to deny our animal instincts (for instance the instinct towards self-defense) is to invite disaster with bright blue gloves of +10 invitingness.

More to the point, I don't understand how you can support any government intervention at all, in reference to "completely out of one's personal life insofar as it affected oneself." How can you say I'm free to do anything and then say I can't affect other people? Everything I do affects other people, I have absolutely no freedom under your system. In effect, your system is a sensationalist hustle of some kind, apparently banking on my natural inclination towards freedom to remove every freedom I could possibly have that you can get your hands on. Not only that, you can't even get at some of the stuff I do that affects other people (namely thought) unless you propose some sort of national brainwashing program to turn each social being into a physical and psychological hermit of unprecedented degree. Would we even be human anymore? Would such a life possibly be worth living?
I'm drinkingSocrates would be proud. :)

[Warriorbird]

Anarchy breeds government. Nuff said.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

This is incompatible with capitalism though. It just takes more education to be a good brain surgeon than to be a good plumber or a good physicist, and education has costs to it. Even if you make all education free, you can't turn back time. In truth, not all skills are equal. Further, not all people have useful talents. If I happened to be especially good at balancing on one foot with my eyes closed, why would I get paid for or trained in that? What application would my talent have? If instead I was trained from an early age in a variety of subjects such as math, english, and science, perhaps I could find that I was decent at math if I put my mind to it and should devote my career to that as opposed to balancing.

It's take more of a certain type of education to be a good brain surgeon than to be a mechanic or a plumber-- but you know what, as much as the world needs surgeons, the world needs plumbers too. The world NEEDS people with advanced motor skills and trade skills.

To be perfectly honest, you "one foot" example is completely null and void, and a ridiculous example, period. It is proven by psychologists that children have different learning styles (as I've touched on before, physical learners, visual, auditory, ect ect) and all children have certain areas of study/learning that will interest them and that they will likely excel in more than others. Honestly, don't twist my idea just because you need to use some far-out, unlikely (and everyone KNOWS it's not what I meant) example to prove an idea.

Most children aren't only going to show proficiency at balancing on one foot, if they are properly mentally developed. Most children will show they're either good with their hands, have good memories, can write and read well, or they are interested and excel in math and sciences.. something of that nature. Heck, just talk to parents about their kids and see what they say. "Well my first child Jonny, he's so good at English but he really struggled in math, it brought down his GPA so much through High School but he got college credit in literature and writing! Not like Susie, she took AP Bio and AP Physics.. she's really into math." You hear stuff like that ALL the time, not to mention that you can look it up in psychological studies and see the proof in numbers.

Right now, the system teaches math, science, english, and reading.. core subjects. Right now, the system says you either learn to be white collar, or else you're a failure and will be miserable. The system says that it's not ok to be good visually/spacially, it's not ok to have a different learning style. What I'm getting at is that society as a whole needs to come off of this stupid "OMG BUT DOCTORS MAKE MORE MONEY THAN MECHANICS, SO MECHANICS ARE ALL LOSERS WHO WASTED THEIR LIFE AND ARE TALENTLESS AND CAN DO NOTHING ELSE IN LIFE WHICH IS WHY THEY DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE". Not all skills are equal-- but there's a reason. No two skills are the same, so no two skills are equal. The US is high on this equality thing, and we sacrifice our country's and our children's well being because we're so anal retentive about forcing this white-collar oppurtunity on a child and say that we're giving them an equal oppurtunity. It isn't because it's what everyone knows is best for the children, it's so that we can feel ok and tell ourselves it's equality when really we set up plenty of children for failure (and not "learn from this" failure but fail at life, you suck, you're a FAILURE, failure).

Forgive the rant but I see no solutions in your post or in your ideas, and your post itself is the epitome of the staleness I'm witnessing in public schools across America. Only a fool would say that our system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, even our Government sees that. The question is, the big question, is how ARE we going to fix it?

[Stanley Burrell]

It's take more of a certain type of education to be a good brain surgeon than to be a mechanic or a plumber-- but you know what, as much as the world needs surgeons, the world needs plumbers too. The world NEEDS people with advanced motor skills and trade skills.

To be perfectly honest, you "one foot" example is completely null and void, and a ridiculous example, period. It is proven by psychologists that children have different learning styles (as I've touched on before, physical learners, visual, auditory, ect ect) and all children have certain areas of study/learning that will interest them and that they will likely excel in more than others. Honestly, don't twist my idea just because you need to use some far-out, unlikely (and everyone KNOWS it's not what I meant) example to prove an idea.

Most children aren't only going to show proficiency at balancing on one foot, if they are properly mentally developed. Most children will show they're either good with their hands, have good memories, can write and read well, or they are interested and excel in math and sciences.. something of that nature. Heck, just talk to parents about their kids and see what they say. "Well my first child Jonny, he's so good at English but he really struggled in math, it brought down his GPA so much through High School but he got college credit in literature and writing! Not like Susie, she took AP Bio and AP Physics.. she's really into math." You hear stuff like that ALL the time, not to mention that you can look it up in psychological studies and see the proof in numbers.

Right now, the system teaches math, science, english, and reading.. core subjects. Right now, the system says you either learn to be white collar, or else you're a failure and will be miserable. The system says that it's not ok to be good visually/spacially, it's not ok to have a different learning style. What I'm getting at is that society as a whole needs to come off of this stupid "OMG BUT DOCTORS MAKE MORE MONEY THAN MECHANICS, SO MECHANICS ARE ALL LOSERS WHO WASTED THEIR LIFE AND ARE TALENTLESS AND CAN DO NOTHING ELSE IN LIFE WHICH IS WHY THEY DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE". Not all skills are equal-- but there's a reason. No two skills are the same, so no two skills are equal. The US is high on this equality thing, and we sacrifice our country's and our children's well being because we're so anal retentive about forcing this white-collar oppurtunity on a child and say that we're giving them an equal oppurtunity. It isn't because it's what everyone knows is best for the children, it's so that we can feel ok and tell ourselves it's equality when really we set up plenty of children for failure (and not "learn from this" failure but fail at life, you suck, you're a FAILURE, failure).

Forgive the rant but I see no solutions in your post or in your ideas, and your post itself is the epitome of the staleness I'm witnessing in public schools across America. Only a fool would say that our system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, even our Government sees that. The question is, the big question, is how ARE we going to fix it?

This rebuttal makes my water wet.

Conspiracy Theory Time = MDs making > PhDs has much to with research being impeded, quite deliberately in the general U.S. hemisphere, inherently causing more manifestations of fancier + exhorbitant medical procedures to be performed on a cornered FDA market and embryophobic higher-ups.

[Gan]

Anarchy breeds government. Nuff said.

Does looking back on your posts, which are more frequent in making no sense, make you feel proud? Like a contributor?


Newsflash: it shouldnt, and you're not.

Perhaps you're just attempting to be humorous. If thats the case I'm suprised the pain in your failure is bearable. It barely is from this reader's perspective.

[Gan]

Right now, the system says you either learn to be white collar, or else you're a failure and will be miserable. The system says that it's not ok to be good visually/spacially, it's not ok to have a different learning style. What I'm getting at is that society as a whole needs to come off of this stupid "OMG BUT DOCTORS MAKE MORE MONEY THAN MECHANICS, SO MECHANICS ARE ALL LOSERS WHO WASTED THEIR LIFE AND ARE TALENTLESS AND CAN DO NOTHING ELSE IN LIFE WHICH IS WHY THEY DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE". Not all skills are equal-- but there's a reason. No two skills are the same, so no two skills are equal. The US is high on this equality thing, and we sacrifice our country's and our children's well being because we're so anal retentive about forcing this white-collar oppurtunity on a child and say that we're giving them an equal oppurtunity. It isn't because it's what everyone knows is best for the children, it's so that we can feel ok and tell ourselves it's equality when really we set up plenty of children for failure (and not "learn from this" failure but fail at life, you suck, you're a FAILURE, failure).


This might be your perception, but its not the norm. In fact, its beginning to sound like its s symptom of something larger within your skewed viewpoint, or insecurities.

The system does not say if you're not a doctor you're a failure. Hell, even society does not say that as a general rule. Quit generalizing your soapbox because it does not represent all primary or secondary school systems in America.

American society places a high value on esteemed professions as doctors, scientists, lawyers (this one is ironic) because they are positions that have a huge sphere of influence with the direction of our civilization and how it advances. But saying that those who support institutions of higher learning and the secondary schools that try to prepare their students for successful attendance in a post-secondary institution are naturally teaching students to be prejudiced against those who do not follow the same educational path is just flat wrong.

I'd blame it on pride or egocentrism of the students themselves, or their parental units who display such characteristics, not on the school systems they attended.

[Latrinsorm]

but you know what, as much as the world needs surgeons, the world needs plumbers too.I haven't argued that. I've argued that education has costs and surgeonry requires more education than plumbery. From these two points, the natural conclusion is that surgeons have to be paid more than plumbers in a capitalist society. Most every skill is required, sure, but skills aren't equal.
you "one foot" example is completely null and void, and a ridiculous example, period.How about this one then. Certainly you've met someone who's really good with computers. How would that talent be helpful in a world devoid of computers, say pre-Columbian North America? Looking at it from the other side, how is being particularly good at firing muzzle-loading rifles useful in the modern world? You denigrate the scholastic system on one hand but seem to believe everyone has a talent that is in some way scholastic on the other.
the system saysMaybe your local system. The system around here doesn't equate scholastic achievement with life success, and I contend that most don't. Haven't you ever read one of Tsa`ah's posts on the subject? Plenty of people would sooner clean their urethra with a college degree than use it as basis for hiring.
Forgive the rant but I see no solutions in your post or in your ideasI can't think up a good solution to the problems you say exist, but I'm not too worried because I'm not convinced they exist in the first place. The education system has problems, but I'm not sure the ones you say exist fall in that set.

[Daniel]

How about this one then. Certainly you've met someone who's really good with computers. How would that talent be helpful in a world devoid of computers, say pre-Columbian North America?
^^

It depends on what makes him good with computers. There is some basic talent, such as the ability to think dynamicly or mechanically that could easily be transferred into other skills neccessary to survive in pre columbian North America.

[Warriorbird]

Does looking back on your posts, which are more frequent in making no sense, make you feel proud? Like a contributor?


Newsflash: it shouldnt, and you're not.

Perhaps you're just attempting to be humorous. If thats the case I'm suprised the pain in your failure is bearable. It barely is from this reader's perspective.


Curiously enough...that's a classic college government class rebuttal of anarchy. Being as you've got an undergrad degree in business, maybe you never studied government, but it is pretty standard and a simple philosophical means of addressing it. As it didn't attack your position (anarchists usually aren't Republicans with a chip on their shoulder) I'm curious as to why you felt like you had to make a personal insult... but if you want to reach that far... go for it. I don't report posts and then do what I've reported them over... like some other people.

[Gan]

My minor field of study was political science - and I dont seem to recall your classic college government class rebuttal of anarchy in my experiences. Perhaps that little secret is only for political science major enlightenment.

As far as being a personal insult, it wasnt. I was/am merely pointing out that lately you're posts, as given evidence here, have become more and more obtuse and flighty with regards to contributing to actual intellectual intercourse.

off topic-
My BS is in Economics as hosted by the department of Social Sciences, not business. Since you're inquiring as to my undergraduate studies.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

How about this one then. Certainly you've met someone who's really good with computers. How would that talent be helpful in a world devoid of computers, say pre-Columbian North America?
^^

It depends on what makes him good with computers. There is some basic talent, such as the ability to think dynamicly or mechanically that could easily be transferred into other skills neccessary to survive in pre columbian North America.

You've hit the idea right on the head that I'm getting at, that not all talents are purely just "So and so is a mathematical savant" and that if we foster individual talents, we can teach children to apply them to useful jobs and teach them in more effective ways.


In response to Ganolan and Latrinstorm:
I know a lot about schools because I'm actively involved in MANY groups, some partisan and some not, that are trying to get school reform across the board in the US.

Obviously, I'm putting the problems of the school system into a tiny box to generalize it into the simplest form, for understanding's purpose. I could probably write 5 books on the issues with the American public school system, if I really wanted to sit down and do it.

It's not egocentrism or just flat-out prejudice against students who show more promise in areas affected by visual/spacial ability and interest in hand's on mechanical/technical fields rather than books and philosophy and "traditional" subjects. The schools emphasize going to college, they emphasize the importance of taking AP classes and not dwindling your time taking classes like "small gas engines" that sure, may be fun, but won't do anything for you.

Honestly, I'm not sitting on the blue collar side of the fence-- I've always been better and excelled in the traditional subjects, AP Classes and College Credit even by my Sophomore year in High School. But I have siblings, and friends, and know and work with plenty of other people to see that there is a discrepency.

If you think my viewpoint is wrong, fine, that is entirely your peragotive to think so. But this thread is about issues with America today, and this is my number one issue. Take it or leave it, but before insulting me (and this goes directly to Ganalon in regards to his "soap box" comments) because I don't neccesarily think the same things you do, do your research and homework. If you're onto something worthwhile that holds truth in it, you don't need to insult me for having my own ideas.

I agree that I did not present my ideas in the most eloquent manner I could have and I'm sure for many people they seem extreme. Obviously, there is personal bias in there, as there is in anything. But as far as I'm concerned, even if it's just a few schools here and there, and only 1000 students graduate from each of those systems each year, that's 10,000 students in only a decade for one school district. If only 100 school districs nationwide are doing this (an extremely low estimate), that's 1,000,000 kids every decade that are not getting the kind of education that most people would agree is most effective. In my opinion, that is way too high of a price.

[Warriorbird]

I only minored in Poly Sci as well. Sort of funny. Cultural history was my major. One of my 150 level (read, taught mainly because the professor finds the subject interesting) courses was about the perils of "anarchy" and the WTO protests and such. The notion is that prolonged states of anarchy either lead to population collapse or some sort of government ( if only on the "big man" model ) which usually features all of the things that said "anarchists" wanted to prevent. The professor was really a rather conservative one...as is the theory I think.

[Apathy]

Remove the threat of prosecution, and the only way to achieve safety is by pre-emptive strikes. It is our super-caveman ability to imagine outcomes that makes unimaginable violence necessary in a world bereft of law.

Unga bunga your opinion.



Leadership is entirely distinct from the qualities you list. A smart, determined, fair person doesn't necessarily make a good leader, and a good leader is not necessarily smart, determined, fair, or even moral.

Define and explain the quality of leadership. Try to be more specific than "the ability to lead others."


If you want anarchy to mean something besides "no government", ok, but this is why people won't let you talk about it: communication presupposes shared meanings for words. If you're just going to make up any old meaning you'd like, communication cannot exist.

Come on now. If this were true we'd still be grunting at one another, the dictionary would not be adding new words every year, and English would be a static language. Hell we might as well make Spanish the official language then <--- On Topic! :thumbsup: If you dig archaic speech that's cool, but don't force your medievil views on me oppressor.


More to the point, I don't understand how you can support any government intervention at all, in reference to "completely out of one's personal life insofar as it affected oneself." How can you say I'm free to do anything and then say I can't affect other people?

Because if I said THAT I'd be a political anarchist, which is completely ignorant, as we've already hashed over. Besides, walking the line between insanity and hypocrisy keeps fuckers like you on their toes.


Everything I do affects other people

Excellent ego-stroke.


I have absolutely no freedom under your system. In effect, your system is a sensationalist hustle of some kind, apparently banking on my natural inclination towards freedom to remove every freedom I could possibly have that you can get your hands on. Not only that, you can't even get at some of the stuff I do that affects other people (namely thought) unless you propose some sort of national brainwashing program to turn each social being into a physical and psychological hermit of unprecedented degree. Would we even be human anymore? Would such a life possibly be worth living?

If I didn't know we were talking about "anarchy" this could apply to any form of government I could think of EXCEPT true anarchy.

I'm gonna go hang with Socrates now.

[Daniel]

I agree with the ovehaul of school systems. I think we're too attached to the education for educations sake. I never took school seriously in high school because I never saw the point.

I think we should also try and focus on more applied type courses. For instance, no one in my high school took math seriously because frankly they never say the relevance of learning angles and other forms of math. However, if they would have had an applied math class that broke down the fundamentals of taxes, interest rates and so forth than I guarantee we would have been more receptive.

[Tsa`ah]

First, I did say that I believe it is an employer's responsibility to offer affordable benefits to all employees. Seriously, remove the 90 day waiting period, remove the full time restrictions, remove the temp restriction. If they work for you, you offer them health care. Do I think it is enough to fix the whole system? Nope. Do I know what is? Nope.

I'd have to disagree with that, at least on the industrial level, and the lower levels of the service industry. While I believe high turn over is a result of poor management on all levels ... and crappy pay/benefits, reducing/eliminating turnover (ironically) requires you go through a somewhat lengthy period of higher turnover. If you offer health care from day 1, you easily increase your cost of benefits by 100 fold. I would say reduce that number to 60 or even 30 days simply because those that don't want to do the job will get themselves fired or quit before the probationary period ends. I would even go as far as killing the 1 year requirement before retirement plans are even discussed.


Second, I completely agree with you that there are issues with the system that need fixed, and I didn't mean to toss out the old "get off your ass and get a job" card.

Well it is a valid point in many cases. Our welfare system needs to be reformed, or in my opinion, demolished and then rebuilt. It is so prone to exploitation ... and is being exploited by, I dare say, a majority of the recipients. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the grocery store and had to wait on a welfare momma find a link card that had some sort of balance. (FYI: a "link" card is the equivalent of a welfare check and food stamps in Illinois. They finally got off of their asses and did something about mail theft, but in doing so became completely detached from the recipients and opened the door for even more exploitation .... there should only ever be 1 link card per household yet it's not uncommon to see people try several cards while in the checkout lane.) So yes, in many cases people do need to get off of their ass' and get jobs, but in the same breath we have to give them a reason to get jobs and close the door on exploitation.

I know it's hard for many of us to even consider this question, but if you had 2 choices ...

A. Collect a monthly check to cover living expenses, have your rent and utilities subsidized, partake in a program that would see to your dietary needs, and get medical coverage without lifting a finger.

or

B. Make under 25k a year, barely make ends meet, catch no breaks, and have no health coverage ... all while working 40-50 hours a week.

Which would you choose?


My point is simply that I believe it is reasonable to require people to try to get healthcare via their own means before they are offered ongoing governmental assistance. There is room in there to allow for those who work and still cannot afford it, there is room in there for people who cannot work, there is room for extreme circumstances, there is room for slip ups, there is room for short term or one time assistance. There is little in there for people who are perfectly able but unwilling to work for years on end. In that case, sure, patch 'em up and ship 'em out. Luckily, I believe that to be the smallest group.

Heh ... I'd say your last group is the largest group. Though there is little incentive for them to obtain legitimate work in urban settings. There are few jobs in the areas they live in and they really don't have the means to move to where the jobs are.

Back to the point though ...

- Rebuild the system
- Establish a living wage
- Cap monetary awards in law suits
- Remove the loop holes exploited by temp agencies and their clients
- Rationalize healthcare costs
- Require larger employers to provide coverage for all employees
- Give tax breaks incentives to smaller employers for providing healthcare coverage.
- Remove the gap in coverage between income brackets.

On the point of education levels.

A PhD in medicine is deserving of his/her pay in most cases. When you consider the litigate factors, the hours, and how we as a society depend on them for our very health ... I wouldn't touch the job if it payed less than 90 a year starting out. Though it starts out considerably less in many areas.

Now, a PhD in history? Poly sci? Literature?

I firmly believe that a person's education vs pay must have relevance to the field of employment they chose. If I have a graduate holding a BA in psychology applying for a managerial position, I'll offer them a slight step up from a labor position, paying maybe 2 bucks more an hour than entry level unskilled labor ... and tell them they will have a shot after 5 years of earned promotions based on performance evaluations. Conversely, I'll offer a graduate with a BS relevant to the industry an entry level job based on their education with the promise of promotion depending on regular performance evaluations.

Do I believe education should reflect your pay? Only if the education is relevant to your chosen profession. Outside of that, I'll only reserve professional respect for experience.

[Latrinsorm]

Define and explain the quality of leadership.The ability or power to get people (whether singular/self or a group of others) to accomplish the goals you set per se. This is distinct from but syngergistic with regular motivation. It is not "do this or else..." or "do this and...", it is simply "do this".
If this were true we'd still be grunting at one another, the dictionary would not be adding new words every yearThe key word was "shared". If you start off by saying "how come people won't let me talk about anarchy?" the only reasonable assumption to make is that you mean the shared meaning of anarchy, not your personal meaning of anarchy. You can suggest new meanings, but you can't just assume everyone has read your treatises and get upset when they haven't.
Excellent ego-stroke.I think of it as inter-ego examination; a recognition that we are all intimiately connected to a much greater extent than we commonly realize. View everything we do is an act of consequence on another, and it's much harder to rationalize wrongdoing anywhere. It's the old injustice (&c) anywhere is injustice (&c) everywhere thing along with the refuse to hate thing made explicit (though I believe the second is implied in the first).
this could apply to any form of government I could think of EXCEPT true anarchy.I actually can't think of any government that removes or even tried to remove EVERY freedom. Perhaps you could provide an example.

[xtc]

Of course it can, the point is it does happen in 2nd language and none of the others. This is an a posteriori argument.I would use the term "onset" rather than "onslaught", but either way the only way we're going to have a truly global society is with one language; be it English, Spanish, or the human equivalent of Maylee. Increasing the per capita incidence of translators/multilinguals doesn't make a global society.


That isn't very capitalist of you. Capitalism dictates that you cater to the consumer, so if you are selling Big Macs in Shanghai you should speak Mandarin or Cantonese. If you are selling Nikes in Kashmir you should speak Urdu or Hindi. If you are selling Polo shirts in Afghanistan you should Pashtu.

The need for translators creates jobs which in turn is good for the economy. Multilinguals (depending on the language) will be in greater demand.