Obama's Balls OK?

[swede]

Tryone doesn't care about white on white mispellings.

Hee hee...

[Scott Campbell]

Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

For those unfamiliar with the weasel words "redistribution of resources", it means stealing from the rich.

[mraynrand]

The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Reality doesn't back you up. There has been a massive 'redistribution' over the past several decades to education and there has been no improvement in results. Doesn't the possibility EVER occur to you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the problem?

[bobblehead]

The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Reality doesn't back you up. There has been a massive 'redistribution' over the past several decades to education and there has been no improvement in results. Doesn't the possibility EVER occur to you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the problem?

My boss told me my job performance was subpar. I told him I needed more money and if he gave it to me the logical conclusion was that I would do a better job. He fired me.

[Scott Campbell]

My boss told me my job performance was subpar. I told him I needed more money and if he gave it to me the logical conclusion was that I would do a better job. He fired me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Reality doesn't back you up. There has been a massive 'redistribution' over the past several decades to education and there has been no improvement in results. Doesn't the possibility EVER occur to you that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the problem?

Schools are still funded primarily by local property taxes, not by federal grants.

I don't claim to have the answers. But the idea that passing out vouchers to everyone and just letting the chips fall where they may is preposterous.

I watched an interesting interview with the founder of Teach for America:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...and-wendy-kopp

She claims that if you survey the public about the reasons why poor students fail, the top three answers are lack of parental involvment, poor student motivation, and another factor related to families that escapes me. When she surveys her own teachers after they complete their work in inner city schools, these people cite entirely different factors: lack of commitment by teachers, poor teaching methods.

In other words, the public sees the problem as an essentially hopeless cause that they can throw up their hands and walk away from. The teachers with direct exposure see the problem as difficult but solveable.

[HowardRoark]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.

For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Concerning this Ayn Rand Ideologically Certification that I supposedly have, I thought I would respond.

I chose Howard Roark as a name last year. I am not some kind of Rand sycophant; I just had to pick a name, and liked the character. I decided to keep the name (clearing throat) when I go to new forums for consistency. My avatar is Compay Segundo. I recommend his music, especially in the summer.

A few problems w/ Rand:

1. Her characters are not really characters, merely vessels to show her philosophy. She kind of just beats the some theme over and over again.
2. The paradox of the “heroic man” who takes risks, works hard and accomplishes things….he usually, once the success occurs, turns into a flabby, weak person with his/her wealth accumulated wealth.
3. She, like Marx, had to completely dismiss God.

Other than that, I really don’t care a whole lot about it. I will not be writing an essay anytime soon. I do agree with her ideas in general though, and think it would be a good idea for people to read her books.

I especially find the episode when Frank Reardon’s nut case brother asks him, hat in hand, for a donation for his Socialist group to be poignant. He insists that it has to be given in secrecy; the Socialists would be appalled taking a donation from such a crude Capitalist, but yet they need the cash. Sound familiar?

[Scott Campbell]

Harlan and the rest of us childless adults........

Childless, as in you've never had any?

[Harlan Huckleby]

DAmn, I had a really interesting conversation with a teacher friend this eve, talked about some of the education issues. She's taught at West High in Madison for 30 years, has many contacts in the Milwaukee school system as well. She teaches African American History, so has a lot of contact with minorities.

West High was rated the second best high school in the nation not so long ago. They may have slipped the last couple years, but they still are about as good as public education gets.

Anyway, she does confirm what Ayn suggesed: money really is not the primary issue when comparing a school like WEst with the Milwaukee high schools. Teachers in Milwaukee actually have far more money to acquire educational materials, etc. because they are a distressed school system eligible for Federal grants. Teachers who move from Milwaukee to Madison are shocked at how tight things are financially in a far superior school.

The main difference, according to my friend, is security. The Milwaukee schools are essentially over-run by drug gangs. And they have a hard time hiring security personnel because it is so dangerous! Madison is also starting to have gang problems. Can you imagine how tough it is to be a teacher in such an unhealthy environment!?

I thought some more about vouchers. You are not going to have private schools establishing themselves in inner cities in large numbers. Why would a private enterprise move to a location where the customers can't afford to pay much, and where it is more expensive to get people to work there!? Forget it.

Vouchers can be PART of the solution, but are no overall fix. The voucher approach has to be applied in a monitored and targeted way.

And vouchers do in fact destroy public schools. The good students, who can serve as role models, are all sucked out of the public schools.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is how it's going to be through November.

http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar...ory?id=3483761

The link to the article on ESPN's home page reads "NASCAR team in sponsorship talks with Obama." Yet, in the article it states:

BAM team spokesman Rhett Vandiver told The Associated Press on Friday that the team has made a sponsorship proposal to the Democratic presidential hopeful's campaign, and has made similar proposals to the campaign of Republican John McCain and at least one third-party candidate.

It's going to be all about Obama.

[Scott Campbell]

The good students, who can serve as role models, are all sucked out of the public schools.

I see. And what should we learn from that?

[mraynrand]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.

For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Concerning this Ayn Rand Ideologically Certification that I supposedly have, I thought I would respond.

I chose Howard Roark as a name last year. I am not some kind of Rand sycophant; I just had to pick a name, and liked the character. I decided to keep the name (clearing throat) when I go to new forums for consistency. My avatar is Compay Segundo. I recommend his music, especially in the summer.

A few problems w/ Rand:

1. Her characters are not really characters, merely vessels to show her philosophy. She kind of just beats the some theme over and over again.
2. The paradox of the “heroic man” who takes risks, works hard and accomplishes things….he usually, once the success occurs, turns into a flabby, weak person with his/her wealth accumulated wealth.
3. She, like Marx, had to completely dismiss God.

Other than that, I really don’t care a whole lot about it. I will not be writing an essay anytime soon. I do agree with her ideas in general though, and think it would be a good idea for people to read her books.

I especially find the episode when Frank Reardon’s nut case brother asks him, hat in hand, for a donation for his Socialist group to be poignant. He insists that it has to be given in secrecy; the Socialists would be appalled taking a donation from such a crude Capitalist, but yet they need the cash. Sound familiar?

I agree with what you write about Rand. Plus, children were virtually absent from her novels. She could at least talked about how to educate them using vouchers. I enjoyed Rand mostly because it was a stark representation of radical socialism in action, in novel form. Hume and Kant are interesting if you like philosophy, but they didn't write good novels. Actually, I believe that everything you need to know about human psychology and nature can be found in the pages of Dostoevsky's Novels, novellas and short stories. Fyodor kicks the shit outta Ayn.

[MJZiggy]

The good students, who can serve as role models, are all sucked out of the public schools.

I see. And what should we learn from that?

That good students are snobs?

[HowardRoark]

Furthermore, I am also against the redistribution of wealth; when you say that someone who sends there kid to a $30,000/year prep school should NOT be allowed to get a voucher too, I consider that a redistribution of wealth.

You are turning your back on the current problem of a disgracefull distribution of educational opportunity. The stats on how poor kids are performing in and after school make us worse than a third world country. Without a redistribution of resources, nothing will change.

Basically, I think every kid in the country should get a voucher worth whatever they currently receive via public education and they should be allowed to go wherever they want with that money; private, public or parochial.

This is an ideological pure approach that will make a bad situation far worse. The public schools will be choked for funds, and left to deal with ALL the students with behavior problems, the special ed kids who require $100K of staff to deal with each of the them, and the poor kids who can not afford the incidental and direct costs of getting to private schools. And the vouchers will of course raise the cost of private schools.

You started out complaining about your friends in education who tremble at introduction of competition into their business. Well, if it done in the unchecked way you advocate, it will destroy public education. How well is that Invisible Hand working in health care? 60M people have none. Your Ayn Rand Ideologically Certified approach can not work for all services that government delivers.

For what it’s worth, the people who jump for joy at the prospect of this are single black mothers. And yes, this WILL bring the lowest third to a much higher level of education.....Vouchers would by far have at the biggest impact on the lowest third of society.

Empty words. Who is going to build all these wonderful private schools in the inner city? I understand on a small scale it could help a select few.

You've created a free market where the quality of education is going to be tied directly to the amount that the consumer can afford to pay, just like with automobiles.

I have been open-minded to vouchers because I know there are some conservatives who genuinely want to use market forces to improve education from top to bottom, AND they are practical about it.

Concerning this Ayn Rand Ideologically Certification that I supposedly have, I thought I would respond.

I chose Howard Roark as a name last year. I am not some kind of Rand sycophant; I just had to pick a name, and liked the character. I decided to keep the name (clearing throat) when I go to new forums for consistency. My avatar is Compay Segundo. I recommend his music, especially in the summer.

A few problems w/ Rand:

1. Her characters are not really characters, merely vessels to show her philosophy. She kind of just beats the some theme over and over again.
2. The paradox of the “heroic man” who takes risks, works hard and accomplishes things….he usually, once the success occurs, turns into a flabby, weak person with his/her wealth accumulated wealth.
3. She, like Marx, had to completely dismiss God.

Other than that, I really don’t care a whole lot about it. I will not be writing an essay anytime soon. I do agree with her ideas in general though, and think it would be a good idea for people to read her books.

I especially find the episode when Frank Reardon’s nut case brother asks him, hat in hand, for a donation for his Socialist group to be poignant. He insists that it has to be given in secrecy; the Socialists would be appalled taking a donation from such a crude Capitalist, but yet they need the cash. Sound familiar?

I agree with what you write about Rand. Plus, children were virtually absent from her novels. She could at least talked about how to educate them using vouchers. I enjoyed Rand mostly because it was a stark representation of radical socialism in action, in novel form. Hume and Kant are interesting if you like philosophy, but they didn't write good novels. Actually, I believe that everything you need to know about human psychology and nature can be found in the pages of Dostoevsky's Novels, novellas and short stories. Fyodor kicks the shit outta Ayn.

Do you think I should read The Idiot? Or should I just stick to these forums?

[texaspackerbacker]

3. There is no "invisible hand" in health care. THAT is the problem. The consumer is divorced from the buying decision in the current environment. The third party payer system takes away the "invisible hand."

I see. And all the people with pre-existing condition who can not get health insurance are the victims of third party payers. Nothing to do with profit.

You are not facing reality.

Those who cannot afford simply do NOT go without treatment in the current system. They may use up available resources; They may end up with debt/bad credit, but they WILL get treated.

Whether that is fair and just or not becomes a moral question--as Bobblehead alluded to in the other thread. Should the government get into making "moral" decisions like that? Close call. We aren't talking about people failing to get treatment; We are talking about that treatment resulting in financial ruin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Those who cannot afford simply do NOT go without treatment in the current system. They may use up available resources; They may end up with debt/bad credit, but they WILL get treated. .

This is a great misconception. Although it is true that if you got a bone sticking out, you will be treated in an emergency room. But most health issues really do not fall into this category. For instance, if a person needs some sort of surgery, not an immediate life threatening situation, but a need just the same, they simply will not do the procedure. A person without insurance has to pay in advance, and most people without health insurance do not have 20K available credit or savings.

[texaspackerbacker]

What type of "need" for surgery do you have in mind--that is a true need, but not immediate?

Cancer? Heart Bypass? Set a broken bone? Aneurism? Appendectomy? All of those and a good deal more would get done even without ability to pay. Kindly give a few examples that WOULDN'T happen--you know, like tummy tucks and nose jobs, along with anything a little more urgent you can dig up.

Wow! I think this thread has gone full circle--back to the surgery Dr. Jesse had in mind for Obama's balls.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You don't know what you are talking about. They will provide no non-emergency services without prepay. Hip replacement. An exam for severe symptoms - say blurry vision and migraine headaches.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll give you those two, but I'd hardly call a limp and a series of tests "urgent" care.

Do you dispute any of the examples I mentioned? I doubt it.

[HowardRoark]

Those who cannot afford simply do NOT go without treatment in the current system. They may use up available resources; They may end up with debt/bad credit, but they WILL get treated. .

This is a great misconception. Although it is true that if you got a bone sticking out, you will be treated in an emergency room. But most health issues really do not fall into this category. For instance, if a person needs some sort of surgery, not an immediate life threatening situation, but a need just the same, they simply will not do the procedure. A person without insurance has to pay in advance, and most people without health insurance do not have 20K available credit or savings.

Harlan, I am too drunk to respond properly tonight, but I will tell you that when my time comes up in the cue at the Children's E.R., They put on a short (but impressive) fireworks display when I pull out my Insurance Card.

We already have Socialized Medicine. Just REALLY poorly run.