...The Liberal Arts, and Genuine Accountability Can Cure a Multitude of Educational Ills.
Last time I checked a world class education consisted of reading the classics of world literature and philosophy, learning to write cohesive sentences that form a paragraph and ultimately result in an essay, an understanding of math and physical sciences principles and a grasp of history. It is what is derisively called liberal arts today, but back in the day mastering these topics made one "educated."
Nowhere in my curriculum for a world class education is there time to learn how to put a condom on a cucumber or how I should feel as opposed to how I should think.
--Scott,
Commenter at "Obama and the Independent School District"--AmericanThinker.com
Why is everyone clamoring to nationalize everything from health care to the oil industry to education? All this has been tried before by a multitude of peoples and governments, and it has failed every time. Barack Obama's statement,
"...[F]rom the moment they're born to the day they graduate college."
conjures up frightening images of educational malfeasance and incompetence. America can't afford Barack H. Obama.. both literally AND figuratively.
To quote the Russian prophet Nikita Khruchev:
A shot will never have to fired on the U.S., because they will destroy themselves from within.
16 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So he like the public education system the way it is, just not enough to send his kids there and not enough to work there.
If anyone can get a transcript of today's Dennis Miller radio show, there was a good discussion of the above between Gaffney and guest host Andrew Breitbart. That reminds me: Gaffney's site is SecureFreedom.org. I have to go bookmark it. He likely speaks of the subject there as well.
For the current wave, though, you need to ask the Republican Party, for which nationalization of anything is a hypocritical political ploy, or a bald attempt to grant favors of some kind to the rich.
What on the other hand are Democrats interested in nationalizing? Education? Health Care? The Oil Industry? At what point does personal freedom trump a Democrat's desire to nationalize everything it possibly can?
No such point exists.
"I... [proposed] three distinct grades of education, reaching all classes.
1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor.
2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life and such as should be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances.
And 3d. an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally and in their highest degree... The expenses of [the elementary] schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."
--Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.
Nutty socialists!
Doctors will still be working for themselves, not the state. Insurance companies will still be intact, not gov't-run.
We have, along with Jefferson, decided that some things make sense being paid for using taxation dollars. Building roads, education, police forces, these sorts of things Jefferson and most Americans think can be legitimately paid for by the State.
If you have a preferred way for making sure that roads get built, the populace decently educated, by all means, make your case for it.
But you won't sell the People on it by merely claiming "Commies" on programs with which you disagree. Offer a substantive plan that seems workable in the real world (and for all people, not just the wealthy elite who can afford private schools), and you might win people over.
I would challenge you to find a quote from a founding father that supports federal government run schools
Although there are some heavy-handed federal interference in programs like No Child Left Behind...
Is THAT what you're complaining about?
The capital markets. Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. Things that really fricking matter, as opposed to most of the crap you wring your hands over. As usual, they wait until the untouchable "free" market runs something into the ground, then they want to save the rich sumbitches who ran it unto the ground in the first placee, the everyday victims be damned. Do you even read the news??
Is Nancy and Harry going to bail out EVERY private business that makes extremely poor business decisions? Government can't even manage Freddie and Fannie, for crying out loud! They can't manage social security! They can't even manage their own post office or cafeteria! Now Barack wants to give them health care and education?
WIR HABEN NICHT GENUG GELD FÜR ALLE!!!
Good grief! First Dan, now you! Do any of you understand ANYTHING you DO read? Or are you both so comfortable with the liars in media blowing sunshine up your butts all day long!? I honestly don't know who's more dangerous... folks like you and Dan? the Media as a whole? or Barack Obama!?
And Dan,
Your slight at NCLB is pretty lame. It's helped in some cases and not helped so much in others, so it needs tweaking, but it is meant to encourage accountability. There is a need for some degree of national standards in education. If public money is being spent on public schools, then that accountability and that push for higher expectations is helpful. Imagine hiring a guy for sensitive work based on his diploma, but his knowledge is dangerously lacking. The homeschooled are suspect due to the belief that they aren't taught as well by the parents as the teachers. Some uniformity is a good thing when it comes to turning out truly educated people.
And as to nationalizing, be it schooling or anything else, it takes away choice. That's the main beef as I see it.
For years the mortgage and real estate markets ran along pretty well. Banks and mortgage companies evaluated each client with an eye to only lending to those that could afford property and the financial demands that came with it. But then some bright-eyed capitalist geniuses came up with two rule changes. The first would make it easier for banks and mortgage compan ies to sell their loans to other companies. The second rule change allowed financial institution to bundle different types of real estate securities together and sell them with a new risk rating.
Because of those two rule changes banks and mortgage companies for the last few years haven't had to worry about lending to high risk people. People who can't afford property. They knew that they could just sell the mortgages upstream. Then upstream investment companies bundles lots of high-risk and low-risk mortgages together and gave them a new risk rating. This let them sell those risky investments even further along. And finally there was a little rule change that would allow Fannie and Freddie to purchase more real estate securities. That's why we are today where we are.
When did these rule changes happen? At the end of Bill Clinton's term and the beginning of George Bush's. It was the republican controlled congress that enacted them. The party with the closest ties to corporate america gave them what they wanted. Now guess who's left holding the bag? And where will the cash come from to pay off Fannie and Freddie's dangerous debt? Taxpayers. Not the banking and financial industry who lobbied for the rule changes that allowed this mess. No they get to keep their ill-gotten gains. And if investors or taxpayers want to sue those shysters in court? nope no relief there. Conservatives for a long time have worked to limit the redress that individuals have in the judicial system.
Democrats certainly aren't free of the clutches of corporate cash, but today's problems with the national real estate collapse can be laid plausibly at the feet of the republican party.
Okay. But no one is talking about nationalizing anything, so no harm, no foul.
Eric said:
first Dan, now you! Do any of you understand ANYTHING you DO read? Or are you both so comfortable with the liars in media blowing sunshine up your butts all day long!?
"first Dan" what? I merely pointed out that no one is, in the real world, trying to nationalize anything. You didn't disagree, but instead accused me of being comfortable with liars?
What does that mean?
I correct a misunderstanding that you and others put out there (I don't believe you intended to tell an actual lie, just wrongly represented reality), how does that make me comfortable with liars?