Woman to Woman

By Chris Renaldo

February 18, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

I always find it interesting when a (white) person without a child suggests that because I am white and have a child, I am and affluent (define “affluence”), “dormant racist.”

I do not live in the “crime-free suburbs” (now there’s an oxymoron). I live in town. My child attends the Neighborhood Charter School. I moved to Grant Park because of my desire to afford my child the educational opportunities I feel are lacking in many Atlanta Public Schools (and the “crime free suburbs). I enrolled her at NCS because charter schools enable parents to have direct and hands-on access/influence to their child’s education.

Be that as it may, there are roughly 300 students at NCS, and each family/parent(s) sends his/her child to the school for different reasons; just as each family/parent(s) views/values education differently.

As a result, some NCS students will succeed. They willl go on to “good” colleges, get good jobs, and if you buy into Ms. Glass’s “left-leaning” (per the AJC) way of thinking, become white, affluent, dormant racists.

On the other hand, some students will struggle to get by; and as fate would have it, matriculate to non-Ivy league colleges… and still get by. Sadly enough some will squander their “lives of privilege” and end up profound failures. And finally, some will drop out of school all together and succeed or fail with or without the benefit of an education, Ivy league, or otherwise.

I find it equally amusing that a white, affluent, Harvard-educated non-parent cites the musings of a (presumably) white Harvard “education and social policy” professor, which no doubt was issued from the comfort of of his, affluent, Ivy League confines.

I also find the notion that that ANYONE associated with the Ivy league would chime in on the “racism” and educational “segregation” that apparently infects the “non-Ivy League” world, or would shake their elitist fingers at parents of ANY race, who seek “to provide the best possible opportunities for their children.”, to be just a wee bit ironic.

Here’s something I guess they don’t teach in the Ivy League. We’re not all the same. We have different talents, abilities, motivations and opportunities. The same holds true for educational instutions and private sector employers. Each has “standards” and/or “requirements”. This is a fact of life, and I find it amusing that Ms. Glass notes her Harvard education in her bio, and identifies Mr. Orfield as a Harvard professor, in order to bolster right (qualifications) to condemn the rest of us for again, our efforts to “provide the best possible opportunities” for our children.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just the “dormant racism” talking, but it seems to me that Ms. Glass’s observations suggest that perhaps education (Harvard) ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. Her education certainly did not make an ignorant person knowledgeable.

By candide

February 19, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this

What no one is willing to admit is this: desegregation destroyed the public school system, forcing whites to seek alternative education in private schools. As a result the public schools are largely black and inferior and nothing done so far has changed this. Under segregation blacks and whites had better educational experiences than they now do — and cheaper.

By chris

February 19, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

I am a black parent and I think that we as black people were better off when we were segregated. We had our own banks, doctors, lawyers, SCHOOLS with good teachers affluent neighboorhoods. The negro baseball leauge was one of the most profitable organiztions in Black America. We had doctors living next to factory workers teachers going to the same chruch as their students and their parents we were a close knitt commuity and when that community was broken up by intergration we lost ourselves and our futures. I dont think the dreams of Rev. King, Bro. Malcom and my grandparents were to intergrate and loose the infastructure that was already in place in the black community. I think there original intent was to intergrate were necessary to further the human rights cause but not to destroy the tight knitt community that exsisted in black america. Hopefully we can go back to that time before its too late.

By RegularJoe

February 19, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

The problem with these “right” against “left” column is you have two people talking. Not making sense, just talking.

Parents should be able to educate their children where they what to, bottom line. If a public school is mediorce and you can afford to send them someplace else, you should do it. Black parents, White, Asian they all do it.

As Chris pointed out, just because a school is majority black, it does not have to be substandard. Schools are mediorce when they have mediorce administrators, teachers, parents and disruptive students. Three of these problems could be solved rather quickly if people really wanted to.

By jt

February 19, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Ms. Glass, may seem well intentioned in her comments, but she doesn’t know what she is talking about. I don’t believe that today’s parents are nearly as interested in “segregation” as she somehow believes. However, what parents today do have on their mind is the quality of the education their children are receiving. If test scores at a current school are low, then how can any parent ignore that the school is likely teaching to the lowest common denominator rather than raising the bar for the struggling students. Add to that the large influx of non-English speaking students who are by and large taught in the same classrooms as those who do speak English and you can’t ignore that teachers are spending more time trying to get stuggling students up to a basement level of education rather than assisting the normal to gifted students with their learning.

How do we expect to propel our children forward in the world in public schools when those very schools and the school boards do little or nothing to help the children who are eager to learn and succeed? And how can we expect teachers to teach if they are dealing with language barriers while they attempt to teach? Who’s benefitting? It’s not the English speaking kids.

Ms. Glass needs a reality check and very soon.

By T

February 19, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

The fact that this is a discussion is very perplexing to me….AJC should be ashamed of entertaining this dialogue and the writers for exploring a question that has been settle in various court cases Brown v. BOE…..

By Brian Curtis

February 19, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

The fact that an individual parent cares only about securing the best educational opportunities for their child—no matter how much it hurts any other kids in the process—is the reason we ALL pay into the school system, and why we ALL have a say in how it operates.

We need to maintain an education system that works best for all kids, not just the ones with the most privileges and options… and we certainly don’t “fix” things by making it easier for those with the most advantages to bail out.

By Lola

February 19, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Why is it that we only hear about how all-white schools have to be integrated, but we never hear that about all-black schools? Why are there no diversity enrollment programs at Moorehouse or Spelman? Double standards like these are a big reason why there is so much resentment and racism. I agree with Chris. If blacks want to stay segregated and build up their own community of black professionals and organizations, they should be able to. And we should be able to establish white communities with white professionals and white establishments as well, without being called racists or forced to have “diversity”. There’s nothing wrong with pride in your own race, and I think it should be encouraged on both sides.

By 2D

February 19, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Brian… What the heck is your point?

How do individual parents and their individual decisions hurt all students? The only real choices I have is to utilize private school or move to a different school district. Neither of those decisions directly affect anyone except my own children.

How does our educational system work only for those with the most privileges and options? The last time I checked my school district (meaning the elementary, middle and high schools) provide the same educational opportunities to all students. The last time I checked, Atlanta Public Schools spent more money per student than all public, metro school systems except for Decatur city. That hasn’t really done much for performance. The last time I checked, DeKalb schools have built beautiful new facilities in South DeKalb (MLK and Stephenson) in the recent past and the students at older facilities like Lakeside, Tucker, Dunwoody and Chamblee still outperform them.

The most important aspect of education is not facilities, or money spent, or teachers, it’s parent involvement. Period. Without it, you can spend money, build schools and hire great teachers and nothing will come of it. The schools MUST have parents involved and supporting the entire educational process for the system to work. You, me and the people on this BLOG cannot make parents get involved with the education of their children. That involvement (or lack thereof) is not tied to socio-econmics either. I know plenty of wealthy, apathetic parents as well as poor motivated parents.

By Wallace

February 19, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

“I am a black parent and I think that we as black people were better off when we were segregated. We had our own banks, doctors, lawyers, SCHOOLS with good teachers affluent neighboorhoods” Chris, I don’t know how old you are, but for the vast majority of black folk this was simply not true. Here in Atlanta today we still have a couple of black owned banks and gated communities in Dekalb County and some 500K+ homes in S.W. Atlanta, architecs, engineers, doctors etc. I think you mean our communities were more egelitarian, and we did not separate ourselves from one another. I’m fifty-three and grew up in South Carolina I did not experience this black utopia of years gone by. If you want to go back to the “good old days”, be my guest. You would be hard pressed to find any black person born before Jim Crow met his demise wishing he was alive again. Some of those black teachers I encountered never saw a college and were glorified baby sitters, and the local school board - all white - just ignored us.

By Corey

February 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Amen, 2D. Why in the he** are we having this conversation? That vast majority of blacks took advantage of opportunites gained from integratin and improved their live, but within every group you wiil individuals who don’t have clue.

By 2D

February 19, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Corey… Thanks for the support. Bbut I want to make clear that I do not believe our education issues are inherently racial in nature.

I truly believe our educational issues are a reflection of the values that parents and society disseminate down to our young people. Children are sponges. Instill into them proper values and morals and we will see the results of that good work ten, fifteen, twenty years later.

Unfortunately, we have fallen into a relativistic, post-modern world where all values and morals are relative and children do not a get a clear, concise message. Until we as a society can clearly and with relative uniformity articulate that message, our children will continue to run adrift.

By Conservative Black Man

February 19, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Let’s get real. The vast majority of decent individuals are not concerned about race and skin color. It’s your BEHAVIOR, stupid! Now, having said that - people begin to associate the behavior with race when they look at our hip hoppers and young folk. Gee, I wonder why? Duh.

By mo

February 19, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Hip Hop is always the “bad” element of our society… LOL!

Anyway, South Dekalb’s schools are, by definition, segregated. Check how many white people graduated from South Dekalb last year. I was in attendance and I saw only two white people, and they were in the audience.

Now, I think the problem with this educational system is not racial in nature. I think it is accountability.

Take Neighborhood Charter School, for instance. NCS looks like a satisfactory educational experience. The students are happy. They participate in various sports and other activities. There’s a good racial mix. But, their test scores aren’t as high as some Atlanta Public Schools that are in the neighborhood.

My child went to another charter school in East Lake. Great school. They taught a lot about black history and they were great at raising the students’ self-esteem. They had great corporate sponsorships and many students see the school as a great school and would not want to leave. But, once again, East Lake Elementary had better test scores.

Why are we seeing this? Because the school with the most parental involvement has the most satisfactory experience in school.

Now, I live in Northwest Cobb County, in a neighborhood that you would call “affluent.” The school my sons attend is one of the top rated elementary schools in Georgia. The test scores are through the roof. The kids are happy and safe. They are the most challenging and rewarding elementary experiences that I have ever seen. And yes, they are majority white. (But the Latino and African-American population is growing.)

Why? Is it because if the dominance of the white race within the schools? Is it because African-Americans are not dominant in the school?

No… it’s because the PTA of our elementary school is one of, if not the best PTAs in the country. And the PTA is well-represented of blacks, white, latinos and asians.

So, it’s not hip hoppers or wardrobe or young people at all. The reason why you see failure in schools is due to the failure in parenting.

By Free ringtones

February 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Largest Selection of FREE Ringtones Free ringtones [url=http://www.forumnow.com.br/vip/foruns.asp?forum=123050 ]Free ringtones[/url] http://www.forumnow.com.br/vip/foruns.asp?forum=123050

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Question for the black parents on board today: I worked in predominately black neighborhoods for many years (often 100% black). What always disturbed me was a strong cultural pressure to NOT do well in school. The students who did well were accused of “acting white”. Where does that come from?

By 2D

February 19, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Truthseeker… Sounds like a loaded question to me. Not sure I’d touch that one with a twenty foot pole.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

2D—I’m being sincere. My thought is that all the money in the world can’t improve education when there is cultural pressure within the black community to NOT do well in school. I hope you don’t think I’m making this up.

By WTF

February 19, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

WTF ever! If you want your kids to go to a good school work you A$$ off and get them there. Quit expecting the system to give you privelege you did not earn or were not born into.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

WTF—Call me a radical, but I don’t think even a child’s parents are ultimately responsible for the child’s education. I think the child is ultimately responsible for his or her own education. In the end, a motivated student will do well no matter what the circumstances.

Personally, I’d like to see a movement AWAY from trying to build up students’ self esteem divorced from any real achievement, and put the emphasis back on achievement, where it belongs.

By lozen

February 19, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Truthseeker/Dog/Idiot: Too bad you were just a chiropractor. You could have solved every problem society has ever had if only you could have been dictator!

By 2D

February 19, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Truthseeker… Not sure I can see where you’re angling from.

Parents have the biggest influence over their children. If parents make education a priority, more often than not, it will become a priority.

You are correct in stating that the government cannot solve this problem. The government can ensure that facilities and resources are made available (which I believe they do) but ultimately it is the communities responsibility to ensure that the children are educated.

While I also agree that feelings as you described exist, I also believe it is irresponsible to say that is the prevelent point of view. I cannot believe that a majority of black parents would want their children to not do well in school in an effort to not appear white. That statement is ludicrous.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

While I also agree that feelings as you described exist, I also believe it is irresponsible to say that is the prevelent point of view. I cannot believe that a majority of black parents would want their children to not do well in school in an effort to not appear white.

I wasn’t talking about the parents’ attitudes, 2D, I was talking about the fellow students’ attitudes toward their peers. In the poor neighborhoods I worked in, almost all of the homes were single-parent, or the child was being raised by grandparents. The parents usually weren’t a big factor in the kids’ lives.

My overall point is that if we’re going to improve education, let’s stop focusing on race and start focusing on what matters: achievement. The bottom line is that children live up to expectations. My solution would be to expect and demand success from the students, and forget about trying to make themselves “feel” better. every study I’ve seen shows an inverse relationship between “self-esteem” and actual achievement.

By MrRogers

February 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

While we’re on the topic of education, I would like to respond to some ignorant comments made by Mara last week. She mocked a website for proclaiming that the Earth is NOT rotating and is NOT revolving around the sun, as well as for proclaiming that Evolution is not Scientific fact and shouldn’t be taught as being so in school.

The fact is, if she truly understood Physics, she would understand that it is perfectly correct to say that the Earth is motionless. As explained by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, all motion is “relative” insofar as we have to establish a “non-moving” frame of reference by which to observe and measure said motion. In the end, there is no “Absolute” frame of reference which is more “correct” than any other frame of reference, however, so that choosing a “non-moving” Earth as your frame of reference is absolutely correct

As for Evolution, anyone who believes “background radiation” and “random mutations” led to our perfectly created world needs to have their head examined.

By 2D

February 19, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Truthseeker… And the people who should be setting those expectations are the parents or whoever the parental figures may be. If those individuals do not provide that type of guidance, then those children are fighting an uphill battle, that quite frankly, I am not sure can be won.

BTW… If the “black” culture truly encourages lesser achievement, and there is not any guidance from parental figures b/c of the number of non-traditional parental figures, then how would you sharpen the focus of education on achievement? Surely you are not expecting the public school systems to wield that level of influence, are you?

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Gotta run, but I think this whole discussion is dishonest from the get-go. True desegregation, in which all students attend the school in their own neighborhoods, regardless of race, makes sense and is good policy.

The liberal Supreme Court in the 1960s, however, decided that desegregation could only be achieved through “forced busing”, in which white students were not allowed to attend schools in their own neighborhoods, but were “reassigned” to schools far from home. This type of “social engineering” did nothing but foster resentment, and I believe was shown to be not effective in the long run.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Surely you are not expecting the public school systems to wield that level of influence, are you?

2D, To solve the “disadvantage” problem, I believe it all begins by re-validating and reasserting “traditional values” in our society, in which men are expected to marry the mothers of their children and be good providers. It’s a shame that schools have been forced into a “mop-up” role, forced to take the place of a real family for many kids. Hopefully you understand I’m not for this “Big Brother” like situation.

Where did the breakup of the American family begin?? It is certainly a topic for debate, but IMO, much of it is an unintended side effect of the Women’s Movement with the subsequent weakening of divorce laws, along with the misguided Great Society welfare programs pushed through by Johnson in which you were required to be unmarried to collect benefits.

By Brian Curtis

February 19, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

So Bruno the Troll’s identity this week will be “Truthseeker.” Got it.

Anyone have any useful comments on the topic before he really gets going on his self-congratulatory spamming?

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Anyone have any useful comments on the topic?

Obviously not you, lozen, or MrRogers, BC. Just your usual sniping from the sidelines when you realize your understanding of the subject is shallow.

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

“As for Evolution, anyone who believes “background radiation” and “random mutations” led to our perfectly created world needs to have their head examined.”

As opposed to people who think Zeus - um God - determines the path of your life and everything that happens? Or that some force “designed” a universe that is ridiculously overcomplex? Of that people are going to disappear into thin air when the “Rapture” occurs? If the human body was “designed” the designer did a haphazard job that’s for sure! Just because your brain can’t wrap itself around the concept of trillions of trillions of “accidents” leading to more and more design doesn’t mean it doesn’t make perfect sense.

You should take a lesson from David Hume: “1.For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and ‘purpose’.

2.Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.

3.Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe’s configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.

5.Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn’t be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. (This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection.)”

By 2D

February 19, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

BC… Actually, I asked you a couple of questions early on and I would very uch like to hear your thoughts.

By 2D

February 19, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

Truthseeker…

No Big Brother solution? That’s good to hear because the money would be wasted/

Problem is in the breakdown of the family? I would agree to a certain extent but that is not something that we can fix b/c of our current infatuation with selfishness and relativism.

So, then what should we do about the problem? Give us some solutions. Some possible, practical solutions. The very survival of this country depends on it. Without an educated populous, our Republic cannot function properly. It requires individuals capable of making critical decisions when they cast there ballots. More and more that is not the case, and I shudder to think what will happen when my children are older.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

As opposed to people who think Zeus - um God - determines the path of your life and everything that happens? Or that some force “designed” a universe that is ridiculously overcomplex? Of that people are going to disappear into thin air when the “Rapture” occurs?

Joe L—I understand that many of the people who oppose Evolution do so for the wrong reasons. However, many people like myself, who have no religious affiliation at all, oppose Evolution because it is a poor theory. In the end, some things are simply unknowable. It is more intelligent to accept it as such than to force schools to teach obvious lies at the point of a gun.

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

What is the single best indicator as to whether a student will receive an advanced education? Their parents’ education level. What is so shocking to people that a culture that was held in forced ignorance for decades has not righted itself in merely two generations? When the parents of today’s children come from parents that may have been lucky to read at all. People are right that the parents are “lacking” but they refuse to accept responsibility for that fact, which causes the downward sprial to continue.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

The bottom line, Joe L, is that there is an intelligence at every level of organization throughout the Universe which no random event could produce. “God didn’t play dice with the Universe”—Albert Einstein.

Does this honest observation automatically lead someone to superstitious fairy tales? For me it doesn’t. It simply points to our limitations as humans to create “models” which “explain” an ultimately unknowable Reality.

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

You have no religious affiliation because I’m sure no one wants to associate themselves with you. However you ARE religious and have equated natural events to supernatural forces. You are no more advanced than the caveman cowering from the fire god or the Greeks sacrificing cattle to Zeus.

Some things may be inherently UNPROVABLE but that makes them no less true. Only those whose minds are not advanced enough can think solely in the world of absolute provable concretes and cannot extrapolate enough to conceptual understand the truth. We cannot PROVE how the world wound up as it did unless we can find a world billions of light years away that is developing life.

It is more intelligent to understand the natural world can be explained naturally that to lie on the superstitions of the ignorant.

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

“The bottom line, Joe L, is that there is an intelligence at every level of organization throughout the Universe which no random event could produce.”

No there is a measurable order (and disorder) throughout the Universe which has nothing to do with “random” events. The order in fact is what allows random events to eventually become ordered. Your argument is self defeating. Who designed the designer? If a designer can impose order why can’t nature by ordered due to it’s own composition? Where did the order come from that allowed the designer to become ordered to impose order on the universe? Hume can in one short set of statements utterly defeat the superstitions and ignorance that leads to creationism.

By marvettecritney

February 19, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

I just stumbled upon this in the AJC on Sunday. I am a real estate agent.. I am a black parent with 2 sons, one is 21 and one is 12. I reside in lithonia, which is predominately African American. My 12 year old attended Browns Mill Elementry and then Bouie Theme School.Which are both great schools, none-the-less I made the decision over a year ago to send my son up north to live in MD with his father, so that I could ensure that he attended a racially diverse school. I didn’t want my child to grow up in an environment where he didn’t have interaction with other children outside of his race on a daily basis. I grew up in Harrisburg, PA, where I had both black, white and spanish friends. No one made the color of skin an issue. Desegregation is a continued necessary process. If the playing field was equal, we wouldn’t need it…

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

So, then what should we do about the problem? Give us some solutions. Some possible, practical solutions.

2D, as I said above, only a return to “traditional values” will help our kids at this point. Obviously, that’s something that can’t be legislated, it is more a matter of leadership within the various communities. Unfortunately, the philosophy of existentialism (i.e. self-centeredness) is deeply ingrained in many Libs, such that any mention of the words “family values” sets off a riot.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Joe—Once again you’re confused. You state emphatically that We cannot PROVE how the world wound up as it did , yet want to force the teaching of fairy tales (Evolution) in school.

As far as your Who designed the designer?, you are once again revealing your limited imagination in assuming an anthropomorphic “designer”. Any speculation about a “designer” will forever remain speculation.

The deepest truth, Joe, is contained in the idea of Emmanuel, God within. It’s too bad that you are unable to understand spiritual concepts in Scientific terms.

By kimberly

February 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Existentialism is a “lib” thing? HAHAHAHA! Right…. TOO funny. Hahaha! You can’t handle the truth!

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

So you say we can’t PROVE evolution but it is backed up by innumerable evidence that shows it to be most likely and none that defeats it. Yet you put forth an argument that has ZERO EVIDENCE and claim it’s superior? More poppycock. Obviously the Mudd puddle did not do a very good job of teaching you how to discern a scientific theory backed by evidence even when it cannot be proven.

Actually I find the most selfishness and ego problems to lie on the “it doesn’t affect me directly and gives me more money to buy more stuff” right. You will find that MOST liberals, myself among the group, definitively feel that the large amount of children being raised in broken homes is a serious issue. But that wouldn’t help your false talking points and false portrayals that started with Reagan and his “welfare queens”. The issue is one of culture, not political ideologies.

You are living proof that there is definitely UNintelligent design in this universe.

By Brian Curtis

February 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

And there you have it, folks. Disagreement with Bruno the Troll is always due to your intellectual weakness, your inability to grasp the Great Truths that only he understands.

2D: Your questions…

My point is that your choices, made for the benefit of YOUR family, can and do have an impact on others. Where you live and pay your taxes, how much you get involved and elect officials who will improve education… all these things have an effect on the educational system as a whole. Even those without kids, or whose kids are already grown, have an impact on that system.

Yes, parental involvement is key… so what happens to the kids whose parents aren’t involved or don’t care? Do we, as a society, shrug and say “Sucks to be you”? Of course not.

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

You can’t handle the truth!

Then lay the “truth” on me, kimberly. I’m ready.

See guys, like I told you, any mention of the words “family values” sets off a riot.

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Oh and Truth[sic]seeker EVOLUTION is FACT! We can see it. You are, like most of the ignorant, confusing the origin of life with the entirely different issue of evolution. So the Theory of Evolution is indeed provable, observable fact. The only thing that is UNPROVABLE is the origin of life. However given the FACT of evolution and many concrete observations the informed, unafraid, intelligent can see that we live in a natural world with natural explanations. When you want to come out of the cave and join us in the light, let me know.

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

No rampant ignorance and unfounded arrogance like your own sets of a riot of laughter. Don’t confuse the two…

By Truthseeker

February 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

So you say we can’t PROVE evolution but it is backed up by innumerable evidence that shows it to be most likely and none that defeats it. Yet you put forth an argument that has ZERO EVIDENCE and claim it’s superior?

Joe, We’re using the same evidence, butt wipe. I look at Nature and see Intelligence. Somehow you look at the same evidence and see Randomness. If you study closely the remarkable speed in which bacteria and even higher organisms adapt, no mechanism which involves random mutation and natural selection can account for the efficiency.

By Brian Curtis

February 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

JoeL: Trust me, don’t bother. Bruno the Troll claims a special knowledge of science that somehow eludes all the professional biologists and researchers in the world.

In addition, he’s a proven liar, troll, and spammer. Just let him air his pompous, vacuous speeches about how wonderful he is and post around him.

By kimberly

February 19, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Haha! You wish! Sorry, but I’m still clutching my sides with laughter over the whole “existentialism is for libs” thing. Hahaha!

By Joe L

February 19, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

” I look at Nature and see Intelligence” - Oh trust me one look in the mirror will disabuse you of the notion that nature and intelligence have to go together.

Efficiency? Yeah if you talk about TRILLIONS of iterations “efficiency”. I know since you can’t past your fingers and toes that the concept of numbers this large eludes you, but trust me they exist.

BC - Trust me I know what a fool and troll Bruno is, it’s just fun to watch the dog chasing his tail while pointing and laughing at him.

By 2D

February 19, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

BC… Your original post indicated that decisions made by parents that are beneficial to their own children actually hurt others. I was not, and am still not sure how this comes to fruition. My choosing to move did not hurt any of the kids in the previous school district in which I lived other than moving a concerned parent who would have been involved with the schools to a different school district.

Of course we as a society cannot simply “shrug” and say “sucks to be you” t those children that are not fortunate enough to have parental involvement. But, we cannot develop a public school system based on those children either. The problems for those children are much bigger than their scholastic achievement.

We as a society need to encourage other parental figures to step forward. We need to stop the systemic problem of single parenthood and promote traditional family structure where possible to establish a better foundation for the future generations. We need to promote all forms of education, not just cater to college bound students. We need to get everyone on board with the importance of education, even the people who no longer have, do not currently have or do not plan to have children. Educated voters are the key to our society. Without them, this government cannot function as designed.

But…

At the end of the day, the government cannot and will not ever solve this problem. It is a problem that comes from within the society and culture and community. If that group of people do not step up and make the basic recognition that education is important to their children and even to themselves, then they are lost and there isn’t much that any of us can do.

By Monica

February 19, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but I’m not even sure I understand the question this week. If desegration lends itself to discrimination, then of course it violates a student’ rights. Is this question intended to spark a debate on school choice vs disctrict/neighborhood schools? Or is it to spark a good ol’ racist fight this week?

By Brittney

February 20, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

An article written in the NY Times concerned the profound effect asian american students are having on California campuses. Seems that California’s black students tend to go to universities where there is a higher black population and NOT to other universities vexed with the government laws of skin color equality. Asian students qualify as a minority but are now the majority on many California campuses thus campuses are struggling to bring in other minorities skipping over asian students who have high grades just to fill racial diversity quotas. In Georgia many white college bound students who tried to get into UGA were told because of quotas their 4.0-3.6 grade averages would not get them admittance and were advised to attend other universities for 2 years then transfer in.

This problem will never be fixed until Americans colleges stop quotas by skin color and look at the students academic achievements only.

By Brian Curtis

February 20, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

2D: I believe you mean well, but others in the school-choice and resegregation movement do not. They’re pushing for a return to a two-tiered educational system: a good one for those families who can afford it, and a broken mess for all the others.

And their current technique for buying support from the crucial middle-class voters is “vouchers,” which they promise will provide just enough to let the middle-class kids get into the “good” schools. And leave even less resources for the ones in trouble, who need it the most.

By Voucha

February 20, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

vouchers = for elitist education to fund primarily private Christian schools with government money.

It was one of Bush’s first agendas in Spring, 2001.

By cheapest xenical without prescription

February 20, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

I feel like a complete blank. That’s how it is. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. generic ultram | buy vicodin online no prior rx needed or medical records | meridia | propecia | soma drug http://manila.tntech.edu/banner/discuss/msgReader http://manila.tntech.edu/banner/discuss/msgReader http://manila.tntech.edu/banner/discuss/msgReader http://manila.tntech.edu/banner/discuss/msgReader

By 2D

February 20, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

BC… Thank you for the kind words. I do mean well. And you are correct. Many political groups use this to “buy” votes. It becomes a political issue whether it be school vouchers, busing, or some other concept to “level the playing field”. I simply do not believe governmental institutions can achieve that goal.

Scoeity must achieve that systemically by instilling values into the children. Without that, the children become misguided and lost.

What I really want to know is how you would propose we fix the issue, or at the very least make some form of improvement. So many things have been attempted with little or no success. At what point do we turn the mirror into the faces of the failing segments of society and require they look and accept some responsibility for themselves?

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

2D, I agree with most of what you’ve been saying in terms of identifying the scope of the issues. Although, as a single parent, I’m somewhat resentful of being pigeonholed, since my kids are at the VERY top of their classes in good schools. Further, I frequently interact with the children in my neighborhood, get to know them if I can, and talk about what’s important to them, and what kind of plans they’re making for the future. For some reason they tolerate my “mom & dad won’t always be there to take care of you” lectures, and the breakdown about choices: “The more you know, the more choices you’ll have, and the better your chances of being truly happy. Do you want someone ELSE to make the choices for you? Then you’d better get busy with school, because what you want will not just fall out of the sky when you decide you’re ready.” I feel some sense of responsibility for the children around me, though they’re not mine. (Kind of like “It Takes a Village” — an age-old concept that had righties squawking that Hillary’s a socialist. Go figure.)

What I’m hearing from you, though, is the kind of circular logic loop in which we seem to be stuck: (a) It’s the parent’s fault. (b) What do we do with all the children of inadequate parenting? (c) We as society must articulate a message. (d) People should be responsible for themselves. Round & round. We (society in general) must find a way to reach the children whose parent’s didn’t reach them, if we have any hope of an educated, capable populace in the future. I think everyone has a stake in that, even those with no interest in having children. Meanwhile, so many schools in poor neighborhoods still suck, but no one wants to pay to upgrade them. So what EXACTLY can we do?

By Archie

February 20, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

No desegregation does not violate a student’s rights? A student can still be as racist or non-racist as he/she wants to be. I agree with a lot of what Diane says but I don’t know if she answers the topic question and Shanti makes some good points but I disagree with her about vouchers. In my home state of South Carolina we have “corridor of shame”, i.e. schools where the roof is literally caving in,schools where the fire alarm is a teacher yelling down the hall and yes whites attends those schools. Rather than starting up a voucher program I think you should fix up every school so not one state-supported school has a raggedy building and poor equipment then after that you can come in with your voucher proposals. Most people don’t have the money to send their children to private schools even with voucher help and since I have two degrees and attended public schools I believe a person can do well attending public schools.

By 2D

February 20, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Kimberly… It is nice to see that we agree on this one when we are typically on opposite sides of the spectrum.

I certainly don’t understand what would be resentful. I don’t believe anyone equated single parents with low achieving children. If anything, the association was between uninvolved parents and low achieving children. The two are mutually exclusive.

I do not believe it needs to be a circular issue, especially if we focus on section “c” of your circular theory. If we as a society articulate a focused message we will alleviate sections “a”, “b” and “d”. Not overnight, but it will happen. That message would include promotion of the family unit, the importance of education, the value of hard work and sacrifice and instill a personal responsibility to our own achievement that is tempered with the idea that we are all interconnected rather than simply individual islands. Children can and will soak that up. They will follow that lead, if we have the courage to say and live it. Unfortunately, right now we don’t. We do not have the courage and conviction to hold anyone accountable for their own actions.

On a side note… Fixing the issue is not a matter of spending money. Atlanta Public Schools spend more money than every public school system in the metro area (save Decatur city) and the schools still underperform. Money does not equal performance.

By Archie

February 20, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

I am very biased but I will say that people did not complain as much about teachers or public schools until the Republicans took over everything in the late 90’s. People in my state were ready to pay teachers top-shelf pay and people were very understanding but when it was understood that top-pay and fixing up rundown buildings meant higher taxes, politicians blamed teachers and public schools thus the voucher idea,and the distainful comments about teachers. This talk of school choice is more about money than education and test scores are just a tool used by politicians to justify what they’re really concerned about. For years South Carolina,Georgia and other southern states have been ranked at the bottom as far as education but all of a sudden parents need more choice or better teachers. No, we need to fully-fund education in every county in such a way that there is no “corridor of shame”. A gubernatorial candidate’s son went to a school where the walls were rotting and the roof was leaking so it’s not a race thing. This candidate is a doctor so I think if a truly better choice were available in that area I believe the doctor would move his son. My spouse is a teacher so that’s where my bias comes from and I see the ridiculous requirements as far as tying test scores to teachers keeping their jobs. If you want great teachers,firemen, and policemen, it costs, it costs and no politician can dress that up.

By Monica

February 20, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

One of the problems in education is trying to educate all children in the same way. A former governor destroyed the vocational program. When we educate the masses with a college prepartory education, of course the test scores will be low. Money won’t fix the problems we have in education.

Bush created NCLB so that public schools would fail to meet the standards and be forced to pay for private school education for the upper middle class (IMHO, of course).

By 2D

February 20, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Archie… Gimme a break! Your post is so full of holes it looks like Swiss cheese.

First, are you trying to say that the public school system was a bastion of efficiency and education prior to the late ‘90’s? That’s a load of bunk. Some were excellent and still remain excellent. The others are flawed and remain flawed. Sure there is some movenment in either direction but very little.

Second, if that were the case, which EVERYONE knows it is not, are you purporting that in just a couple of short years a Republican Congress could completely destroy it? It would take several years for any govenrmental institution to have that much affect, short of demolishing buildings. In fact, here in Georgia, it would be the Democrats who controlled much, if not all of the educational institutions for most of the last 100 years. If you want to blame someone, blame them.

Third, the issue is not about how much money is spent, but how the money is spent. APS spends more than all public schools in the metro area (save Decatur city) and have NOTHING to show for it. How is it I have said this at least three times in the last two days and NOONE wants to face that fact?!

Whew! I fell much beter. There’s three gaping holes. No need to say anything else.

Now, I will agree with you about the requirements statements. I think those are ridiculous.

By Duh

February 20, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Old-style Southern Democrats are now all Republicans, since their values are more in-line with the current GOP.

By Brian Curtis

February 20, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

2D: The leaders of the current Republican regime quite simply hate public education. They want to starve, denigrate, and ultimately destroy it.

Their supporters seem largely unaware of this goal, which is a shame, since a public education system is essential to a democracy of well-informed citizens.

By chuck

February 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Some good discussions this week so far. Most of it is off base though. The issue is not really about race, but rather readiness for a challenging education. This really makes it a discussion about economics.

I’ve told this story before, but I think it is appropriate here. I was born in a family of 5 children to a Dad who worked on the Fire Department. We were extremely poor. There were many weeks that we ate no meat at all because we could not afford to buy it. Oftentimes we ate dried beans and cornbread for supper 4-5 nights in a week. Nobody in my family had gone to college until me. I started working at the age of 12 to buy my own school clothes and to save money for a car and college. I worked full time during high school (as soon as I was old enough to drive).

I bought my own car and paid for the insurance and left school at 12:30 each day my junior and senior years through a vocational program and went to work at a grocery store and a nursing home. I got up every morning at 4:30 and threw an Atlanta Constitution paper route before school each morning 7 days a week. I was determined to go to college and I made it happen. My parents couldn’t help me.

The point is that I didn’t have any advantages in life except 2 parents who loved me and who taught me that working is important and that a man takes care of his responsibilities.

In spite of my disadvantages, I decided early in life, that I wanted more for myself and my family than my parents were able to provide for us. They gave me the most important things, but it was a constant struggle to keep ahead of the bills. I learned how to manage money and how to budget and save for what I wanted. My wife and I put that into practice every month. My kids work for what they want, but we give them what they need. They don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or whether or not the lights will come on when they flip the switch.

Education was a key part of that for me. These kids (those with advantages and those without) learn from an early age that education is the difference most of the time between economic success or failure in life. Yet over and over again, they choose to ignore that truth and slide through leaving a void in their preparation, not only for future educational pursuits, but for life.

It really does not matter which school a child goes to. What matters is what is INSIDE the child. Forced desegregation is nothing more than social experimentation at the cost of our kids…black and white. Kids need to go to schools in their neighborhoods. Most of our neighborhoods are already integrated to some degree and will become more so as time goes on. While it was necessary to integrate the schools by edict in the 50’s, it is less necessary today. It should not be the primary consideration for school assignments. We have students who spend over 2 hours per day riding a school bus. They cannot participate in after school activities like sports and clubs because they don’t have transportation home. They can’t stay for extra help or to make up work that they missed when they were out sick.

Their parents don’t participate in PTA or other school/parent activities because they live so far away. They don’t come for conferences with teachers when there are problems, even though we try to as flexible as we can in scheduling them.

2D, I have to ask you one question: “What exactly do you mean by ‘parent involvement’?” I can tell you that not all kinds of parent involvement are beneficial to education.

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Rather than starting up a voucher program I think you should fix up every school so not one state-supported school has a raggedy building and poor equipment then after that you can come in with your voucher proposals.

Applause! Applause! Nicely put, Archie. ALL the public schools are underfunded, especially in neighborhoods where PTA and booster club fundraisers can’t fill in the gaps. Kids from S. Fulton bus to N. Fulton to attend decent schools. Aside from the hazards of spending hours a day in traffic on a bus (ack!) it cuts into their sleep, study, part-time job, and healthy extra-cirricular time. Neighborhood schools [can and should] foster a sense of community and pride within their respective neighborhoods. That a kid has to go across town to get what SHOULD be in his own neighborhood is a disgrace, IMO.

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

The point is that I didn’t have any advantages in life except 2 parents who loved me and who taught me that working is important and that a man takes care of his responsibilities.

Chuck, that’s great! You were truly blessed with the most important basic ingredient. What do you suggest we, as a society, do about all the children who DON’T have the amazing advantage that you did? Aside from determining who can and cannot reproduce (an endeavor in which you will always fail), what do you think can be done in the neighborhoods regarding schools and at-risk children whose parents aren’t as fabulous as yours? Do you favor a punitive approach, (i.e., let them starve and then they’ll learn?), or a more motivational approach?

By Jack

February 20, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

“yes whites attends those schools”

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

By chuck

February 20, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

BC, as usual, you are spouting PURE DRIVEL. Republicans want education that WORKS. Nothing more and nothing less. Democrats have turned education into a “liberals in training” situation. We should not be using schools as a laboratory for social experimentation.

Republicans do hate that they have to send their kids to schools that INTENTIONALLY strive to undermine the religious and moral underpinnings on which not only this country is based, but that also are deeply held personal beliefs that they are teaching their kids. Public education OUGHT to be restricted to ACADEMIC EDUCATION. The plain simple truth is that MULTICULTURALISM is more to blame than desegregation/resegregation. We should be teaching and transmitting the AMERICAN CULTURE, HISTORY AND TRADITIONS that include EVERYBODY, not the divisive pluralistic cultures of every splinter group that comes along. If we stuck to the basics, we would have an educational sytem beyond compare. That is not going to happen until we realize that we cannot use the schools to accomplish non-educational social agendas.

By CHARITY-K-ANDERSON

February 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

È âñåãî-òî ïàðà ñöûëî÷åê :) ïàíñèîíàòû [url=http://mohovoe.info#adv2]ïàíñèîíàòû[/url] http://mohovoe.info#adv3 îïòèìèçàöèÿ íàëîãîîáëîæåíèÿ [url=http://rusaudit.info#adv2]îïòèìèçàöèÿ íàëîãîîáëîæåíèÿ[/url] http://rusaudit.info#adv3

Óäà÷è âñåì!

By CHARITY-K-ANDERSON

February 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

È âñåãî-òî ïàðà ñöûëî÷åê :) êîíñàëòèíã [url=http://consult1c.info#adv2]êîíñàëòèíã[/url] http://consult1c.info#adv3 îïòèìèçàöèÿ íàëîãîîáëîæåíèÿ [url=http://rosnalogi.info#adv2]îïòèìèçàöèÿ íàëîãîîáëîæåíèÿ[/url] http://rosnalogi.info#adv3 îñíîâíûå ñðåäñòâà [url=http://nalexpert.info#adv2]îñíîâíûå ñðåäñòâà[/url] http://nalexpert.info#adv3

Óäà÷è âñåì!

By Found in Translation

February 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Republicans do hate that they have to send their kids to schools that INTENTIONALLY strive to undermine the religious and moral underpinnings on which not only this country is based, but that also are deeply held personal beliefs that they are teaching their kids.

We are mad that schools don’t encourage bigotry and discrimination against anyone who isn’t a Christian-with-a-capital-C.

Public education OUGHT to be restricted to ACADEMIC EDUCATION.

The Bible should be taught as fact in schools.

The plain simple truth is that MULTICULTURALISM is more to blame than desegregation/resegregation.

We don’t like foreigners and we certainly don’t like to acknowledge that so-called “multiculturalism” is the heart of the American Melting Pot. We hate non-Christians.

We should be teaching and transmitting the AMERICAN CULTURE, HISTORY AND TRADITIONS that include EVERYBODY, not the divisive pluralistic cultures of every splinter group that comes along.

The only traditions that matter are the one’s I believe in. When I say “includes Everybody” I actually mean those traditions that I consider “truly American” should be followed by everyone whether they believe in them or not. “Everybody” means me and those like me, and those not included in that group should suck it up.

That is not going to happen until we realize that we cannot use the schools to accomplish non-educational social agendas.

How dare they suspend my perfect children for beating up that gay kid. The queer was just asking for it with his queerness.

By 2D

February 20, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Brian… How is it that you can see what the Republican party truly wants to do, but noone else can?

I appreciate the public schools and want them to succeed. I would prefer an environment where PRIVATE schools are not necessary. I am a product of the current public educational system. I did not attend a single private school along the way (even attended a public college), save for pre-school b/c to the best of my knowledge, we didn’t have the same types of programs that exist today.

I don’t think anyone truly wants the public educational system to fail, but I know I don’t want it to continue in it’s current state either. Making unfounded statements like you did does NOTHING to help with the current situation. It only serves to divide.

You and others keep referring to the funding. The funding is important, but there is also a responsibility to maximize the available funds. The current school systems, elected by the LOCAL consitutents do not use the given moneies wisely. Again I refer to the mismanagement of APS as the leading example and again noone wants to address that issue. Why does Lakeside and Chamblee consistently perform better than MLK and Stephenson with relatively the same dollars per student? Must be the Republicans. Must be President Bush. Gimme a break! Instead of blaming those you don’t like, offer a solution.

Oh, but that would require some original thought.

Oh, that would require taking a position and standing behind it.

You don’t do that, because you are not capable of doing that, because that is not what the modern Democratic party does these days. They complain and cripe and moan and offer NOTHING!!!

If you have something, bring it. I’m waiting.

By chuck

February 20, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I prefer a multi-faceted approach. For those parents who are consistently failing their kids, there will have to be penalties. They don’t understand or respond to any other method. There are states that mandate parent conference attendance when there are issues. They fine parents if they fail to attend. I don’t know well that works, but coupled with some incentives for attending and being involved there may be some merit in that approach.

Neighborhood schools are one way to alleviate some of these problems. If transportation is not an issue, then students can stay after school for help and enrichment, parents can be more involved with less hassle, and more can be accomplished in the same amount of time that students already devote to education (including the 2 hours travel time). In addition, it would be easier to do innovative things like extended school day, intramural sports and enrichment programs like museum visits, etc.

By Jack

February 20, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

Sorry Archie, that was too good to pass up. Hi Kim! & Hi to Monica and 2D. Lurking today. I yearn for the good ole days of blogging with impunity from work.:(

By chuck

February 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

“Found in being an IDIOT”

The BIBLE has nothing to do with it at all. I don’t think the Bible should be taught in school, but neither should it be mocked or called a myth in school.

“Foreigners” as you call them ARE PART OF THE MELTING POT, BUT WHEN THINGS ARE MELTED TOGETHER, THEY BLEND AND BECOME PART OF THE WHOLE THEY DO NOT REMAIN SEPARATE ENTITIES.

EVERYBODY means EVERYBODY.

By Jack

February 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Chamblee H.S. is at or near the top in SAT scores because of the influx of Asian students. They take their edjumication seriously. It really isn’t about the money.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

chuck—Take your story, subtract the “two loving parents” part, add in “a high crime neighborhood”, and you’ll have my story. Like you, I worked my way out of poverty. Despite going to an “inferior” high school, I aced the college entrance exams and won a scholarship to a very prestigious college. As such, I feel like I know what it takes to succeed in life—hard work. There can be no substitute. Where did my “motivation” come from? From within. I wanted a better life for myself, and did the necessary work to succeed.

By MrRogers

February 20, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

There goes the nieghborhood.

By Monica

February 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack!

Chuck has a point with neighborhood schools. There are disadvantages, of course. But I see many more disadvantages with school choice. A friend of mine in Florida can’t send her son to the elementary school three blocks away because they couldn’t get him in. There were too many requests for that school, which was a lottery based decision. Instead, he has to ride a bus for an hour to the school that had openings.

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack!! xxo

I’m confused, but the issue of educating America is too important to give up on… (up on which to give?)

Is Chuck the teacher advocating nationally-sponsored indoctrination to specific, non-negotiable codes of behavior and thought that reflect only pre-approved, nationalistic language and wording, the purpose of which is to weed out foreign or ethnic influences, or the ideas of free self-determination and secularism that are currently being forced down the collective throats of administrators, teachers, and students? Would this be implemented federally, ala the NCLB program, with funding denied to any system or school not in compliance with national guidelines? And does “everybody means everybody” mean that private schools must comply or be abolished?

I understand the need to bring about greater parental involvement, (or perhaps involvement by community members to fill parental voids), as therein lies the greatest hope for at-risk children. But how will forced, widespread unification of what constitutes “acceptable” thought in the school system achieve this goal?

And if Sponge-Bob were outlawed, would only outlaws watch Sponge-Bob?

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

If you have something, bring it. I’m waiting.

2D, You’re going to be waiting a long time if you expect BC to say something meaningful. He’s got some of the Libs here convinced that he’s a genius, but his statements generally don’t pass the “common sense” test IMO. Take for example his belief that parents wanting the best education for their children is somehow bad for society. The only thing it is bad for is his socialistic vision of equal outcomes.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

What’s amazing is that the Libs here want to take no responsibility at all for the breakup of the family in the US, when it is liberal social policies and misguided efforts at “social engineering” which have lowered the value we place on the traditional family.

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

“…the Libs here want to take no responsibility at all for the breakup of the family…”

Said the divorced, 40-something perpetual bachelor type with no children who brags often of his loud, party lifestyle, lack of regular work, late sleeping hours, and of his many MANY satisfied conquests.

Yep. Neighborhood’s gone all right. On which corner do I catch the short bus to a saner place?

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

kimberly—Think of it this way: The opposite of Diversity is Unity. Unity is a good thing, not a bad thing, as the far left wingers would have you believe. Diversity should be tolerated, but only within a framework of Unity.

Certainly, forced Unity is no good, it is not a matter of creating penalties for parents, as chuck suggested, or a matter of “policy papers” as you imply with “government-approved thoughts” (which, ironically, is the mechanism of choice by those in charge of “Diversity Training” within schools and corporations).

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

Said the divorced, 40-something perpetual bachelor type with no children

The key point is no children, kimberly. If I had had a child when I was married, I would still be married. I never brought kids into the world because I wasn’t emotionally prepared to be a good father.

By Jack

February 20, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

I think someone said he would log off the blog for a month. The blog is too addictive to give up easily isn’t it Dog?

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

The truth is, kim, the bachelor lifestyle is fun, but ultimately unfulfilling. Why else do you think I keep trying to meet someone like you?

Also, I’ve never dated a girl with the idea of a “conquest” in mind—At every stage I consider whether a permanent future is possible. When it’s not, I bail out. It’s a little tough at 46, due to the fact that almost all the ladies have a ton of “baggage”. In order of “priorities”, a gentleman is luck to be in fourth or fifth place in a woman’s life these days.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

I think someone said he would log off the blog for a month.

I believe that was Lover, Jack. Truthseeker made no such claim.

The blog is too addictive to give up easily isn’t it Dog?

Woof.

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

AMERICAN CULTURE, HISTORY AND TRADITIONS that include EVERYBODY,

Chuck, doesn’t “everybody” include those so-called splinter groups? Aren’t African-Americans, Latin-Americans, and Asian-Americans considered “everybody”? Those cultures have been here since the early days of our republic, although the Africans and Chinese were brought here for servitude.

Or are you saying we shouldn’t teach Shakespeare, Plato or Virgil since they aren’t AMERICAN?

By Jack

February 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

You must have read “Sybil”

By Brian Curtis

February 20, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Jack: …because Bruno’s a pathological liar. I thought everybody already knew that.

2D: My solution? You’re not gonna like it… it requires more of that pesky ‘social engineering,” more denial of “choice” (freedom to help your kid by screwing over others), and—yes—more funding.

Believe it or not, most schools are not facing the question of whether to upgrade to high-speed Net access in their computer labs. Plenty of them, especially in the poorer and inner-city neighborhoods, are dealing with broken windows, no working plumbing, and *whether they can afford heat this winter. Is there “more spending” on these under-performing schools? Yes, but not nearly enough.

You can’t run a fair race by weighing one down with 200 lbs. of bricks and then comment that “They’re each allowed to wear the same type of shoes… why did that one fall behind? Must be a bad runner.” And the push for more standards and more “accountability” is having the opposite of its intended effect—it results in substandard teaching while the underlying problems (no involvement, no community support, no funding for basic necessities) go unaddressed. The end result is an attitude that measures schools by an artificial standard and punishes those most in need of help. Which, of course, is a standard neocon-Republican tactic.

To understand what’s really going on in non-suburban, non-wealthy schools, read “Shame of the Nation” by Jonathan Kozol. It’s a real eye-opener for those of us living in relative comfort, to see how bad things are for our fellow Americans right here in the same country. http://tinyurl.com/33nytd

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Lily—The fundamental question is are we better off as a nation of splinter groups (African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Asian-Americans, to use your terms), or as a nation of One Peoples (simply Americans, to use chuck’s terms).

We’ve tried the hyphenated-American thing for many years now with poor results, in my opinion. I liked it better in the 1970s when it wasn’t so popular.

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

I find it ironic that you would blame the “libs” for the “breakup of the family” when even an honest, hard-working, educated, good-hearted, right-thinking, straight-shooting, man like yourself can’t seem make it work. Oh well, it’s always someone else’s fault, right? I’ll save you the price of a parachute; you’d “bail” on me in a week, Mr. Imagreatcatch.

By Monica

February 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, if ever anyone needed an online restraining order against someone, I believe that you could qualify quite easily. I’m getting annoyed by the blog-stalking harassment that you have been the victim of (er - of which you have been the victim), and it’s not even directed toward me!

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

I’ll save you the price of a parachute; you’d “bail” on me in a week, Mr. Imagreatcatch.

Don’t be so sure, kim. I have a heart as big as Texas, and will take a lot of abuse before you run me off. I did screw things up with my last lady, who I would marry in a heartbeat even today, but I blame extreme business stress for my poor judgment. Now that I am temporarily retired, stress is low.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

2D: My solution? You’re not gonna like it… it requires more of that pesky ‘social engineering,” more denial of “choice” (freedom to help your kid by screwing over others), and—yes—more funding.

One definition of insanity is to keep trying the same non-working solution and expecting different results. Bc, the answer is restoration of the family, something that no amount of funding and social engineering will ever achieve. It’s a matter of “values”, something we argue about every week here on the blog. Week after week, chuck, Jack, and I argue for the traditional family, while you and the rest of the Libs cheer on infidelity for Presidents.

By D'oh

February 20, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

We should be teaching and transmitting the AMERICAN CULTURE, HISTORY AND TRADITIONS that include EVERYBODY, not the divisive pluralistic cultures of every splinter group that comes along

like the divisive culture of the sliver that is the theocratic right, who insists the U.S. is a “Christain nation” founded on the 10 Commandments? Or the self-rightious “patriots” who claim the evil liberal or secularist that doesn’t want to pander to ANY religious philosophy is ultimately un-American? Or the “Southern” History and Culture that says succession and the Confederacy was merely a defense of “States Rights” and had NOTHING to do with slavery?

the cultural traditions of the American indians, the decendants of slaves, and the Midwestern dairy farmer aren’t going to be the same cultural traditions of the Southern segragationist, the Northeastern elitist, or the Alaskan roughneck. So which culture and traditions do YOU call “American” chuck?

By kimberly

February 20, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Monica, and everyone else:

I apologize. I thought that, well, if we stop blogging our topical issues and opinions, then the leg humper wins. I thought we should continue to do what we want, so the leg humper loses. I’m SO SORRY you’ve had to endure this tastelessness. And I MISS many of the folks who were run off! For whatever part I played in perpetuating it, I am truly sorry.

Peace, out.

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Here’s a short list of good American literature: Mark Twain, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Amy Tan, “The Kitchen God’s Wife,” Zora Neale Hurston, “Their Eyes Were Watching God” Louise Erdrich, “Love Medicine” Wallace Thurman, “The Blacker the Berry” Maxine Hong Kingston, “China Men”

All about Americans. We are a diverse nation. Why not give kids a chance to learn about different cultures?

By D'oh

February 20, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

dawg-poo : it is liberal social policies and misguided efforts at “social engineering” which have lowered the value we place on the traditional family

yeah, that’s why those “blue states” have so much higher divorce rates, teen-age pregnancies, welfare fraud etc…oh, wait. It’s the so-called “Red states” that have greater numbers of those…

obviously a librul plot to destroy the “traditional family” LOL!!!

Hi Jack!

By Jack

February 20, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Yeah BC. Throw more of our hard earned money into it. NOT. Ok. Ms. Smith is a teacher. The bean counters say her job performance is judged by her student’s scores on standardized tests. Ms. Smith spends 90% of her classroom time on teaching the test rather than teaching them what they need to exercise their minds. Before standard tests the problem was she had Brian in class. He was disruptive to the class and never did his homework and his parents didn’t care. Ms. Smith thinks, I could either hold him back and possibly get him next year or pass him and someone else will get him. Or she can lower the standards for the whole class so the mis-fits can pass and she won’t have to look at them next year.

Yada, yada, ya. Better go now. Later tater.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Things happen for a reason, Monica.

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

kimberly, please don’t apologize. That’s like an abuse victim apologizing for angering her abuser. The best method is to not respond to the troll. Sometimes it takes a while to figure out the nom de plume, but not long.

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

Back to the main topic — why can’t ALL public schools have good buildings, the latest books, the best teachers? Why should people like 2D have to move to a more expensive neighborhood to take advantage of the best schools? You can still have classes for the learning disabled, as well as advanced classes for the brighter kids.

By Archie

February 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

I am sorry I couldn’t respond earlier. Thanks Kimberly,see I told you that you and I share similar views. 2d, You complete misread my 10:43 am post and you did so badly. I did not say public schools were great before the late 90’s, I said that people did not complain as much about teachers or public schools until the late 90’s when Republicans took over. When politicians knew they would have to raise taxes,i.e. spend money they decided a better way to get elected is to bring up test scores put out messages that say money can’t fix everything. The point I made is that southern schools were always low-rated and there was no outrage. They were low-rated when you had Republican or Democratic governors but in the late 90’s there was talk about doing things salary-wise for teachers. I use my former governor Hodges as an example, he raised salaries for teachers in my state SC but did not do so for other government workers and he put in several teacher incentive programs,well, now that we have a Republican in office, the current governor Sanford wants get rid of the program that will teachers an extra 10 grand for completing the certified teacher program. Instead of getting smaller class sizes as every politician campaigned on now the move is to cut taxes but you have to have a villain so you can justify not doing anything for certain workers so you engage a public relations campaign that bashes teachers and government workers. Of course certain people are slackers therefore let’s not spend any money on them and if the state looks bad education-wise,well, let’s just blame the teachers. Pure manipulation but it works. I know this is just a blog but let’s read the posts before we respond.

By Monica

February 20, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Don’t apologize, Kimberly! You have done nothing wrong!!

Lily Toad, you bring up a grat point. Schools receive most of their funding based on the FTE count - the number of students that they have. Rural county schools with no tax base in the community will never have the luxuries that are present in Gwinnett. Then there are other county systems that must share with a city system in that same county. Carroll County schools will never have the mulit-million dollar field house that the Carrollton city high school is currently building. The city gets a cut of the SPLOST for the county, and the revenue generated in the city limits is not shared with the county.

That said, money isn’t the end-all, be-all to education. Communities that value education will have the better schools. Many communities/neighborhoods simply don’t value education.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Lily, Monica—Take a look back at today’s conversation, will you? You’ll see nothing but discussions of the issues from me, including comments directed at kimberly, until she turned things personal with her posts at 2:21 and 2:49. If she’s the “victim” here, why is she the one who initiated the personal discussion?

The fact is that kimberly (whoever she is in real life) has revealed many deeply personal things here on the blog in a way that suggests a “cry for help”, at least to the men bloggers. My “response” has likely been “distasteful”, but it wasn’t without provocation. I wish her nothing but the best.

By 2D

February 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Archie… If I read your 10:45 post badly, it’s b/c it wasn’t nearly as clear as the 3:28 post. While I still don’t totally agree with you, I do believe we are much more eye to eye than I originally thought.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Quick facts about educational spending: Virtually every year, North Dakota spends the least per pupil in the US, yet their students are typically #1 academically. At the other end of the spectrum, Washington DC spends the most per pupil year after year, and year after year their students are at the bottom academically. Tell me again how spending more money is the answer, will you?

By Monica

February 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry - that should have been “great” point instead of “grat” point. I’ve never been a “grat” typist :)

By 2D

February 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

BC… You still haven’t offered a solution. You have merely pointed out problems and given us a nice plug for a book.

You also assume that I would not be willing to spend more money. If there is one thing other than the military I want to spend money on it’s education. I simply want to make sure that it is spent wisely.

You are absolutely correct in inferring it is shameful for children to go to schools with broken windows, no heat, lack of supplies, etc. All schools should be realtively the same when it comes to facilities. You and I could not agree more.

My concern, or outrage is more with the peripheral, and even more troublesome situations where schools have money and do not spend it wisely or where children have the best of facilities and do not achieve adequate educations.

My personal solution would be to bring all public primary and secondary education under a single Federal office. This would ensure ALL schools have consistent curriculum, same relative funding, taking into account all economic factors (i.e. schools would cost more in New York than say Iowa), basic guidelines for facilities and equal opportunities for extra-curricular activities. That agency would then be held accountable to ensure that said facilities and opportunites remain available to students. Obviously there are many more details, but I think you get the gist.

That only solves one of the issues. The other is social and no government agency can fix it. The community must then make it

By WhatWasMeant

February 20, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

North Dakota is white and D.C. is “people of color”.

By Joe L

February 20, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Ironic given this week’s discussion that this covers a lot of what we are discussing today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070220/cmusatoday/whatcanschoolsdo;ylt=Ak3ssxbB3h85RkE0gvVME4XMWM0F

One of the biggest problems facing fixing education today is all the finger pointing and people looking for yet another topic to bash the opposing ideology. The amount of money in the system right now isn’t the issue - we spend more per capita than most if not all countries. Yet there are clearly funding problems. Obviously some people are getting more money than others and there is extreme waste somewhere (in overpaid administrators for one thing).

By chuck

February 20, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

LTOAD, there is nothing wrong with the list of books you proposed. That is not what I am talking about at all. What I am talking about is the politically correct, divisive agenda of the Left. If you were a teacher you would know what I mean. Here’s an article for all of you who think like BC. It’s your homework and I expect it to read before you post tomorrow ( a little teacher humor):

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14164

This is an excerpt from the article that with minor changes is pretty much the way I look at this topic. If all you want to do is deride all of us horrible Christians/conservatives/Republicans, then don’t bother to read it. If you want to understand where we are coming from then by all means EDUCATE YOURSELF.

When I speak of America’s “dominant Western culture,” or of its “majority culture and people,” these are not intended as code words for whites. Individuals of non-European ancestry are and can be full members of America’s majority Western culture. At the same time, it is a historical fact that America’s defining political culture is Anglo-Saxon and Protestant in origin and character. A Japanese-American can become an American by embracing this culture—this culture shaped by Anglo-Saxon and Protestant traditions—as his own. (And I write this as a non-Anglo-Saxon Jew.) The same is true for individuals of any ethnic or racial group.

By Brian Curtis

February 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

2D: And your idea for a federal oversight committee on education spending is a good one. I agree with it.

As for the social side… I have no suggestion. The reason schools had to institute sex education was because parents weren’t doing their jobs. The reason there are so many disciplinary problems in class is, again, because parents aren’t doing their jobs. The reason so many fundies are worried about “values” being taught in school is because parents aren’t doing their jobs.

But schools can’t MAKE parents do a better job. Neither can government. All we, as a society, can do is try to make up for the gap plaguing those kids who have crappy parents.

By Joe L

February 20, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

“If all you want to do is deride all of us horrible Christians/conservatives/Republicans, then don’t bother to read it. If you want to understand where we are coming from then by all means EDUCATE YOURSELF.”

Oh we understand where you are coming from - a learned about bigotry and the protected classes trying to keep all the advantages to themselves a long time ago. Doesn’t make it right.

By Monica

February 20, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

The amount of money in the system right now isn’t the issue - we spend more per capita than most if not all countries.

Yet another problem: we are compared to countries who don’t view education as a right. In this land of opportunity, all are granted an education; not so in other countries.

By chuck

February 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

This is a quote from the article you posted little joe:

While some parents have abdicated this responsibility, most want schools to reinforce and model the moral values taught at home.

Here is the problem IN SOME cases. The children HAVE BEEN TAUGHT MORAL VALUES AT HOME. Unfortunately what they have been taught is not what MOST of would want our children to be taught. You would absolutely not believe what goes on in the houses of these children…and they bring it to school with them.

Here is a better scenario: You teach YOUR children the moral values that you want them to have and I’ll teach mine. Let the schools teach history, math, science, etc.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Here’s the common sense solution, folks. Rather than continuing to focus our efforts on failure and the various ways to “correct” failure, we need simply to focus our efforts on success and the ways success can be achieved. At first, this concept sounds like a play on words, but it’s not. In a deep way, it refers to whether our “base model” is one of sickness or of health. Very subtle distinction, but all-important. A practical example is the two-parent issue. A model of success would include tremendous incentives to stay married if you have kids. The model of failure, embraced by Libs, is to focus on making sure no one “feels bad” about the broken home and in securing tax dollars to fund it.

By Joe L

February 20, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

“Yet another problem: we are compared to countries who don’t view education as a right. In this land of opportunity, all are granted an education; not so in other countries.”

Actually you have that completely backwards. I am referring to only industrialized nations and most of them recognize education as a right, America does not. In most of the countries that spend less per capita their students perform better and can go to college for free.

By chuck

February 20, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Little joe, if you are going to respond, at least try to make sense.

Oh we understand where you are coming from - a learned about bigotry and the protected classes trying to keep all the advantages to themselves a long time ago. Doesn’t make it right. HUH?

Exactly. I did at least read the article you linked, but then you small-minded libs really don’t like to be confronted with the truth do you?

By Archie

February 20, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

I just read Brian’s 2:49 pm post and yes I am in agreement and I wonder why it’s so easy to manipulate people period. I marketeers can get people to believe they can’t function without a certain product(cellphone) and political strategist’s can make you believe an actual soldier is weaker than a person who never was a soldier(see Bush and Kerry) I am not saying Democrats are just so perfect but I am saying it’s time for the public to understand manipulation. No person would buy the latest Hdtv if their roof had holes in it unless that person was going to fix their house first. Democrats are manipulative too, Democrats know good and well that they cannot bring the troops home but since all the polls say that’s what the public wants democrats utter empty statements sometimes without explaining the complexities. Mr James Clyburn did a good job explaining things about the war in a local paper here in SC minus manipulation, he knows you can’t defund the war. Education is the same. People used to use race,now they use test scores and taxes to get elected. High stakes testing needs to go away and good parenting needs to come in and proper funding as Brian suggested earlier. I read the link in Brian’s post, good info. 2d, you are just fine.

By WTF

February 20, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

“The model of failure, embraced by Libs, is to focus on making sure no one “feels bad” about the broken home and in securing tax dollars to fund it.”

Which model? Embraced by whom? Define “feels bad.” Securing tax dollars to fund what?

Why don’t you just admit you have no f—-ing idea what the f—- you are talking about? F——r.

By chuck

February 20, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

One last excerpt from the article that I linked above:

Multiculturalist agendas and the rhetoric of diversity inform the key institutions and official expressions of American society. It is now an unquestioned credo both in the schools and among the elites that the central purpose of our society is the inclusion of other peoples and cultures, rather than the preservation, flourishing, and enhancement of our own people and culture. Multiculturalism is embraced in the highest precincts of the establishment right as well as the left. Thus George W. Bush, casting aside Ronald Reagan’s belief in immigration with assimilation, has celebrated the growth of unassimilated foreign languages and cultures in this country, while his closest aide, Condoleezza Rice, who ten years ago told radio host Bob Grant that she was a Republican because Republicans treated her as an individual instead of as a black, now supports minority racial preferences in college admissions and throws around diversity rhetoric with the best of them.

By Joe L

February 20, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

“Here is a better scenario: You teach YOUR children the moral values that you want them to have and I’ll teach mine. Let the schools teach history, math, science, etc”

Yeah that has worked soooo well now hasn’t it. Yet when faced with direct evidence that proves this is successful you do what? We are taking about universal morals that have nothing to do with religion that you drag into everything. Honesty, integrity, hard work, responsibility, how you can you be opposed to instilling these qualities in children particularly those that aren’t receiving these values at home?

By Joe L

February 20, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

” A model of success would include tremendous incentives to stay married if you have kids. The model of failure, embraced by Libs, is to focus on making sure no one “feels bad” about the broken home and in securing tax dollars to fund it.”

Wow talk about “social engineering”. So what if I never get married? Why should someone else get a benefit because they decide to get married? Sorry but this one fails the smell test big time. That model is embraced by no one I know so get off this silly and incorrect labeling crap.

By Joe L

February 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Confronted with the truth that you are a bigot trying to protect your privleged class? That’s an obvious truth I confronted a long time ago Chuck.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

WTF—Here’s a simpler scenario for your pea-brain to consider: As far as physical health, we pretty much know what behaviors and characteristics healthy people exhibit (e.g good diet, frequent exercise, etc.). As such, anyone with common sense should see that these are the ideals to which we should shoot for, where we should place our efforts.

The reality is, our current health care system is a model of failure, in which good behavior is barely mentioned, but zillions of dollars are spent to “cure” all the sick folks of the myriad of ailments they develop due to a poor lifestyle.

By Sad

February 20, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Truth is somewhat relative. To Chuck and his fellow frightened Conservatives, the Melting Pot stopped melting as soon as the non-Europeans started to add their two-cents. Everyone is welcome so long as they adhere to the traditions and culture that existed at that point in time.

The rest of us appreciate the advantages of an ever-evolving, ever-changing TRUE melting pot, one that includes traditions and flavors from all over the world, and doesn’t demand that anyone who dares come into our country turn him or herself into a clone that would do any right-wing stuffed shirt proud.

Only in Bizarro world is exposure to MORE ideas, MORE cultures, MORE people considered BAD education. Chuck can continue to fear and hate people who are different - no one can stop him, no doubt. The rest of us will continue on the journey.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

Confronted with the truth that you are a bigot trying to protect your privleged class? That’s an obvious truth I confronted a long time ago Chuck.

I’ll spare the rest of the folks and not insert a (sic) by your misspelling of the word privileged, ok Joe? Looks like you’ve bought the Liberal mantra hook-line-and-sinker, Joe “White people are bad.”

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

My college roommate’s father taught in Miami high schools, then they moved to Appalachicola. The father found out that most of his high school class could barely read so he brought in Playboy magazines to get the kids to read.

In a similar vein, I see nothing wrong with bringing in cultural-specific readings to get the kids interested in reading. If a kid first reads “The House on Mango Street” by Sandra Cisneros, in school, then s/he may be motivated to read something more “Anglo-Saxon.”

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

chuck—I agree with you that Bush is a sellout compared to Reagan in terms of principles. In the end, Reagan appeased the Libs by continuing the extravagant funding of the Lib social programs, but he was clear about multiculturalism whereas Bush waffles a lot to keep the Latinos happy.

By WTF

February 20, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Snapper head, good example of a whole different issue besides education. Agreed, the health care system is broken, and does treat illness without focusing on health or the causes of illness. But snapper head, the current health care system of a different topic is not embraced by libs, it is embraced by giant, profitable corporate entities like blue cross blue shield, and pharmacutical companies that make billions off the heartburn and insecurities of others, and of course their big republican, campaign-donating shareholders. Millions cant afford to seek healthcare except in emergencies? Well, so what. As long as Viagra keeps churning huge profits, who cares?

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I read about half of the article and basically don’t agree with the suppositions — first, this country is not Anglo-Saxon. The British were the dominant force but not the first to arrive. Don’t forget the Spanish and French were here very early too. Even all the British settlers were not Anglo-Saxon. Why should a Japanese born citizen embrace Anglo-Saxon culture in order to become part of the American culture? Why can’t the melting pot still contain distinct flavors?

Another discrepancy — the writer quotes Toni Morrison as saying liberty is based on racism and hierarchy, then he goes on to say Morrison despises liberty. She is simply pointing out that “all men are created equal” meant free, property owning MEN.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

Sad—I can see the danger in the society you warn about in which conformity is required. In return, can you see the danger when a society fractures into many different splinter groups with little in common other than geographical occupation. It’s called “Balkanization”, and for a very good reason. The Balkans have been the site of ongoing ethnic wars for thousands of years.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

Snapper head, good example of a whole different issue besides education.

Sorry your limited imagination doesn’t allow you to see the connection to education, WTF. Consider your statement and does treat illness without focusing on health or the causes of illness. and apply it to educational issues, and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

By Lily Toad

February 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

White land-owning men, that is. Not laborers, such as the Irish and German immigrants.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

The full Lib mantra: “White people are bad, and only white people are bad. Especially white men.”

Interesting how well South Africa is running now that the blacks are in charge.

By Monica

February 20, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry Joe L. I was referring to countries such as China and Japan, where parents fork over thousands to send their kids to prep schools and hope that their children get a high enough grade on an entrance test to get a higher education.

Another oxymoron: in a study done in the 90’s (don’t remember which one), Asian students had a low self-esteem, yet out-performed their American counterparts on standardized tests. American kids had the highest self esteeem, yet scored in the basement on test scores.

By Truthseeker

February 20, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Yep, everyone’s a victim, except white men. Women especially can only be victims. Even when the facts show that they instigated the trouble, like today.

By buy tramadol without prescription

February 20, 2007 7:52 PM | Link to this

I really find this site very interesting, and it gives people a pleasure time! I really appreciate the creators of this website! soma | vicodin | xenical | xanax online | order propecia http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader5 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader9 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader0

By carisoprodol online

February 20, 2007 9:53 PM | Link to this

Carisoprodol is a skeletal muscle relaxant whose active metabolite is meprobamate. Although several case reports have shown that carisoprodol has abuse potential, it continues to be widely prescribed. long term use of carisoprodol [url=http://carisoprod.ksiegagosci.info/ ]long term use of carisoprodol[/url] http://carisoprod.ksiegagosci.info/

By ella

February 20, 2007 10:08 PM | Link to this

Abanamat! In vina veritas! 95 Honda Civic Ignitor [url=island.s8th.info/civic-honda-ignitor.html#adv2]Honda Civic Ignitor[/url] island.s8th.info/civic-honda-ignitor.html#adv3 Ringtones [url=http://324n.info/ringtones/#adv2]Ringtones[/url] http://324n.info/ringtones/#adv3

By carisoprodol online

February 20, 2007 10:08 PM | Link to this

Carisoprodol is a skeletal muscle relaxant whose active metabolite is meprobamate. Although several case reports have shown that carisoprodol has abuse potential, it continues to be widely prescribed. carisoprodol next day delivery [url=http://carisoprod.ksiegagosci.info/ ]carisoprodol next day delivery[/url] http://carisoprod.ksiegagosci.info/

By PAUL-C-ADAMS391

February 21, 2007 2:03 AM | Link to this

Abanamat! In vina veritas! 117 samsung real ringtones ringtones-lg-8100

By buy soma cheap

February 21, 2007 2:04 AM | Link to this

Hull! Dis site gets betta every time I visit it. Great work guyz! buy cheap ultram | buy tramadol without prescription | propecia facts | xenical | soma drug http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader3 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader6 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader9

By buy soma cheap

February 21, 2007 2:09 AM | Link to this

Hull! Dis site gets betta every time I visit it. Great work guyz! buy cheap ultram | buy tramadol without prescription | propecia facts | xenical | soma drug http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader3 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader6 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/harmonizer/discuss/msgReader9

By cheapest carisoprodol

February 21, 2007 2:14 AM | Link to this

Greetings! Undoubtedly, you will reach big success with your site. ambien date | carisoprodol | adipex | soma 350 | propecia http://caxton.stockton.edu/animeclub/discuss/msgReader http://caxton.stockton.edu/animeclub/discuss/msgReader http://caxton.stockton.edu/animeclub/discuss/msgReader http://caxton.stockton.edu/animeclub/discuss/msgReader

By 2D

February 21, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

Sad… I would agree with you that learning about more cultures/ideas/people is great for our children. But wouldn’t you agree that we need to teach those things primarily as to how they are relative to the history of this country.

Europeans were the dominant cultures that formed and incubated this nation. Our children should first understand the concepts and history of the good ‘ole USA before we start teaching about anything else. Once those principals are established and understood, by all means we should expose our children to as many other things that we can.

In my public education, I spent half of my seventh grade year learning all about my home state. I spent half of my eight grade year learning about the Constitution. In high school I was then able to take as many half year courses about various historical subjects (civil war, WWI, WWI, etc.) that I chose. Sure we learned about current, near-ancient and ancient civilizations but the basics were American history and any world history (predominantly European) that shaped this great country. Without those basics, I/we would not be able to continue the great Republic in which we live.

How many kids in high school today could name HALF of the American Presidents? I would wager less than half. But I would bet right about now they can tell you all kinds of things about Black History. I find that disturbing. Not that our students shouldn’t understand the contiributions to society of other cultures, but that we are so concerned with multi-culturalism, that we tend to forget the foundations upon which we live.

By Peachtree City Mom

February 21, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this

I always wonder about why it is assumed all black children go to inferior slum schools. My home is Peachtree City. I live around some of the best GA public schools but my children are not in them. My children are sent to private schools because of the drugs at middle school and high school here. They were involved in sports, they had after school activities but most of their friends go home to empty houses and raid their parents stash—then share with their buddies. Share also means steal money from parents to get drugs and thats how I learned my son had problems just saying no to getting high. His buddies on the soccer team got him pot if he paid—and he stole to get it. Its an unspoken curse among residents here: how to keep our children clean when the parents are casual users. We don’t have big thug gangs we have individuals, we parents who seldom know what their children are doing. My neighbors thought I was stupid to pay 10,000/year just so my son could graduate high school not on anything. They said our schools are the best—but then one of his kids is now addicted to meth-amphetamine and is in rehab. Where was it bought? Not in the slums or subdivisions of Atlanta but right here in the mansions of this golf cart town. Desegregation is yesterdays problem.

By Jenny

February 21, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

Posters avoiding a blog due to the continous rank stench of dog poop from a xenophobic racist can hardly be considered a win for the dog pooper.

By InWonder

February 21, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

The truth is that we need to completely revamp our educational system - possibly just start from scratch and start putting it in starting with Elementary school. Obviously we have gone light years in the wrong direction in so many ways.

I believe the PC world we live in is to blame. Yes, certain areas of life have become easier for some, but far from fixing everything. We all want to be “multicultural” and feel that is the answer to make everything better and we want to throw that down everyone’s trought. What does that make use notice: the color of everyone’s skin. Yet, we are made to believe that “multiculturalism” will make us all “color blind” and in the end we will end the separation - but it just makes us far from “color blind”. To be truly “color blind” we need to get rid of all this “check if you are white, black, etc”. Look at ourselves as human beings and the world is full of human beings from different cultures, not races. The only time the “check box” is important is in the healthcare environment, where your race does become a factor in your health - that is a medical, proven fact. Look at our abilities and what good we have done (learn from the mistakes), not our color of our skin or our name. No one is perfect - not the rich or the poor. You will get crime in the “perfect” schools or the “worst” schools. I don’t understand these parents who pull their kids out of schools for completely unimportant reasons - you don’t have a crystal ball to tell you how your child will do in a school that you consider with “high minorities”. How is that school suddenly bad and what are you teaching your children - obviously you are teaching them that the color of someone’s skin makes you think a school is “suddenly” not right for your child?? You have been watching too much TV and listening to the media. Give a school a chance. You may be hugely surprised! I can only understand you not wanting to send your child to a high-crime laden school, a health hazard, but because of “high minority” - give me a break and get off your high horse (you could go and work on getting the school fixed, get involved possibly?). Trust me, your “perfect” kids in the “perfect” school can get the same drugs, bullies, crime, etc - probably more since the kids have more money and time to waste and their parents are in denial that their kids could ever do anything wrong so they don’t feel the need to supervise and so they underdisacipline their kids. (Which IS seen more in the areas with money than without.)

Also, students should be tested before starting school and at the end to make sure they are ready for the next grade. Ya, Ya - not PC and would p** off the backers of the NKLB Gang. But in the end it is going to completely backfire. Trust me, schools have been pushing kids thru for YEARS and family members who suffered because of this and they are in their 40-50’s.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Yet, we are made to believe that “multiculturalism” will make us all “color blind” and in the end we will end the separation - but it just makes us far from “color blind”. To be truly “color blind” we need to get rid of all this “check if you are white, black, etc”.

Watch out, InWonder, you’re making too much sense. You likely just ran off 4 or 5 more Lib posters who can’t defend their point of view. Pretty soon, Jenny will be accusing you of being racist for not going along with the “all minorities are victims” agenda shoved down our throats for the past 40 years.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

But let me translate Lib Doublespeak for you, InWonder: Anyone who opposes using race as the main criterion in selecting job and college applicants is obviously a racist. Do you follow? Don’t ask for an explanation of that one, questions aren’t allowed.

By Sad

February 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

No indeed, 2D, I would not agree that our children need to be educated about things only as those things relate to the history of our country. That would be counterproductive to the study of world history and cultures. We already have a population of adults that is less informed about the rest of the world than any other industrialized nation. Our disdain for other nations and what they offer is reaching epidemic proportions.

Studying US and European history does not preclude teaching about other cultures as well, other geographies, other histories, other cannons of literature, nor should it be assumed that the teaching of one must come significantly before the other.

Assuredly, there is a rich tapestry of American history and traditions to share with young people, and they should certainly study vigorously the background of this Nation, but studying other histories and cultures as well can only enrich that experience. One gains more understanding of history the broader one’s knowledge of the world, not less.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Can’t stick around today, but I’d like to see a Lib answer my challenge from yesterday to Sad:

Sad—I can see the danger in the society you warn about in which conformity is required. In return, can you see the danger when a society fractures into many different splinter groups with little in common other than geographical occupation. It’s called “Balkanization”, and for a very good reason. The Balkans have been the site of ongoing ethnic wars for thousands of years.

By MJ

February 21, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

…but he (Reagan) was clear about multiculturalism whereas Bush waffles a lot to keep the Latinos happy.” Bush, being from Texas, realizes our economy would soon fall apart without the Latinos here who work so hard for so little. who put money into this country with employment taxes and fica, sales tax, etc. which they will never get back. If all the illegals went home El Paso and many other towns would cease to exist because there would be no workers there to keep the place going!

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Great show on GPB last night regarding hip-hop lyrics and the “gangsta rap culture”. The host of the show, a black man, advanced a “crazy” theory that the constant denigration of women in rap has led many young men, both black and white, to treat women disrespectfully. As evidence, he videotaped the “Black Spring Break” in Daytona Beach, in which scantily clad girls are assaulted on a regular basis with impunity.

He made an excellent point that all the posturing by the male rapper wannabes belies a lack of real power in the world. Even in the world of hip-hop, white men in suits are often running the show at the highest levels. The solution, of course, requires embracing a different set of values than is currently being pushed through gangsta rap music.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Bush, being from Texas, realizes our economy would soon fall apart without the Latinos here who work so hard for so little. who put money into this country with employment taxes and fica, sales tax, etc. which they will never get back. If all the illegals went home El Paso and many other towns would cease to exist because there would be no workers there to keep the place going!

MJ, I will agree that we can’t just run off all the illegals in a mass exodus at this point, it would cause the housing market to collapse overnight at the minimum. As for the rest of your assertion that the illegals have contributed far more in labor and taxes than they have received in wages and government benefits, I disagree. If you throw in the loss of morale among honest citizens who are forced to obey the law, the influx of illegals has been a net loser in my book.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

“In return, can you see the danger when a society fractures into many different splinter groups with little in common other than geographical occupation.”

And that becomes MORE likely the less tolerant you are of other cultures and beliefs. America has absolutely nothing that is common to all citizens outside of geography and liberty. That’s it. We were founded by many religions, many cultures, and many languages. We don’t have the common culture, language, and ethnic backgrounds of most countries. Tolerance and understanding are necessary for America to continue. Splinter groups will not have to exist if people feel accepted into the whole despite their differences in backgrounds. You are making the same doomsday prophecies that xenophobes have made for 200 years and you have always been proven to be short-sighted, bigoted, scared, reactionist, and ultimately completely wrong.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

“The solution, of course, requires embracing a different set of values than is currently being pushed through gangsta rap music.”

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China? And I’m sure you have some sad misguided view that this is going to cause an “uproar” and all the “limp wristed pinko liberals”.

By Monica

February 21, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Peachtree City Mom, I was talking just this morning with someone about the “evils” of Peachtree City. The high schools there have high test scores and high drug use - the upper crust kids are the worst users. You couldn’t pay me to live in Peachtree City. However, don’t be fooled by private school kids either - there are just as many drug problems there.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

America has absolutely nothing that is common to all citizens outside of geography and liberty.

Total B.S. as usual, Joe. We have a common language for starters, or at least used to. The issue isn’t the lack of assimilation of other cultures into ours, it’s the refusal of the current immigrants to respect the culture and laws that are already in place.

What’s completely hilarious about your argument, Joe, is that if you study Europeans closely, the peoples usually held up to be the model of tolerance, you will find that they are in actuality far less tolerant of “foreigners” than we are. France even has a Ministry of Language, which prevents “foreign” words from being assimilated into the French language. Magazines and newspapers actually receive fines for deviating from “official French”.

By replica handbags

February 21, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

replica handbags http://www.blognow.com.au/replicahandbags/ replica handbags

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

Uh, it has to do with the topic of the week, Joe, i.e. racial considerations in education. Or more specifically, why do black children do so poorly in school? Libs believe blacks are “victims” and that racial classification and race-based solutions are the way to a better society. Conservatives acknowledge an unfair past in the US, but see the solution as lying in a true colorblind society, in which applicants to jobs and colleges aren’t judged by the color of their skin, but on their merit.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

“We have a common language for starters, or at least used to.”

Absolutely untrue. When America was founded we spoke English, French, Dutch, German, Polish, and Swedish just to name a few. Current immigrants are absolutely no different than the way immigrants behaved 150 years ago and you are no different than the backwards regressionists then who denied history and were proven false by the future. But this is the same fallacy that xenophobes fearing an erosion of their “power” have always forwarded. And lets not even talk about the fact that America has imported other peoples and cultures to gain advantage of their cheap labor and later labeled them undesirable once they become more trouble than they are worth.

France is the only European country with such policies and you are denying the obvious fact I laid out up front, those countries arose naturally around groups of people who were of a similar culture. In most of these countries people who are from different backgrounds are an extremely recent and brief portion of their history. America is completley opposite.

But again you are the typical WASP who thinks that America has always been white and anglophonic thus giving you a self-satisfying feeling of superiority. Which is typical of those who are small and worthless deep down inside.

By lozen

February 21, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

This goes back to the discussion last week and is just FYI:

“…at a conservative rally this weekend, Arizona Senator John McCain proclaimed, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned…” [USA Today, February 19, 2007]. He proceeded to an abstinence-only event later that day.”

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

I do find it pretty ironic that so many of the Lib posters keep harping about the “good old days” here on W2W. I thought you guys embraced change? The truth is, you can’t win a fair argument, and have to resort to constant name-calling at this point or running away.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Actually you lend MORE credence to the fact that due to centuries of oppression the current problems with black culture stem from a justified feeling of helplessness. Of course, you will say tough and deny the fact that any horrendous injustices done to them could have left any scars that shouldn’t have healed by now since you said “sorry” without really meaning it.

The funny part is you are so dumb you don’t even know when you are disproving your own argument.

We all see the solution as lying in a colorblind society. However such a society doesn’t exist and conservatives continue to make sure that it doesn’t happen. Because then they can point to the necessary corrections to the problems they create as so called problems. If everyone actually embraced our past injustices and worked hard to fix them we would be better off today. But most people want to deny culpability and/or act like enough has been done to fix the problem.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

I have never lost more respect for an individual than I have for McCain. Probably the only Republican I would have ever voted into the White House because he had proved to be pragmatic and above political posturing and manuevering and a man of integrity. Not anymore. He has clearly sold his soul and become yet another sound bite, partisan, pandering politician.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

But again you are the typical WASP who thinks that America has always been white and anglophonic thus giving you a self-satisfying feeling of superiority.

Sorry, bro, more B.S crowing from you. I worked a good portion of my career in neighborhoods that were 100% black. And, as I’ve stated before, I have more black,Spanish, and Arabic people in my home on a weekly basis than most people do in a lifetime. The secret is, we don’t really categorize ourselves racially among ourselves—everyone is an opponent at the poker table.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Of course, you will say tough and deny the fact that any horrendous injustices done to them could have left any scars that shouldn’t have healed by now since you said “sorry” without really meaning it.

Joe, since I was a child in school in the 1960s, blacks have been given preferential treatment both at school and in the workplace. We’re going on 45 years of preferential treatment now, Joe. When is enough enough? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Simple example for you: When ice skater Nancy Kerrigan was whacked in the knee before the Olympics, it was considered tragic that she was “unfairly hampered” before the competition. If you notice, however, the Olympics didn’t change any of the rules to accommodate her. While doing so might seem “fair” in some people’s minds, doing so would set a dangerous precedent.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

” I worked a good portion of my career in neighborhoods that were 100% black. And, as I’ve stated before, I have more black,Spanish, and Arabic people in my home on a weekly basis than most people do in a lifetime. “

Oh, so that changes the color of your skin? Let me guess you have “black friends” right? Every time you open your mouth you just prove me more and more right. These are the okay brown folks because the walk and talk like you. It’s the ones that are different that are bad. You are just a little UN aren’t you? (Oh wait that would be bad right?)

By Laugher

February 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Laugh of the week: Kerrigan’s injury equates to centuries of racism.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Joe—I’ll give you the same respect I give all Libs: I don’t doubt your sincerity. Your heart is in the right place. I believe you have good intentions.

The problem is, none of these good intentions ever translate into good public policy, as the failure of Johnson’s Great Society programs has proven.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

“blacks have been given preferential treatment both at school and in the workplace”

And you yet again prove my point. Talk to any black person about the “preferential” treatment they get in life.

Wow 45 whole years? That’s not even ONE generation you dope (not to mention a wholely inaccurate portrayal of the true time). Like I said you are stupid enough to believe that it’s enough time to reverse the HUNDREDS of years of damage. And regardless most of what has been done for the black community is lip service because people like you have never really accepted the truth of what was done to these people and put forth the efforts to fix it. The black community is in shambles because the rest of America did not do enough (and it’s not about handouts) to help them recover from everything that was done to them.

You are wrong about “preferntial” treatment and you are wrong about 45 years. You act like the world changed completely overnight the day the Civil Rights Act was signed. Talk to some of your “black friends” and actually listen and maybe you will understand. But I doubt it given your obvious intenional ignorance and obtuseness.

By 2D

February 21, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Joe… First of all, I would like to say that I am glad you have chosen to join the discussion. Not sure if it was the topic but I hope you stay aboard. You have covered a bunch of things but I’d like to toss my two cents on a couple.

You are correct that horrendous things were done to the Black population in this country. If people learned American history, they would know the full brunt of pain that the slave population here in America underwent. There are undoubtedly scars left from that treatment and I think it is safe to say that the decendents of those people will “heal” at different rates.

However, many of the “solutions” require people who not at all culpable for those terrible acts to pay for the sins of someone else’s fathers. Take for example European immigrants from the early to mid-twentieth century. They did very little or nothing to exaserbate the problem, yet they, their children or grandchildren feel the pain when looking for work, college entrance, etc. The anger of those people should be understandable. Unfortuantely, it appears you see those people as denying culpability.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

These are the okay brown folks because the walk and talk like you. It’s the ones that are different that are bad.

Well, yeah, isn’t that how most people pick their friends? My point is that skin color isn’t primary to me in choosing friends, in answer to your claim that I am somehow racist. Frankly, you remind me of folks like Charles Rangel, who won’t give Bush any credit for appointing more minorities to positions of real power than any other President, including Clinton, because apparently they weren’t the right type of blacks.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

“Laugh of the week: Kerrigan’s injury equates to centuries of racism.”

C’mon that little white girl didn’t get to ICE SKATE! Clearly the second largest injustice done in the last 200 years.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Joe, I would be more sympathetic to the plight of blacks who ended up in America if I hadn’t also studied the history of Africa. A slave in America likely received better treatment than a slave held in Africa during the same time period. And while slavery ended in the US in 1865, it still continues today within Africa.

And for all the crowing about “colonialism”, the fact is the world was a free-for-all until recent years. There were no international agencies to appeal grievances to, you just had to slug it out. As such, Aficans had just as great of an opportunity to control their destiny as any other group did. They were just less successful in the modern era.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

“Take for example European immigrants from the early to mid-twentieth century.”

First guilt comes not just from acting but from failing to prevent an act from occuring: “Evil exists as long as good men stand by and do nothing”. Some of the worst racists in the area of the country I live in are members of the group of European immigrants you are describing.

And again it’s not about GUILT or PENANCE. It’s about doing what’s right AND what’s pragmatic. The problem here is people seeing a problem and being way too concerned about whose fault it is and not nearly enough about just fixing the damn problem! Too many people saying “I didn’t do anything” and using that as a cop out for not fixing a problem that affects them. Because believe me the nearly permanent underclass that is mainly driven by race (yes I understand poverty and education are the true drivers but these people are lacking in these areas because of decades of racial inequity) is a problem that affects all of us.

This to me is the biggest difference between libs and conservatives. Conservatives see a problem and cry “personal responsibility” as their excuse because they didn’t “cause” it (although this is highly arguable). Liberals see a problem and want to fix it regardless of their own personal culpability. Because fixing the problem will benefit ourselves and others. But the problem affects both of us equally and we are both citizens of the same country and part of the same government.

By kimberly

February 21, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

The laws were changed, as they should have been earlier, only in the last 45 years. But the healing comes, I think, not by grandstanding, but by the little things we all do every day: Treating the people around us with respect and dignity. Taking the time to get to know others and understand their frames of reference. Trying to imagine ourselves in the shoes of another from time to time, and thinking before we speak or act. Finding common ground instead of standing on differences. Sincerity and humanity over time. But that’s just my opinion.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

“Frankly, you remind me of folks like Charles Rangel, who won’t give Bush any credit for appointing more minorities “

I don’t give Bush any credit because it was about politics and trying to win minorities over to his base and not about either racial equality or the best candidates (although quite honestly there are dozens upon dozens of equally qualified candidates for most cabinet positions).

But you yet again prove my point. The brown folks who talk and act “white” are okay but the ones that are different are bad. You are the worst kind of racist because you refuse to see that you are. And you pat yourself on the back for all your brown poker buddies. I will be the first to say that I like ALL people have racist tendencies and I work actively every day to overcome them.

You are a real life parody of Stephen Colbert’s cries of “I don’t see color”. Followed by the classic comment “I mean I know I’m white because police officers call me sir, but I don’t see color personally”.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Joe—Since racial quotas seem to be important to you, exactly how many black, Spanish, and Arabic people do you invite into your home every week? How many Shiite Muslims?

You talk a mean game, Joe. Do you put your money where your mouth is? BTW, if you feel bad about slavery, which ended 140 years ago, you are free to contribute your own money any time you feel like it. I believe Chris Rock set up a fund a few years back for people like you, “The White Man’s Guilt Fund”.

By Scalia

February 21, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

How many kids in high school today could name HALF of the American Presidents? I would wager less than half. But I would bet right about now they can tell you all kinds of things about Black History. I find that disturbing. Not that our students shouldn’t understand the contiributions to society of other cultures, but that we are so concerned with multi-culturalism, that we tend to forget the foundations upon which we live.

Really? Are you kidding me? So blacks in the United States, who help BUILD this country, are not considered a part of this society? There contributions, as Americans, are not valid and should not be learned by AMERICANS. Almost every black American, who is part of black history, has European blood. They are AMERICAN. THEY WERE BORN IN THIS COUNTRY. Dear God, 2D, are serious? They should only learn about the Anglo-Saxon Americans. Forget about the contributions of the BLACK AMERICANS, they are outsiders. Not really Americans.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

But the healing comes, I think, not by grandstanding, but by the little things we all do every day: Treating the people around us with respect and dignity. Taking the time to get to know others and understand their frames of reference.

If that is your standard of promoting healing, kimberly, then I’m doing all I can do on my end. Everyone in my home receives equal respect, as did everyone in my business. Part of respect means not being artificial or condescending, but being able to truly relax and be yourself. As such, my friends and I often talk about racial issues in very frank terms.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

“Joe, I would be more sympathetic to the plight of blacks who ended up in America if I hadn’t also studied the history of Africa. A slave in America likely received better treatment than a slave held in Africa during the same time period. And while slavery ended in the US in 1865, it still continues today within Africa.”

That’s like a guy in court saying he should be found innocent of robbery because his buddy committed murder. The same sad moral RELATIVISM (haven’t you railed against this for weeks) that people like Shrub trot out when we torture people: “Yeah but they torture people too and worse than us”.

You’ve trotted out every sad justification I have seen white people trot out for years. “I have ‘black friends’ “. “But the Africans sold them to us”. “But they get quotas and steal college spots from ‘deserving’ white kids!”. What’s next? “We gave them savages three squares and Jesus which is better than being eaten by a lion.”

Oh and finally you trot out social darwinism - yet again ironic for someone who doesn’t believe in the “fairy tale” of evolution. And those American Indians deserved the slaughter and wholesale destruction of their culture because they were using bows and we had guns right? Classic, just classic. I can sit back and say nothing and you make my whole argument for me.

By 2D

February 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Joe… What is the right and pragmatic thing to do?

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

The brown folks who talk and act “white” are okay but the ones that are different are bad.

Where do you come up with the idea that my friends “act white”? The truth is that you are the racist, Joe, by dividing “people of color” into two groups, those who “act white” and those who don’t. I will say that my poker buddies are all successful people. No crackheads in the bunch. Am I discriminating by not inviting Marion Barry?

By NetBanker

February 21, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hey kids! Hope everyone is doing well.

IMO, the question is incomplete. Does segregation violate a students’ rights…to WHAT? It seems that the question is far too broad and that the specific rights that may or may not be violated must be identified. The responses from both columnists just leap right in to address segregation from the perspective of racism.

Well I’m off to my next meeting…hopefully I manage to eek out a little time to actually catch up on comments.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Oh now it’s a “brown friends” d*ck measuring contest? What a joke.

Yeah slavery ended 140 years ago. Talk to some of the sharecroppers who are still alive about that one. It’s not about slavery it’s about racial injustice. And you know full well that didn’t end 140 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 40 days ago.

Again it’s not about guilt, it’s about the problems our society faces today and why they exist. And then how to fix them. But you will stick your head in the sand and complain that it’s “them folks” doing and problem.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

kimberly—One last time—I sincerely apologize for flirting with you the past few months on the blog. It is boorish behavior, whether instigated or not. I feel some compulsion to reach out and help you, but I guess I’m out of line for feeling that way. I will stick to the issues from here on out, under any new blog names as well, and just wish you the best quietly in my heart. Okay? I’m really not a bad guy in real life, despite my spicy talk on the blog.

By ???!!!

February 21, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Everyone in my home receives equal respect, as did everyone in my business. Part of respect means not being artificial or condescending, but being able to truly relax and be yourself

You realize that you have single-handedly driven off almost all the blog regulars because you are the exact opposite of this, don’t you? Are you really so self-unaware that you don’t realize what a condescending, arrogant, rude and completely unlikeable prick you are?

If you spent as much time actually displaying all of the positive character traits that you ascribe to yourself, you’d be the next sodding Mother Theresa.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

If you think about it, Joe, we all have a stake in ending racial discrimination and removing any barriers to success that may linger from the past. Two-tiered societies are dangerous insofar as you have large groups of unhappy people who will likely cause trouble. Personally, I want every “person of color” in the entire world to be successful, so they won’t want to steal from me. Got it? The difference here isn’t our motivations, it’s our methods. You seem to think that creating two sets of rules makes sense, and I’m telling you it doesn’t.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

“Joe… What is the right and pragmatic thing to do?”

A simple question with neither a simple, easy, or trite answer. Who knows exactly where to start and what to do? Seriously. I’m not trying to cop out here I’m merely saying if we could answer this question we wouldn’t have the problems we do today. But like most problems the first step to solving it is recognizing the true problem, the cause, and acknowledging it.

It has to start small though. Kimberly made a good point about what you can do everyday. The biggest problem right now is breaking the bad cycle of education. Poorly educated parents have poorly educated children. The parents simply lack the capacity and framework to help or encourage their children - as a matter of fact it can be an embarrasment to the parent. An advanced adult education system may be a good idea we haven’t really pursued. Also programs like the one I posted yesterday seem to be a good experiment to try.

In addition ALL schools and parents need to start instilling responsibility and ownership in the students. And this is not just about the truants and disinterested students it’s also about the affluent suburban students that feel they are entitled to grades. That have parents that will complain when their precious perfect child fails because of a “bad” teacher. There are as many problems (albeit different ones) in affluent neighborhoods as poor ones.

By Laugher

February 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Please go to those “big bad boys in the hood” poker parties and spout this stuff. Do us all a favor.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Are you really so self-unaware that you don’t realize what a condescending, arrogant, rude and completely unlikeable prick you are?

Oh, I see. It was just fine for 72John to spew his hatred on a daily basis, and Mara her condescending mockery of Conservatives, Chilao his sexual remarks, etc. before I showed up.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

“Where do you come up with the idea that my friends “act white”? “

Hey according to YOU buddy real Americans speak English. English is spoken originally only by white people. The logic holds you just fail to face it. You brought up the completely ignorant point that English is a quality that was originally universal to Americans.

By haha

February 21, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Hey Puppy,

You better double up on the TP for that new hole that you got ripped open over the last few weeks.

You can (almost) sound half sane when talking in the theoretical, but confirm complete insanity when you finally get down to the specifics of your solutions. And that is without even getting into your factual inaccuracies (ie. Slave in Africa were welcomed into their new family and often married into it as well. Plus, they were not chattel).

You sound like an old-fat-white man playing armchair dictator fooling himself that he has all the answers. Sadam was like that too…

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Please go to those “big bad boys in the hood” poker parties and spout this stuff. Do us all a favor.

I do, although obviously a bit more diplomatically. And by being honest about my feelings (which incidentally more blacks share than you might first believe), we can have an honest dialogue as men. The truth is, most Libs are being condescending in believing that blacks and Latinos can’t succeed without special treatment. People can develop true respect for one another only when we all play by the same set of rules.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

“You seem to think that creating two sets of rules makes sense, and I’m telling you it doesn’t.”

Two sets of rules - yet another page out of the neocon playbook. That’s like saying everyone who comes into a hospital should get the same treatment. Problems in our society exist and we need to fix them and what works for some people will not work for others. It’s not about “rules” that’s the kind of thing a 10 yr old would complain about when they say you aren’t being “fair”.

Here’s a mind blower for silly people like yourself who have zero clue how the majority of people think - I’m against numerical quotas. However we need regulations and oversight to ensure that workplaces exhibit fair hiring practices.

But I also recognize that there are huge disparities between groups of people in America that are due to factors beyond the individuals control. And that these disparities are a result of historical and systematic policies of OUR country and now WE are responsible for fixing the problem whether we were alive when it happened or not.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Hey according to YOU buddy real Americans speak English.

Well, again, call me crazy, but they all speak English. BTW, how many languages can you communicate in, Joe? I can communicate in Spanish, French, Russian, and Korean, along with a little Chinese. Sorry if I don’t fit your definition of a xenophobe because I am pro-American. I have no problem with a Frenchman who is pro-France. I wouldn’t respect him if he weren’t.

By Today

February 21, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Did Chilao get all excited and have to jerk off when Mara mentioned wearing a thong? I seriously doubt it. He might not have even noticed it being mentioned until it was pointed out by the neanderthals/less-evolved amongst us.

JoeL - Woof-Man is not WASP, try eastern European/Soviet-bloc. they did not get to evolve like many Westerners. Something to do with Stalin.

By ultram drug

February 21, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Excellent web site I will visit it often. BlackDad valium without a prescription | xanax | tramadol | vicodin | soma shipped to florida http://edit.bankstreet.edu:8080/gs/discuss/msgReader2 http://edit.bankstreet.edu:8080/gs/discuss/msgReader4 http://edit.bankstreet.edu:8080/gs/discuss/msgReader0 http://edit.bankstreet.edu:8080/gs/discuss/msgReader3

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Joe and haha—Keep patting yourselves on the back about how you’ve “won” the debate this week. Your tired, liberal ideas have all been discredited, but you keep clinging to a past which no longer exists. Not very progressive. At least I give you the respect of believing that your “motivations” are good in wanting a better world. Can you give the same respect in return? Obviously not. Just a lot of repetitious insults when your “solutions” are proven to be shams.

By Ubersetzer

February 21, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Der Idiot wer sechs Sprachen spricht, noch Idiot bleibt.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

“Sorry if I don’t fit your definition of a xenophobe because I am pro-American.”

No you are not “pro-American”. You are a nationalist not a patriot my friend. And your skewed views of this nations founding and principles show this to be true. You are like every other xenophobic nationalist that cried they were “pro-American” when they were beating up the Irish, Blacks, Chinese, etc.

Here’s the big difference you keep ignoring. If France wanted to restrict their citizenship to just true French people that would be justified. It was a country that sprang from a long standing group of similar people who evolved their culture and language. America however was NOT a country of people alike in racial, cultural, or religious background and picking one over the other would go against our very principles. Just because white males controlled the country for so long doesn’t give you an entitlement. I thought you neocons were against entitlements? (oh that’s right only when it erodes your power).

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Did Chilao get all excited and have to jerk off when Mara mentioned wearing a thong?

I’m not sure. I’ll have to check the trashcan nest to his computer for used tissues.

I will tell you what Chilao did do, however. He stored up the property tax information about me which chuck worked so hard to dig up around Thanksgiving either in his computer or his head for three months. Now, that’s creepy. Of course, in his mind, he’s an extremely honourable person. I think my cut-and-paste verbatim quotes pale by comparison. The truth is, kimberly could list her home address, phone number, and email on the board, and I would never contact her outside of the board unless she gave me permission to do so. Some of you here keep forgetting that this is just a blog. It’s not as serious as you make it out to be.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Ja sprechen zie Deutsch, Ubersetzer.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

“Your tired, liberal ideas have all been discredited, but you keep clinging to a past which no longer exists.”

Really because every advanced nation other than America has embraced and nearly always succeeded using our ideas. Meanwhile the ones you cling to have been or surely will be discarded on the trash heap of history. You do understand the entire principle of conservatism is clinging to the past? It’s the entire foundation of the concept.

Hey better to have good motivations than to have bad motivations AND execution. At least we are batting .500 at a minimum. You are way below the Mendoza line.

You have proven nothing (except how ignorant and uninformed you are) let alone shown something to be a “sham”.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

If France wanted to restrict their citizenship to just true French people that would be justified. It was a country that sprang from a long standing group of similar people who evolved their culture and language. America however was NOT a country of people alike in racial, cultural, or religious background and picking one over the other would go against our very principles.

Joe, I just don’t know how to respond to such genius: It’s ok for France to be xenophobic? I give up.

BTW, Joe and BC: You keep referencing the “fact” that all credible scientists believe in Evolution. Total B.S. Believers in God include Newton, Mendel, Einstein, etc…. The list includes every great Scientist ever. On your side, exactly who do you have?

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Lat question for you, Joe, and I really gotta run for the day. Are you financially successful? If so, did you actually earn the money yourself, or are you a silver-spooner like almost all the Libs here on board?

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

What no one is willing to admit is this: desegregation destroyed the public school system, forcing whites to seek alternative education in private schools. As a result the public schools are largely black and inferior and nothing done so far has changed this. Under segregation blacks and whites had better educational experiences than they now do — and cheaper

Candide: I think you’re NUTS. The reason that the NAACP (the ones who originally pushed for Brown v BOE), went to court over the issue of desergrating schools is because traditionally the “black” schools were gettting substandard books, tools, objects, funds, etc. to teach their students while the WHITE schools were getting the best!! There’s an old country song that goes like this: She got the gold mine and I got the shaft — they split it down the middle then gave her the better half.”

THAT was the reality before Brown vs. BOE

From another poster: Joe, since I was a child in school in the 1960s, blacks have been given preferential treatment both at school and in the workplace. We’re going on 45 years of preferential treatment now, Joe. When is enough enough? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Whoop dee doo!!! Forty Five whole years MINUS the 200+ years that America has been in existence then divide that by the 142 years since the end of slavery but the beginning of Jim Crow!! WOW I see your point!! How UNFAIR for Black Americans to have FORTY FIVE YEARS of Affirmative Action!!!

BONUS QUESTION: How many NON-Blacks have benefited from Affirmative Action? (Hispanics, Asians, WOMEN,etc). When you answer that question, you’ll learn why it’s never going away. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the deciding vote in the last AA repeal pushed by the Republicans. Her reason? She plugged into her years as a LEGAL SECRETARY who couldn’t get a job as a lawyer before AA even though she was in the top 10% in her graduating law class.

By MrRogers

February 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

There went the neighborhood.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

“BTW, Joe and BC: You keep referencing the “fact” that all credible scientists believe in Evolution. Total B.S. Believers in God include Newton, Mendel, Einstein, etc…. The list includes every great Scientist ever. On your side, exactly who do you have?”

Newton and Mendel preceded the Theory of Evolution. How cna they believe or not believe something that wasn’t even known? Newton lived in a time where they believed disease was spontaneous or from bad air or humor. Of course he believed in God, he had no other way to explain many things. I’m sure (although I doubt it’s documented either way) that Einstein believed in Evolution. You are arguing entirely different points. You continue to confuse Evolution and Origin of Life AND none of it has anything to do with whether you believe in divinity or not.

ALL credible scientists believe in Evolution. I will say it and your continued opposition to it shows your continued inanity.

By nana

February 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

It all goes back to school chioce.

My child will get to choose what college or tech schools she wants to attend, why do we still have the Soviet Style system of the govt mandating that since I live on the north side of Elm Street, my child must attend X school.

Which by the way has the lowest test scores in Cobb County, and they spend $13,000 per child per year to get those low scores.

The private school she attends costs $6,000 per year, and is superior in every way to any Cobb County school.

By Brian Curtis

February 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

I normally don’t respond to a pompous blowhard like Bruno the Troll, but this one was just Sooooo Easy!

Ahem: Belief in God is not incompatible with accepting the reality of evolution. Never has been. Anyone who took the trouble to learn ANYTHING about evolution, instead of caricatures of it, would already know that.

Yikes, this Bruno/Dog/Woofer/Lover/Truthseeker/Stalker loser is stupid… and (unfortunately) very loud about it. You’re neither intimidating nor wise, Bruno—just obnoxious.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Ah yes yet another myth! Actually I find that nearly all silver spooners are conservatives. They are money grubbing selfish people who want to keep everything that was handed to them.

I am successful and it has zero to do with finances. Yet again someone with the narrow mind you possess could never understand.

My family was decidedly middle class, my father was a career vet, and both my parents came from relative poverty. So you can stick that in your smug little pipe and smoke it my friend.

The amount of ignorance you have about what “liberal” people think, believe, and are like is dwarfed by few things (your ego being one of the few).

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Susie—It was wrong for Sandra Day O’Connor to be denied fair opportunity. I am for removing every single unfair law and barrier to success ever invented, including “legacy admissions” in colleges, in which children of alumni are given preferential consideration. Evening the playing field is the best we can do; to take things a step further and give preferential treatment to those previously wronged is NOT the answer.

Social mobility is the norm in America, not the exception to the rule. It shouldn’t take 10 generations to level the playing field. Your inclusion of Asians in your list of minorities harms your arguments, BTW. At this point, Asians are discriminated Against by and large in an effort to promote blacks and Latinos.

By HaHa

February 21, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

The capability to do simple bookmarks isn’t for everybody it seems.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Joe—I understand that technically speaking, “Evolution” should only refer to short term changes within established species. No one argues that this happens, although the mechanism described by “Evolutionists”, i.e background radiation from space causing random genetic mutations which turn out to be beneficial, leading to natural selection, etc. doesn’t match the observed data. Unfortunately, “modern” Scientists use Evolution, along with the Big Bang Theory, to “definitively” explain cosmology, i.e. the origins of the Universe.

I’m still waiting for your list of great Scientists who support Evolution. I’ve got a list 2 pages long, with every great name in Science. Of course, you’re quick to dismiss them as being uneducated somehow. Yep, real dummies, Einstein and Newton.

By Brian Curtis

February 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Let’s make this even easier for the pompous windbag: Where’s the list of respected scientists who DENY the validity of evolution? And remember, belief in a god has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I’d love to see that one….

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

FYI, Joe and BC—The real question isn’t whether there is a “Divine Being” who can alter Laws of Physics based on whim or not. I find that concern to be childish. The real question is “Can the Laws of Physics, as we understand them, explain Life or not?” The answer to that question still remains a definite no, regardless of your fantasies otherwise. And while you have continued confidence that with enough time and CASH (especially CASH) some dimwit in a white lab coat is going to figure it all out one day, I don’t share that confidence based on my experience. The bottom line is that Reality is stranger than any fiction that we can ever create in our limited pea-brains. Have a little humility, will you?

By InWonder

February 21, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we give a month to the Spanish and Japanese too? They are helped this nation grow too! How is it fair that one race get a month and no one else is allowed to? Didn’t the US Government put thousands of Japanese-Americans in consentration camps for no reason and abused them back during WWII because of Pearl Harbour (and suddenly all Japanese-Americans were spies)?

To be TRULY FAIR - each race should be given a month. Or we could just get over the color of our skin and get rid of any idea of a “race” month. A month celebrated ALL of those who made this country great would be FAIR and better teach colorblindness.

(I was told a story about how AA works: Two men ,of two nationalities, go apply to be a firefighter. There is only one available position. One had been a firefighter for 15 years and the other 6 months. Guess who gets hired? The one with 6 months because they are a minority. The next week a fire hits a house and this person with 6 months experience is unable to save someone’s life because they do not have the ability to (that the one with 15 years did). Someone just died because we cared more about their color of their skin than if they the ability to save a life. Here is the kicker, you cannot just fire him or let him go unless there is a downsize or they can sue (and probably win) - how many people have to die then until that person has the same ability that someone has worked for and earned in 15 years? Now, what is important someone’s life or making someone life easy that everyone else has to work years for because of what happened over 100 years ago? People should be chosen by ability not their race - that IS the FAIR and color blind way. But that just isn’t PC….

By HaHa

February 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Yep, real dummies, Einstein and Newton.

Newton, born 1643. Darwin, born 1809. Einstein, born 1879.

math, math, math. real simple math.

what’s wrong with this picture?

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

Evening the playing field is the best we can do; to take things a step further and give preferential treatment to those previously wronged is NOT the answer.

No one was asking for “preferential treatment” they were asking for a CHANCE. They were asking, ‘Hey, don’t automatically discredit me because of what I look like on the outside”.

Social mobility is the norm in America, not the exception to the rule. It shouldn’t take 10 generations to level the playing field

Has the playing field been leveled then? NO it hasn’t.

Your inclusion of Asians in your list of minorities harms your arguments, BTW. At this point, Asians are discriminated Against by and large in an effort to promote blacks and Latinos

Asians ARE considered a minority by the US Census Department.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we give a month to the Spanish and Japanese too? They are helped this nation grow too! How is it fair that one race get a month and no one else is allowed to

Were they ever slaves? Were they FORCED to come to this country and work against their will and not get PAID for it? Were they part of the Jim Crow legacy? Was their history overlooked, undervalued and pushed aside because of arrogance and prejudice? Were they segrated from using toilets, drinking from fountains, eating in establishments because the establishment was WHITE ONLY? Can you prove to me where they were?

By 2D

February 21, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Joe… While I have agreed with a great deal of what’ve said so far, I think you a bit off the mark when it comes to pigeonholing silver-spooners as conservatives. Most of the one’s that I know or went to school with were far more moderate or liberal than the rest of us.

The conservatives I know come from lower to middle class upbringings and didn’t have anything given to them. They worked their tails off for the little bit they have and don’t want to give it away to a government entitlement program. Noone likes a freeloader, not even when it’s my sibling. The trick is to convince those people, myself included to a certain degree, that folks receiving aid from the government (i.e. from me and the rest of the population) are also attempting to help themselves. I think you would be surprised at how many “conservatives” would back your ideas if that were the case. I know I myself would be much more likely to do so.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Since it is Black History Month, I’d like to share a nugget of truth about the History of Civil Rights with you all, especially the black bloggers. The Emancipation Proclamation came from the Republican Party, not the Democrats. In fact, following the Civil War, Republican efforts to compensate former slaves and achieve a more fair society were actively opposed by the Dems. It’s often been said that Reconstruction was set back 20 years due to the election of Andrew Johnson. Grant, a Republican, was elected due to the addition of about 700,000 new black voters to the polls, who voted Republican to a man.

This trend of Republican support and Democratic opposition to Civil Rights continued right up through Brown vs. the Board of Ed.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

No one was asking for “preferential treatment” they were asking for a CHANCE. They were asking, ‘Hey, don’t automatically discredit me because of what I look like on the outside”.

Okay, Susie, what is your opinion of me, who has black, Spanish, and Arabic people in his home every week, invited because they are cool people, vs. Joe, who talks a good game but likely has never had a true friend of a different skin color. I’ve dated black and Latina women before. Milk chocolate tastes just fine to me, honey.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

The truth is, Susie, in “real” life, you could spout off to me that you are owed something because your ancestors were treated poorly, and I would fire back that it’s every man for himself at this point, and we would end up laughing about it, because we both know it’s a bunch of B.S. on a personal level anyway. Problems only begin when we get stuck in some group “identity”, which is strongly encouraged by the Libs for some reason. I don’t go through Life measuring every event in terms of race.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

“although the mechanism described by “Evolutionists”, i.e background radiation from space causing random genetic mutations which turn out to be beneficial,”

If you knew anything about genetics, biology, or microbiology you would find that terragenic causes are minimal in terms of mutations, esp. radiation. These are generally caused by mistakes in gene creation, transcription, or expression. So no - intelligent educated people do not point to “background radiation” as any source of mutagenic cause of evolution.

Again every time you say Newton was against Evolution you show your complete ignorance. Also show me ONE statement where Einstein opposed evolution. Saying he believed in God does not mean that he opposed evolution. You can perhaps create a list of two pages of scientists that believe in God. That would however have nothing to do with the point you are unfortunately incapable of making.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

” The real question is “Can the Laws of Physics, as we understand them, explain Life or not?””

Actually they already EXPLAIN them today. Not one law of physics is in opposition to life as we know it. What you are trying to say is we cannot empirically prove the origin of life through purely natural means. But as I have shown your point is flawed. The amount of matter, space, and time necessary renders empirical proof virtually impossible.

Reality is stranger than the fiction you need to explain what is beyond your comprehension or unknown today. Just like the fiction of Zeus that explained lightning to Greeks.

By InWonder

February 21, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Uh, Susie - the Japanese were put in CONSENTRATION CAMPS against their will (just like the Nazis did to the Jews, just not as badly) and never was told “sorry” to. EVERY race has had their time in history of the world that they were treated worse than the slaves were for a longer time, taken against their will, abused, etc. etc. FAR WORSE than the slaves here in America. My ancestors where treated very badly by their own people and they tried to flee and died in droves on the way during the Potato Famine, only to be treated just as badly here in America. It isn’t just one race that has ever been treated badly ever, probably every race or culture have their skeleton in their closet of slavery, abuse, etc.

By NetBanker

February 21, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

I wonder what this discussion would be like if we weren’t in the Deep South? Mot that public school systems don’t have issues elsewhere, but they are significantly better than down here. How much of this discussion of segregation and discrimination are continuations of the old discussions from the civil rights era? Is it possible that the generally poor state of public education in the South is more related to the movement of white to private academies post-desegregation than anything else? Why does this same pattern not appear to be as strong elsewhere?

I’m not sure that I’m buying into the whole black as victim therefore doesn’t value education scenario that has been discussed here. I can’t recall where I was reading it, but as I recall in the 40 years immediately following slavery literacy among blacks increased at a phenomenal rate. The emphasis on education by those generations was extremely high because former slaves understood the power and value of an education even if they hadn’t had one themselves. So what happened after that?

A few days back Bruno asked a question that I thought was valid about the peer pressure not to appear ‘white’ by becoming smart. He was kind of shut down a bit on that, but I certainly recall several of my black classmates in High School AP course in the early 1980’s being accused of being white and being called Oreos. My friend Shelly who was from the black family across the street (HUGE scandal when they moved into our lily white hood) was part of that group and caught extreme hell from other blacks in our high school for being smart, dressing “white,” ‘acting white’ and it got really nasty when she dated a white guy. Two of my other black classmates got much of the same treatment. I even recall my own mother forewarning me about comments I might hear from ignorant folks when Shelly and I went to the movies together as friends.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

“To be TRULY FAIR - each race should be given a month. Or we could just get over the color of our skin and get rid of any idea of a “race” month. A month celebrated ALL of those who made this country great would be FAIR and better teach colorblindness.”

Absolutely! I have been a proponent of this for a while. We should focus on a different culture/ethnicity that contributed to U.S history every month. Of course then all the conservatives will be up in arms about “multiculuturalism” and the “watering down” of the dominant white anglo-saxon culture. You won’t find any progressives arguing against this one.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

“This trend of Republican support and Democratic opposition to Civil Rights continued right up through Brown vs. the Board of Ed. “

True. And today it’s reversed. So why does this matter?

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Out the door—Forget even explaining how mutations lead to the creation of entire new organ systems, Joe. Just tell me something simple, like how DNA “evolved” in the first place. Tell me why the fossil record shows no “intermediary forms” linking different species together, how they appear wholly formed with no apparent precursors.

Remember, the answer, my friend, is Emmanuel, God within. There is no external God, not at the moment of Creation, nor now.

By chuck

February 21, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

So many STUPID things to respond to and so little time:’

Let me just make a few things clear for you little joe. First,

the fact that due to centuries of oppression the current problems with black culture stem from a justified feeling of helplessness.

What a load of crap. The current problem with AMERICAN culture, black and white alike is that we have lost sight of what made America great to begin with and what it will take to Keep America strong today. Yes personal responsibility is part of that, but so are INITIATIVE, HARD WORK, and DECENCY.

Second,

Conservatives see a problem and cry “personal responsibility” as their excuse because they didn’t “cause” it (although this is highly arguable). Liberals see a problem and want to fix it regardless of their own personal culpability. Because fixing the problem will benefit ourselves and others. But the problem affects both of us equally and we are both citizens of the same country and part of the same government.

This is an even bigger load. Liberals don’t want to fix problems, they want to fix BLAME. To understand this better, you need look no further than the actions of the current congressional leadership. They have not done anything since taking power beyond blaming everything on Bush. They have no solutions. (Frankly, the Republicans are not much better, right now).

In addition, Democrats are nothing more than paternalistic elitists. They keep blacks under control through patronization rather than solving problems. It is easier to write a check than to find REAL solutions for real problems. Conservatives understand HOW to solve problems. Look at the prosperity that came through Republican congressional efforts in the 1990’s. You see we believe that EVERY AMERICAN can be successful. We are the land of opportunity. Liberals on the other hand believe that they have to “take care of those poor people”. After all they can’t do it for themselves and we know what’s best for them. You herd them into cesspools that we call “Public Housing” with the express PURPOSE of creating a PERMANENT UNDERCLASS that you can manipulate for votes. (Much like the carpetbaggers that swarmed into the South after the Civil War).

Third, Scalia,

So blacks in the United States, who help BUILD this country, are not considered a part of this society?

That was not the point of 2D’s post at all. It is a matter of degree. For instance, someone on the “Get Schooled” blog wrote about how long it took to get Crispus Attucks into the history books. For those of you who don’t know, Attucks was one of 5 men killed in the Boston Massacre. He happened to be a free Black man. Can anyone name the OTHER 4 men who happened to be WHITE (without googling it)? I doubt seriously that you can. The point is, how is the sacrifice of Crispus Attucks more important than that of the other 4 men? The contributions of Blacks to American History ARE important and no one is suggesting otherwise. In the limited time frame that we have to teach our students, who should we leave out…the Black man who invented the traffic light (Garrett Augustus Morgan) or Thomas Edison, the White guy that harnessed electricity for all manner of uses including Morgan’s traffic light?

Multiculturalism has reduced the contribution of Blacks to a game of TRIVIAL PURSUITS. It is one more case of paying lip service to Blacks as a means of control.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

So what happened after that?

Read my post about the Democrats, NetB.

few days back Bruno asked a question that I thought was valid about the peer pressure not to appear ‘white’ by becoming smart. He was kind of shut down a bit on that,

Thanks for the support, NetB. Part of my crankiness on W2W is due to the fact that I can’t get a straight answer from the Libs on what are obvious truths to me. Don’t tell your husband, but if I were gay, I’d be looking you up. ; > }

By Funny Guy

February 21, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Actually I find that nearly all silver spooners are conservatives. They are money grubbing selfish people who want to keep everything that was handed to them.

The amount of ignorance you have about what “liberal” people think, believe, and are like is…

Translation from Joe L.: We know exactly what you nasty conservatives are, but you are ignorant about liberals.

I wish I could make this stuff up.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

“I recall in the 40 years immediately following slavery literacy among blacks increased at a phenomenal rate.”

Well you have to look at that point close - the RATE increased. Of course it did, the vast, vast majority of blacks were completely illiterate. The rate today is going to be much smaller because most blacks are at least literate. However society today requires a much higher level of education to merely succeed. Also the Reconstructionist period was mitigated by the fact that the Union army maintained a lot of civil peace in the South and the racist faction was licking its wounds and keeping a low profile. Once left mostly to their own devices again Southerners cracked down on black education and established the Jim Crow segregationist laws.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Still waiting for Joe to answer how many Shiite Muslims he has in his home as guests each week. I have two, along with a neighbor across th street with whom I am very friendly. When we talk politics, I tell them that their leaders are a bunch of crazy bastards. In response, they agree and point out that our leaders are also. I agree, then we laugh and mix up another pitcher of strawberry daiquiris.

By motor yachts

February 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Save money! yacht for sale greece yacht charters yacht rental yacht charters motor yachts

Buy here!

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

chuck—I gotta go register for college. Please take over my futile attempts at educating Joe and BC. I know it isn’t much of a challenge, but it might help prevent you from falling asleep.

By Haha

February 21, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t go through Life measuring every event in terms of race.

Because you have that PRIVELEDGE.

Your stance on how blacks should be treated reflects your personal insanity and sickness: You believe that after your gross behavior on here to Kimberly and others one day, and then offering a brief apology the next day will fix your relations. Yet, you always wonder why everyone on the blog hates you compared to other people and their actions.

You state that you are polar opposite in reality? Well puppy, this is reality (yes, a blog, but a real blog) and you act a very sick person.

Funny how a blog can shed light on people who might have “contained” their sickness better when direct consequences exist.

That’s all that is occurring here. You are getting to know exactly who you are: a psychopath.

By kimberly

February 21, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

In addition, Democrats are nothing more than paternalistic elitists.

….Said the man who thinks the sex lives and reproductive choices of other Americans is not only somehow HIS business, but he demands laws that impose his views on the behavior of others.

By HaHa

February 21, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

Dog shows up and everyone becomes a HaHa, HaHa. HaHa.

cool!

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

“Out the door—Forget even explaining how mutations lead to the creation of entire new organ systems, Joe. Just tell me something simple, like how DNA “evolved” in the first place. Tell me why the fossil record shows no “intermediary forms” linking different species together, how they appear wholly formed with no apparent precursors.”

Wow you really, really need to read actual educational books. First lets start with the fossil record. The fossil record represent about .0000000000000001% of organisms that have lived on earth (I might be highly understating that). We often have only 1-2 examples of an entire species. Also add to that what biologists understand about evolution now and huge it works less as continuous slopes and more as slow continuous transition punctuated by huge brief spikes. When an adaptation emerges that is superior enough to create an entire species the transition is extremely, extremely brief. Therefore find transitional species is difficult. BUT not impossible:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ei=5090&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ex=1301889600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

DNA evolved the same way everything else did: chance, mutation, advantage and selection. Your mind is just too small to wrap itself around the endless amounts of possibilities, probabilities, occurences, and time.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

“Still waiting for Joe to answer how many Shiite Muslims he has in his home as guests each week. I have two, along with a neighbor across th street with whom I am very friendly. When we talk politics, I tell them that their leaders are a bunch of crazy bastards. In response, they agree and point out that our leaders are also. I agree, then we laugh and mix up another pitcher of strawberry daiquiris.”

Only those desparate to hide their fear and inequities keep trotting out the “brown friends”. Tell us more about all the brown friends you have Bruno! We however don’t need your silly little reindeer games.

By Stir

February 21, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

Just tell me something simple, like how DNA “evolved” in the first place. Tell me why the fossil record shows no “intermediary forms” linking different species together, how they appear wholly formed with no apparent precursors.

First: I want to point out that you are again steering the evolution debate to an ORIGIN debate.

Second: It has been shown that the some of the earliest lifeforms can/do survive for centuries in a frozen medium. So, the origin of DNA may not even have taken place on earth, but that is beyond your scope.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

“Please take over my futile attempts at educating Joe and BC.”

Yes you are the two year old “futilely” trying to explain to the adults that 2+2 does indeed equal 5. And pounding your tiny wittle fists and holding your breath when they explain how sadly wrong you are.

By 2D

February 21, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

Stir… That is one of the most interesting items posted here in weeks.

By Brian Curtis

February 21, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Joe, I’m telling you: I already took Bruno to school on this exact same topic MONTHS ago. I exposed his pompous lies, whipped him with a little solid knowledge rather than being intimidated by his jargon, challenged him to a REAL debate…

and he ran away and hid.

Not for long, of course; he desperately needs lots of attention and wants to be thought of as a wise and brilliant sage. That’s why all his comments consist of “You disagree with me because you’re too stupid to understand reality.” He’s a very insecure blowhard begging for attention and bragging about how “brilliant” he is—so brilliant that he knows better than thousands of accredited researchers who’ve spent decades studying the stuff he pretends to understand.

Of course, that’s only when he’s not being a creepy stalker towards anything female. He’s a complete lightweight, in addition to being a pathological liar and spammer. The only novelty he offered was his pretensions of intellectual majesty, which are easily punctured. Now he’s just another shreiking loser begging for praise and attention.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

The contributions of Blacks to American History ARE important and no one is suggesting otherwise. In the limited time frame that we have to teach our students, who should we leave out…the Black man who invented the traffic light (Garrett Augustus Morgan) or Thomas Edison, the White guy that harnessed electricity for all manner of uses including Morgan’s traffic light?

That’s why we have Black History Month. So that the Black guy who’s been left out traditionally can get his “props” and so that black children can know that in American History, blacks were more than slaves and sharecroppers.

By Stir

February 21, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

2D,

Stir… That is one of the most interesting items posted here in weeks.

Thanks, yet I understand that is not saying much given the company of late.

By chuck

February 21, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

Actually I find that nearly all silver spooners are conservatives. They are money grubbing selfish people who want to keep everything that was handed to them.

Another myth indeed. A recent study found that CONSERVATIVES outgive liberals nearly 2-1.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

BC - Oh I know and understand all you are saying. I have these discussions for the benefit of those listening who are smart enough and perhaps open-minded enough to absorb the info. And to expose to others what fraud people like this are. It’s surely not for dog’s benefit because he exhibits no ability to comprehend half of what people are saying and certainly not an ounce of the humility to absorb any of it.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

“Another myth indeed. A recent study found that CONSERVATIVES outgive liberals nearly 2-1.”

First, we have shot many, many holes in that theory. One it’s based on absolute dollars and not percentage of income. So all the tax write off contributions of the wealthy who could care less about actually helping people skew the results. Second, every dollar given to a church is counted when not even close to that amount is actually used for charity. So of course the more religious conservatives are having dollars counted which are not truly charitable. Also we are talking about silver spooners so even if your facts are indicative of what you want them to be (which is most likely not the case) it doesn’t apply to the point you responded to.

The greater majority of “conservatives” I know are such because they are egocentric people who don’t want to sacrifice an ounce for any problems that they don’t understand to directly affect them or are really just clamoring for lower taxes so they have more money but want to still get equal services from the government.

By HaHa

February 21, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Blog Stalking does equate to off-line stalking.

It does not(stamping foot), it does not(stamping foot), it does not(hard foot stamp).

By chuck

February 21, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Kimmie, I noticed you didn’t disagree with the statement.

By Stir

February 21, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Stir… That is one of the most interesting items posted here in weeks.

I like the humility that comes with aknowledging the possibility of humans arising from some distant creatures hankey that got thrown out the window and stuck to a comet, which then landed on an early earth.

And it would explain chuck and dogs existance at the very least;)

By kimberly

February 21, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Another myth indeed. A recent study found that CONSERVATIVES outgive liberals nearly 2-1.

I have to ask whether you count what you “give” to the church as charity. In reality, only some of church money is charitable. Most of it goes to salaries, marketing and PR, new buildings and playgrounds, etc, does it not? For many folks, the “church” IS their neighborhood social club, YMCA, fitness center, sporting league, and child care facility all in one. In some communities, (ask anyone who lives in Utah) much of your business, if you’re a small businessman, depends on being an active giver to the dominant church, and being in “good” with the elder people. And folks who can afford accountants to do their taxes often have the accountants tell them how much to “give” at the end of the year to meet the desired level of deductions. Not entirely charitable.

On the other hand, it’s hard to know how much of your money goes to any actual charitable cause you’re giving it to.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Stir - While it’s technically possible and a thoroughly interesting idea to discuss I would say the odds that DNA evolved on another world that had a similar enough environment to Earth and hitched a ride on a stellar object that finds it’s way all the way to Earth AND is far enough away that we haven’t spotted said planet astronomically is probably a million fold the odds of DNA evolving on Earth itself. The only way you could somewhat reduce those odds is saying it was a nearby spacecraft or something from an extremely distant location.

By Monica

February 21, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Multiculturalism has reduced the contribution of Blacks to a game of TRIVIAL PURSUITS.

Indeed, at our school we have had a Black History Month Question of the Day. So why not recognize a different culture each month in the same fashion and trivialize all of them?

Net B, I had a few black classmates who were accused of being “white.” A couple of years ago, I had a black student whose parents told him that he needed to stop hanging with his white friends and to find some black friends. Talk about a kid in turmoil!

You also bring up a great point about being in the South. I have a friend from Michigan who simply states that people in the South don’t value education as much as people in the North. No amount of money per student will fix the problem of not valuing education. Until kids and their parents value education, we can’t fix the problem.

Joe L, you made a good suggestion about the massive adult education incentive. How do we pull that off?

By Chilao

February 21, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

I can not tell a lie, I not only cut down more than one cherry tree, I posted the real estate link last week, that probably took Chuck less than a minute to find originally and consumed 10 seconds of my time in both saving/retrieving.

I predicted to myself when I posted it that I would then see another fake Chilao post, with a follow-up from Dog pointing it out.

and like CLOCKWORK, there it came.

LMAO

I like the idea that we very well could have come from some far off place as well. It sounds just as feasible as all the other explanations man has come up with to explain our presence here. As well as conceptually, exactly EVERYTHING we know of the universe, geography-wise, could very well fit into the size of a mole on some MUCH LARGER simple life form.

It is the wise man who knows he knows nothing, but the fool who thinks he knows it all. (someone famous said that)

By chuck

February 21, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

The problem is that you apparently don’t know very many conservatives. I on the other hand know hundreds, perhaps thousands of conservatives (I’ve never actually stopped to count them) and they are the most generous people I know. The biggest difference is that YOU want to FORCE people to give to the government to give to the poor. We want to give to the poor and BYPASS THE GOVERNMENT entirely. Giving directly does nothing to advance your paternalistic goals of control and manipulation. It’s only when you can point at Republicans who are doing REAL good but who oppose redistribution of wealth through taxes so you can tell the poor about how stingy they are. And all the time, because you don’t do anything to MAKE any real money yourself, you sit back and do nothing except push for the rest of us to pay more taxes so you can feel good about yourself. Here is the truth about the study:

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do — aside from their paid work — why they do it, and its economic impact.

He’s a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

“These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago,” he writes in the introduction. “I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book.”

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.”

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

“His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,” he said. “But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid.”

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

“I know I’m going to get yelled at a lot with this book,” he said. “But when you say something big and new, you’re going to get yelled at.”

By Chilao

February 21, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

She pointed out it could have come from a Kleenex thrown out of the space-craft window.

or maybe the aliens stopped to take a dump. LOL

By Stir

February 21, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

Why not a series of jumps? And in between each of those jumps, DNA advanced a little further?

a similar enough environment to Earth I would have to dis-agree. As seen on earth, these lifeforms have an ability to thrive in deep hyro-thermal vents as well as artic climates.

Maybe DNA is all that is needed to spread human-like creatures accross the universe.

Do you think the odds, compared to any other notion of Origin, are really that different?

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

“The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion”

Only because you count contributions to the church as charity. It’s already an apples and oranges proposition.

Oh and your “direct” help comes with a huge price tag - believe what I believe.

“But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements. “

Wow, shocking. So do I! The issue is fixing the problems not scrapping the whole thing. There are faults with every sort of government spending. Doesn’t make it wrong as there are usually bigger problems with other alternatives.

By Chilao

February 21, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

I have always erceived STIR as SHE. that’s all; dunno, and not material to me.(doesn’t matter)

By InWonder

February 21, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Susie - So, blacks are the only ones deserving “props” because their ancestors where slaves. I still don’t understand how that it is fair to the rest of the races that fill our school systems that we exclude ALL of them to favor only one race. EVERY race has given so much (blood, sweat and tears) to make this country GREAT and they ALL deserve “props” - and you say that because their great-great-great grandparents where slaves here they are the only once deserving it. Not all slaves where treated badly. That is one huge FACT. In FACT, some even stayed of THEIR OWN FREE WILL to stay with their owners - not because they had to or couldn’t afford to leave, it was some of them ACTUALLY thought HIGHLY of their former owners. My in-laws, who have lived in the south for generations of which had a “Mamie” who REFUSED to leave because they LOVED their family SO MUCH, even though she was completely free - and the family even built her own house (around 1800-2000 sq ft) for her and her family. And I was told many treated their former slaves the same way and only knew of a VERY FEW who were bad to their slaves.

By Kevin

February 21, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Second, every dollar given to a church is counted when not even close to that amount is actually used for charity. So of course the more religious conservatives are having dollars counted which are not truly charitable.

Joe - those are excuses. Conservatives MAY have more resources (although I am not convinced of that fact) but they do give generously. Giving money to a church is a charitable donation. Churches have administrative costs just like any other non-profit organization. You are correct that not every dollar given to churches goes to charitable work, but you cannot discount the tremendous impact churches had with the post Katrina relief effort.

Most conservatives I know are generous, caring people that were not born silver spooners, so stop with that generalization. Most liberals I know are as well. Neither group is better than the other.

By Chilao

February 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

But when you say something big and new, you’re going to get yelled at.”

Didn’t Jimmy Carter just learn that and Copernicus centuries ago?

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Stir - I’m not sure what you mean by your series of jumps point. Nearly all (if not all) stellar objects that fall to Earth are from nearby objects. Even comets that pass by Earth are just one large orbits in our near galaxy.

As far as conditions on Earth, those organisms still function in an environment that contains water and is based on high concentrations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen (and sulfur to a slightly lesser extent). Those extreme Earth environments are still highly dissimilar to say Jupiter or Mercury. When it comes down to it those organisms have only minor differences that allow them to survive and thrive in the harsh Earth environments they do.

I think the odds that DNA arose on another world (mind you it would still require the odds of evolution there multiplied by the odds of traveling here) are obviously much, much greater than the simple fact that it happened here. I think their are orders of magnitude difference between the suppositions. Mind you I say they both trump the flying Spaghetti monster.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

“Conservatives MAY have more resources (although I am not convinced of that fact) but they do give generously. Giving money to a church is a charitable donation. Churches have administrative costs just like any other non-profit organization. You are correct that not every dollar given to churches goes to charitable work, but you cannot discount the tremendous impact churches had with the post Katrina relief effort.”

Generously depends on a percentage not a total. If you give 1% of your income you don’t give as generously as someone who gives 30% if if the total dollars are 10 times as much.

The point is that the facts are correct in an absolute sense but the interpretation they are trying to draw from are not. They are trying to infer that increased “charitable” giving means they “care” more and the liberals are hypocrites. However the truth is that much of the money donated is about dogma and not necessarily a measure of “caring”. And a large portion of this money is given solely as a tax break and not as a measure of caring. We are not making excuses we are shooting down the incorrect inferences being made.

Wow do I need to draw you guys a Ven diagram. I said MOST silver spooners were conservatives NOT the other way around. Get it straight.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

The Emancipation Proclamation came from the Republican Party, not the Democrats.

Blacks HISTORICALLY voted Republican until Roosevelt and then JFK. When King was imprisoned in Atlanta for some trumped up charge, RFK made a call to the Mayor of Atlanta and the Governor of Georgia to get King released. Upon his release, King’s father, King the Elder, stated that JFK and RFK were great guys, and from now on he’d vote Democrat.

A little history lesson for YOU.

By Stir

February 21, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

InWonder,

So, blacks are the only ones deserving “props” because their ancestors where slaves.

Not simply because they were slaves. If you revisit your college history you learn that it was not so much that they were slaves, but that they had no property, coupled by the fact that they were brought here against their will. Just to be clear, property and worth go hand-in-hand and these newly freed slaves had a disadvantaged starting point than everyone else.

You will be hard pressed to find another group that fits these criteria.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

I agree, then we laugh and mix up another pitcher of strawberry daiquiris

I hope they’re non alcoholic — true Muslims don’t drink alcohol.

By Archie

February 21, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

Good job Susie. I mean that SusieHomemaker. Also I am glad Lozen brought up McCain. What do the feminists here think?

By Monica

February 21, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

it was not so much that they were slaves, but that they had no property, coupled by the fact that they were brought here against their will. Just to be clear, property and worth go hand-in-hand and these newly freed slaves had a disadvantaged starting point than everyone else.You will be hard pressed to find another group that fits these criteria.

Except maybe the Native Americans.

By Lily Toad

February 21, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

I think McCain should shut up about abortion.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

This goes back to what I was saying before about accepting culpability and truly trying to heal wounds. Is a month about their history really anything at all to ask after 200 years of oppression? Really? I mean you should give this happily and freely. The fact so many people have any issues with it shows that many people still are not ready to truly work to solve the problems of today and yesterday.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Susie - So, blacks are the only ones deserving “props” because their ancestors where slaves. I still don’t understand how that it is fair to the rest of the races that fill our school systems that we exclude ALL of them to favor only one race

You have selective reading. Read the whole post, if then you still can not understand what I was trying to relate in my posting, then….well……I just can’t help you. Sorry.

By Kevin

February 21, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

Wow do I need to draw you guys a Ven diagram. I said MOST silver spooners were conservatives NOT the other way around. Get it straight.

You might be right, but your arrogant attitude again is unwarranted. I do not know what a Ven diagram is, so you will need to educate me on this “new math”. I DO however know what a Venn diagram is.

Of course, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, etc, were all born with wooden spoons in their mouths.

By kimberly

February 21, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I only sought to knock out your sweeping generalizations. I know plenty of conservatives, trust me. There are even a handful in my family (whaddya gonna do?). My father, an avowed liberal, progressive, peace-loving vet, who’s always sticking up for the little guy, is a firm Agnostic. Instead of expensive Christmas presents from the mall, he drops loads every year on Heifer International, providing animals to people to people in impoverished communities, that help them become self-sufficient and EAT. I feel warm and tingly thinking about all the Heifers (yaks, pigs, and goats too!) donated in my name. My father thinks rightwing religious ramblings are insane, and that “concervative” me-first economics are just plain selfish. My father is more Christlike than any man I’ve ever met in a church or who boasts of being a Republican. (And that includes my nice right-wing Christian ex-boyfriend, the bankrupt tax cheat who sits on the board of faith-based charities while complaining he cant afford a nicer car, but wants a freaking medal for paying child support for the two wives he dumped.)

So please [be a good Christian and] forgive me if I don’t buy into your sweeping generalizations. I prefer to get to the details of the issues, thanks.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

My in-laws, who have lived in the south for generations of which had a “Mamie” who REFUSED to leave because they LOVED their family SO MUCH, even though she was completely free - and the family even built her own house (around 1800-2000 sq ft) for her and her family. And I was told many treated their former slaves the same way and only knew of a VERY FEW who were bad to their slaves

Then why did so MANY slaves run away, were degraded, were HAPPY about freedom, and (especially the females), were happy that they were no longer considered brood mares or w******* for the master? Hmmmm I think you need to read the books by Fredrick Douglas, (an ex slave), Sojourner Truth, (ex-slave), Harriet Tubman, (ex-slave), and see how HAPPY they were as slaves. Reading their books, you’d could probably get a consensus on how many OTHER blacks felt about slavery too.

The few that were “beloved” by their masters and treated kindly were few and far between and not the norm.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

“Of course, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, etc, were all born with wooden spoons in their mouths.”

And yet how does this disprove my point? Did I use the word “all” anywhere? Besides politicians are all crooks anyway and generally choose their party based on which will get them elected more not which one reflects their ideology.

Oooo I made a typo. Does that make you feel like a big man now?

By lozen

February 21, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

They keep blacks under control through patronization rather than solving problems. It is easier to write a check than to find REAL solutions for real problems. Yeah those cristian missionaries are really good at doing that! Oh! You weren’t talking about missionaries? My bad.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

My in-laws, who have lived in the south for generations of which had a “Mamie” who REFUSED to leave because they LOVED their family SO MUCH

SIDEBAR: This was probably Justice CLarence Thomas’ forebears.

By Lily Toad

February 21, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter if you are born rich, poor or middle class whether you are a liberal or conservative. It’s all in your thinking. Some of the most conservative people I know started out poor then made some money and now are conservatives who believe in the “pulling yourself up by your bookstraps” narrative. I also know people who started out poor and now are rich liberals. What matters is that your opinions are based on life experience, readings, influential people in your life, etc.

By blablabla

February 21, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Joe L - so are you suggesting that conservatives don’t “care” more even if they are making greater amounts of charitable donations?

how do you think that data suggesting that conservatives give more than liberals should be interpreted?

it appears to me as though you are making assumptions for why certain members of society make charitable donations in an attempt to maintain your belief that liberals “care” more about people than conservatives. do you really think that only conservatives consider the tax implication of their giving?

do you believe that if the tax deductibility of charitable giving was eliminated conservatives would give amounts on par with liberals (assuming that the study is correct and there is a material difference in the level of giving)?

separate question - at the end of the day, does the motivation of the giver really matter? or does it matter that the charity got the gift?

By Kevin

February 21, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t disprove your point, no more than your posts prove your insinuation that conservatives are by and large greedy people. And no, pointing out your errors does not make me feel like a big man. It was a petty, cheap shot. We’re even!

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Except maybe the Native Americans

Who OWNED their own land, (even though they were on the reservations and who, were never forced to work as laborers, enslaved, OR used as property), if they were lucky to get the Casino law passed on thier land, are rich and whose ancestors are up in the clouds laughing all the way to the big bank in the sky.

By Lily Toad

February 21, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

All those slaves who LOVED the white families — this is just projection by the slave-owners/employers (after emancipation). The owner/employer may have felt like the black “help” was part of the family, but I’ll bet the black person didn’t think so. After emancipation some slaves stayed because there was no place for them to go or job opportunities because they’d been enslaved for all their lives.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 21, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Joe L - so are you suggesting that conservatives don’t “care” more even if they are making greater amounts of charitable donations?

Just because they’re making greater donations to “stop abortion NOW”, or to the “Elect Dumbya” campaign fund does NOT make their contributions “caring”. Unless you perceive caring as “Caring For The Right Wing Cause”. People who truly care donate their TIME, (habitat humanity), and their effort, (Homeless Shelters), as well as their money. Writing a check for a tax write off does NOT make someone caring.

By Stir

February 21, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

First, I want to be clear that I have no stake in the position I have presented. Just good mental gymnastics;)

I think the odds that DNA arose on another world (mind you it would still require the odds of evolution there multiplied by the odds of traveling here) are obviously much, much greater than the simple fact that it happened here.

I understand where your coming from. Yet, I personally find it evens out if you compare the very finite amount of time for DNA to evolve on earth against the massive amount of time it would have bouncing around the universe.

Mind you I say they both trump the flying Spaghetti monster.

We both agree on something then;)

Chilao, You are correct that I am female.

Monica, Correct in mentioning American Indians

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Back from GSU. Boy, those coeds were looking HOT!!! I got a feeling I’m going to get in trouble before it’s over with. Last time i attended GSU, I ended up dating one of my professor’s daughters. Fortunately, she (the professor) thought I was a good catch and still gave me an A.

So Chilao is still convinced that I made a fake post under his name? And lame Helen Keller jokes at that? Apparently, IT guys lack imagination.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

My guess is that Stir is a woman also. I would think Stir=Bahamas, but Bahama’s views seem more conservative.

By morgan-lynn lamberth

February 21, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

All public schools should get the same amount of public funds.If parents or groups can give more to a school, that might be just fine.No school should be substandard. Why wouldn’t parents want their children to be with different other groups .We are all equal before the law in theory; in practice, we need to get that equality- fairness- Americanism.We do not need to be better than others to feel good about ourselves; we can do better than others in different fields for sure , though .Equality does not= egalitarianism- sameness.Equality and individuality go hand in hand.Schools should help students with their equality and individuality .Inner city schools should be top rate! Taxpayers should see to that .Discrimination is such a wrong to us and to the other.We lose new friends , for instance. Why enslave oneself to nonsense? In short, let’s have better schools and have good will for each other .

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

I hope they’re non alcoholic — true Muslims don’t drink alcohol.

Actually, one of them is a “strict” Muslim and doesn’t drink, while the other one does. I guess neither one are truly strict or they wouldn’t be playing poker in the home of an infidel.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

Blabla - It’s simple as this - in a matter where the field is level, the government, conservatives are more opposed to programs that aid and advance less advantaged people. That takes out all the other associated advantages and elements that make “charitable” contributions an less accurate measure of “caring”.

I think that first absolute dollars are a poor measure regardless. Percentage of income would be a much more accurate figure. Second I think that any contributions to a church would have to be adjusted by the amount of charitable work the church performs (and I would be willing to take out adminstrative costs from all other organizations). So yes given those parameters I think you would find that giving is probably equitable and more important I personally don’t think it means nearly as much about “caring” as conservatives try to portray it.

The motivation of the giver matters only when it’s being used as a measure of said motivation - in this case “caring”.

By Lily Toad

February 21, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Native Americans were enslaved by British settlers but they knew the landscape and were able to escape unlike the Africans who were brought to an unfamiliar land. The settlers soon gave up on trying to enslave the natives.

By lozen

February 21, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Susie, that myth about how happy slaves were and how well they wre treated is just another southern fable. It’s really hard for some to admit the truth of that situation. No matter how they were treated, they were still owned by someone else who could treat them anyway they wanted to and the slave had no recourse. A mother or father could know the white mastah was coming to the 13 year old daughter’s bed in the night and there wasn’t a thing they could do to stop it. We all know, if we have read anything about that time, that many blacks were worked to death, that women were raped, that families were separated and sold away from each other all the time. I’ve heard that “it wasn’t so bad” excuse from southerners all my life!

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

” Yet, I personally find it evens out if you compare the very finite amount of time for DNA to evolve on earth against the massive amount of time it would have bouncing around the universe.”

Here’s the problem with that argument. Any transit time would not allow the DNA to “evolve” as it would essentially be dormant. And therefore we have to stretch the odds even further by saying that it landed on MULTIPLE worlds that had a similar environment to Earth. The universe is large enough that it’s completely plausible that life has evolved elsewhere, but the odds it would be compatible with our world are much less. The best argument is that DNA evolved on a world much older than ours (perhaps taking 10,20,100 billion years just to evolve) and then was transported directly to Earth.

However scientists have begun designing (albeit very simplistic in a true sense) programs to simulate evolution and are finding that it’s completely plausible for the development of life from elements. The counter to that is that we are all skewed by the end result of our happy accident and reverse engineer from their rather than truly starting from the bottom up.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

*Upon his release, King’s father, King the Elder, stated that JFK and RFK were great guys, and from now on he’d vote Democrat.

A little history lesson for YOU.*

Believe it or not, Susie, I was quite aware of how and when the “switch” occurred, and WHY. I do appreciate your contribution, however, as I am always open to learning new things.

BTW—Did you do any research into the fact the MLK’s real name is Michael? And that he beat women up?

By blablabla

February 21, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

SusieHomeMaker - so these donations aren’t “caring” unless they’re made to causes that you deem appropriate. i’ll be curious to hear what joe has to say, but the first part of your response says a lot.

since there are probably a similar number of left wing causes as there are right wing causes, your response doesn’t address why liberals tend to give less to their causes, if they truly care more. or how we should interpret that kind of data…

you and i share the belief that giving of one’s time is a sign of caring. so let me ask you this - if conservatives are more giving of their money, would you find it outrageous if they also were more giving of their time as well?

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Joe—If you want to consider some long odds, just start adding up all of the improbable events which would have to happen completely by chance for Life to “evolve” from non-Life. Does that prove a “Supernatural Creator”. Not at all. It simply disproves that our existence is due to “blind luck”.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

So please [be a good Christian and] forgive me if I don’t buy into your sweeping generalizations. I prefer to get to the details of the issues, thanks.

How true. I’ve never known kimberly to make broad, sweeping generalizations about Conservatives. (stifling laughter)

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

Still waiting for Joe to reveal how many non-white people he invites into his home? All of a sudden, what you actually do on a personal level doesn’t “count”, according to him. It’s all about talking PC on W2W. Also, does Joe actually have a college education. Remarkable how he keeps ducking direct questions.

Also, BC, don’t get me laughing with your claims that you “defeated me” a few months back, or that I ran away. It was you who refused direct debate, especially when I tore apart your talkorigins.com website.

By Scalia

February 21, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

Sorry Chuck, you don’t get off that easily. What history class do you know that doesn’t talk about Edison, Jefferson, or any of the other white contributors? The point is that the history should not be relegated to one month and it is the shortest month.

I didn’t learn about half of the black history that I know how until I got to seventh grade, and had a history teacher that taught about black history. And I am 27. I learned more by reading on my own.

Isn’t American history a requirement to graduate? And that history focuses on all of the presidents, their contributions, and all the things that WHITE Americans have done. So you need to chill out, son.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

“Joe—If you want to consider some long odds, just start adding up all of the improbable events which would have to happen completely by chance for Life to “evolve” from non-Life. Does that prove a “Supernatural Creator”. Not at all. It simply disproves that our existence is due to “blind luck”.”

The odds aren’t long at all when you take into account the number of occurences. And it’s not complete “blind luck” yet another myth and misunderstanding of the uninformed. It’s always driven by physical properties of the universe. It disproves nothing except your inability to comprehend large sets of numbers.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

Joe and BC—I’ll give you personal insight here for your benefit. When I was a child, my Mom took me to church. Even at age 6-7, my BS-O-Meter started beeping like crazy when i heard all those fairy tales. Later, in Science class, when the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory were presented as being “fact”, my BS-O-Meter began working overtime again.

The truth is, both of you guys are good at parroting the “party line”, but neither truly understand the concepts involved, or you wouldn’t keep making such asinine statements.

By Joe L

February 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

“Remarkable how he keeps ducking direct questions”

Remarkable that you are the only idiot that is so insecure and unable to support your positions that you have to trot out sad and often inaccurate “facts” that have nothing to do with the discussion. But rock on with your brown friend reindeer games. You’re a fraud and it’s quite evident to anyone.

By Woof-Man

February 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

It disproves nothing except your inability to comprehend large sets of numbers.

Pretty funny statement coming from a guy who doesn’t even understand base 6. Get back to me when you ace the actuarial exams without hardly trying, will you, chump?

By Chilao

February 21, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget Amazing Grace starts this weekend, a movie about the British abolition of the slave trade. 200 years ago this year.

It will probably beat a reality show about, say Paris Hilton. LOL or MTV whateva.

Saw the highly recommended The Painted Veil last weekend, based on a Somerset Maugham book. It brought back memories of rickshaw travel.

By blablabla

February 21, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Joe L - I understand what you are saying but I think that defining “caring” based on gov’t programs is a rather large mistake.

i would agree that conservatives don’t generally prefer big social programs. you take that as an example of a lack of caring by conservatives. i see it as something entirely different.

i would rather give $100 to a local charity than pay $100 in taxes to go to some big social program any day of the week. my reasons why have nothing to do with a lack of care, but rather reflect my preference for more personal choice in where the money goes, local control, generally greater accountability of where the money is spent, and greater efficiency in delivering value to the person in need. also, and not be diminished, is my belief that it isn’t the gov’t’s job to redistribute wealth other than to provide a social safety net. it isn’t that conservatives don’t care, joe, it’s that we think there’s an alternative and better way than gov’t to care for people in need.

at the end of the day, the tax code treats liberals and conservatives equally. so conservatives pay the same taxes liberals do, but then (apparently) turn around and give more. i’m having a hard time understand how they don’t care, just because they tend not to support big social programs. it seems that they, and not liberals, are more likely to pay their taxes and then put their money where their mouth is and give to the causes they support. what am i missing?

By Stir

February 21, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Does that prove a “Supernatural Creator”. Not at all. It simply disproves that our existence is due to “blind luck”.

They are symetrical arguements.

To state that there is proof of a god versus there is absolutely no god is ignorant. And, once again, god is not an element in our conversation except when you try to thrust him into it (as if god needs you and chuck as his personal speakers).

No, I am not bahamas, nor would like to be. I enjoy being Stir.

By Chumpette

February 21, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Men who brag about how smart they are are so sexy! I especially love it when they talk down to me like I am a stupid little snail and then act like their doing me a favor. And if they tear down my heroes and make me feel stupid for beliving in something, wow is that H O T hot! Oh oh oh.. yessss yessssss oh! oh! oh! don’t stop! OHHHH!

By hound

February 21, 2007 7:43 PM | Link to this

buy soma buy soma online cheap soma soma carisoprodol order soma generic soma prescription soma information on soma aura soma

By hound

February 21, 2007 7:44 PM | Link to this

buy soma buy soma online cheap soma soma carisoprodol order soma generic soma prescription soma information on soma aura soma

By hound

February 21, 2007 7:46 PM | Link to this

buy soma buy soma online cheap soma soma carisoprodol order soma generic soma prescription soma information on soma aura soma

By ZMOEYY1

February 22, 2007 3:54 AM | Link to this

Hello. ZMOEYY2 [url=http://www.tZMOEYY3.com] ZMOEYY3 [/url] Thanks

By replica rolex

February 22, 2007 7:47 AM | Link to this

replica handbags http://replicarolex.forum-on.de replica rolex rolex replica replica rolex watches

By 2D

February 22, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

Bla… I believe the give and take between you and Joe sums up the real difference between liberals and conservatives. Not whether or not society should do something for the less fortunate folks but how it is done and who does it. When private organizations don’t live up to my standards I don’t have to support them any longer. When the government doesn’t live up to my standards, I can vote for a couple of pieces to the pie, but I can’t withdraw my support entirely without getting tossed in the clink or at least having my property confiscated.

Joe makes excellent points about percentage or giving versus actual dollars. It is much easier for me to give $100 than folks who live on minimum wage. However, I don’t think the Genesis shelter, or Midtown Community Assistance, the various food fanks or any of the other charities really care about what percentage of total income is given. They don’t value the support from one person more than another becasue the giving was a larger sacrifice. They need the actual dollars, and while the $100 I give may be a smaller percentage of my income than what the person on minimum wage can give, my $100 is more useful to the charity.

Joe also brings up a good point about chirch giving and the amount of money used for amdinistrative costs. It is true that the staff is paid, mortgages paid, etc. and that eats up a big percentage of the giving so the money given to food missions, clothes drives, etc. may not be as high as one would like or expect. However, I would prefer to look at the other intangible things provided by a church. Pastors and the church as a unit bring comfort to people in hospice/hospitals, they bring advice and guidance to people with personal issues, they bring people together in such a way that encourages other modes of giving outside of the church, they are also able to pool resources to build habitat houses, build hospitals and provide living accomodations for the elderly. sure there are negatives as well, but there are with any organization run by humans.

Charitable giving is an example of Joe, like many liberals, wanting to impose their own moral judgement on what should be done. they deem it the “right” thing to do, so they feel obliged and vindicated to harass judge others who do not feel the same way. Yet when the a different person proposes a “right” thing to do that contradicts their own personal beliefs, look out, because the fascists are on the loose.

By Ronnie B

February 22, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

God help this society. We fear and loathe each other so much that we’re training our children to follow suit.

Enjoy your short-term battles, mommies and daddies. Because the “fruits” of your victories will be poisoned beyond your imagination.

History guarantees it.

By Brian Curtis

February 22, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

2D: Then why has Social Security been such a raging success story? Why has it gotten the free-marketeers so worked up and angry that they’ve been trying to tear it down for the past few decades?

Because it’s a social program that works… and that can’t exist in their universe.

By SusieHomeMaker

February 22, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

BTW—Did you do any research into the fact the MLK’s real name is Michael? And that he beat women up?

Huh? Unsubstantiated bull crap should not be repeated in mixed company. I won’t even go through how totally WRONG you are about that one; I’ll just say one thing, READ his biographies written by different biographers — not the stuff the grand dragon of the KKK puts out, or Anne Coulter’s drivel.

By DisCreditDaKlan

February 22, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?ar=664

By 2D

February 22, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

Brian… I’m not so sure I would call Social Security a “raging” success story. Who says it has been a “raging” success story?

BTW… I never said “social programs” do not work. Let’s go back to your example. I think social security in a different form could absolutely work. I believe the program in it’s present configuration is illconceived, or better yet, outdated. I used to be on board with elimination of the program. I have changed on that opinion. I would keep it, but absolutely overhaul it.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

Brian - SS has created the largest unfunded liabilitiy in the history of mankind. in order to judge the success of a program, one must not only consider its benefits, but the costs requisite to achieve those benefits. the ends don’t always justify the means.

the difference between us is that you look at the program and see a success because you like the end result of what the program accomplishes. fair enough. but i see an end result that could be significantly enhanced and at far less cost, using other methods.

let’s be candid - the underlying population and economic trends that supported SS fifty years ago no longer hold true, and have been increasing in their rate of change. the writing is on the wall that SS must change if it is to remain the success you believe it to be. the real question is how are you going to do it? ignore the problem as most of the current political leaders on the left choose to do, or be proactive now, since the unfunded liability grows with every passing moment? we might disagree on what action to take, but inaction isn’t a viable alternative to deal with SS.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Blabla - “I understand what you are saying but I think that defining “caring” based on gov’t programs is a rather large mistake”

No what I am saying is that to me giving to “charities” is a poor measure of “caring” because there are umpteen other reasons people give to charities. As we have pointed out tax writeoffs and church dogma being two big ones. But funding for government aid programs does not involve hardly any other ulterior motives.

Those “causes” are not often or always about caring and that’s our point. I personally think very few dollars that go in the church coffers are about caring. They are about having a nice organ, a good gym, and looking good in the eyes of the people sitting next to you in the pews. A lot of the additional giving you point out is not about caring. It’s about tax writeoffs (therefore reducing their overall tax burden and the total amount they give to “caring”) and being a “bastion of the community”. And finally I will return to that fact that total dollars mean less than percentage of income.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

“Brian… I’m not so sure I would call Social Security a “raging” success story. Who says it has been a “raging” success story?”

Are you kidding me? In the days before Soc Sec many widows and elderly people lived in adject squalor and if you were disabled you were generally reduced to a beggar and pauper.

See we have huge differences of opinion in both the efficiency and culpability of a private charity. I have little recourse to change the direction a private charity takes once they have my money while I can control the government of the people. Add to that the government has absolutely no agenda in serving the people while many, many charities have a complete agenda.

But regardless it’s not even about any of that. It goes back to this constant attempt by conservatives to say they “give more” therefore liberals are hypocrites.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

“SS has created the largest unfunded liabilitiy in the history of mankind”

NOW unchecked borrowing from the funds for Soc Sec has caused this problem. Get it straight. And yes Soc Sec needs to be tweaked but the doomsday philosophies are often overstated (while at the same time many people are loathe to do anything) and we can easily keep an extremely successful program running.

But there is a large faction of people that loathe Soc Sec because it proves that they are wrong - government social programs can be highly successful and necessary for the country’s well being - and wants to destroy it while seemingly keeping their hands clean.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

i agree w your 8:57, 2D.

i do find it ironic that in this discussion people consider the administrative costs when giving to a church to pay pastors, clergy and the parish mortgage, but there isn’t any thought of gov’t waste and inefficiency when we pay our taxes.

By Brian Curtis

February 22, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Social Security is not unfunded, and the privatization arguments were largely based on extreme assumptions (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefsib159 ). In fact, it’s fully funded for the next 50 years, and all it will take to extend that margin is removing the earnings cap (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeaturessnapshots_20050217 ).

In addition, it’s far more efficient than the marketplace would be capable of. Unthinkable? No, not at all. Administrative costs of running the SSA are about 1/20th the cost would be for an equivalent private pension plan, *according to Bush’s own Social Security Commission (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5277&sequence=0 ).

More info on the economic side of it: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001278.shtml http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/22926

By 2D

February 22, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Joe… You are correct that we do have progress in the lifestyles of the elderly and the disabled, but I would hardly classify that as a “raging success”. I believe Social Security can provide more “security” for less money. You call change a tweak. I call change an overhaul. We both agree on the concept of the program. Isn’t that at least a place of common ground to begin a discussion?

We must agree to disagree on whether or not the individual citizen has more power to influence a private charity or the government. You believe you have more control over the government. I believe I have more control over a charity. You believe that a vote for your elected officials has more control over my ability to not fund a charity. Why is that? Not really sure.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

“I believe Social Security can provide more “security” for less money.”

I doubt it can provide more security for less money. What you are going to say is it can provide more security with more of that person’s “own money” through personal accounts right? But in the end you are merely arguing about moving the funding from a pooled dispersal to a personal accumulation. And there are many, many problems with this issue. The least of which that the system works by the currently working paying for the currently retired and you would have a huge gap in time. What is the problem exactly with Soc Sec as it exists today?

Sorry but I would say lifting a huge portion of the nations elderly out of poverty a raging success. The fact you don’t is quite…interesting.

By Brian Curtis

February 22, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

2D: And you believe that private charities can provide everything that the elderly need to live with dignity, AND with no strings attached… even though their inability to do that was the reason the SSA was set up in the first place!

Why is that?

By Monica

February 22, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Excellent 8:57, 2D. Joe, I understand that you are generalizing, but please don’t lump all church givers into one big pile. You don’t know the hearts of the people who put their money in the offering plate. Granted, many are motivated by dogma or peer pressure, or a tax write-off, but there are many others who truly give sacrificially.

Back to the topic of school choice, what do y’all think? I’m for neighborhood schools, but of course I have the means to control my surroundings: I can move if I want to. Is school choice a liberal or conservative preference?

By 2D

February 22, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Brian… I never said that private charities can provide everything that elderly people need. I never said that the social security program should be eliminiated. I want it changed. You are attempting to put words into my posts that are not there.

By Brian Curtis

February 22, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

And disagreement with it in principle doesn’t change the fact that Social Security has been massively successful:

“By any standard, Social Security is the most successful social program ever enacted in the United States, guaranteeing a measure of basic security for nearly all workers and their families. For nearly two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security provides at least half their total income; for 22 percent of them, it is the only source of income. Without it, the poverty rate for the elderly would jump from 10 to 48 percent. Social Security is not just for retirees: it also provides monthly benefits for disabled workers and their dependents, and for the dependents of deceased workers. Together, these two groups comprise 31 percent of all Social Security recipients.”

—Prof. Richard DuBoff’s Nov. 2005 report, at http://tinyurl.com/2umrcb

If that’s not a massive success, what is?

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

So, Chilao—Why don’t you tell everyone here again how honourable you are now that you’ve admitted storing personal information about me on your computer:

I posted the real estate link last week, that probably took Chuck less than a minute to find originally and consumed 10 seconds of my time in both saving/retrieving.

Ladies—Be very careful about revealing personal info on the blog. Apparently we’ve got a POS named Chilao on board who thinks it’s ok to store up personal info about bloggers he never met on his computer. Now that’s creepy. Of course I don’t expect him to show at my door. I’m sure he’s a little smarter than that.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

joe, the umpteen “other” reasons that people give affect conservatives as well as liberals. you can’t consider the “other” reasons why conservatives give and ignore that these reasons also impact the giving of liberals. liberals get the same tax writeoffs.

And finally I will return to that fact that total dollars mean less than percentage of income.

no argument, but do conservatives really have that much more money to give out than liberals? i doubt it.

here’s what i see in your position:

1) liberals pay their taxes, and would be willing to pay more to support social programs.

2) conservatives pay their taxes under the same tax code, but actually do give more to support the charitable causes that they believe in.

what i’m hearing from you is that the mere WILLINGNESS to pay greater taxes is a better measure of true “caring” than ACTUAL DOLLARS GIVEN to charities. i view that as nonsensical.

i have not argued that conservatives care more than liberals. that isn’t my position. my original comment was in response to your post that conservatives don’t care, or that liberals care more.

my question to you, and it remains…is how would you interpret the data that conservatives give more? there are lots of liberal and conservative causes out there for each side to support. everybody pays their taxes. yet conservatives seem to give more to their causes. you tell me the answer isn’t about conservatives “caring” more - so i’m just asking - what do you believe the reason for that is?

By Jack

February 22, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

BC is spewing BS. Do the math lab rat and you will see what is going to happen to Soc.Sec. if it is not fixed.

Hi Monica, 2D, and Daddy Bla.

By chuck

February 22, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

So little joe,

It’s simple as this - in a matter where the field is level, the government, conservatives are more opposed to programs that aid and advance less advantaged people. That takes out all the other associated advantages and elements that make “charitable” contributions an less accurate measure of “caring”.

Again, pure HOGWASH. Republicans believe in our CONSTITUTION. It is not the function of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be a charitable institution. Republicans believe that charity is A PRIVATE ISSUE, not one that should be forced through income redistribution. In other words, why should I work my butt off to provide for MY FAMILY, just to have the government confiscate it and give it to some crack addict. I give a significant portion of my income to charity, BUT I KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT I HELP PERSONALLY. Does that not make more sense?

Republicans “put their money where their mouth is”. Liberals only want to put CONSERVATIVES’ money where their (liberals) mouths are. They talk a good game but they don’t back it up with the cash. So Joe, for your charitable giving (assuming you do that), do you send a check to a charitable organization like the Red Cross, or do you send a check to the Federal government and let them decide what charity to send it to?

Then you said: I think that first absolute dollars are a poor measure regardless. Percentage of income would be a much more accurate figure.

Would that same thinking apply in the TAX CODE? Should rich people pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income than middle class people? Based on your statement, you should be perfectly happy with tax cuts for the rich because they certainly pay more taxes in “absolute dollars”.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

So remember who the real creeps on board are. Anyone peg Chilao as a stalker?

BTW, Chilao, I’ve made public statements on W2W that I have never struck a woman, threatened a woman, or even intimidated a woman. Are you able to make the same claim? I’m really starting to wonder, especially considering the fact that you are a two-time loser.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

LMAO

people who have been here for quite the while know who the REAL SCUMBAG is. Now, I ain’t saying no names, people smart enough would figure it out, which is most here.

LMAO

too funny.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

and who spent hours going through old prior-weeks blogs posts to find something about Mara, Lozen, 72John, etc?….. talk about no-life creepy, at least I only had to go click/click

lmao once again.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

brian - on the one hand you say SS isn’t unfunded, but then say it’s funded for the next X number of years. at the point where the money runs out, and the program cannot sustain itself, the program is an UNFUNDED LIABILITY. you made my point for me when defined an unfunded liability.

joe - NOW unchecked borrowing from the funds for Soc Sec has caused this problem. Get it straight.

i’m talking about in the future, joe. i know that SS is funded for a period of time, but after that it is a gigantic unfunded liability. and even though funds were borrowed from SS in the past, that amount would never have made up the future shortfall (for a number of reasons).

i’m not trying to get rid of SS, guys. i just don’t want to see some huge problem in the future. doing nothing will make that unintended outcome a more likely event. why not make the program more secure?

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

BTW—Did you do any research into the fact the MLK’s real name is Michael? And that he beat women up?

Huh? Unsubstantiated bull crap should not be repeated in mixed company. I won’t even go through how totally WRONG you are about that one; I’ll just say one thing, READ his biographies written by different biographers — not the stuff the grand dragon of the KKK puts out, or Anne Coulter’s drivel.

Susie—The two facts I mentioned are not hard to research. I’ll google some sources in a minute. MLK’s actual birth certificate reads “Michael”. His father, who is not named Martin either, “explained” later that he “intended” to call him Martin, despite what the actual birth certificate reads. The info about him beating up women comes from FBI surveillance tapes.

I’m sure you interpret my researching the facts as just one more Whitey trying to discredit a brother. My real objective, of course, is to know the truth about this man who is now Deified by Libs. Here’s a “neutral” link for you to peruse:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mlk.htm

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

hey jack - hope you’re doing well.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

I have never struck a woman.

two-time loser, vs. One?

matter of simple math isn’t it?

of course, at your age, good luck finding another pure virgin. LMAO

Seriously, I cannot laugh this hard, good day, good day at work. LMAO

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Keep explaining yourself, Chilao. Looking through old blogs to understand the bloggers better is a little different from what you did, Creepo. Like I said, ladies, be very careful about posting any info that whack-job Chilao might store up on his computer.

By 2D

February 22, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Joe… So many points. I would rather focus on one so as to keep things focused. Let’s not debate the level of success that social security has provided. I think we can agree that the program has provided benefit to society. Others may argue that point but I won’t. Let’s instead focus on what could be done to make it better.

First, my ideas would not be cheaper in the short term. In fact they would probably raise taxes, but I would be more than willing to do that to put certain things into place.

Second, my ideas do revolve around a personal account, however, not a totally privatized one. I am personally in favor of something like the educational programs (GA 529), but I would not be wed to anything. The monies would be deducted from your pay and placed into an account held by the government and dispersed to you at a set retirement age. Upon passing the remainder of your account would then be distributed to your estate and inherited by your spouse, children, grandchildren, beneficiaries, etc.

Third, only a portion of the monies collected would go to cover that account. The remainder would go to fund the current and near future social security beneficiaries and the disabled who have not reached retirement age. As the current and near future beneficiaries passed on, the payroll tax could be reduced.

I know these are broad strokes, but I think you get the gist. This would eliminate two of the biggest beefs I have with the current system:

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

talk about no-life creepy, at least I only had to go click/click

Like I said, ladies, think carefully about what Chilao is saying here. Because it was easy for him to store personal, non-blog related info about me on his computer, he thinks that makes it right. Pray tell, Chilao, why would you want to store personal info about me on your computer?

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

that’s right, Dog prefers his women on the skanky side.

LMAO

By Jack

February 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Kim. Please do not apologize for the mongrel. Don’t you dare leave the blog because of him. We all love you.

Dog, goddammit if your intention is to run folks off of the blog, you’re doing a good job. Kim is too smart to even think of meeting anyone on this blog. You blew it early in the game. Know this, whenever you say something that offends a female, they NEVER forget. Ever. 10 years of groveling may help but they still do not forget. I share many of your opinions (more than I care to admit) but you need to let it go.

By kimberly

February 22, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack! Um, if, as you say, the math on social security is not good, wouldn’t it have something to do with Congress taking SS funds and reallocating them to other programs and tax cuts for the last two decades? I seem to remember reading about this many times, so I googled:

“Yet, since 1983, Congress has run off with more than $2 trillion of Social Security taxes, most recently using the money to cover large income tax cuts for the wealthy, to fund two wars to the tune of $100 billion a year, to subsidize oil companies and agribusinesses and to underwrite billions in congressional earmarks for pet projects.”

Is this refutable? Did the “Restore dignity and accountability using our Contract with America” (haha!) Republican Congress actually NOT reallocate SS funds, causing (at least in part) the projected shortfalls? Did someone make this up?

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Such a master detective, too, that Chilao. Based on no evidence at all, he decides that I posted some corny jokes using “his” name, and uses that as “justification” to publish my home address.

Like I said, ladies, think about who the real scumbag is here.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

I am so excited, Dog is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH.

making my day.

what’s next, your standard hissy-fit?

let it rip.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Well, guys, I rest my case regarding “self-opinion” and “self-esteem”. Based on his statements, Chilao is the greatest guy in the whole world, in his own mind, that is. Just listen to all his rhetoric about how honourable he is and how much personal integrity he has, and compare it to his actions.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

I’m still waiting for you to explain how storing personal info on your computer about someone you don’t know makes you such an honourable guy, Chilao.

I’m sure some of your stand-up Lib buddies will come rushing to your defense, but that doesn’t mean much to me since they also Deify serial cheaters like Clinton and MLK. Yep, it’s all about talking a good game in the Lib mind.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

kimberly - we can talk about assigning blame if you want - there are lots of culpable people on both sides of the aisle.

or, as i would humbly suggest, we could spend our efforts discussing whether we really do have a massive future shortfall coming, and what are we going to do about it.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

go Dog, go.

Was I the one cruising all the women on the blog? Don’t need to myself. LMAO

but last night, someone seems to be hot for ya. Crumpette or something like that.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Dog, goddammit if your intention is to run folks off of the blog, you’re doing a good job. Kim is too smart to even think of meeting anyone on this blog. You blew it early in the game. Know this, whenever you say something that offends a female, they NEVER forget. Ever. 10 years of groveling may help but they still do not forget. I share many of your opinions (more than I care to admit) but you need to let it go.

Jack, Advice taken. If you check back to Monday, however, I may not be the only one who needs to “let it go”.

By Jack

February 22, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Yes. The greedy politicians couldn’t keep their hands off of it. That is a big problem but the damage is done. Fair Tax anyone?

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Gotta run, but glad to hear from you, Jack. You’re the kind of guy I would trust holding my wallet. Not so sure about some of the others here.

By kimberly

February 22, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

bla, I agree. The culpability is not limited to one side of the aisle or the other. I only brought it up in response to the idea that the shortfall indicates that the program doesn’t work. The larger problem of irresponsible spending coupled with borrowing money instead of incuring and spending tax revenue does not stop at SS shortfalls. The entire government is rife with mismanagement. Is the solution to simply disband the government and privitize everything, then? The baby/bathwater cliche is overused, so I suggest applying real accountablity and practical accounting practices to government instead, which means raising taxes AND cutting waste to reduce deficit, paying down debt, and working toward a government we can believe in again, at least to some degree. And to respond to your question at 10:13, YES, gov’t waste and inefficiency DO INDEED bother me! Common ground for us all, maybe? I can only hope.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

or, as i would humbly suggest, we could spend our efforts discussing whether we really do have a massive future shortfall coming, and what are we going to do about it.

Can’t answer for the rest of you, but I started saving for retirement by 17 years old when I purchased a Whole Life Insurance policy. Then, instead of taking frequent vacations, I started buying stocks and properties in my 20s. I certainly hope to get some of my SSI taxes back in the future, but I’m prepared for the worst.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

“i have not argued that conservatives care more than liberals. that isn’t my position. my original comment was in response to your post that conservatives don’t care, or that liberals care more.”

No but that was the original point that I have been refuting. Someone brought up that conservatives care more because they give more to “charity” and that makes liberal hypocrites. Not my point.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

kimberly - i concur. TODAY’s shortfall is not reflective of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the program. and candidly, a future shortfall isn’t evidence the program doesn’t work and should be scrapped - a future shortfall simply indicates the program doesn’t fund itself because the population and economic assumptions that the program was based on are outdated. fact is, people live longer and there are fewer workers relative to retirees. and while i don’t argue that the program succeeds in accomplishing its goals, i cannot ignore the cost side of the equation. the success of the program doesn’t exist solely in a vacuum.

just speaking for myself, my frustration with the left is that their answer always seems to be more money and more gov’t, which as we both agree, is rife with mismanagement regardless of which party is running it. the GOP used to be the party of fiscal responsibility - of smaller gov’t. i agreed with them when they were the minority party and said spending was out of control. but look at them now and what several years of power has done! i feel like the only fiscal conservative left sometimes.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Talking about humor, how about Joe L’s efforts yesterday to “interpret” the fact that conservatives outgive Libs 2:1 to somehow “prove” that Libs are actually more generous? I haven’t seen such mental gymnastics since the 2000 elections in which Dem lawyers argued that the actual vote count didn’t matter, because we have sampling polls to show that people “intended” to vote for Gore.

Of course, what can you expect from a guy who looks at Creation and sees nothing but a series of happy accidents?

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

woof-man - i can’t speak for everyone in my generation, but as a young person i’m assuming that SS will not be part of the retirement equation for me. most people that i interact with in my age range feel similarly. whether they actually plan their personal finances for the future commensurate with that belief, i don’t know, but i do.

my expectations for my gov’t are incredibly low. that way i won’t be disappointed later.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

my expectations for my gov’t are incredibly low. that way i won’t be disappointed later.

bla—I’m somewhat surprised that you are a young person. The maturity of your blogs impresses me. Glad to know that 8 years of Clinton didn’t ruin all of our young people for life.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

blabla - First given no real changes in the projections Soc Sec will not be “broke” in 30 yrs (i.e. completely out of money). It will still be able to pay around 70% of current benefits. So absolute worse case scenario is everyone’s benefits drop 30%.

Also mind you that this is also because of a temporary hump caused by the baby boom that will smooth out in the future. So taking money from the rainy day funds is a significantly bigger problem and contributor than you are making out.

The point is that the worst case scenario is not a bad as people are portraying it (people hear “unfunded” when it should be “underfunded” and believe there will be absolutely no benefits at that point) and it will take some small changes to maintain the current system. Changes that are completely reasonable and probably need to be made period just to keep up with inflation and economical changes.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

2D:”If my spouse and I pass prior to retirement and after my children are 18, noone in my family would get anything from all of the money I and my spouse paid into the system. That is just not right.

The “full” retirement age increases all of the time. In fact, mine has been raised 6 years since I made my first FICA payment. That is just not right either.”

Okay my first point is I don’t see how what you have suggested handles your original point of “more” security for “less” money.

As to these two points, you pay taxes to the government all the time and nothing passes to your chidren. Do you think that all the money you pay into car insurance that you don’t claim should pass to your children? I never understand that conservatives crow about “personal responsibility” and want to give their kids a hand out. How about your kids take the “personal responsibility” to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and make their own way?

As far as the retirement age issue, the truth is that retirement age is not based on how many years from birth you are but how many years from death. And since we live longer now we have to retire later (in a actuarial sense). It’s not “unfair” that the retirement age is rising because on average you will collect Soc Sec for the same or a longer time than previous beneficiaries.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Why is everyone wringing their hands over Social Security anyway?? The solution to the “underfunding” is simple: Raise the minimum age at which you can collect benefits. The number “65” was chosen a long time ago when life spans were much shorter on average. Now that folks are living much longer, it makes sense to raise the age of retirement.

Also, if any of you ever bother to look into it, the real problem with SSI isn’t the retirement portion, it’s the Disability portion that is out of control. They believe people who are drunks and drug addicts are “disabled” and need our tax dollars.

By DebbieDoRight

February 22, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Susie—The two facts I mentioned are not hard to research. His father, who is not named Martin either, “explained” later that he “intended” to call him Martin, despite what the actual birth certificate reads

At his birth, his aunt wrote his name in the bible as Martin Luther; the bible sits in the Musuem in Atlanta. Bible records can be used as actual birth certificates.

The info about him beating up women comes from FBI surveillance tapes.

The link you provided, and NUMEROUS biographies written by associates, critics, and admirers NEVER mentioned this. There are NO FBI TAPES that state that either. This according to your OWN link.

I’m sure you interpret my researching the facts as just one more Whitey trying to discredit a brother

I don’t play race games. And I don’t care for people who do. My family is a true rainbow coalition comprised of darn near every nationality you can think of, (except maybe Chinese — although my sister-in-law is Japanese), and I refuse to stoop to the level of race baiting.

My real objective, of course, is to know the truth about this man who is now Deified by Libs

Then you should search for the truth with an open mind - -not search for slander with glee.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Joe—it looks like we finally agree on two things: (1) Raise the minimum age for retirement and (2) Kids don’t need inheritances to succeed. In fact, most of the folks I know who inherited a lot of money frittered it away. All of the truly wealthy people I know earned it themselves.

By 2D

February 22, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Woof-man… The age has already been raised several times.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Then you should search for the truth with an open mind - -not search for slander with glee.

I’m not sure how you interpret following up on rumors as a search for slander with glee. It didn’t make me happy to know that MLK was bogus. BTW, it has been proven that he plagiarized his way through school, and even lifted a large section of his “I Have A Dream Speech” from someone else.

I think the Civil Rights Movement was the second greatest event in our country. However, unlike you, I feel no need to Deify corrupt people.

By The Old Biddie

February 22, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Well hello. Mind if I add a few cents to the topic of SSI?

Please check tally of all Disability payments now being made by your state. Check and see how much disability is being paid out to people who are not at retirement age—>you will find the problem is NOT old folks on SS who paid taxes but over-lived their share of input— but the loopholes created the entitlement programs. The current load these programs are ponderous in rural areas and have eclipsed welfare because welfare is far more regulated and has restrictions and reviews. Appear before a judge and your lawyer gets you 400/mo. with Medicaid and housing subsidy. Please go ahead and compare cash pay-out of those on disability at 30 years age with senior citizens and you will discover more money will be paid out to folks on disability over time than SSI recipients. We have a plethora of disabled people taking money from entitlements now who have not reached retirement age. Granted some folks should be on disability but did you know you can get on for stuff like: addictions, nervous ticks, incontinence, speech impediments, bad housing, (I am sure if you get a bad face lift and have trauma you can apply and receive disability) RLS (thats restless leg syndrome) and obesity? Why you can even get a gastric bypass provided for you free of cost if you are obese —and afterwards—you still dont have to try to find a job because you qualified once for disability and there are so many people in the system and so few judges its a good bet you will never be called for a review.

You want change in SSI? Start changing the entitlement mentality that has fostered in people younger than 68.

Woofie: current age of retirement is 68—70 if you want the full package. 65 for folks like me. Wink. Wink. For XYZ generations after Boomers it will be 73—80.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Woof-man… The age has already been raised several times.

In comparison to a traditional annuity plan, SSI is “unfair” in that they can change the basic contract at any time with no legal recourse. Why do you think I started my own retirement plan at age 17?

I’m not mentioning my efforts to win praise or admiration from the other bloggers, but to challenge all of you to get off your butts, stop wasting your money on expensive cars, and start saving.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Please check tally of all Disability payments now being made by your state. Check and see how much disability is being paid out to people who are not at retirement age—>you will find the problem is NOT old folks on SS who paid taxes but over-lived their share of input— but the loopholes created the entitlement programs.

Old Biddie, careful about stating all those facts. The Libs here don’t want to know the facts. It’s funny, I get no credit here except when someone who actually knows what they are talking about comes on board.

By Monica

February 22, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack! I’m with ya on the fair tax.

Bla, don’t know your exact age, but I’m 30-something and am not counting on SS either. If the money is there, I ‘ll have a happy surprise!

Don’t inmates’ families receive SS funding if the inmate is/was the only breadwinner? Might be another contributing factor to reduced funds.

And…

Will the real Chilao please stand up?

By The Old Biddy

February 22, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

stop wasting your money on expensive cars, and start saving

Yes but remember we are spending to help the economy: to quote GWB. Remember we need to buy, buy, buy to support American business…

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Raising the age is one possible solution if necessary, but I don’t know if it’s needed. Simply raising the FICA tax ceiling will probably be enough. And there is no reason not to. There’s also the possibility of an increase in the tax rate although I don’t know if this would be necessary if the tax ceiling was raised.

I just find it hypocritical that a group that rails about personal responsibility and hand outs gets upset when it’s their handout that gets taxed and reduces the personal responsibility of their children. But most hardline ideologues on either side express large amounts of hypocrisy although I tend to see more on the right.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack! I’m with ya on the fair tax.

I wish I could join you guys in endorsing the “Fair Tax”, but I think it is simply a matter of the grass looking greener on the other side of the fence. Shifting the entire burden of tax collection to shopkeepers will be problematic.

Will the real Chilao please stand up?

Unfortunately, Monica, I think he has. Seriously, what is your opinion of someone who stores information about strangers on his computer? I admit to boorishness by flirting with kimberly on the blog, but what he’s doing seems to be taking things to a new level, IMO. Makes you wonder who else he has stored info about on his computer. Very creepy

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

joe - unfortunately, your argument that the worst case scenario isn’t so bad is based on projections for the future that SPAN OVER THIRTY YEARS. there are so many assumptions that go into a projection of that nature, over such a long period of time, that a projection like that is virtually meaningless.

who knows what will happen to human lifespans, immigration, birth rates and economic growth rates over this period of time? the world will be significantly different in thirty years and the assumptions we make today about the future will almost surely be wildly incorrect in far less time than thirty years.

not to get too personal, but much of what i do requires business forecasting and making decisions about what to do today based on that forecast. if i were to forecast a business for thirty years and then try to argue that we should take action today based on where we will stand in thirty years, i would be laughed out of the room. and rightly so. i do not intend to be insulting, but basing your position that the worst case scenario isn’t so bad on a thirty year forecast strikes me as ludicrous.

on the one hand, one could argue that since we can’t forecast the future, we don’t definitively know that we’ll ever have a significant problem with SS. and such a response would be reasonable. however, when did you ever know the gov’t to accurately forecast its monetary needs…for anything? if the gov’t thinks there will be a 30% shortfall in 30 years, do you think the actual shortfall will be bigger or smaller than that? i know what my answer is.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Yes but remember we are spending to help the economy: to quote GWB. Remember we need to buy, buy, buy to support American business…

Old Biddie, the only reason I support Bush is that the alternative is so much worse. I cringe every time I hear a “conservative” crowing about driving an SUV. Not very “conservative” in my book. More like gluttonous.

I just find it hypocritical that a group that rails about personal responsibility and hand outs gets upset when it’s their handout that gets taxed and reduces the personal responsibility of their children. But most hardline ideologues on either side express large amounts of hypocrisy although I tend to see more on the right.

I do support the “Death Tax”, although I don’t think your criticism of people wanting to leave money to their children rather than giving it to strangers via taxes makes much sense. My support for the Death Tax is based on the simple recognition that we need X dollars per year to run the government. Taking it from dead people vs. taking it from living people is ok by me.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

“Old Biddie, careful about stating all those facts”

Careful about calling something a fact without associated proof. Is our disability system rife with problems? Sure. Should a lot of these people get nothing more than a kick in the butt? Absolutely. But there is absolutely no way that any sort of illegimate disabilities come close to approaching the amount of money paid out to 40 million retirees (and I may be undershooting that number). If EIGHT million people were incorrectly drawing disability they would have to do so for about 50 years to account for the amount of money a retiree is going to require.

Classic case of overblowing a legitimate problem to make it seem like the entire system is broken.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

woof-man & monica - i recently had to start grappling with the fact that i’ve hit the big three oh.

joe - as for the inheritance/personal responsibility issue - IMO, the choices that i make concerning how i distribute my wealth when i leave should be left with me. i will teach my children personal responsibility, but it is not up to you or any other person (in or out of gov’t) to dictate what advantages i choose to pass to my children or the magnatude of those advantages. i may choose to leave my kids a large portion of my wealth, or a much smaller portion of my wealth, but frankly, i view it as a personal decision that is mine alone to make. why are you more entitled to my wealth than my heirs?

By Old Biddie

February 22, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

Woofie: I am a frothing liberal but see I want people held up to yearly reviews (like the IRS does) and some to undergo drug tests including senate, etc I dont believe rhetoric of liberal vs conservative and find people who rant against people by group very boring and highly influenced by television pundits: whose job is to talk and raise fur—but contribute zero to society. I want my government held accountable to budgets—factual budgets—but I dont live in a dream world where I believe it actually will happen.

No, Monica. You do not receive SSI funding if your husband/wife is incarcerated. You get SSI if your husband/wife was incarcerated and cannot hold down a job because of post-incarceration syndrome.

I kid you not.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

woof-man & monica - i recently had to start grappling with the fact that i’ve hit the big three oh.

Some old man advice for you, bla: It doesn’t get any better than the thirties. Enjoy every single year of them, you’re a long way from old. Unfortunately, when you hit your 40s, you start having a few health problems, like bad knees, etc., that let you know every day that the end is in sight. Obviously, our physical losses are offset by gains in wisdom and self-assuredness, but I’ll take blissfully ignorant youth in a heartbeat.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

“who knows what will happen to human lifespans, immigration, birth rates and economic growth rates over this period of time? the world will be significantly different in thirty years and the assumptions we make today about the future will almost surely be wildly incorrect in far less time than thirty years.”

I could make the same argument to say that the whole thing will be hunky dory in 30 years! Barring any crazy shifts which are completely unpredicatable and therefore moot to either side we have a pretty good idea what is going to happen. I would say the 30 years is a worst case scenario within any sort of framework beyond complete collapse of our economy. And that renders all of these discussions moot.

You can’t necessarily use the business comparison because an individual business (or even an entire industry) is much more volatile than an economy as a whole. Looking at a picture that big fixes many of the issues that apply to the kind of projections you are talking about.

“if the gov’t thinks there will be a 30% shortfall in 30 years, do you think the actual shortfall will be bigger or smaller than that? i know what my answer is.”

It depends on whose making the prediction. Republicans use the absolute worse numbers than can drum up to make it look worse. But those numbers I quoted come from both the GAO, which is one of the most reliable gov’t agencies there is, as well as many, many independent economists.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

this link, from the property address YOU posted here when you were trying to sell it to everyone here?

that the one?

https://dklbweb.dekalbga.org/TaxAssessor/realDisplay.asp?PID=18%20213%2004%20014

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Joe—One last question, and I really gotta go for the day. I’ve stated many times that I believe that Libs have their hearts in the right place, although I usually disagree with the proposed solutions they offer. Can you find it in your heart to give Conservatives the same respect, the same benefit of the doubt?

Personally, I’ve never heard a Lib compliment a Conservative for being sincere.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

i wouldn’t be against raising the income limit on the SS taxes. what is the income limit now - 7.5% from employee and 7.5% from employer on the first $90ish thousand? something like that, right?

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Chilao—I think a lot of bloggers, including myself, used to think that you were a “cool” guy. By you crossing the line of human decency, regardless of the “righteousness” of your motive, I don’t see how anyone can still hold that opinion of you.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

“the choices that i make concerning how i distribute my wealth when i leave should be left with me”

It’s not about YOUR wealth it’s about THEIR income. So if I win the lottery why don’t I get to decide how my wealth should be distributed? Because both people did the same amount of work to get that money - none. Why are you entitled to the lottery winners wealth? Why is anyone taxed? Let’s just get rid of taxes and all government and live in anarchy!

You can give your money to your children, charity, whatever you want. But anyone who receives income - particularly large influxes for no actual output - gets taxed. The bs “death tax” talk is just another cause of the wealthy trying to protect their handouts.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

And to all you bloggers who take this board so seriously: Get a grip on reality, will you? No one’s “blog name” is sacred, it’s just a bunch of B.S., got it?? I didn’t “steal” Chilao’s name, as any reasonable review of the evidence will show. And even if I did (which I didn’t), is that a “crime”?? If so, who do I sue for stealing “my” blog names over and over??

And all of you who accuse me of “strange motivations” for blogging on W2W, what are your excuses?? At least I’m not cheating my employer, as most of you are doing.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

But as I told chuck earlier: If you have a personal “blog” beef with me worth meeting up in real life about, come on over anytime. I’m not afraid of a F-ing Pu$$y like you, got it?

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

“Can you find it in your heart to give Conservatives the same respect, the same benefit of the doubt?”

As individuals or as a group? The reason I can’t assign the same “benefit of doubt” you are talking about is because the very basic philosophies of each group show where each group’s motivations lie. That’s not to say that some people in each group are aberrations to the overall group philosophy but for the most part people are part of the group because they are attracted to the core philosophy. And to me the core philosophy of liberalism is helping others and advancing society as a whole. Conservatism is about maintaining status quo and advancing the individual. Which is why you are hard pressed in any society to find a conservative group that is mostly composed of anything but the people that are currently a dominant class.

Of course liberals have good intentions, it’s one of the basic tenets of their philosophy. Good intentions are not one of the core principles of conservatism (not that individual conservatives don’t have good intentions). And of course, hell is paved with good intentions.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Blabla - Yes the current FICA ceiling is 90K. Just raising that to $130K which is about a typical director salary would come close if not completely fund Soc Sec.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

I could make the same argument to say that the whole thing will be hunky dory in 30 years!

i made that point for you if you read my whole post. but you would also see why i think that attitude is misplaced.

*Barring any crazy shifts which are completely unpredicatable and therefore moot to either side we have a pretty good idea what is going to happen.

REALLY? you think so? do you honestly believe the gov’t can forecast its needs for SS thirty years into the future given the rate of change in our population and its demographic makeup?

let’s test that - why not pull out their economic forecasts from the late 1970’s, and let’s see how well they did. heck, let’s pull out the economic forecasts of ten years ago (at the end of the go-go 90’s) and see how close they were. care to make a gentlemenly wager that none of the forecasts are close to where we are today?

i won’t argue that the GAO has an axe to grind on this issue. i agree with you that it is the best source of figures to look at. but common sense tells me that the GAO will be wrong in whatever it forecasts, for a whole host of reasons.

By Old Biddy

February 22, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Remember your wealth is tied to dollars—and if the dollar devalues then your wealth tanks… POOF! Check your assets and make sure not all are tied to the American dollar…Wink. Wink.

I like Chilao. He recommends great books, films and keeps a positive and respectful attitude toward those who contribute here. I dont fear him and his collection of Woofie tirades….

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

“let’s test that - why not pull out their economic forecasts from the late 1970’s, and let’s see how well they did.”

Umm actually the completely changed Soc Sec in 1983 because they knew that there would be issues 30-50 years down the road otherwise. So yes I think there will not be a catastrophic failure in the system in 20-30 years (minus an entire economic catastrophy as I already pointed out). If we had kept to what they did then and had not raided the Al Gore voice lockbox then we would be much, much better off if not completely fine now.

Then by your “common sense” NOTHING can be predicted and therefore we can plan for nothing. Paralysis of analysis my friend. If we restrict ourselves to only 5-10 year windows then we are fine financially and when we get to a point where we are not IT’S TOO LATE.

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

without getting loopy about not taxing anybody, you’re arguing that if people didn’t earn money they shouldn’t have it. i’m sorry, but there is no perfect economic equality in our capitalist system.

i view it about how my wealth is treated. to you, it’s about the unearned income of my heirs. we disagree - so be it. but consider this: i am sure there are tons of people out there that work much harder than i do that make much less than i do. is that fair? no, but does that mean you believe that my salary should be commensurate with how hard i work? in our system, neither economic income nor net worth are dictated by how hard you work or whether you “earned” your income or wealth. you can’t change that, and griping about the wealthy’s “handouts” to their kids reeks of nothing more than envy. “they didn’t earn it so make they shouldn’t have it…make the gov’t take it!!”

By blablabla

February 22, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

i have to go. i’ve enjoyed it, joe. i’ll try to be around tomorrow.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

“you’re arguing that if people didn’t earn money they shouldn’t have it.”

No I’m arguing that money not earned should be taxed just like money earned is (are arguably more). I never said they shouldn’t have it.

Why should my children get income tax free merely because I gave it to them? If I started a company with that money the employees would be taxed on their income and at least they would work an honest day to get it.

Quite simply inheritance is the ultimate anti-capitalist thing. And for people who tend to believe capitalism is a cure all they have a real problem with it when it comes down to their money.

By Ronnie B

February 22, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

How about this, Shanti:

Let’s convince these blacks that it’s best for them to live amongst each other so that they’re “comfortable”, and all that. Once they’re thoroughly convinced that they don’t need us (goodness knows that we don’t want them) then the rest of us can live elsewhere, inflate our property values and not be bothered. The best part is, we can have segregation again but this time it’ll be guilt free. They can have their own poorly performing schools, but so long as they don’t know any different (meaning that ours are better) then this thing could work. Everybody wins. See?

By Old Biddy

February 22, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

But as I told chuck earlier: If you have a personal “blog” beef with me worth meeting up in real life about, come on over anytime. I’m not afraid of a F-ing Pu$$y like you, got it?

Woofie: Why cant you use some manly curse like “scrotum breath*? Must you constantly devalue women whenever you have a petty tirade? Think about it as being just one reason some people are suspicious of your genteel and highly bragged on intellect and prosperity.

By Chilao

February 22, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

He recommends great books, films and keeps a positive and respectful attitude toward those who contribute here

thank you. food for thought for others on that last part there.

I COULD have done a Dog and claim he MADE ME DO IT, but …. I am sure I will post it again, should he wish to continue his own tirade as well.

since I enjoyed it so. LOL

regardless of what people might think about me, I am certain there are some getting quite the laugh. LMAO

By 2D

February 22, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Joe… Please explain how inheiritence is the ultimate anti-capitalist thing. I need a good laugh.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Because capitalism revolves around wealth being generated through effort and innovation. Inheriting money requires neither. It’s quite clear.

By chuck

February 22, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

One thing joe:

Raising the age is one possible solution if necessary, but I don’t know if it’s needed. Simply raising the FICA tax ceiling will probably be enough. And there is no reason not to.

Does that mean that you are also in favor of taking off the BENEFIT CAP as well?

The SS formula stops taxing at $90,000 because it caps benefits at that level of income. Why should someone who will not receive a return on their “contributions” beyond that amount of income continue PAYING at a level beyond that level?

As for the raiding of the SS trust fund, this occurs primarily because congress refuses to take Social Security “OFF BUDGET”. Different groups have tried to do this at various times including Republicans in the mid 80’s and Gore in 2000. Instead SS remains in the general budget where it is ripe for the picking. My question to you and BC is “Why are you afraid of FREE AMERICANS having more control over their OWN MONEY and their own futures?”

You are all for individual freedom when it applies to VICES like homosexuality and abortion, but God forbid someone with FILTHY MONEY, have any freedom to do with it what they please.

By chuck

February 22, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

Another crazy statement that proves you have no concept of how the world or our government works:

No I’m arguing that money not earned should be taxed just like money earned is (are arguably more). I never said they shouldn’t have it.

The DEATH TAX rate is at 77%. The current highest tax bracket is I think 33%. The death tax takes money away from the families that EARNED it and gives it to families that DID NOT EARN IT. How is that any different than outright theft? Did you pay taxes on the Christmas gifts and Birthday gifts that you received last year? Of course not. If I earn money and want to give it to my children…at what point does the government have any right to ANY of it? A gift is NOT INCOME. If it is, I’d like to see proof that you paid the taxes on yours.

By chuck

February 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Chilao, It is wicked funny. As I recall, you are one of the few who didn’t rag on me for doing what I did in the first place. He doesn’t have enough sense to ignore stuff like that.

BRUDOG, you really need to lighten up.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

“The death tax takes money away from the families that EARNED it and gives it to families that DID NOT EARN IT.”

Bull. The FAMILY did not earn it, the individual who passes the inheritance. It’s free money no different than winning the lottery.

And you precede this with another absolute LIE: “The answer is complicated. Prior to the estate tax reduction, estates were taxed at rates beginning at 37 percent and going as high as 55 percent. Generally, the estate tax only applied to assets exceeding $1 million. ” http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/estatetax/f/estatetaxrate.htm

Hmmm 37-55% is a far cry for you made up 77% figure.

So winning the lottery is a gift. Why should it be taxed? And I hate to break it to you Chuck but yet again you are WRONG. Gifts are indeed taxable income.

By Monica

February 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

OFF TOPIC: I’m so grateful to the ajc for letting me know the status of Brittney and her rehab adventures. Really, does that have to be the first picture that I see when I pull up that website?

Joe L, Chuck, et al… your debates about the death tax are putting the “I’m spending my kids’ inheritance” bumper sticker in a new light! I guess if I’m still alive by a certain age, I’ll just start buying things for my children and grandchildren so that my money won’t be given to someone else instead of my family! Either that, or I’ll start taking some lavish vacations… yeah, selfish, I know, I know. :)

By 2D

February 22, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Joe… That is where you are incorrect. The family did help to earn the money. Spouses support each other in their careers. Sometimes that is constant relocation. Sometimes that is giving up a career to care for children. Sometimes that is actually pitching in with some of the work without receiving a paycheck. Sometimes it is just a mental and moral support that is needed to push through the difficult times.

In the end, it shouldn’t really matter. The person who earned the money should be able to do with it as they see fit. Spend it, give it to whom they choose, light it on fire and dance around it.

You are correct about gifts being taxable income, if it is above a certain threshold on a per year basis. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Yup Monica, I’m with you. I could see giving my kids enough money to buy a comfortable house if I had it and that’s about it. And that would fall well below the threshold of estate tax. Only about 1% of inheritances every get the estate tax applied which is yet another reason that 99% of the people in arms about it are idiots.

I think it’s telling that Warren Buffet plans to put nearly all of his money into a charitable organization and not to his children. His opinion is they got a great advantage with their upbringing and know they should succeed or fail on their own merits, not his: “In that, we agreed with Andrew Carnegie, who said that huge fortunes that flow in large part from society should in large part be returned to society….

Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it’s neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money.

In effect, they’ve had a gigantic headstart in a society that aspires to be a meritocracy. Dynastic mega-wealth would further tilt the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level.”

Yeah that Warren Buffett is such an anti-capitalist.

By chuck

February 22, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

I stand corrected little joe. The tax rate on estates is ACTUALLY 46% for estates valued at 2,000,000 or more. HOWEVER, it was reduced to this rate in 2005. ALSO, if the gift is made to a GRANDCHILD, it is taxed at the rate of 72%. Cole enough to 77%. It still amounts to STEALING money from the families that EARNED it to give it to those who DID NOT. Even if it was only 1% it would be theft. The money was already taxed when it was EARNED.

http://www.savewealth.com/planning/estate/taxes/

These rates were also verified on the IRS.gov website.

By chuck

February 22, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

BTW, winning the lottery is NOT a GIFT. You pay for the chance to WIN it. If you have to WIN SOMETHING it is not a GIFT.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

“In the end, it shouldn’t really matter. The person who earned the money should be able to do with it as they see fit. Spend it, give it to whom they choose, light it on fire and dance around it.”

So should they be able to give it to anyone income-free? Should they be able to spend it tax free? Sorry but we live in a society of laws and you don’t just get to decide how YOU want to do it.

Why shouldn’t gifts be taxable? Of course they should! Or else I would give my buddy who owns a car dealership a $30K “gift” and he would give me a car as a “gift”. Complete bull and you know it. Gifts are income. The lottery is income. And INHERITANCES are income.

NO ONE is telling them who they can give it or to or not. All they are doing is taxing the FREE INCOME those people get like any other income. To do otherwise is insanity.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

Yet another myth of the right, “double taxation”. Every dollar is probably taxed 5,6, 20 times! If my company makes a money it’s taxed. So I guess I shouldn’t have to pay taxes on my income. Or my income is taxed so I shouldn’t have to pay income tax. Complete bull. The money going to that person FOR FREE was never taxed when it was received as THEIR INCOME!

The people RECEIVING the money have not been taxed on that income. It’s not more “theft” than any other tax. Just the selfish and greedy and money grubbing trying to hold onto their disease.

By Kevin

February 22, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

Joe you said:

Bull. The FAMILY did not earn it, the individual who passes the inheritance. It’s free money no different than winning the lottery.

Not true. A farmer’s sons and daughters that have worked from dawn to dusk sowing and reaping crops have earned the right to have the family farm without the death tax. The same holds true for any family business.

If I started a company with that money the employees would be taxed on their income and at least they would work an honest day to get it.

And by taxing a family business you might force the children to sell it, putting some if not all of the employees out of work. And unless I am misunderstanding your Deanspeak, I take it that you are insinuating that conservatives don’t come by their money with an honest day’s work (and not just when it comes to inheritance).

You and Bruno MIGHT win me over with the argument that personal property such real estate, cars, etc., should be taxed. I can see both sides of the issue.

Bla and 2D - I have enjoyed reading your comments. Keep up the good work.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

“BTW, winning the lottery is NOT a GIFT. You pay for the chance to WIN it. If you have to WIN SOMETHING it is not a GIFT.”

Oh so the person that actually PAID something should get taxed but the person that did nothing but slide down a particular birth canal shouldn’t? Even more great logic from the “mind” of chuck.

The inheritors won the genetic lottery the second they were born. At least the lottery winner paid for a ticket with ALREADY TAXED money! So another case of “double taxation” here Chuck! Every dollar that purchased a lottery ticket and comprised the winnings was already taxed. So you should be fighting as hard to have lottery winnings untaxed.

By Joe L

February 22, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

“Not true. A farmer’s sons and daughters that have worked from dawn to dusk sowing and reaping crops have earned the right to have the family farm without the death tax. The same holds true for any family business.”

Ah yes, the another right wing bogeyman “the small farmer”. Less than 5% of farms are ever affected by estate taxes. So few Americans even own farms anymore that this is nearly an anachronistic argument. You are being manipulated to give the ultra wealthy untaxed income while you work hard every day and pay your fair share.

“Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close. Fact: This issue has been wildly exaggerated. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell. Fact: As with family businesses, this issue has been distorted. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.”

http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html

“I take it that you are insinuating that conservatives don’t come by their money with an honest day’s work “

I never said or insinuated any such thing. Far from it.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Just keep remembering Chilao’s performance here, ladies. He stores personal info about people on his computer, then threatens to use it to “punish” them if things don’t go his way. Then, he likes to give lectures about his great personal integrity.

By Woof-Man

February 22, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

And chuck, if I make it to Hell before you do, I’ll try to save you a good seat, ok? In the meantime, have a good laugh with your new pal Chilao.

By Kevin

February 22, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Joe -

I never said a small farmer or a small family business. It doesn’t matter; those people affected earn the right to receive the family inheritance tax free.

And please forgive me if I take the “information” provided in your link with a grain of salt (although since it is a liberal website I am SURE their motives are altruistic). I am certain you would find the information from this link rather dubious: http://www.deathtax.com/deathtax/faq.html.

By diazepam and cramps

February 22, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

Hello, I need help lortab picture | buy carisoprodol | hydrocodone | celexa | fioricet http://lortabx12e3.blogspot.com/ http://carisoprodol68o9c.blogspot.com/ http://hydrocodone384lv.blogspot.com/ http://celexa83uzo.blogspot.com/

By lipitor and itching

February 22, 2007 8:03 PM | Link to this

Greetings! Undoubtedly, you will reach big success with your site. hydrocodone | purchase alprazolam | lortab | diazepam | carisoprodol http://hydrocodone384lv.blogspot.com/ http://alprazolamm8pu4.blogspot.com/ http://lortabx12e3.blogspot.com/ http://diazepamhtmjo.blogspot.com/

By Viagra

February 22, 2007 8:34 PM | Link to this

You have made a good site viagra http://kuso.cc/1e6P [url=http://kuso.cc/1e6P]cheap viagra[/url]

By Ardell_Cole

February 23, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

È âñåãî-òî ïàðà ñöûëî÷åê :) íàëîãîîáëîæåíèå îöåíêà áèçíåñà

Óäà÷è âñåì!

By Brian Curtis

February 23, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

Kevin: You’re right. That site’s info is clearly slanted and carefully phrased to mislead. The one you linked to, I mean.

By 2D

February 23, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

Joe… First, I think you are mixing my points with Chuck. I never said anything about lottery winnings not being taxed. You and I were discussing inheiritence and gifts and the appropriate taxing of such things. We were also discussing the merits of leaving (or not) your family substantial portions of your estate because they did nothing to earn the estate.

I think that I and the farm post showed that family does in many cases provide substantial support to the accumulation of wealth whether it is through direct participation in the business or anscillary support. Taxing the bequeathed property is a different discussion. While I can see your point that it is income, I find your this piece of logic disgusting:

“Only about 1% of inheritances every get the estate tax applied which is yet another reason that 99% of the people in arms about it are idiots.”

That could be paraphrased as:

“Don’t worry about it, only the rich people are going to have to pay.”

I don’t believe rich people should be treated any differnt than middle-class or poor people. I’ll never be “rich” but I also don’t believe those that have should be forced to pay more because they are. You cite that only 3 out of 10000 people leave businesses or farms that comprise their estate. I don’t care if it is 1 in a million, families shouldn’t be forced to sell their farm or business to pay taxes upon someone’s death. While it may be legal, I believe it is wrong.

By chuck

February 23, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Brudog, first, I don’t have “buddies” on the blog. These are people that I don’t know and except for you I don’t even know their names. I wouldn’t know YOUR NAME if you hadn’t been such a pain in the proverbial butt.

Second, I could not POSSIBLY care less what you think, say or threaten on this blog. You are nothing more than a lonely middle-aged guy trying to make a connection because every relationship in your life has fallen apart. While that is pitiable of course, there isn’t much anybody on this blog can do about that. You are obviously a masochist, because you intentionally bring this abuse upon yourself. I know this blog is cheap therapy, but remember, you get what you pay for. Scrape some money together and go see a real therapist. They may be able to prescribe something for these paranoid schizophrenic episodes you keep having. In fact, they may take your case for free. After all, how many times do you see someone suffering from all of your maladies. Hmmmmmm, a masochistic, paranoid-schizophrenic sociopath, with delusions of grandeur and an oedipus complex. Now that’s one for the medical journals.

By chuck

February 23, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

2D, I never said anything about lottery winnings not being taxed either. What I said was that lottery winnings are not a gift OR an inheritance or already taxed income.

By Brian Curtis

February 23, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

Chuck, it’s rare that I agree with you on anything. But on the pathetic and pompous Bruno the Troll, you’re 100% on-target. There’s nothing more annoying than a mean-spirited moron trying to convince everyone he’s intelligent.

By chuck

February 23, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

It’s easy for little joe to advocate wealth confiscation because he never anticipates HAVING anything to leave to his children.

By chuck

February 23, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

oops…ON already taxed income

By chuck

February 23, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

oops again OF already taxed income. My brain must be on Friday time.

Joke Friday:

Upon getting to work one morning, seventy-five year old Marvin is reminded by his secretary that it’s his wife’s birthday today. At lunch, Marvin goes to the local mall and tries to find a gift for her.

Unfortunately, he realizes that life has been good and she has everything she needs. Upon passing a lingerie store, Marvin realizes that his wife has never bought any lingerie in her life. He gets the idea to buy his wife something sexy to make her feel good and young.

Marvin goes into the store and tells the clerk to wrap up the most expensive, sheerest negligee she has. Marvin takes the gift and excitedly runs home to his wife.

Upon finding her in the kitchen he tells her to take the gift upstairs and unwrap it. He’ll wait in the kitchen. His wife thanks him and goes up to the bedroom.

Once the package is opened she realizes that this is something she has never had before. She also sees that it is so sheer it leaves nothing to the imagination. She thinks for a moment and then decides that she’ll really surprise Marvin and go downstairs without any clothes on at all. So she leaves the negligee on the bed and starts down the stairs stark naked. She calls out, ‘Marvin, come out to the hallway and look.’

Marvin walks out to the staircase, looks up at his wife, and exclaims, ‘All that money and they didn’t even iron it.’

By chuck

February 23, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

A man phones home from his office and tells his wife: “Something has just come up. I have a chance to go fishing for a week. It’s the opportunity of a lifetime. We leave right away. So please pack my clothes, my fishing equipment, and especially my blue.silk pajamas. I’ll be home in an hour to pick them up.”

He goes home in a hurry and grabs everything and rushes off. A week later he returns. His wife asks: “Did you have a good trip, dear?” He says: “Oh yes, great! But you forgot to pack my blue silk pajamas.” His wife smiles and says, “Oh no I didn’t. I put them in your tackle box!”

By Kevin

February 23, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

BC - of course my website is misleading. I thought I was clear with that statement! My website is nothing more than political talking points. But the information on Joe’s website is false as well. There are over 2 million farms in the US with an average acreage of 441. 98% of them are family farms. The 2 percent of non family farms account for only 14% of the total agricultural output (these numbers come from the USDA for 2003).

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

Umm actually the completely changed Soc Sec in 1983

sorry, joe, i should have been more clear – i didn’t simply mean GAO forecasts for SS. i meant that we should look at economic forecasts from the GAO on a host of topics and see how they did. let’s take their future inflation prediction for 2007 from 1977 and see how accurate it was. or their 1977 prediction for what GDP would be in 2007…

if you’re so willing to hang your hat on those predictions, then show me that they can be even remotely accurate. but you’re right, i don’t believe anything with as many variables as the US economy, immigration, birth rates, etc., can be predicted with much accuracy thirty years out. where i differ from you is that i would err on the side of conservatism – that whatever predictions we have will underestimate the true need for the system. if our 30 year predictions say we’re going to be short, let’s assume it’s going to be even worse than our prediction indicates, since our prediction will be wrong one way or another. if we end up with more than we need, great. but if not, we started addressing the future shortfall a long time ago.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

joe -

gifts are income. sometimes they are taxable and sometimes they’re not. currently it depends on the amount. i think the 2006 figure for a tax free gift was $12,000/year. however, let me make clear that wealth transfers happen all the time and they’re not all taxed. what makes the estate tax sooo different? and why only certain estates? you will have a challenge convincing me that the gov’t should be more entitled to the fruits of my labor (at a 55% clip) than my nuclear family or other heirs, especially when only certain estates are targeted by the tax.

Just the selfish and greedy and money grubbing trying to hold onto their disease

it’s funny that you think we’re selfish/greedy/money grubbing to believe that our wealth should stay with our families, since they’re the ones who put up with us and supported us while i earned it. to me, trying to put a middle man in between my family and I is the truly greedy part.

you say it’s about income for my heirs. but that’s not how the IRS sees it. the IRS defines: the estate tax is a tax on my right to transfer property at my death. the estate tax is paid in a lump sum. so if i set up a trust that pays my kids an income over a period of time, the tax would still be paid up front even though my kids received the “income” over a longer period. given that, and the IRS’s own definition of the tax, it is clearly a “taxing my wealth” issue rather than “taxing the unearned income of my heirs”. the wealth is taxed based on its value at my death, not over the time that my heirs receive it as income.

so it only impacts estates over $2mm. who’s really caught by this? …i bet folks said the same thing about AMT twenty or thirty years ago – look how well that’s been indexed over time. HA.

the other thing, is even if i agreed with you that the issue is about income for heirs who didn’t earn it, why is it OK that the “unearned income” that heirs of smaller estate receive be passed on tax free? in your terms, they simply won a smaller lottery jackpot – so they shouldn’t have to pay the tax??? this is another place where your income argument falls down.

By Friendly Banter

February 23, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

A husband and wife were sharing a bottle of wine when the husband said,  “I bet you can’t tell me something which will make me happy and sad at the same time.” 

The wife thought for a few moments, then said,  ”Your peniz is bigger than your brother’s.” 

By Aptly Putt

February 23, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

One night, George W. Bush is tossing restlessly in his White House bed.  He awakens to see George Washington standing by him.  Bush asks him,  “George, what’s the best thing I can do to help the country?” 

“Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did,” Washington  advises, and then fades away… 

The next night, Bush is astir again, and sees the ghost of Thomas  Jefferson moving through the darkened bedroom. Bush calls out, “Tom,  please! What is the best thing I can do to help the country?” 

“Respect the Constitution, as I did,” Jefferson advises, and dims from  sight… 

The third night sleep still does not come easily for Bush He awakens to  see the ghost of FDR hovering over his bed. Bush whispers, “Franklin,  What is the best thing I can do to help the country?” 

“Help the less fortunate, just as I did,” FDR replies and fades into the  mist… 

Bush isn’t sleeping well the fourth night either when he sees another  figure moving in the shadows. It is the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Bush  pleads, “Abe, what is the best thing I can do right now to help the  country?” 

Lincoln replies, “Go see a play.” 

By chuck

February 23, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

Exactly blablabla. The left follows the old axiom “What”s mine is mine, what’s YOURS is MINE”. They don’t mind taking from the so-called rich that worked hard to earn it, to give to the poor (read, lazy crack ho’s)but they sure are not going to come off of their wallets to give to the poor themselves. They would much rather see that money eaten up by the administrative costs of government than go directly to charities that may actually do means testing and needs analyses before doling out money.

AND, They automatically assume that anyone who has money HAS TO BE A CROOK, stealing from poor people to line their own pockets. While they are perfectly comfortable taking money from the HEIRS of those who EARNED the money (what they call unearned income), they would absolutely FREAK if someone said that the poor who receive a check from the government (unearned income), be forced to work for it.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this

And to me the core philosophy of liberalism is helping others and advancing society as a whole. Conservatism is about maintaining status quo and advancing the individual.

joe - advancing the individual is the only way to advance society, since society is made up of individuals. you can’t “advance society” without advancing the people that make it up.

liberals love to talk about advancing minorities and standing up for the little guy, but seem to forget that the smallest minority is the individual.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

That could be paraphrased as: “Don’t worry about it, only the rich people are going to have to pay.”

you are so right, 2D. it’s funny how a political group who supposedly despises discrimination based on skin color has no problem with overtly doing exactly that when it comes to income or net worth.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

i hear your frustrations, chuck. i share many of them, although i think some of your comments (lazy crack ‘hos) are over the top.

By chuck

February 23, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Yeah, it was, bla. I should have listened to my conscience on that one. I knew better than to put it in there and did it anyway.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

“It’s easy for little joe to advocate wealth confiscation because he never anticipates HAVING anything to leave to his children.”

Hey I’ll write a contract today saying how much my kids will get and it won’t be much REGARDLESS of how successful I am. And that Warren Buffett he certainly has no wealth to pass onto his children. Nevermind he is passing very, very little (albeit of a huge sum) onto them.

Sorry but if 1 in a million people have to do deal with a small hardship so that 999,999 people get TAX FREE INCOME that’s just plain wrong. You know if some people were even arguing it should not exceed the highest tax bracket they would at least have a reasonable argument. The fact the want FREE MONEY shows just where there motivations lie.

Again not one of you can come up with any real justifications outside of selfishness. And the estate tax runs contrary to your supposed principles of self reliance, PERSONAL responsibility, and capitalism.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

“where i differ from you is that i would err on the side of conservatism “

The GAO ALREADY errs on the side of conservatism. As I said the 70% benefit is already a worse case scenario.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

“joe - advancing the individual is the only way to advance society, since society is made up of individuals. you can’t “advance society” without advancing the people that make it up.”

Yes, but you can advance individuals without advancing society. Certain individuals can advance at the expense of society. One works on ensuring ALL individuals advance (or at least a large portion) while one works on a micro level hoping it translates to a macro level (giving it the most positive intentions possible). A raising tide does not raise all boats if most of them have holes in the hull.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

” it is clearly a “taxing my wealth” issue rather than “taxing the unearned income of my heirs”

The wealth is income it’s just taxed all at once. And there is no issue with that since it’s a large sum and should never be considered more than a supplement. Otherwise we are talking about the right’s hated “trust fund babies” right? Silver spooners. Just like most lump sum transactions are taxed upfront. This is not a departure from normal procedures.

Actually I would be okay with having ALL estates taxed or at least lowering the bar to a much more reasonable level. That or having a “small business/small farm” exception that allows businesses under $2M to be passed tax free but all other assests being taxed starting at dollar one. I brought up AMT already as a tax increase that needs to be fixed. But again pointing to one flaw to try to create a false one is a straw man.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

The GAO ALREADY errs on the side of conservatism. As I said the 70% benefit is already a worse case scenario.

and they said the worst case scenario for the big dig was three years…it’s been over fifteen years, and at a cost that is a multiple of what was expected.

they said the worst case scenario for the new runway at hartsfield airport was $800mm, but it turned out to be $2 billion.

these are but two top of mind examples, but my point, which you seem to ignore, is that the gov’t can’t predict its cash needs for much of anything. to assume that a GAO prediction 30 years out really represents the worst case scenario for SS is to be pretty cavalier with the future financial prospects of millions of americans.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Again comparing micro situations to macro nearly organic situations. Taking extremely conservative projections (verified by many economists) Soc Sec will be able to fund 70% of benefits when it is no longer fully funded.

It’s not being cavalier it’s not being a chicken little. Particularly when the fear is being used to fuel bad decisions.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Blabla - Let just look at it this way. The most important figure (how many claimants in 30 years) is relatively fixed. So what variables are there to figure? FICA tax revenues and lifespan. And the first is of course variable, but not to a wild extent - barring as I have said many times catastrophe. The second may be the ONLY factor which could balloon on us totally unexpectedly if huge medical advances are made in the next 30 years. But I don’t think we will see a radical enough shift to completely blow these projections. And if so that’s alright, we just start carousel (Logan’s Run anyone?)

By 2D

February 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

“Again not one of you can come up with any real justifications outside of selfishness”

Behold the voice of modern liberalism. The individual must provide justifications and explanations in order to prevent the government from taking their personal property.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Again comparing micro situations to macro nearly organic situations.

of course it’s a micro situation, joe. let me spell it out - if you can’t forecast the micro, how on earth do you think you can forecast the macro situation that is built up from numerous micro issues? you can’t.

you can’t forecast your SS need without forecasting the economy. you can’t forecast an economy without forecasting inflation, wages, output, supply costs, immigration, rates and ages of retirement, other demographic trends, etc, etc, etc.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

A raising tide does not raise all boats if most of them have holes in the hull.

exactly, which is why conservatives, as you said, focus on the individual. let’s work to make the individual better and plug the holes in their hull. i appreciate you making my point for me.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

But again pointing to one flaw to try to create a false one is a straw man.

it’s not a straw man. the lack of indexing the AMT is evidence that i shouldn’t trust my gov’t to keep tax laws current. it’s evidence that they won’t change taxes that provide the gov’t with a massive tax windfall even if it does so by taxing people who were never the original target of the tax.

given previous behavior, i do not give the gov’t the benefit of the doubt that they will appropriately index the estate tax to continue to only hit the most wealthy of estates. the gov’t hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

i see what it is, joe. even in today’s environment of corruption, greed and massive mismanagement within our gov’t, you still believe them. you still think they will do the “right” thing, and index taxes - even though evidence suggest otherwise. you still think they can predict their head from their a$$ - even though the evidence suggests otherwise. how many times do you have to be hoodwinked before you stop believing the gov’t knows what it’s doing?

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

“exactly, which is why conservatives, as you said, focus on the individual”

You do know the “rising tide” philosophy is a conservative one? You are misapplying it. The “tide” is the individuals advancing and the belief that “tide” will raise ALL boats. The advancing of society would be ensuring all the boats are sound.

Because the MICRO is much more volatile! MACRO irons that out. Looking at a bigger picture smooths it out. Predicting what the ENTIRE ECONOMY will do is easier than predicting what one company will do. Because when society changes and buggy whips become obsolete that MICRO prediction is destroyed but know those dollars just shift to other hands in a macro sense.

Age of retirement WE control (at least in the Soc Sec sense). So there is no prediction there. Immigration is also something we control (in the legitimate sense). Also those “demographic” trends don’t matter because everyone who will be a retiree is already working age (in our 30 year picture).

Inflation, costs, etc. are not volatile in a macro sense to be extremely far off in our predictions. Look at the “boom” Clinton days versus the “bust” Bush days. When it boils down to it in the macro sense they are not that far apart. Not enough to throw a prediction like we are talking about off by more than a few percentage points at most.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

“The individual must provide justifications and explanations in order to prevent the government from taking their personal property.”

Taking your personal property? Hyperbole much. They’re called TAXES they are fees for services not theft. Unless you want anarchy and no roads, military, regulations, protection services, etc. you are talking out your arse. What justification is there for every one else to pay taxes and not this group of people? So unless you want to argue NO ONE should pay taxes then you continue to prove my point.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

“given previous behavior, i do not give the gov’t the benefit of the doubt that they will appropriately index the estate tax to continue to only hit the most wealthy of estates. the gov’t hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt.”

Good! Tax them all. I’m fine with that. I’m no hypocrite. Of course as soon as the AMT started creeping close to the middle class they started working to change it - and rightfully so. If the estate tax trigger drops to $200K you won’t hear me cry. 200K of income would be taxed what 35%?

By Kevin

February 23, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Joe you said:

That or having a “small business/small farm” exception that allows businesses under $2M to be passed tax free but all other assists being taxed starting at dollar one.

For the first time you and I completely agree! Never let it be said that liberals and conservatives can’t compromise. We simply need to continue an exchange of ideas until a solution is hammered out.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

” you still think they will do the “right” thing, and index taxes”

Government will always do what is the right thing eventually. It’s often a slow process but when a problem starts to occur with a large number of Americans the government of the people and by the people will fix it.

But again you aren’t arguing about “indexing” you are arguing about ELIMINATION! So if the estate tax can’t be trusted why can any taxes? If you want to eliminate estate tax you should be arguing to get rid of all taxes. ALL taxes. Not even the supposed (un)Fair Tax. That is if you are being consistent and doing this out of a true principle and not just selfish wealth protection.

By WAR EAGLE

February 23, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Chris and Lola are right. Why should FORCED integration be made upon those that choose to live in better neighborhoods? Why must they bus in the degenerates so that there can be racial diversity? How about starting at the Black Colleges? All I see is a sea of cocoa and some Marshmallows. Yet at white schools, you have the sea of milk dotted with Pepper. This double standard is awful. There should be NO forced busing. Communities are who LIVES in the area, not bused in. And there should be NO free education for the children of illegals. If you are here illegally, you breed illegally. Our hospitals are not your Doc in the boxes. Ms. Glass-you have proven once again that a Harvard degree proves you can pass a test on paper-but does not tell you how smart or sensible you are. GO BU!

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

“For the first time you and I completely agree! Never let it be said that liberals and conservatives can’t compromise. We simply need to continue an exchange of ideas until a solution is hammered out.”

So in actuality you are in favor of INCREASING the current tax because it exempts $2M right off the top no matter what. My proposition would only exempt particular assets under that level and tax the rest. So why are you against the current system again? Because it’s not stringent enough?

By 2D

February 23, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Joe… Based on your rationale, if taken to absolutes, everything should be taxed, even the clothes and food I provide for my children. The meal my daughter ate last night and the monthly contributions I make to her education fund would certainly be considered income, but they aren’t.

And talk about hyperbole, do you really believe there would be anarchy, a lack of military and roads etc. if we did not have the income tax? If I remember my history correctly, income taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th ammendment (1913). This country never fell into anarchy, fought plenty of wars and provided plenty of infrastructure in the years prior.

Once the government gets a hold of something, it becomes nearly impossible for it to give that something back. Shucks, even when they finally got the income tax ammendment passed, individuals didn’t have their wages garnished every pay. You paid your tax bill once. That changed because the government needed cash flow during the war, but did the policy revert after the war? Of course not.

By Kevin

February 23, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

So in actuality you are in favor of INCREASING the current tax because it exempts $2M right off the top no matter what. My proposition would only exempt particular assets under that level and tax the rest. So why are you against the current system again? Because it’s not stringent enough?

No Joe. I am for the plan because it makes sense. You somehow believe the liberal lie that only the the ultra rich farmers have $2 million in assests. Joe, even in rural Ga. a 500 acre farm (which according to the USDA is about average for a family farm) is probably worth over $2 million. That is just the value of the land, that does not include the value of very expensive equipment needed to farm successfully. The farmers that own 500 acres are by no means rich. They live in nice, but modest middle class homes. Their children simply would not be able to afford the tax on the transfer of the property and the equipment.

You read the 3 in 10,000 number from some hack website with a clear political agenda and you feel justified that your plan would somehow punish the wealthy. That number does not jive with the information I gleaned from the USDA. Your plan should protect about 500,000 family farms, which equals about 25 percent of the total US farms, not 5% as you claimed in an early post.

If a farmer OR businessman has other assests such as real estate, stocks, cars, etc., I can be convinced that these transfers need to be taxed.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

yes, joe, i’m in favor of eliminating the estate tax precisely because i don’t believe they’ll index it. i expect them to do the same thing they’ve done with AMT - ignore it until it creates some problem. the question i have for you is why do you expect them to do something different?

they’ve started working to fix the AMT? sorry, but i’m calling BS on that. salaries have been creeping for years. as any personal finance magazine will tell you, tens of millions of americans will get ensnared by AMT over the near future, and none of them were the intended target of the tax. it’s an easy fix - index the tax - but they haven’t done it yet. and here’s the nasty little secret about our gov’t…they won’t do it because they want the money!

and really, if you believe they can predict the need for SS, why couldn’t they predict the problems they would have with AMT given salary creep and deal with them a long time ago?

By chuck

February 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

little joue, I think you are being intentionally OBTUSE. The whole point of:

self reliance, PERSONAL responsibility, and capitalism

Is to use the talents and abilities to accumulate as much as you can for you AND YOUR OWN FAMILY. Why in the world can you not understand the simple fact that confiscatory, SOCIALIST tax policies are a DISINCENTIVE to work.

Nobody wants to accumulate wealth FOR THE GOVERNMENT to WASTE.

I hate to tell you this little joe, but Ronald Reagan said it this way: “Communism works only in Heaven, where they don’t need it, and in Hell, where they’ve already got it.” The full paragraph from the speech in which that quote appeared is very appropriate to this discussion:

“The principles of wealth-creation transcend time, people and place. Governments which deliberately subvert them by denouncing God, smothering faith, destroying freedom and confiscating wealth have impoverished their people. Communism works only in Heaven, where they don’t need it, and in Hell, where they’ve already got it.”

By chuck

February 23, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

This is a favorit Reagan quote of mine. I keep it on my desk for inspiration as I teach history to my students:

Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater Rendezvous with Destiny October 27, 1964 If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.… We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater.… You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

By blablabla

February 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

You are misapplying it.

no, i’m simply taking your position that conservatives focus more on the individual to defeat the notion that we don’t care about people, or that we somehow care less than liberals do.

despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary concerning charitable giving and your own statement of conservatives focusing on the individual, you cling to this notion that we care less than liberals. the truth, of course, is far different. you believe that we don’t care simply because we don’t subscribe to the notion that gov’t will cure all, or that funding the gov’t is the best or most equitable way to accomplish the shared goals of our society. one thing is clear - you place far more faith in the gov’t than i do. instead of your approach, i choose to place that faith in the individual. call me crazy if you like, but i don’t think smith was wrong when he wrote about the invisible hand.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

“And talk about hyperbole, do you really believe there would be anarchy, a lack of military and roads etc. if we did not have the income tax? If I remember my history correctly, income taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th ammendment (1913).”

Ah but we always had TAXES just not income taxes. So you are not addressing my point that without taxes we can’t have a government and that means anarchy. I said ALL taxes because the arguments people are using against estate tax are universal against all taxes (“stealing of property”) they are not against the specific tax we are discussing.

“Once the government gets a hold of something, it becomes nearly impossible for it to give that something back. Shucks, even when they finally got the income tax ammendment passed, individuals didn’t have their wages garnished every pay. You paid your tax bill once. That changed because the government needed cash flow during the war, but did the policy revert after the war? Of course not.”

And what’s your point? You are not arguing about the bill just how it’s apportioned. Again much ado about nothing. But we agree on one thing, any power you give to government consider how it will be abused. Which is why people are okay with disappearing citizens and banishing habeas corpus and allowing unchecked surveillance should be very concerned.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

“You read the 3 in 10,000 number from some hack website with a clear political agenda and you feel justified that your plan would somehow punish the wealthy. That number does not jive with the information I gleaned from the USDA. Your plan should protect about 500,000 family farms, which equals about 25 percent of the total US farms, not 5% as you claimed in an early post.”

I’m sure any info that doesn’t conform to your opinion is “hack”. That is the center of budget policy a very well regarded policy analyst. You on the other hand post something from “deathtax.com” - talk about hack! And statistics don’t necesarily work the way you are trying to jigger them in your favor. The figures I provided are accurate to actual spreads of income, not AVERAGES (which is the simplest and most deceiving of all statistics).

But again the current law exempts the first $2M in assets so why are you complaining? The system I proposed in MORE stringent than current law which you are complaining about but yet you agreed with my more stingent plan. Makes no sense except you have been fooled by deceptive figures.

By 2D

February 23, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this

Joe… The argument about the estate tax, “progressive” taxing, capitol gains, or anything else is not about whether or not the government needs tax revenue. The argument is about the appropriate ways to garner that revenue and subsequently on how that revenue is spent.

I have never had an issue with taxes as a concept only their application in present society. Of course there have always been taxes on property, tarriffs, etc. What I do believe, is that the current tax codes needs reform. I, like many people here, in the Congress and around the country would very much like to see new tax codes. Fair Tax? Maybe. Flat Tax? Maybe. Consitutional tax? Maybe. I like and dislike aspects of them all.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

“yes, joe, i’m in favor of eliminating the estate tax precisely because i don’t believe they’ll index it. i expect them to do the same thing they’ve done with AMT - ignore it until it creates some problem. the question i have for you is why do you expect them to do something different?”

Again who cares? When it’s a problem they will fix it just like they have and will permanently with AMT. Given current inflation it will take what - 200,300 years before a middle class family makes $2M? So I’m not going to sweat whether gov’t will “index” it or not. Another inane argument against it. You should be fighting for better administration not elimination.

They have begun to fix it because temporary changes were made to protect the middle class and they will be made permanent. You know FULL WELL there is absolutely no way AMT will continue the way it is. There would be a revolt and again rightfully so. It will be changed within 2-3 years and/or they will just continually making “temporary” shifts to push it back. I brought up the AMT shift earlier this week and it’s a well acknowledged problem. One would be crazy to believe it won’t be fixed. Not a conservative, just plain crazy.

By Muse

February 23, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

Recently, conservative attorney and economist Ben Stein was heard in an interview lamenting the 35-year trend that has seen the income gap continue to increase. He suggests that the US is teetering on the verge of becoming a two-tiered economy, with almost all the wealth residing in the hands of a fraction of the population. Such an economy would be tremendously destructive to the American way of life.

One wonders, if these so-called “wealth distribution schemes” are stripping the wealthy of their hard-earned cash and bestowing it upon the poor, why this trend continues? If wealth were, in fact, being re-distributed, then surely the opposite would be true?

Here is a link to one article penned by Mr. Stein - not on this specific issue, but one that relates to the current discussion

Yes. It is in the New York Times. I realize that some of you will feel compelled to instantly cite the NYT’s credentials as the great Journalistic Bastion of Communist and Socialist Plots. However, let me remind you again of Mr. Stein’s long-standing Conservative credentials. And that David Brooks also writes for the Times.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

“Is to use the talents and abilities to accumulate as much as you can for you AND YOUR OWN FAMILY.”

Bull. To raise your children, yes. To provide for them in perpetuity and turn them into NON-ESSENTIAL citizens, no. You will crow personal responsibility all day until it affects you and like most hypocrites you will pretend it doesn’t exist.

Oh but giving someone millions of dollars for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is not a “disincentive”. What a joke.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

“one thing is clear - you place far more faith in the gov’t than i do.”

No I place more faith in myself because I am the government and the government is me - that’s the beauty of America. I trust myself more than I trust a private corporation or organization.

You should actually read Smith and his entire philosophies sometime. Smith believed that government had to have an active role in shaping and regulating the market. He knew that “pure” capitalism in the end would only serve to encourage greed and many of man’s baser instincts and that we would all have to serve as brakes on the base attitudes of others (and therefore serving as brakes on ourselves).

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

“What I do believe, is that the current tax codes needs reform. I, like many people here, in the Congress and around the country would very much like to see new tax codes. Fair Tax? Maybe. Flat Tax? Maybe. Consitutional tax? Maybe. I like and dislike aspects of them all.”

I agree as well. And there is no perfect system, or at least no system that is perfect for everyone. I can say I have never heard of “Constitutional” tax or at least that terminology.

I’m in fan of a “flat progressive tax” (I know a bit of an oxymoron). What I mean is get rid off ALL deductions and tax on all income. But the percentages should get lowered because of these two factors. And yes an inheritance is income. Any sort of positive asset flow is income to me.

By Kevin

February 23, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

Chuck is right - you are purposely obtuse.

I purposely linked to the deathtax website because it WAS a hack website with a clear political agenda - just like your “highly regarded” website. I was trying to find something on Drudge or Hannity.com so that it would be even more obvious that my link was tongue in cheek. The difference between you and I is that I realize that everything I read on Fox, Hannity.com, or Drudge is extremely partisan and misleading at best. You read some liberal website that posts inaccurate figures (as I have already shown) and believe them without question. Then you have the audacity to say that I am being misled.

Again your arrogance is your undoing. You claim that my averages are simplistic and have been jiggered with. Didn’t you find it the least bit odd that your “highly regarded website posted the same 3 in 10,000 for both farmers and businesses? Wow, what a coincidence! Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that those are the numbers that are simplistic, purposely misleading, and have been jiggered with to try and rationalize the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. From your posts, it is clear that you are intelligent, so I can only surmise that you are purposely feigning ignorance to try and goad Chuck, 2D, bla, and myself. Enough games – I am done for the week. The blog is yours. Please posts some links from moveon.org to further your points.

Have a great weekend comrade Joe.

By lozen

February 23, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

To commemorate her 69th birthday on October 1, actress/vocalist, Julie Andrews made a special appearance at Manhattan’s Radio City Music Hall for the benefit of the AARP. One of the musical numbers she performed was “My Favorite Things” from the legendary movie, “Sound Of Music”. Here are the lyrics she used:

Maalox and nose drops and needles for knitting, Walkers and handrails and new dental fittings, Bundles of magazines tied up in string, These are a few of my favorite things. Cadillacs and cataracts, and hearing aids and glasses, Polident and Fixodent and false teeth in glasses, Pacemakers, golf carts and porches with swings, These are a few of my favorite things. When the pipes leak, When the bones creak, When the knees go bad, I simply remember my favorite things, And then I don’t feel so bad. Hot tea and crumpets and corn pads for bunions, No spicy hot food or food cooked with onions, Bathrobes and heating pads and hot meals they bring, These are a few of my favorite things. Back pains, confused brains, and no need for sinnin’, Thin bones and fractures and hair that is thinnin’, And we won’t mention our short shrunken frames, When we remember our favorite things. When the joints ache, When the hips break, When the eyes grow dim, Then I remember the great life I’ve had, And then I don’t feel so bad.

Ms. Andrews received a standing ovation from the crowd that lasted over four minutes and repeated encores.

By chuck

February 23, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

Thinking that you know something about economics is the joke, Joe. You know that the truth lies in the ENVY of the have nots toward the Haves. If you want to talk about personal responsibility, let’s talk about the choices that people make. How does collecting a government check LONGTERM, jive with your idea of personal responsibility? You are truly a weak-minded bigot.

How can you be more PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE than to insure that your family is taken care of into the foreseeable future?

How can you be more PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE than to work your entire life to accomplish this?

By chuck

February 23, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Good job Kevin. It is obvious that he is EITHER intelligent and BIGOTED OR IGNORANT AND BIGOTED.

Have a nice weekend folks.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

” You read some liberal website that posts inaccurate figures (as I have already shown) and believe them without question”

You proved nothing except you are capable of some bad fuzzy math. When you assume that an average is the center of a normally distributed population, you show that you have zero understanding of how statistics and mathematics work. As a matter of fact in most things economic it’s the furthest thing from the truth.

I see you ignored that a PRO-REPEAL group admits they can’t document a single case of a “family farm” being lost due to estate taxes.

Here are some little facts for you from the USDA: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/EIB12c.pdf

Essentially you will see that the small farm accounts for 92% of farms but 70% of land and a mere 28% of production. Also the great majority of “small farms” are extremely small scale production and would not have close to the assets we are discussing. So again you facts are figures are so far off from the truth. But as I said you did some simplistic and completely unrealistic math that showed very little understand of distributions and statistics.

Ah yes when you can’t win the argument go back to Republican name calling talking points. “Move On”, “Commie”, etc. At least come up with some original material.

By Joe L

February 23, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

” How does collecting a government check LONGTERM, jive with your idea of personal responsibility?”

Chuck if you knew anything about me you would know I favor that no more than anyone. But we all know what happens when you ASSume.

Chuck I guarantee my understanding of anything beyond 2+2 greatly exceeds yours.

Since when is someone is YOUR PERSON. PERSONAL responsibility only comes from the individual, not someone else Chuckie. No matter who that other person is.

By your twisted logic you are teaching your kids PERSONAL responsibility by doing their homework. I mean you are insuring they get a good grade right?

YOUR CHILD is not working their ENTIRE LIFE are they chuckie? Therefore how can THEY have PERSONAL responsibility. You can’t inherit PERSONAL responsibility you dope. If you do it and they reap the benefit, they are not responsible at all are they? Like I said you can try to make all the mental gyrations you want but inheritance is a DISINCENTIVE to PERSONAL responsibility.

Chuck if you call me bigoted you prove clearly that I am not. Because we have all seen the inside of your sad little mind and the opposite of you would clearly be tolerant.

By Kevin

February 23, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

Again with dishonesty Joe. The website link you provided is where I have been getting my information. Small farms are not the only family farms. Family farms account for 86 percent of agricultural production - and you know it. Just like your website, you are manipulating the truth. The majority of those farmers are not rich people, they simply have money tied up in large tracts of land and expensive farm equipment. Many struggle to keep their farm. You and your ilk want to take it from them.

I will put my math and statistical background against yours any day of the week. Anyone that doesn’t know what a base 6 number sytems is and Venn diagrams are should not tout their math prowess. Please don’t tell me you are a Tech grad. I have seem some guy named Joe L posting on the Tech blogs. Please tell me it isn’t you.

By buy adipex on line

February 24, 2007 6:05 AM | Link to this

Hi, Very very nice site! And please visit my forum :) carisoprodol 350 mg | ambien | adipex | alprazolam | cheapest ativan http://blogwalk.mediapedagogy.com/discuss/msgReader http://blogwalk.mediapedagogy.com/discuss/msgReader http://blogwalk.mediapedagogy.com/discuss/msgReader http://blogwalk.mediapedagogy.com/discuss/msgReader

By tlmaoh kmbn

February 27, 2007 9:14 PM | Link to this

ecfopktnm fqtpzlse zfel xlkneqsug khvgrb zxrktb ujdavhk

By tlmaoh kmbn

February 27, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this

ecfopktnm fqtpzlse zfel xlkneqsug khvgrb zxrktb ujdavhk

By tlmaoh kmbn

February 27, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this

ecfopktnm fqtpzlse zfel xlkneqsug khvgrb zxrktb ujdavhk

By kwmu tglaepucv

February 27, 2007 9:16 PM | Link to this

xfmvjnz jgwtxcir jragdwe zisx qbfupzwjk xjwvk udnoqwbvz http://www.pfqg.nhaj.com

By xenical

February 28, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this

I really find this site very interesting, and it gives people a pleasure time! I really appreciate the creators of this website! xenical | xenical scam | testimonials for xenical | buy xenical | xenical without prescription http://hometown.aol.com/xenical5e44t/index.html http://hometown.aol.com/xenical5e44t/xenical-scam.html http://hometown.aol.com/xenical5e44t/testimonials-for-xenical.html http://hometown.aol.com/xenical5e44t/buy-xenical.html

By hott naked lesbians

March 1, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say lately. Eh. Not much on my mind lately.
massive t** round asses | mother daughter sex | interracial mature sex movies | mature women big boobs | my friends hot mom http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/massive7titsqv http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/mother3daughter3sex13 http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/mature9interracial7i http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/mature4boobsmq