What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

It's very reasonable to say that you put the same person in a tough neighborhood and family that doesn't emphasize education and in a nice suburban setting in a family that emphasizes education, and in the second situation they are more likely to succeed. While you certainly can't make all opportunities and situations equal, it is also reasonable to take some steps to try to provide opportunities to all. Exactly how that is done is where things get messy.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

It's very reasonable to say that you put the same person in a tough neighborhood and family that doesn't emphasize education and in a nice suburban setting in a family that emphasizes education, and in the second situation they are more likely to succeed. While you certainly can't make all opportunities and situations equal, it is also reasonable to take some steps to try to provide opportunities to all. Exactly how that is done is where things get messy.

Your reasonable words frighten and confuse me.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

As with most real world problems, perfect equality (like zero friction) is neither possible nor desirable. My focus in on incremental reforms. The only thing that really gets me irritated is when opponents of even incremental reform respond with intellectually dishonest "punish the successful," "politics of envy," "class warfare," "entitlement society" sound bites. Those play well to the crowd, but they don't address either real problems or tempered solutions.

Perhaps if the proponents of "reform" presented themselves in as reasonable a manner as you do, there would not be such a backlash. The politicians who seem to complain about wealth inequality (a) come across as demagogs, generally -- it is their initial intemperate language that evokes similar language in turn, no? --, and (b) are firmly planted in the wealthy class themselves (notice how many Congressional representatives and senators become wealthy while in office?). They seem to want to remain entrenched in their privileged class status of overseers while wanting everyone other than them to change.



Afterthought: it seems to me you might be wandering into some dangerous territory with some of your suggestions.....if a child "who has promise" is "stuck in an inhospitable neighborhood" do we then remove that child and place him/her elsewhere? most states DCFS offices spend a lot of time trying to keep families together...some of your suggestions seem to border on the edge of "why even try to reform a crack-addicted mother when we can just put her child into a state-run dormitory with good food and healthcare, a safe supportive home environment, and daily education."
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Those aren't problems, they're solutions. People with high ability and high ambition should be and are rewarded by a meritocracy. That's all well and good. The problem we have is that there are legions of people with high ability and high ambition trapped at the bottom with no way up the ladder. .... Now the unequal starting point from economic inequality is the major obstacle. It's the biggest waste of talent and the biggest inefficiency in our system. Releasing the energies of all our people is best push we can give the country.
As an engineer, I'm nearly always in favor of efficiency - but not in this case. I disagree that it is the government's proper role to interfere for the purpose of ensuring that everyone's outcome is fair according to his ability. What if a kid with high ability and ambition ends up mentally handicapped from a car wreck - does the government owe him compensation for the millions he "should have" made?

There's no question that kids with high ability who are born into poor families have many more obstacles to overcome than kids of identical ability born into a rich families. I think where we disagree is whether the current system provides reasonable enough opportunity for those kids to succeed. As one very specific example, I know from family members who are involved in college admissions that they really do take into account those circumstances and effectively "lower the bar" for kids who have made the most of the meager opportunities afforded them. A kid who took both AP classes offered by his lousy high school is going to attract much more attention than a kid who took only 5 out of the 30 offered by his affluent school.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

BTW, I think the "Hope" thing in 2008 was a very good slogan (it had nothing to do with the preceding discussion, but you threw it in as if it did so I'm responding). It spoke to the general feeling after 8 years of Dubya that even beyond all the anger at the destruction of basic American values there was just a feeling of tremendous sadness at what had been done in our name. The "hope" was that we would no longer be such an ugly byword in the world. That's been achieved, at least mostly. Drone strikes on weddings are still pretty ugly, but they beat torture and wars of whim.

This is why "Hope" makes the perfect political slogan; look how much one person can read into it. For someone else, it's the "hope" that they won't have to make mortgage payments anymore. Both would be perfectly right, as long as their interpretations come with a vote.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I guess this study really is true.

“The study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly,” wrote Cassino and his colleagues. “The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 [out of four] domestic questions correctly—a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 [out of four] questions correctly.”

Not very inspirational either way. So Fox listeners get a "D" while NPR listeners get a "C-"? Wow.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has indicated that he has received information from Hawaii regarding proof of Obama's birth and is ok with the information he received. So, Rover, better find another reason to complain about Arizona. Case closed on this little episode, which ended up being a non-event, despite some people trying to make a big deal about it.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

It's very reasonable to say that you put the same person in a tough neighborhood and family that doesn't emphasize education and in a nice suburban setting in a family that emphasizes education, and in the second situation they are more likely to succeed. While you certainly can't make all opportunities and situations equal, it is also reasonable to take some steps to try to provide opportunities to all. Exactly how that is done is where things get messy.

Someone must have hacked Bob's account! :D

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has indicated that he has received information from Hawaii regarding proof of Obama's birth and is ok with the information he received. So, Rover, better find another reason to complain about Arizona. Case closed on this little episode, which ended up being a non-event, despite some people trying to make a big deal about it.

Looks like he got it back. The people trying to make a big deal about it were the birthers. Hence the request from the state of Hawaii in the first place. And do you really think this is going to stop all derp? Has this documentation satisfied that noted intellectual Joe Arpaio?
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Someone must have hacked Bob's account! :D
Guess I've been hanging around this place too long. All you liberals must be rubbing off on me. Or am I just a compassionate conservative?
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has indicated that he has received information from Hawaii regarding proof of Obama's birth and is ok with the information he received. So, Rover, better find another reason to complain about Arizona. Case closed on this little episode, which ended up being a non-event, despite some people trying to make a big deal about it.

HA, that won't be too hard to do. Seems your favorite sheriff is using taxpayer dollars to send a deputy to Hawaii for this "investigation".

BTW, you left out a bunch of stuff, which is that the state of Hawaii humiliated your SoS by asking him to prove who he is and for what business purpose this was for before they granted the info, forcing the idiot to go back and re-do his request. Now I'm sure you're used to AZ politicians being humiliated (see Brewer, Jan) but to the rest of us you come off like fools. :p
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii — which has vouched for Obama’s birth in the state several times as early as October 2008 — didn’t bow to the request easily. The Aloha State told Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett he had to prove he needed the records as part of normal business.

Wisch says Hawaii got what it needed, so it gave Bennett’s office the verification.

It’s not immediately clear whether the information will satisfy Bennett. Bennett spokesman Matthew Roberts said the office received the verification and planned to comment Wednesday.

Roberts did not say whether the information would end the flap with Obama’s name on the ballot.

Bennett said during a radio interview earlier Tuesday that he had reworded his request to Hawaii and expected to get a response within two days.

The development came the same day Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio defended sending one of his deputies to Hawaii to accompany an official in his volunteer posse that is investigating Obama’s birth certificate, despite earlier saying no taxpayer money was being spent on the probe.

The sheriff said Tuesday that taxpayers won’t ultimately foot the bill because the posse, which so far has used $40,000 in donations to pay for the probe, will reimburse his office for the deputy’s trip to Hawaii this week.

Arpaio said the deputy who was sent to Hawaii was there for security reasons, which the sheriff declined to discuss.

“Even if it was costing the taxpayers money, we are talking about a criminal investigation into possible fraud and forgery on government documents,” the sheriff said.

The sheriff launched the investigation last summer and said in March that there was probable cause to believe Obama’s long-form birth certificate, released by the White House more than a year ago, is a computer-generated forgery and that the president’s Selective Service card was most likely a forgery.

Speculation about Obama’s birthplace has swirled among conservatives for years. So-called “birthers” maintain that Obama is ineligible to hold the country’s highest elected office because, they contend, he was born in Kenya, his father’s homeland.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama’s citizenship, and Obama released a copy of his long-form birth certificate more than a year ago in an attempt to quell citizenship questions. Courts also have rebuffed lawsuits over the issue.

The Arizona Republic first reported that Arpaio had sent the deputy to Hawaii.

Democratic state Sen. Steve Gallardo, a critic of the sheriff, said Arpaio has misplaced priorities when he focuses on the president’s birth certificate, while his own office had failed to adequately investigate hundreds of sex-crimes cases over a three-year period ending in 2007.

“The cost of this trip to Hawaii ought to come out of this re-election campaign because this is politics,” Gallardo said. “It’s political grandstanding.”

Arpaio said health officials in Hawaii refused to talk to his deputy and posse investigator on Monday, though an assistant attorney general came out to talk to the investigators.

“They won’t have anything to do with us,” Arpaio said.

Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Hawaii State Department of Health, said two men dressed in business suits from Arpaio’s department sat down with deputies from the health department and attorney general’s office in a conference room Monday.

The men identified themselves as being from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and provided their badges and business cards when asked, Okubo said.

“They said they were conducting an investigation,” Okubo said.

Okubo said the Hawaii officials told the men they had to show why they needed the information as part of ordinary business — a response similar to that given to Bennett last week when he publicly pushed his request.

___

Associated Press writers Paul Davenport and Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix contributed to this report.
 
So you think conservatives were actually secretly behind the civil rights movements, the women's movement, worker's rights, etc? And they were only pretending to scream at the top of their lungs that those things were communist plots to destroy America?.

America became a super power because after two world wars everyone else was blown to bits (while we only had some boats and a base bombed in Hawaii). US had the elements and resources to step into the void. All those (or at least a majority of) social initiatives came AFTER our country was on top.

Beginning econimic inequality didn't help the winklevoss' :D
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The Secretary of State is a state government office, totally separate from a county sheriff's office. Bennett has no connection that I've seen to anything Arpaio is doing as county sheriff. But, hey, kick dust in the air if it helps you breathe.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

America became a super power because after two world wars everyone else was blown to bits
To be fair, that didn't hurt. I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

As an engineer, I'm nearly always in favor of efficiency - but not in this case. I disagree that it is the government's proper role to interfere for the purpose of ensuring that everyone's outcome is fair according to his ability. What if a kid with high ability and ambition ends up mentally handicapped from a car wreck - does the government owe him compensation for the millions he "should have" made?
This is probably the only post of yours I've ever read that I just plain did not follow. I honestly don't know what you're talking about with your "should have" scenario.

The thing I am advocating isn't in any way radical or even controversial: equality of opportunity. It has nothing to do with ensuring a result. As Bob noted, pretty much everybody except sociopaths and minarchists believe we should do some things to break down the caste system that is always threatening to ossify around the fortunes of birth. The content of debate is, how far do you go? On a 10 point scale where a 1 is "Let Them Eat Cake" and a 10 is "From Each... To Each..." I'd say America's at about a 3 and needs to be at about a 5.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This is probably the only post of yours I've ever read that I just plain did not follow. I honestly don't know what you're talking about with your "should have" scenario.

The thing I am advocating isn't in any way radical or even controversial: equality of opportunity. It has nothing to do with ensuring a result. As Bob noted, pretty much everybody except sociopaths and minarchists believe we should do some things to break down the caste system that is always threatening to ossify around the fortunes of birth. The content of debate is, how far do you go? On a 10 point scale where a 1 is "Let Then Eat Cake" and a 10 is "From Each... To Each..." I'd say America's at about a 3 and needs to be at about a 5.
You previously lamented the fact that there are "legions" of kids with high ability and ambition who are unable to break through, and advocated that the government should do more to ensure that everyone achieves his "deserved" success. I don't think that's the government's role. The government's role should simply be to ensure that people born into money don't use those resources ILLEGALLY to tilt the scales in their favor. If Mr. Richie Rish wants to spend the bucks to send his dimwittted kid to a fancy prep school and the kid gains some "undeserved" benefit from that, why is that the government's business? What law was broken?

I know I've used the analogy before, but I would prefer that the government have the roles of rules committee and referee, NOT the role of an orchestra conductor. I guess that makes me a minarchist.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You previously lamented the fact that there are "legions" of kids with high ability and ambition who are unable to break through, and advocated that the government should do more to ensure that everyone achieves his "deserved" success. I don't think that's the government's role. The government's role should simply be to ensure that people born into money don't use those resources ILLEGALLY to tilt the scales in their favor. If Mr. Richie Rish wants to spend the bucks to send his dimwittted kid to a fancy prep school and the kid gains some "undeserved" benefit from that, why is that the government's business? What law was broken?

I know I've used the analogy before, but I would prefer that the government have the roles of rules committee and referee, NOT the role of an orchestra conductor. I guess that makes me a minarchist.

But you don't get votes if you say "we're trying to spend budget money on getting the capable and ambitious kids out of lower class situations". That would be admitting that they aren't all equal. Nobody wants to be told their kid is not gifted. And god knows you can't really tell people that several of the barriers have been greatly reduced and it is pretty much up to them going forward.

Remember what happened to Rob Reiner when he said we should spend less on under-performing 14 year olds and focus more money on 3 year olds...same as what happens to Bill Cosby when he suggests people need to take accountability for themselves.

Now, if some believe that millions of years of evolution have produced a homogenous batch of kids who are only differentiated by which income group they were born into then I don't know what to say. I'd have to use the slums of India and the Chinese countryside as my counter-point. And the dim-witted son of the rich guy...many a family fortune is lost by dim-witted sons.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If Mr. Richie Rish wants to spend the bucks to send his dimwittted kid to a fancy prep school and the kid gains some "undeserved" benefit from that, why is that the government's business?
It isn't, you're concentrating on the Haves side which I don't care about. Have them send their kids to prep schools and buy them expensive tutors to goose their SAT scores to justify their admission to Harvard. God bless them. What I'm saying is all of our interests, even the Haves, is also served by freeing gifted Have Nots from the rubble of the bombed out portions of the economy. It will actually disproportionately help the Haves, since they have the money to enjoy (and for that matter, probably even own) whatever new discoveries and inventions come from those who otherwise would not get a leg up.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

But you don't get votes if you say "we're trying to spend budget money on getting the capable and ambitious kids out of lower class situations".
But you do get votes by saying "everybody should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps," because everybody believes that's what they did.

The pandering goes both ways. The excesses of the "nobody owes anybody anything" gambit are every bit as dopey as the excesses of "it takes a village."
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

What I'm saying is all of our interests, even theirs, is also served by freeing gifted Have Nots from the rubble of the bombed out portions of the economy. It will actually disproportionately help the Haves, since they have the money to enjoy (and for that matter, probably even own) whatever new discoveries and inventions come from those who otherwise would not get a leg up.

Sounds like you are ready to convert to LDS, since that is how they operate, in a very admirable and voluntary way.

Otherwise, you have to invoke some kind of compulsion somewhere, and that is where the trouble starts....you have to compel the Have Nots to allow their children to be taken from them to be "raised properly" (as Pirate suggested, insulting the parents) while you also have to compel others to help them.

That is the difference between the progressive ideal, which is very attractive, and actual progressive practice, which involves a sort of rigidity that annoys people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top