While folks have been discussing it in the Presidential Primary thread, I think this deserves its own discussion. What did you think of Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech on racial issues?
I rather liked it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
I'm surprised he can say this while he sends his kids to a segregated school.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Explain.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Where does he send his kids? I'm going to assume that he sends then to a predominantly white private school? Just a guess. If that's the case, I don't think he's talking about making GOOD schools bad, so much as he is talking about predominantly black schools in the inner city who are bad in comparison to those better white schools, and about bringing the worse schools up to a higher level rather than bringing them to some sort of average.
I liked the speech. I think it started off as a rehashing of old ideas, but it was sort of a "best of" introduction from his previous material, then it jumped into a wholly new vein. I think Obama was always going to need a speech on race, though I really thought it'd wait until the General. But Ferraro's comments and previous Clinton activity, combined with Wright's comments pushed this on him, sort of forced the issue. What I think he did was instead of making it a Black issue, he made it an American issue. He didn't just talk about the plights of black society, he talked about the blights of American society, referencing the problems in lower/middle class white America, and the white mindset of being the sons and daughters of immigrants. That's something I've never heard in a speech talking about race issues. It always seems to be about the problems in black America and what white America needs to do to fix it. In other words, most every other speech I've heard was about how "them" and "us" needed to work out a better dialogue, whereas I think Obama made it sound like there is no "them" and "us." He identified the problems that resonate across all races, so that everyone could identify with the America he was presenting in his speech.
And he freely admitted that he can't solve all our problems, that they won't be fast or easy solutions, but that it's time to start now, and he wants to help do that.
Politically, he already seems to have the black vote nailed down, and I think this did absolutely nothing to hurt that, and frankly it had every potential to do just that. He did a LOT of reaching out to the white community in that speech, a lot. But I don't think he hurt himself there, and at the same time he did everything he could to reach out to the crucial swing voters of the primary: White men. It's a speech that, if enough people actually hear it, could have a great effect on the current primary, but it also has the potenetial to be a defining speech that's referenced 20 or 100 years from now.
Also, it makes Clinton look stupid for mocking his speech making. She mocks it because she can't reciprocate in any meaningful way, and I think she'd serve herself better by keeping her mouth shut.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I'm not a supporter of Obama by any means let me get that out of the way. His kids don't go to a segregated school though. They go to The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm surprised he can say this while he sends his kids to a segregated school.
I wonder what Irami's solution is: send his kids to an inferior de facto segregated school?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looks like a really great school. Glad to see that they have a great MUN program there. I loved MUN in high school. Doing ICJ there is where I first flirted with (but until recently rejected) the idea of law school. And doing UNEP as the Republic of Congo is where I first started really paying attention to environmental issues. Plus I got Honorable Mention for Best Delegate .
And apparently it's one of the more racially diverse schools at that level.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Obama and I live a few blocks from each other. I run by his house almost every morning. The University of Chicago Laboratory School is the private segregated breeding ground for bourgie babies in the neighborhood. It's where the better paid faculty and the moneyed outsiders send their kids. The Ray School is a lovely, diverse public school where the graduate students, junior faculty, and community members send their kids. I'm sure the kids at the Lab School score better, but the difference is negligible, and it's not unreasonable to expect that he put his kids where his mouth is.
[ March 18, 2008, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Obama and I live a few blocks from each other. I run by his house almost every morning. The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools is the segregated breeding ground for bourgie babies in the neighborhood. It's where the better paid faculty and the moneyed outsiders send their kids. The Ray School is a lovely, diverse public school where the graduate students, junior faculty, and community members send their kids. I'm sure the kids at the Lab School score better, but the difference is negligible, and its not unreasonable to expect that he put his kids where his mouth is.
So... the only way in which it's segregated is because it's a private school? Irami, your post is extremely disingenuous.
So he sends his kids to the best school he can reach for. So what? Every parent wants the absolute best they can get for their kids. Can you really blame him for reaching for the best he can get for his kids?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:So he sends his kids to the best school he can reach for. So what? Every parent wants the absolute best they can get for their kids. Can you really blame him for reaching for the best he can get for his kids?
Yes.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:So he sends his kids to the best school he can reach for. So what? Every parent wants the absolute best they can get for their kids. Can you really blame him for reaching for the best he can get for his kids?
Well, some of his policies prevent me from giving my hypothetical kids the best. So, maybe.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Yes.
And why is that? What has he said, what policy does he have that makes that action contradictory?
quote: quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QB] [QUOTE]So he sends his kids to the best school he can reach for. So what? Every parent wants the absolute best they can get for their kids. Can you really blame him for reaching for the best he can get for his kids?
Well, some of his policies prevent me from giving my hypothetical kids the best. So, maybe.
Which policies?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Democacy hurts. It means that your kids don't get to skate the draft, and if you talk about desegregating schools, I think your kid should attend the local public school. I'm not expecting a scene from Agamemnon, but I think these decisions matter.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Which policies?
Let's start with the Estate Tax. Erm, Death Tax. However you want to frame it.
National Health Care, which I will pay for, via taxes. Money that could be putting my kids (if I had any), through a high class, high cost private school in Chicago.
Increasing the minimum wage, driving prices up.
Basically, I'm a small government guy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Let's start with the Estate Tax. Erm, Death Tax. However you want to frame it.
What does the Estate Tax have to do with your hypothetical children's education?
quote:National Health Care, which I will pay for, via taxes. Money that could be putting my kids (if I had any), through a high class, high cost private school in Chicago.
You already pay for it. The cost is hidden but it's there. And that'll be just as true if a small government guy is elected.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Democacy hurts....if you talk about desegregating schools, I think your kid should attend the local public school.
How are you defining "segregated school" in this context, Irami?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Fush, is this your argument:
I want to send my kids to good schools.
Money I would pay for those schools will be taken from me for taxes to pay for things like the Health Care Costs (for people who don't have the money to buy it for their children. Shame on them for being poor.)
Money I earned by being the children of rich folks will be taken from me so I can't spend it on educating my children.
Paying a minimum wage high enough so that others can afford to survive is going to drive up my expenses past the point where I can afford good education for my children.
Hmmm.
Seems that you are saying the problems of others are not your concern--that your money is your concern and that being forced to consider others peoples problems, and pay for them, is cruel and wrong.
I may agree with you today. The problems you have are not my concern. The loss of your money due to taxation is not the loss of my money, so excuse me if I ignore your complaints.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Democacy hurts. It means that your kids don't get to skate the draft, and if you talk about desegregating schools, I think your kid should attend the local public school. I'm not expecting a scene from Agamemnon, but I think these decisions matter.
In that case, you'd be having problems with just about every politician in America at the moment. I can't think of a politician that doesn't send their kids to private schools.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Fush, is this your argument:
I want to send my kids to good schools.
Money I would pay for those schools will be taken from me for taxes to pay for things like the Health Care Costs (for people who don't have the money to buy it for their children. Shame on them for being poor.)
Money I earned by being the children of rich folks will be taken from me so I can't spend it on educating my children.
Paying a minimum wage high enough so that others can afford to survive is going to drive up my expenses past the point where I can afford good education for my children.
Hmmm.
Seems that you are saying the problems of others are not your concern--that your money is your concern and that being forced to consider others peoples problems, and pay for them, is cruel and wrong.
I may agree with you today. The problems you have are not my concern. The loss of your money due to taxation is not the loss of my money, so excuse me if I ignore your complaints.
Not quite. With regards to the Estate/Death Tax: I should be able to pass on every dollar I earn to my children. The Estate Tax prevents this.
Re: Minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage isn't really helping those poor, poor people. They, on the whole, don't seem to be the people working minimum wage jobs. It's an ineffective policy that is hurting me.
And concerning healthcare... I'm absolutely willing to contribute, to some degree, to the general well-being of the less fortunate. Where I don't want to contribute, is to the obese, the smokers, the drinkers--the sort of chronic health problems that are, for the most part, avoidable. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't look at a nationalized healthcare plan as the most effective solution. Therefore, funding it does not appeal to me.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I should be able to pass on every dollar I earn to my children.
Uh huh, lets promote the consolidation of more of the countries wealth in the hands of the few. Cause that's worked so well to promote freedom, reason and democracy in the past.
Any who, so you have a beef with him over those policies. That's a different matter than Irami suggesting that he's being hypocritical by sending his children to "segregated" schools and then talking about improving education.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: I should be able to pass on every dollar I earn to my children.
Why should the money you give to your children be non-taxed while ordinary income is taxed?
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
I agree, it's a debate for a different time and place.
That said, I'm still reminded of an Argentine friend of mine--he's a radical socialist. A real gung-ho revolutionary type. He's also the son of a physician, and has the benefits of an education at a top school in Buenos Aires and now a US undergrad program. It just seems a little bit inconsistent. Not that Obama is a socialist, or even anything remotely resembling one. It's just that be offering one's children "the best", you are necessarily placing your own interests in front of the rest.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Fusiachi: I should be able to pass on every dollar I earn to my children.
Why should the money you give to your children be non-taxed while ordinary income is taxed?
I don't know... It was already taxed once?
Edit to add: But back to your regularly scheduled thread. Obama and race.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:'m surprised he can say this while he sends his kids to a segregated school.
Speaking of resentment distracting attention from solving real problems...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who could be hit by the estate tax. Anything under $2 million is exempt by the tax, and that number will go up next year, and the year after, then the tax will be eliminated entirely, and then we'll have to figure out what to do with it, but in the meantime, come on. If your parents are leaving you $2+ million dollars, I have a hard time believing you can't send your kids to the absolute best schools in America, assuming they can get in. Hell with that money you could probably grease the skids a little.
Having said that, I do think it is unfair to tax someone twice for their earnings. I say get rid of the Estate Tax, just tax them more while they're alive. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Unless it's all capital gains, which means it could be left to the kids without even being taxed once.
Or, like most people, you could pay income tax and sales tax, thereby being "taxed twice." The whole double taxation thing is more bogeyman than anything else.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
My goodness.
This place is being (mostly) more civil on the issue of Obama's speech than Ornery. And the exceptions are much less ambiguous or two sided. I wonder why?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I just finished watching the speech. It's so hopeful to hear a politician speak on race who actually gets it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The University of Chicago Laboratory School is the private segregated breeding ground for bourgie babies in the neighborhood. It's where the better paid faculty and the moneyed outsiders send their kids. The Ray School is a lovely, diverse public school where the graduate students, junior faculty, and community members send their kids. I'm sure the kids at the Lab School score better, but the difference is negligible, and it's not unreasonable to expect that he put his kids where his mouth is.
You're like this guy I know who is determined to let differences and prejudices rule his life and stymie any forward progress.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Given that the kids are a mix of black and white, isn't any school they go to, by definition, de-segregated? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who could be hit by the estate tax. Anything under $2 million is exempt by the tax, and that number will go up next year, and the year after, then the tax will be eliminated entirely, and then we'll have to figure out what to do with it, but in the meantime, come on.
I have a hard time getting over the fact that this society thinks it's acceptable to dip into a person's life earnings when they die. Tax paying citizens own what they own, just because that might be a lot of something, doesn't make that any less of a fact. Why not tax people who simply have a lot of money- a being rich tax? It's the same thing, but the government takes advantage of the minor detail that the family member who had the money has passed on. Why is this being supported by anyone? I mean, it's pretty much one of the MOST frustrating parts of our tax law. It's hard for me to swallow. If I gained a great deal of money in my life, or if my parents did, I would think very seriously about hiding that money from the government to defy an estate tax.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're preaching to the choir. You left out the part of my post where I'm more or less on your side.
There's a whole lot more to it than just that, but that's for another time in another thread.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
If person A owes person B a favour, and person B owes C a favour, does person A owe person C a favour? What if person B passes the favor done to A onto his children -- is person A obliged to treat B's children as if A owed the favor directly to them?
I think opinions would differ. And yet this is the way that the money system works - it's not a physical thing, money is a piece of information about the value of exchanges/favours traded in the community.
Or in the case of inheritance, value *gifted* to the individual by his parents.
I think that eventually only full computerized transparency of all money transactions would create a system that without the need of any "taxation" at all would combine libertarianism democracy and communism in a way that's been utterly impossible in a society that so far has been treating money as if it was a physical object to be "owned", rather than a piece of information about your past history of tradings.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You're wrong about how the money system works. Money is a convenient placeholder for goods. It's certainly a different commodity from a lot of other goods, but it's still a physical thing, not just a piece of information.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'd say that it's a representation of wealth. It has nothing to do with "history", as Aris claims.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Seems that you are saying the problems of others are not your concern--that your money is your concern and that being forced to consider others peoples problems, and pay for them, is cruel and wrong.
"Being forced to" is cruel and wrong, yes. But that doesn't mean that the problems of others are not our concern. That's the usual false dichotomy raised up by people who'd rather force others to do what they think is right than rely on trying to convince people of it. It's a bully tactic.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who could be hit by the estate tax. Anything under $2 million is exempt by the tax, and that number will go up next year, and the year after, then the tax will be eliminated entirely, and then we'll have to figure out what to do with it, but in the meantime, come on.
I have a hard time getting over the fact that this society thinks it's acceptable to dip into a person's life earnings when they die. Tax paying citizens own what they own, just because that might be a lot of something, doesn't make that any less of a fact. Why not tax people who simply have a lot of money- a being rich tax? It's the same thing, but the government takes advantage of the minor detail that the family member who had the money has passed on. Why is this being supported by anyone? I mean, it's pretty much one of the MOST frustrating parts of our tax law. It's hard for me to swallow. If I gained a great deal of money in my life, or if my parents did, I would think very seriously about hiding that money from the government to defy an estate tax.
I assume you disagree with the gift tax (which, for consistencies sake, I would argue implies that you disagree with the income tax)?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I have a hard time getting over the fact that this society thinks it's acceptable to dip into a person's life earnings when they die.
It seems far more fair than dipping into a person's life earnings while they are still alive and actually need those earnings.
We have to pay for the government somehow, and given the choice between the two, the estate tax is a much more fair option.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I loved the speech.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who could be hit by the estate tax. Anything under $2 million is exempt by the tax, and that number will go up next year, and the year after, then the tax will be eliminated entirely, and then we'll have to figure out what to do with it, but in the meantime, come on. If your parents are leaving you $2+ million dollars, I have a hard time believing you can't send your kids to the absolute best schools in America, assuming they can get in. Hell with that money you could probably grease the skids a little.
Having said that, I do think it is unfair to tax someone twice for their earnings. I say get rid of the Estate Tax, just tax them more while they're alive.
Keep in mind that property is included in that, and in some areas of the country you can own a decent sized house and be half way there.
My parents are NOT rich, but they own 1 house and 1 small condo, one in each state they live in, so they could be affected by it (and the limit isn't 2 mill, btw).
Even though with the current housing market they couldn't sell their house in MI if they wanted to. They tax vale and the actual sale value are so different that when my parents die my sister and I will HAVE to sell the cottage that has been a part of our lives (and is my favorite place on Earth), because we can't afford to keep it.
We may not even be able to break even once all is said and done.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
To be a bit flippant, if people are so adamant against the estate tax, then let them fight the tax man when it applies to them. Or fight the banks that have their investments from just keeping them, or squatters from taking over their property... Inheritance is a useful fiction propped up by the government, so why shouldn't the government get a cut?
The big thing to me is to keep debt of the parent saddling the children. That should be avoided at all cost, even if it means waiving some or all of a tax that should apply to them.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The big thing to me is to keep debt of the parent saddling the children. That should be avoided at all cost, even if it means waiving some or all of a tax that should apply to them.
This isn't an issue - debts of the estate are paid from the estate before any heirs or other beneficiaries receive anything. Debts can reduce the inheritance someone receives, but can't actually add a debt to the children. This doesn't apply to debts that the children co-signed or guaranteed, of course. Those are debts of the children and the estate, and a debt large enough to swallow the whole estate can burden the children with the remainder.
The debt calculation is done before the estate tax is calculated, so it doesn't create tax where there is nothing in the estate to pay it with.
Right now, the estate tax is a tax on the estate. I think it would be better calculated as a tax on the recipient, with individual exemptions by exemption rather than a single exemption. This would allow a huge estate to be tax free, but only if it is broken up into small chunks.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:This place is being (mostly) more civil on the issue of Obama's speech than Ornery.
I should hope so. Wasn't that why Ornery was set up?
Another thought I had on this speech is the idea that everyone struggles. That's a realization I had to come to if I wasn't going to have a raging argument with my husband every week or so about how he thought affirmative action is immoral.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought that the really difficult thing that Senator Obama did is to balance the reality and the ideal. Living in the world as it is and living in the world as it should be is a delicate thing. For example, in the world that should be, affirmative action would be immoral. It is making a decision based on someone's race. It isn't fair. I think we want to live in a world where we don't do this. On the other hand, in the world that is, we still have a long way to go to reach the world that should be and affirmative action is (arguably) one way to get there. But we aren't there yet and living in the real world means we have to recognize that.
In religious terms it is working towards the kingdom while the kingdom is among us.
I think that Senator Obama balanced that complicated idea very well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For example, in the world that should be, affirmative action would be immoral. It is making a decision based on someone's race. It isn't fair. I think we want to live in a world where we don't do this.
It should be noted that only one portion of "affirmative action" - giving selection preference to minority - is making a decision based on someone's race. There's much more to it than that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes it should. Thank you, Dag.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I don't suppose it would do any good to request that we move the estate tax discussion to it's own thread and allow this threat to return to discussion of Barack Obama and the absolutely incredible speech he made yesterday?
Edit: Yay! I post too slow and the thread seems to have done exactly that Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Drifting threads is a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Drifting threads is a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.
I just don't think it's right, derailing an innocent thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is bad for the tires.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I just think 1) the Estate Tax deserves it's own thread in which to be fully discussed and 2) Obama's Speech deserves to be more fully discussed. And doing both in the same threat would give me a headache. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Drifting threads is a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.
I just don't think it's right, derailing an innocent thread.
Am I going mad, or did I see the word think escape your keyboard?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Obama's mention of how his story was only possible in America, that was very Abraham Lincoln. And about Americans being decent people, that's the Reagan appeal. But I do think he brought his own ideas in that were quite important too.
Naming the anger was an interesting thing to do.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Obama's mention of how his story was only possible in America, that was very Abraham Lincoln.
I'm not even sure these "Only in America" claims are true. Is it so hard to believe it could happen in Canada, and Disraeli was the Jewish prime minister of England over 100 years ago. India, Pakistan, and Indonesia elected women as heads of state much earlier in their democratic tradition. To be sure, there are many countries where Obama's story would have been snuffed out, but I'm not sure how former Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri would have done in this American Democracy.
If this was Obama's great speech on race, I'm disappointed. It seems to me to be another speech to make white people feel good about themselves and their country, without asking them to actually sacrifice or [i]do]/i] anything, of course, except vote for him.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
I keep reading that as "White folks have been discussing it..." Oops.
I thought the speech was amazing. It beautifully described much of what I believe, and took it even farther, giving me much to think about. And I'm sure there's more there that I missed the first time through.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Obama and I live a few blocks from each other. I run by his house almost every morning.
Pot. Kettle.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: If this was Obama's great speech on race, I'm disappointed. It seems to me to be another speech to make white people feel good about themselves and their country, without asking them to actually sacrifice or [i]do]/i] anything, of course, except vote for him.
What should he have talked about Irami? Why are "white people" the only ones who can feel good about the speech? I can tell you from personal experience that you are not representative of the average black person.
It would be nice if you stopped using "white people" as a derogatory term.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Democacy hurts....if you talk about desegregating schools, I think your kid should attend the local public school.
How are you defining "segregated school" in this context, Irami?
Irami, since you're back in the thread, and since I know how easy it is for a short little post like this one to get lost in the shuffle, I thought that I'd repost this question from the first page.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:How are you defining "segregated school" in this context, Irami?
The lab school is segregated by class and race. Hyde Park is a college neighborhood surrounded on three sides by black Chicago and a lake on the fourth. One of the reasons the University can retain professors is because it set up a K-12 private school on campus, with reduced tuition for some faculty. There are tests and prohibitive pricing for non-faculty children, and the result is a school that doesn't reflect the community as much as it services the desires of the tenured college and hospital faculty.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So are you asserting that Obama's daughters are in a school with white children in it but the white children and black children are taught in different classes?
University of Florida has a lab school too. It's not solely because U of C is surrounded by south side.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
How do they maintain that segregation? Does it forbid students from certain races or classes?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:If this was Obama's great speech on race, I'm disappointed. It seems to me to be another speech to make white people feel good about themselves and their country, without asking them to actually sacrifice or [i]do]/i] anything, of course, except vote for him.
Irami,
That doesn't come close to the reactions of my black coworkers here. Everyone who has actually talked about it thought it was an important speech - and I'm downplaying the terms used to describe it.
I don't know if made them "feel good" - or if it made me "feel good" for that matter. But the general consensus here is that it was a powerful speech we appreciated.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it seems to me to be another speech to make white people feel good about themselves and their country, without asking them to actually sacrifice or [i]do]/i] anything, of course, except vote for him.
From the speech:
quote:In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:How is it segregated? Does it forbid students from certain races or classes?
The tuition is between $17,000 to $20,000 a year for non-faculty members. That's prohibitively priced. It's de facto segregation in the same way a poll tax under Jim Crow is de facto segregation.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What percentage of the kids who go to the school are not the children of faculty members?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
...because black = poor? Does that mean all poor people are black or that gaining enough wealth to send your kids to private school means you are no longer black?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So they are black children in an exclusive and therefore mostly white school. I'm having a hard time understanding why that means segregated. It may not be fair, but "segregated" means something else.
[ March 19, 2008, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is it too early to bring out another Princess Bride quote?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The devil is always in the details. Does he intend to enact a massive tax on all of us for national healthcare? How will he pay for the investment in schools? How do you enforce civil rights laws? How do you ensure fairness in our criminal justice system? What does fair mean? How is he going to keep jobs in America? How is he going to win in Iraq? How will he stop special interest groups like AARP, Unions, Trial Lawyers, Big Oil, and so on? It was a very pretty speech but there is no 'how' to it
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What percentage of the kids who go to the school are not the children of faculty members?
Last week, one of the parents told me half, but that half isn't from the neighborhood. It's a great school, parents carpool and drive from all over for it, and none of them are black. This is striking because the while Elementary schools in the neighborhood are reasonably diverse, the local high school, Kenwood Academy, is a few blocks away, and is 95 percent black. The Lab School graduated 125 students last year, and three of them were black males.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So Lexus is a segregated car manufacturer? Is it unethical to offer products or services which not everyone can afford?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Is it too early to bring out another Princess Bride quote?
I would not say such things if I were you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Obama actually sees Unions as a means of keeping jobs in America.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:What percentage of the kids who go to the school are not the children of faculty members?
Last week, one of the parents told me half, but that half isn't from the neighborhood. It's a great school, parents carpool and drive from all over for it, and none of them are black. This is striking because the while Elementary schools in the neighborhood are reasonably diverse, the local high school, Kenwood Academy, is a few blocks away, and is 95 percent black. The Lab School graduated 125 students last year, and three of them were black males.
Hm. So the high cost probably isn't intended to keep non-faculty members' children out of the school. And you say that test scores for kids at this school are comparable to those of kids in the surrounding schools?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The tuition is between $17,000 to $20,000 a year for non-faculty members. That's prohibitively priced. It's de facto segregation in the same way a poll tax under Jim Crow is de facto segregation.
So basically your argument is that because it is a private school, requiring tuition, it is segregated? Is there no financial aid or scholarships at this school? Does that mean that all colleges and universities who have tuitions above the $17,000 to $20,000 range are also segregated?
Furthermore, would a public school be any less segregated? Public schools are not in any way segregated by tuition, but they are segregated by geography to a similar degree. Inner city public schools, after all, end up with a very different demographic than suburban and rural schools.
It seems like the bar you've set for qualifying as "segregated" is so low that it would be impossible to have a desegregated school.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The devil is always in the details. Does he intend to enact a massive tax on all of us for national healthcare? How will he pay for the investment in schools? How do you enforce civil rights laws? How do you ensure fairness in our criminal justice system? What does fair mean? How is he going to keep jobs in America? How is he going to win in Iraq? How will he stop special interest groups like AARP, Unions, Trial Lawyers, Big Oil, and so on? It was a very pretty speech but there is no 'how' to it
Go read his webpage.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:So Lexus is a segregated car manufacturer? Is it unethical to offer products or services which not everyone can afford?
I think this is closer to Obama talking about environmental care, then buying an SUV because they are so darn convenient.
quote:And you say that test scores for kids at this school are comparable to those of kids in the surrounding schools?
The scores are comparable at the elementary school level. The Ray School kids(public) are at or slightly above grade level, while the Lab School students are two or three grades above. At the high school level, it's not even close, part of the problem is the faculty yanking their kids out of the public system.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What Irami is saying is that unless your kids are in a bad school, you don't care about black people.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But not just Obama does that. Lots of tree-huggers in the west have SUVs so they can go hug the trees.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:At the high school level, it's not even close, part of the problem is the faculty yanking their kids out of the public system.
I guess that's part of the problem. The other part of the problem is they go teach at Stanford because then they won't have to send their children to a school with a 25% success rate.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
The school has 35% students of color and over 44 nationalities. Kenwood Academy is 95% black, so his school is more diverse then the public school Irami think his kids should go to.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think this is closer to Obama talking about environmental care, then buying an SUV because they are so darn convenient.
But an SUV is arguably harmful to the environment which is a direct contradiction to his stated position. How is his kids' private education harmful to public education?
It seems like it should be possible to advocate for improved public education while, if you have the resources, seeking an even better education for your family.
Believing that everyone has a right to a minimum standard of (education/health/housing) is a separate issue from believing that people should be able to purchase an even higher standard if, through good luck or hard work, they can afford to do so.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
mph... it's never too early for a Princess Bride quote
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Pooka, democracy hurts. Civic responsibility costs, and not just in dollars.
quote:But not just Obama does that. Lots of tree-huggers in the west have SUVs so they can go hug the trees.
If it matters, I don't like them, either.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So does a market economy. (hurts, that is)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Irami, why are you running in that neighborhood? Shouldn't you be running in a more "segregated" neighborhood?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The scores are comparable at the elementary school level. The Ray School kids(public) are at or slightly above grade level, while the Lab School students are two or three grades above. At the high school level, it's not even close, part of the problem is the faculty yanking their kids out of the public system.
I'm not quite sure I follow. Is the percentage of children of faculty in area public schools higher at the grade school level than it is at the high school level?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
From Obama's website Healthcare
quote: Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
That is kinda frightening
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But not just Obama does that. Lots of tree-huggers in the west have SUVs so they can go hug the trees.
Or all those rich folks who met for an environmental summit in Bali and found the airport did not have enough room for all their private jets.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Is the percentage of children of faculty in area public schools higher at the grade school level than it is at the high school level?
The percentage of children of faculty in the area public schools is much higher at the grade school level.
quote:Irami, why are you running in that neighborhood? Shouldn't you be running in a more "segregated" neighborhood?
During the summer, I run by the lake, during the cold seasons, I run around the neighborhood. His house and Farrakhan's house are on my route.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The tuition is between $17,000 to $20,000 a year for non-faculty members. That's prohibitively priced.
You're right. This college is prejudiced against me, too, because there is no way I could ever afford to send my children there.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The tuition is between $17,000 to $20,000 a year for non-faculty members. That's prohibitively priced.
You're right. This college is prejudiced against me, too, because there is no way I could ever afford to send my children there.
There is something to be said for that, especially considering that human resources departments require college degrees for employment that doesn't seem to require them. I have another opinion entirely about the proliferation of bourgie Masters degrees prestigious colleges are hawking for 30 grand a pop.
[ March 19, 2008, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oh hang on. I think I see what you're getting at Irami... It's hard to make sense of what you're saying when your posts drip so much hate and bitterness, and your hate and bitterness is blinding you, and you are in fact completely missing the point. You're seeing hypocracy in Obama's actions and words, when in fact there is none.
Yes, in a way, the schools in Chicago are segregated. They are segregated by class and yes, by race -- because each public school serves a neighborhood and neighborhoods tend to be, by choice, history, and housing prices segregated by race and class. At least in the city.
You're saying Obama is sending his kids to a segregated school but the truth is that ALL the schools are segregated. By your own admission the public 'neighborhood' high school is no more diverse than the Lab School he sends his kids to. You hold it against him cause you see him as a traitor. Crossing the line and sending his kids to the 'high class white kids school'.
That's just dumb. He has the means to send his kids to a good school. And in doing so he is making the school more diverse. You ought to be encouraging him, because if there were more people like him then you wouldn't have a beef with the school for race at all. Cause it would be diverse. Maybe then you'd just have a class beef with him. So he has money. Well yeah, you sorta have to to get very far in public office -- and by the same measure getting very far in public office means you get money. I mean the senate salary is no small amount.
So the school requires people to pay high tuition and that causes defacto class, and in some ways race segregation. Well yeah, it's a private school. It doesn't get public money (or much of it) and it has a pretty small class size. As a result it needs to charge it's students quite a bit in order to afford the resources to educate them. I mean teachers don't really come that cheap, nor do the teaching resources.
When you hold it against him for sending his kids to the 'high class white school' and then saying things like this:
quote:Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
You're completely missing the point. Read on:
quote:For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Emphasis mine. He's talking about fixing the segregation problem of the schools and improving the schools to bring them up to the levels of the best schools. He's talking about working with white people to do it, instead of battling them and seeing it as us and them as you insist on doing Irami. If you look at his plan for education it involves giving schools more money, more governmental support, and finding ways to get them better teachers and better resources. Look at his plan for education, it's on his website in quite a bit of detail:
I'll requote some of the key and more pertinent points here:
quote:Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
He's talking about poor inner city schools that were most hurt by NCLB.
quote:Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
Again aiming at schools that have a drop-out problem - poor inner city schools.
And for going to college:
quote:Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due.
That might not sound like a lot. But it could actually go a long way toward giving everyone the chance to go to college.
If you want to know the full education plan you can find them both here:
They're long, they're detailed, and they're full of good stuff. That's why he can speak on these issues. Because he means to work to improve the situation he's talking about. The situation exists and he means to improve it.
Incidentally it's pretty clear that even if you listened to his speech you didn't digest it or hear it at all Irami. Cause he has words that speak of and directly to people like you:
quote:A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
Think about it Irami. He's trying to help, and so are many of the people you often rail against. Maybe you should give them a chance.
[ March 19, 2008, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Looks like Clinton surrogate/attack dog Lanny Davis gets to be the Clinton team bad guy in terms of responding to the speech:
quote:But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Senator Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now -- because, if Senator Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Senator Clinton's) -- for sure Senator McCain will insist they be answered in the fall.
These two questions are:
1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?
2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But he didn't use the N word. For starters, there is nothing equivalent to the "n" word for white people, just as there is nothing equivalent to the "b" word for men.
Davis is a lying sack of spent coffee grounds. How can he start out saying he admired the speech if he believes Obama endorses racism? Wouldn't that make Davis also a racist by association?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:there is nothing equivalent to the "n" word for white people, just as there is nothing equivalent to the "b" word for men.
I love being a white guy. We're so blissfully unencumbered.
Irami -
I think you're part of the problem that Obama idenfitied back in his 2004 Keynote speech to the DNC. He said something along the lines of stopping the black on black attacks against the idea that a black kid with a book in his hands is acting white.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who could be hit by the estate tax. Anything under $2 million is exempt by the tax, and that number will go up next year, and the year after, then the tax will be eliminated entirely, and then we'll have to figure out what to do with it, but in the meantime, come on. If your parents are leaving you $2+ million dollars, I have a hard time believing you can't send your kids to the absolute best schools in America, assuming they can get in. Hell with that money you could probably grease the skids a little.
Having said that, I do think it is unfair to tax someone twice for their earnings. I say get rid of the Estate Tax, just tax them more while they're alive.
Keep in mind that property is included in that, and in some areas of the country you can own a decent sized house and be half way there.
My parents are NOT rich, but they own 1 house and 1 small condo, one in each state they live in, so they could be affected by it (and the limit isn't 2 mill, btw).
Even though with the current housing market they couldn't sell their house in MI if they wanted to. They tax vale and the actual sale value are so different that when my parents die my sister and I will HAVE to sell the cottage that has been a part of our lives (and is my favorite place on Earth), because we can't afford to keep it.
We may not even be able to break even once all is said and done.
From what I've read, the exemption for 2008 is $2 million dollars, which means everything up to $2 million is not taxed by the federal government, and everything above that is taxed back to the stone age (45%). Next year the exemption jumps to $3.5 million and then disappears in 2010 before reappearing in 2011 back at the 2001 level. If you have different information, I'd be open to reading it. So by my reading of the rules, if your parents have a total estate of OVER $2 million, then only that which is over the mark will be taxed, and it's a steep tax (that I guess I have to say AGAIN, that I personally don't agree with), but from your given description of your situation, I don't see your parents' homes becoming a liability, unless they are luxury homes. You're painting a different picture of the Estate Tax than what I've read on it. But regardless, I don't like the tax, and I'd like for something else to take its place in the revenue generation sphere of the federal government.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:He said something along the lines of stopping the black on black attacks against the idea that a black kid with a book in his hands is acting white.
It is true. I hate the idea of black kids with books.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or in good schools.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But he didn't use the N word. For starters, there is nothing equivalent to the "n" word for white people, just as there is nothing equivalent to the "b" word for men.
Ham sup gweilo! Oh, you meant in English ... Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There isn't a person in Hyde Park who will say that Ray Elementary School(Public) is a bad school. It's just that the Lab School is outstanding. It's a decision between sending your kid to the elementary school where the average seven year-old is reading at a seven or eight or nine year-old level, or sending your child to a private school where the children have junior high school vocabularies. Part of supporting public education means sending your child to, and working with, your local public school. I would love to live in a country where politicians who sent their kids to private school were viewed with the same contempt as those politicians who used their political connections to have their kids avoid armed service.
[ March 19, 2008, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:He said something along the lines of stopping the black on black attacks against the idea that a black kid with a book in his hands is acting white.
It is true. I hate the idea of black kids with books.
What should they be holding then? Fried Chicken?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Blayne,
if you had read Irami's previous messages (or a lot of what he's posted) you might have recognized his reply there as sarcasm.
Try to read and process before you type, OK?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In all honesty it is kinda hard to tell when hs being carcastic.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Part of supporting public education means sending your child to and working with your local public school.
As I pointed out earlier, I don't understand why this is a given. My interest in my child's education and my interest in a good public school system are not necessarily directly related.
If I believe the public system is sub-par, I will advocate for its improvement. At the same time, if my child's education is important to me and I see the public education as being sub-par, then I will consider alternative or supplementary ways to educate my children. The fact that I'm looking after my childrens' best interests does not take away from my position that public education should be improved.
Now, if I said public education was great, but then didn't put my kids in public school, I might be opening myself up for criticism for hypocrisy, though there is an argument for a prominent politicians to put his kids in small, exclusive private school to protect their privacy and safety, regardless of the quality of education at public schools.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So good schools are okay, just not really good schools?
Irami, wanting our children to have only what the worst off children have (the logical conclusion of your argument) makes a certain amount of sense. That way you know the politician is invested in finding solutions. But in another sense, it isn't really practical. That some children are getting an excellent education doesn't diminish the possibilities of all children getting a better education. Education isn't a zero sum game. Wanting what is best for your children, doesn't mean wanting less for other children.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think that politicians who are also parents have a really tough time with some child-raising choices that would normally be not as big a deal. Every parent has a responsibility to their children, of course, but politician's children are often subjected to a lot of crap that "normal" people's children aren't. And they didn't ask for it. And I think politicians have to make some decisions about their children's welfare that sometimes clash with their ideals.
I think a lot of that crap is going to be lessened in an expensive private school. For one thing, most of the other kids there are going to come from priviledged backgrounds and are going to be less likely to pick on or be resentful of a kid with a famous parent. For another, the smaller class size and more overall individual attention are going to make it so if there is a problem, it's going to be picked up on and quashed a lot sooner.
So even if Obama would like to put his kids where his mouth is and send them to public school, he's got to consider them. If he thinks there's even a chance that they'd be have a harder time in public school than in private, I think he owes it to them to send them to private. They didn't ask him to run for public office. There's always going to be people who don't like his policies or his votes, and I don't think his kids should have to deal with other kids saying "My dad says your dad is ruining the country" any more than absolutely necessary. And that's a lot less likely in a small, expensive private school. He chose to be in the public eye, in a way that is going to make some people mad at him. His kids didn't. I don't think it's fair to expect him to expose them to the sort of vitrol he opens himself up to if he can possibly avoid it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, wanting our children to have only what the worst off children have (the logical conclusion of your argument) makes a certain amount of sense.
I don't see this as the logical conclusion, unless you believe that public education is only for people who can't afford private schools, as if the entire apparatus is the academic equivalent of welfare.
quote:My interest in my child's education and my interest in a good public school system are not necessarily directly related.
I think they are inextricably tied, similar to the way that your child's personal health and your interest in the military safety of the nation are tied.
[ March 19, 2008, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Irami, the problem with your first point there is that it keeps going with the zero-sum approach to education. Even if all the public schools in the country were great and met whatever standards we could come up with UC Lab School would still exist. And those who value education and have the means to send their children there probably would.
An example of that school: back in HS when I was on the math team we would routinely go up against UC Lab School in state competition. Almost every category would go something like this: UC Lab School - 1000 pts St Francis - 100 pts Benette Academy - 90 pts Marmion (I'm being generous here out of loyalty) - 70 pts
When a school is literally a factor of magnitude better than the other prestigious private schools around, it's going to stay in buisness... as you say, the public school in the area is good, and yet people still send their kids to UC Lab School.
Now if he were eschewing a good public school in favor of an equally good private school I think your opposition would hold more weight.
I suppose you could argue that no matter what he should try to have more personal involvement in the local public schools (in order to improve them), but strictly speaking that doesn't require you to send you kids there. Having x kids at a school is not necessarily going to improve that school.
If I say: "Hey that bridge over there is really dangerous and we should fix it." does that mean that my avoidance of the bridge detracts from my desire to have it fixed? No, it means that while I want the bridge fixed, I'm also conscious of the dangers of its present state. Perhaps if I knowingly sacrificed myself by getting killed crossing the bridge it would further the cause more than just preaching about it, but it seems extreme to me. And sacrificing your children seems downright irresponsible (not that sending your kids to a decent public school over a private school is irresponsible).
Additionally, it's worth throwing out there that the kids might have had a say in the matter. I know when I was graduating from middle-school I had a choice in what highschool I chose (the local public school, IMSA or the Catholic HS that I did choose).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: There isn't a person in Hyde Park who will say that Ray Elementary School(Public) is a bad school. It's just that the Lab School is outstanding. It's a decision between sending your kid to the elementary school where the average seven year-old is reading at a seven or eight or nine year-old level, or sending your child to a private school where the children have junior high school vocabularies. Part of supporting public education means sending your child to, and working with, your local public school. I would love to live in a country where politicians who sent their kids to private school were viewed with the same contempt as those politicians who used their political connections to have their kids avoid armed service.
Wait, on the 1st page you said the difference between the schools was negligible. Now you say no one would say Ray is bad, but the Lab school is outstanding. That's 2 very different views, and hurts your credibility considerably. I have no clear idea why you're attacking Obama on this issue. It seems like an emotional not a logical issue for you. Also, the current president's father used political pull to avoid combat for his son, and neither suffered any real damage to their image over it, more's the pity.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: . . .unless you believe that public education is only for people who can't afford private schools, as if the entire apparatus is the academic equivalent of welfare.
It's a fact, not a belief. Keep your categories in line or we'll dismiss you as a public school grad.
Unless you support private school vouchers. Do you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: . . .unless you believe that public education is only for people who can't afford private schools, as if the entire apparatus is the academic equivalent of welfare.
It's a fact, not a belief. Keep your categories in line or we'll dismiss you as a public school grad.
Unless you support private school vouchers. Do you?
It is not a fact. There are many people who can afford private school but who send their children to public school.
Public school is definitely for those children as well.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: . . .unless you believe that public education is only for people who can't afford private schools, as if the entire apparatus is the academic equivalent of welfare.
It's a fact, not a belief. Keep your categories in line or we'll dismiss you as a public school grad.
That most certainly is not a fact. There are plenty of people who send their kids to public schools because they believe in the concept of public education and choose to do so even though they can afford private school.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow, I got my subsets wrong. Well, I am a public school grad. Irami should be proud.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally, if I had the money to send my hypothetical kids to a private school, I'd probably rather invest that money in their higher education and find a really good public school for them. I went to public school, as I imagine most everyone here did, and I think it was both a great experience and gave me a great education, so I have no complaints.
Having said that, not everyone has access to the great public school education that I did, and even if they did, when it comes to peoples' kids, I can forgive them for thinking that everything else is a negligible concern in comparison to their kids' well being. Your kids shouldn't be disadvantaged for your principles.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
To bring the topic back to the speech, the actual content and subject matter, I mean, I am highly impressed. I didn't know politicians could be this smart and honest and good. I thought if they were, they had to hide it. I think nobody has spoken so wisely and honestly on race in our country since MLK. I really really hope he becomes President. I'm definitely voting for him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I liked what Jon Stewart had to say on the matter. He poked a little bit of fun at some parts of the speech here and there, but nothing too bad. And then totally switched tracks and said something like
'And then, at 11am on a day in March, a politician talked to Americans about race like we're adults.'
I can't remember the exact wording, but half the audience laughed and then stopped as they realized what he was really saying. But I think as often is the case, Stewart cut right to the heart of the matter. I don't think it was pandering, I think it was open, honest, intelligent (as opposed to what we usually get, which is to be treated like idiots or children), and an attempt to get a dialogue going. And from the looks of things nationally, he may have started that, though there's no way of knowing how long it'll last.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My ugs and I were talking about it today and the two of them both said that they thought it was a call to act like adults. And I immediately asked, so Daily Show fans? Both are but hadn't actually watched Jon Stewart's comments.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.
It's all just so vague. Maybe Obama's speech was revelatory to some, but when Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," he was putting something on the line. He challenged the way people thought about themselves and their country. Scott, you should know this better than most, Obama seems to be promising magic without costs. Investing in communities, enforcing civil rights laws, ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system, that all sounds like hocus pocus until we get to down to what we expect his "average American," black and white, to give up in order to produce this more perfect Union. This is one of those speeches that allows white liberals to nod their head, vote for him, maybe write a check to some non-profit, then keep doing what they had planned to do before the speech.
I don't even know what he means by "investing in communities, enforcing civil rights, ensuring fairness," and I think I can agree. Those same words could come out of Bush's mouth, or McCain's, or Clinton's. Who is going to be against ensuring fairness?
I like him fine. I voted for him. I'll vote for him again in November. But to be honest, I felt better about Bill Bradley or even Howard Dean than I do about Obama creating a great, just society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually against ensuring fairness.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Plural democracy is divisive. Americans don't agree on what the government should do and why. Americans don't agree on the role of education. Americans don't agree on the role of the penal system. These things matter. And the only people who think that Americans agree on these issues are maybe Obama and a class of white people who take it for granted that all "reasonable and rational" people share their sensibilities. People like Thomas Friedman, or even Morbo who took it as fact that of course people who could afford a better private school would send their kid to private school over public school.
[ March 20, 2008, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm actually against ensuring fairness.
It depends on the context for me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm sorry if I missed this previously, but what sort of government would you have us use, Irami?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure Irami just wants everyone to give up and not get anything done, and then feel horrible about it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm sorry if I missed this previously, but what sort of government would you have us use, Irami?
I find the framework we have tolerable, but I don't like the winner takes all attitude that goes along with majority-ruled democracy. In addition, I've been thinking about what happened when we lost the draft. I think that energy and civic regard fled with the absence of a draft. It's not that I think that we should reinstate a draft, but I do believe we should develop a sophisticated culture of shame in its stead. For a popular example, I don't mind the way Jon Stewart shamed the hosts of Crossfire. Similarly, I think that politicians who profess a commitment to public education, then send their kids to private schools, should be ashamed of themselves. This may require people with private religious obligations to at least have to explain their religious reasons, and the parents will have to trust that the audience is a fair and just one and will judge the parents appropriately.
I think people should be ashamed of excessive lifestyles. I think people should be ashamed of taking all of these drugs to get through the day, whether it's dope, Ritalin, Xanax, or alcohol, whether it's the drug economy incarcerating black youth, or white suburban moms writing off their psych expenses on their taxes, it's all garbage that ought not be legislated with the force of law but should be shamed out of us as Americans. Southern Californians should be ashamed of terra forming all that desert into unsustainable tracts of land. And the list goes on. Mostly, I think we need to talk more and better about the virtues of shame, vulnerability, political courage and trust, and less about strength, stability, physical courage, and zealous self-regard.
[ March 20, 2008, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm pretty sure Irami just wants everyone to give up and not get anything done, and then feel horrible about it.
Until I read Irami's post immediately following, I thought Tom might be exaggerating a tad.
But apparently he wasn't.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: Plural democracy is divisive. Americans don't agree on what the government should do and why. Americans don't agree on the role of education. Americans don't agree on the role of the penal system. These things matter. And the only people who think that Americans agree on these issues are maybe Obama and a class of white people who take it for granted that all "reasonable and rational" people share their sensibilities. People like Thomas Friedman, or even Morbo who took it as fact that of course people who could afford a better private school would send their kid to private school over public school.
I think you are making a false comparison here. Of course those things matter and of course there are disagreements, but as we argued in the Primary thread, disagreement does not have to cause divisiveness. I don't think Obama thinks everyone will share their sensibilities nor do those white people like myself believe this, but thats not what I refer to when I refer to "moderate" or "change".
I refer to that grand idea that victory does not mean defeating the other side, to that grand idea that all Americans matter whether they be conservative or liberal or anything else, to that grand idea that divisiveness is not a by-product of disagreement, and in that sense, it's incorrect to posit that somehow the two fall in line with each other. I think oftentimes we conflate passion with logic, and in so doing, we forget that though we may feel strongly about an issue, that doesn't necessarily indicate that divisiveness is the end result.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I don't even know what he means by "investing in communities, enforcing civil rights, ensuring fairness," and I think I can agree. Those same words could come out of Bush's mouth, or McCain's, or Clinton's. Who is going to be against ensuring fairness?
Keep in mind that one of Obama's big campaign planks is to get young people involved in their communities. Every other stump speech he gives is about volunteering in the community, and he wants two years of weekly community service in exchance for some sort of enhanced financial aid package. The details are somewhat vague, but it could potentially mean millions of new man hours spent in communities, I'd call that an invesment.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Plural democracy is divisive. Americans don't agree on what the government should do and why. Americans don't agree on the role of education. Americans don't agree on the role of the penal system. These things matter. And the only people who think that Americans agree on these issues are maybe Obama and a class of white people who take it for granted that all "reasonable and rational" people share their sensibilities.
That's just not true. Obama acknowledges that disagreements exists but believes that the best way to resolve them is to work together.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Regardless of people who send their kids to public school, even if they can afford private school, the public school systems in this country have always been a welfare program. And I'm tired of welfare being a dirty word. Public schools are there to provide for the betterment (the welfare) of all kids. At least, insofar as education is seen as something that promotes children's welfare.
Public schools are paid for out of a pool of money funded by us all. How is that not a welfare program, on a basic level?
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He doesn't just believe that, he has done that. His record in Illinois has been about getting things done by working with the opposition. We have become politically entrenched - we are afraid if we give an inch - even an inch that we agree we don't need - then we "lose".
For example, his health care plan is not as "universal" as Senator Clinton's, but which one is more likely to get through congress? To actually happen?
[ March 20, 2008, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, you should know this better than most, Obama seems to be promising magic without costs.
He's really not. What promises did he make in that section you quoted?
Agreed, he did not lay out a definitive plan for race reconciliation in the speech-- but neither was it a time for plan-laying.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Looks like Clinton surrogate/attack dog Lanny Davis gets to be the Clinton team bad guy in terms of responding to the speech:
quote:But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Senator Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now -- because, if Senator Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Senator Clinton's) -- for sure Senator McCain will insist they be answered in the fall.
These two questions are:
1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?
2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?
I actually think I'm going to change my registration to Democrat to vote for Barack Obama. I'm still very disappointed by his willingness to comply with the disenfranchisement with the voters in Michigan and Florida, but he just keeps hitting all the right notes with me, while Hillary Clinton is showing herself to be exactly the sort of thing we don't need right now.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that, in general, it seems to me that Sen Obama has a strong focus on pushing a general vision for what he wants.
There should definitely be a vetting process during the primaries, where the candidates have to prove that they can handle the job that they are seeking. I expect a candidates strengths and especially weaknesses to be probed.
However, at a certain point, this assessment turns into just trying to beat them and holding onto issues that are irrelevant, clear distortions of what actually happened, and/or far more destructive to the general interest than important or useful. Often, political campaigns keep working these issues which what seems to be no other motive than hoping that it will hurt their opponent.
I think Bill Clinton gave a very good speech to this effect in 2004. What the country (and to a large extent, the Democratic party) needs is a positive vision that people can get behind. There are a great many agents of intolerance and forces of division out there. Even more than the Change message, I am drawn to Sen Obama's Unify one.
In this case, I think he took an opportunity presented by political attacks to address race in America in a complex manner that does justice to the various sides on it and offers a vision on how to move forward on it. This is the sort of thing that we really should be looking for.
That makes it all the more dissappointing for me when the Clinton campaign comes back with "Yeah, that was great. but let's focus back on the division and low political attacks."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: His record in Illinois has been about getting things done by working with the opposition.
W's record in Texas was all about the same thing, if you recall.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think the world must be dying. I agree with Squicky.
(Except I never supported Clinton)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Good post, Squick. I'd recommend sending something based on it to your state's superdelegates.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Regardless of people who send their kids to public school, even if they can afford private school, the public school systems in this country have always been a welfare program. And I'm tired of welfare being a dirty word. Public schools are there to provide for the betterment (the welfare) of all kids. At least, insofar as education is seen as something that promotes children's welfare.
Public schools are paid for out of a pool of money funded by us all. How is that not a welfare program, on a basic level?
-Bok
It is a program that "promotes the general welfare." It is not a "welfare program" in the sense of the original quote, which specifically defined welfare as something given to people who can't afford to buy it on their own. -- ". . .unless you believe that public education is only for people who can't afford private schools, as if the entire apparatus is the academic equivalent of welfare."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think the world must be dying. I agree with Squicky.
(Except I never supported Clinton)
I never supported Hillary Clinton either, if that's what you meant. (I admired a lot of what Bill Clinton did though, although there were obviously some large dissappointments.)
I don't start out supporting anyone. They have to earn it. She never did and she's pushing herself far into negative territory now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you don't know who your state superdelegates are, here is a site where you can find them.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the site, but it seems okay and is at least a place to start.
quote:Part of supporting public education means sending your child to, and working with, your local public school. I would love to live in a country where politicians who sent their kids to private school were viewed with the same contempt as those politicians who used their political connections to have their kids avoid armed service.
Speaking as someone who graduated from a public school and works in a private school, I'd ask what reason lies behind your contempt for private schools.
Private schools, speaking generally (and there may be exceptions in some cases), are neither out to damage public schools nor out to exclude certain classes or races from getting a good education. If someone has led you to believe otherwise, I can tell you at least that that is mistaken. The purpose of a private school is actually almost identical to that of homeschooling - to give students an education when they have special needs or when they parents believe their given public school cannot fulfill the needs of their child. They are not out to make a profit, and typically cannot pay for the costs of educating the kids on tuition alone - education is expensive. Most try very hard to diversify their student population, to avoid the obvious problem of only the wealthy being able to afford it, and give out extensive financial aid accordingly. Many attempt to be innovative in ways that public schools cannot be. And I'd be willing to bet that if you surveyed private school educators, you'd find most consider themselves to be on the same side as public school educations, in the effort to educate kids. This is, at least, how things appear from my perspective.
If your goal is to improve public education, the solution is not to attack parents for sending their kids to private schools or for homeschooling when they don't think their public school can give their kids what their kids need. The solution is to initiate change in the way things are done, by trying new approaches or changing attitudes about education - so that parents at some point will no longer feel the need to make that choice.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: \ I think people should be ashamed of excessive lifestyles. I think people should be ashamed of taking all of these drugs to get through the day, whether its dope, Ritalin, Xanax,
Xanax is a treatment for depression and to suggest that taking it is the same as dope is ridiculous. Depression is and should be treated as a legitimate medical condition. Including it on your list is the same as including insulin for a diabetic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am someone who struggles with depression and who has been greatly helped by antidepressants in the past, but I disagree with your comparison of antidepressants to insulin. After all, how many people have you heard of taking insulin when then don't need it?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Heck, I'm on Ritalin, and it has made a huge difference in my quality of life. Until society as a whole adapts to see easy distractiblity and a lack of focus as some sort of net plus, I'm going to be on it the rest of my life.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I am someone who struggles with depression and who has been greatly helped by antidepressants in the past, but I disagree with your comparison of antidepressants to insulin. After all, how many people have you heard of taking insulin when then don't need it?
People generally need to take insulin before they actually need it. At least, that's what I think I see happening, like when you eat out with a diabetic and they take their insulin and then the food doesn't arrive, it can get kind of tense.
Both types of medicines are designed to avoid hormonal crises, but they are just on different ranges of time. You tend to get depressed in terms of days and weeks. while your blood sugar fluctuates by the hour.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pooka -- you and I are talking about completely different things.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The way I figure it, if I'm paying my property taxes I'm supporting my local public school. Any citizen that pays property taxes, and does not have a child in public school is supporting their public school, even if they don't have any children, or their children are in private schools. The way I figure it a parent that pays taxes and has their children in private school is freeing up money and a seat in the public school classrooms, and thus is improving the public education system as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Regardless of people who send their kids to public school, even if they can afford private school, the public school systems in this country have always been a welfare program. And I'm tired of welfare being a dirty word. Public schools are there to provide for the betterment (the welfare) of all kids. At least, insofar as education is seen as something that promotes children's welfare.
Public schools are paid for out of a pool of money funded by us all. How is that not a welfare program, on a basic level?
-Bok
It is a program that "promotes the general welfare." It is not a "welfare program" in the sense of the original quote, which specifically defined welfare as something given to people who can't afford to buy it on their own. -- ". . .unless you believe that public education is only for people who can't afford private schools, as if the entire apparatus is the academic equivalent of welfare."
Except that it largely did grow out of a desire to educate kids whose families wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford sending them to school. And that isn't a bad thing. The goals of said education can be argued as far as relevance and efficacy is concerned, but the reason to have public school education at all is presumably so that all children, regardless of their family's ability to pay, can get an education.
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Which, in turn, is good for all of us.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Absolutely.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The way I figure it a parent that pays taxes and has their children in private school is freeing up money and a seat in the public school classrooms, and thus is improving the public education system as well.
I still think the comparison obtains, "I won't let my kid fight in the army, but I'll donate a little bit extra to the VA to show my support," or "It's okay that I left my wife and kids, I give more than enough money in child-support and alimony to keep them in the comfortable lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed." Contrary to popular belief, public schools need thoughtful parents and their thoughtful children much more than money.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think your first comparison is close to what you're trying to say, but really the historical comparison is that during a draft back in the day, at least going back to the Civil War, you could either serve or pay $500. The wealthy families paid the money and went about their day feeling like they contributed to the war effort (and they did). The poor families sent their sons to fight.
The second comparison I think doesn't work. Paying for public school and not going doesn't nearly compare to paying for a family but not being there for them physically or emotionally.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I am someone who struggles with depression and who has been greatly helped by antidepressants in the past, but I disagree with your comparison of antidepressants to insulin. After all, how many people have you heard of taking insulin when then don't need it?
How many people with diabetes refuse to take insulin when there drs prescribe it? Every person I know who is on antidepressents went through a difficult process before being willing to take the pills. They view the pills as the "easy out" and a sign of failure. While I am sure that the drugs are misused, I think comments like Irami's reinforce this shame and can do a lot of harm.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can understand that concern, but making misleading statements is not the way to inform people about their importance.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I guess I am a little confused on what in my statement was misleading. For those who are seriously depressed, taking the drug every day is as important as a diabetic taking insulin.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I am someone who struggles with depression and who has been greatly helped by antidepressants in the past, but I disagree with your comparison of antidepressants to insulin. After all, how many people have you heard of taking insulin when then don't need it?
I don't think that's relevant. Just because there are people who take antidepressants who do not need them does not mean there are not also people who need them as much as a diabetic needs insulin.
(Or what scholar just said.)
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You might say they're different in that insulin replaces a body chemical, while antidepressants act on body chemicals without being a direct replacement. Additionally, the chances of your illness killing you are significantly (but not infinitely) higher if you have diabetes and aren't taking your insulin than if you have depression and aren't taking your antidepressant.
If you like, compare antidepressants instead to my need to take stimulants for narcolepsy. Yes, my body does not have an absolute need for drugs. I can survive without them, but I can't really live. The same is true for many people with depression. And of course, there are some cases where people don't survive when they might have had they gotten good treatment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I guess I am a little confused on what in my statement was misleading. For those who are seriously depressed, taking the drug every day is as important as a diabetic taking insulin.
If you're only talking about the people who need them, you have a point. But we weren't.
The fact that there's an important difference between those who need and those who take insulin vs. antidepressants is why I think using one as an analogy for the other is faulty when you're talking about whether people who use them really need them.
It is not correct to say that people who take antidepressants need them just like people who take insulin need it, precisely because there are people who take it who don't need it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Porter, there are people with type 2 diabetes who take insulin who could manage without it -- usually by taking other meds and/or getting their weight and diet under control.
Not every diabetic who takes insulin is the same, any more than every clinically depressed person who takes SSRI's is.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Because I'm sure people care what I think about depression or anxiety, I think that we still haven't figured out how to live. With technology, money, and expectations mixed in with the more arty and important human virtues, and with all these qualities conflicting, we still haven't figured out how to live. And if you want to check out for a while, or push a little harder, you can go to your local dealer, bartender or doctor, and they'll give you what you need to get through. The world is a bit of a behemoth, and it's easier to take a pill to adjust yourself to the world rather than the other way around.
[ March 20, 2008, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure someone who comes off as so frequently unhappy and bitter is really suited to telling people in which ways they should strive for happiness.
Wait, that's not true. I'm very sure such a person isn't.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Hey man, I don't dope up, legal or otherwise, and I think there is something to be said for that. I also think if more people put down the pills, bottles, or needles, and doctors stopped enabling them, our priorities would improve.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Setting aside that you're grossly under qualified to have an informed opinion about when and under what circumstances individuals should take medication, setting the bar at 'not doping up' (illegally) is pretty stupid.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Actually, Irami, I think we've done a pretty good job figuring out how to live. Looking back over the course of human history, I see a lot of behavioral improvement which shouldn't be ignored.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't dope up, legal or otherwise, and I think there is something to be said for that.
Good for you, Irami!
(If by 'dope' you mean misuse legal prescription drugs...)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Hey man, I don't dope up, legal or otherwise, and I think there is something to be said for that.
And that depends entirely on whether or not you have an irrational distrust or dislike of prescription medication use.
A bipolar dude takes a drug to combat the mood swings; does he 'dope up?'
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Good for you, Irami!
(If by 'dope' you mean misuse legal prescription drugs...)
I don't make a distinction. Nancy Reagan asked me to "Say 'No' to Drugs" when I was in 2nd grade, and it seemed them, as seems now, a fair proposition.
quote:A bipolar dude takes a drug to combat the mood swings; does he 'dope up?'
Quite possibly. Maybe it would be better if we just admit that we live in a world where people have mood swings, and adjust the culture according. If nothing else, it would be one less pressure on the person to fit in.
___ There are enough doctors and drug companies out there such that anyone with the right connections can be diagnosed with any condition they'd like to attain the rainbow of pills they want to get through the day. If we were serious about the War on Drugs, we wouldn't throw people in jail as much as we'd go at the drug companies and doctors perpetuating the culture that whatever problems one has, the answer includes some drug.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Aha.
Is there a difference between taking a Tylenol and taking Zoloft?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scott, it depends.
This is an aesthetic judgment and doesn't reduce very well to hard and fast laws, that's why in order to change our drug culture, as well as public school discourse, I think the pressure has to be cultural rather than legal-- aesthetic rather than materially forceful-- because in the end, it's important that people understand and choose not to solve problems with pills and understand that supporting public education means sending their children to public school and choosing to do so. If they are forced to or bribed to do the right thing, I think it degrades the entire business. Then, and this is where a sophisticated understanding of freedom, dignity, and democracy is important, we have to let them make the choice on a case by case basis, even if that means leaving ourselves vulnerable to what we believe to be the error of their ways.
[ March 21, 2008, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course, not all crutches are pharmocological. Some people rely on accusations of racism and empty pseudo-intellectualism.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't mind your opinion on public schooling. I don't agree, wholly, but I think that support of public schools-- rather than abandonment of them for private schooling-- is needed.
The drug thing you've got wrong. I'd like to see some more discipline from you in supporting your argument. How have you come to your conclusion? Do you have data to support your point of view? Do you have anecdotes to support your view?
I do not believe that taking prescription drugs in order to manage depression, anxiety, or other neurological disorders disrupts any clear-minded, well-intentioned aesthetic. In short, they uplift the quality of the patient's life in quantifiable, measurable ways.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it's great when a small adjustment of a drug makes an otherwise disfunctional person functional. But there are a lot of people who even with drugs are still not functional. The idea that everyone can be fixed and turned into a happier, healther, more productive person through the use of pharmaceuticals is a problem. I can see where it relates to the idea that you can make a kid a genius just by spending more money on their education.
But I think the line is somewhere other than where Irami is standing.
Like I used to think it was wrong for women to have painkillers when they are giving birth (having been strongly influence by someone who lived in the days when they were mandatory.) Now I feel like it's important for mothers to be educated and have confidence in their decisions and medical care, and to find acceptance when things don't go the way they may have expected.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Irami, don't forget your rants against fat people too. We can all aspire to be pure, thin, drug-free ascetic aesthetes! Who choose to go to public schools. And who are riddled with shame. Yes we can!
edit: I added "And who are riddled with shame." in the 10 minute edit window.
[ March 21, 2008, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We can all aspire to be pure, thin, drug-free ascetic aesthetes! Who choose to go to public schools. Yes we can!
If you replace "thin" with healthier, then you have a movement I can get behind. I fully believe we should cultivate a culture of pure, healthier, drug-free ascetic aesthetes. It beats the heck out of sixteen year-old boys slipping into diabetes and seventeen year old girls on anti-depressant cocktails.
pooka,
quote:Now I feel like it's important for mothers to be educated and have confidence in their decisions and medical care, and to find acceptance when things don't go the way they may have expected.
I agree. There is also a wave of quasi-elective c-sections sweeping the land. There are a host of benefits, but the downside is that we are creating a culture that teaches women that their bodies are unable to handle childbirth. It's a ticklish issue, and there isn't a straightforward answer, but I think we are going to hear a lot about this in the next 25 years.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Way to casually dismiss the crippling difficulties of a lot of people, Irami. If you have never suffered from clinical depression or anxiety, it is extremely easy to dismiss it as no big deal or "mood swings."
A friend of mine lived most of his life remarkably healthy. Never got sick, never got sniffles, had perfect teeth. He had real problems understanding how weak you can feel when you're sick, and he tended to dismiss the sickness of others as laziness. He's changed a bit, as he got older and started having weaknesses of his own, and he became an RN and now sees firsthand what sickness can do.
Yes, many people rely too much on (and many doctors prescribe too many) quick fix pills, but please don't casually dismiss the people who actually need it. Medications for clinical depression and anxiety aren't there to help enforce some sort of societal peer pressure. They're there to give the person back a modicum of control over their own minds.
From reading your posts here and over the years, I get the feeling you live in a world with no shades of gray whatsoever, and frankly it's not one I care to visit.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(That said, I suspect we still have a lot to learn about the complicity of drug companies to manufacture and then cure conditions, and the endless pressure to use quick and easy -- but expensive -- fixes when a sensible diet and exercise would be better.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I "lost" my father for several years as a teenager because of chemical imbalances due to circumstances to which Irami would have probably responded with "Buck up, old chap." And my dad had similar general attitudes about taking drugs for mental illness. There's a great story of him escaping out a third story window, because he didn't think he was nuts (and to be honest, he probably wasn't as nuts as some of the people around him). Yes, my dad actually escaped a mental hospital, movie-land style.
They eventually found some drugs that work. And I am grateful, because not only did I get my father back (not in perfect condition whatever that is, mind you, but more than adequate) but my soon-to-be-born son will have a Jaju that he can visit and love too.
So feel free to not take drugs, legally or otherwise. Just don't start throwing blanket judgments, they're the suffocation hazard of the intellect.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Quite possibly. Maybe it would be better if we just admit that we live in a world where people have mood swings, and adjust the culture according. If nothing else, it would be one less pressure on the person to fit in.
Because, after all, the only reason many bipolar people are unhappy is because of societal pressures.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard today, but then again it's early.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the problem was initially calling the cycling of a person with bi-polar "mood swings." That's like calling a broken leg a charley horse. One of them you can walk off. The other not so much.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was going to go with "calling melanoma a slight skin discoloration."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I stick with the simpler and equally accurate, "You're being an idiot, Irami." Although those others are more elegant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I fully believe we should cultivate a culture of pure, healthier, drug-free ascetic aesthetes.
By shaming people into things? That's so libertarian of you, Irami.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I could get into this discussion on drugs and mental health, but it's possible I would get more upset than I would wish to- so I'm going to stay out of that part for the moment.
I quite liked Obama's speech though. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know how it could work, Irami. I think what you're saying is that if mentally ill people were not under threat of losing their jobs if they don't take medication (not officially, but in the sense that they have to compete with "sane" people for hiring and promotion) then maybe it wouldn't matter so much. The thing is, people don't want to work around the needs of people with problems. The ADA is supposed to prevent discrimination. Do we tell people with no legs "just use fake legs and don't tell anyone you're crippled."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Tom,
A sophisticated culture of shame, in the way of cultural expectations of upright, responsible behavior. I don't know why this is so surprising. I think it's more dignified than the current alternative, force of law and setting freedom equal to licentiousness.
Pooka,
It's a drag, right? I don't have a problem lowering the expectations of how many widgets are supposed to be produced by a given employee. I think that means that people would have less stuff and less noise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Quite possibly. Maybe it would be better if we just admit that we live in a world where people have mood swings, and adjust the culture according. If nothing else, it would be one less pressure on the person to fit in.
You could switch the topic to hypertension and say that people on blood pressure medication are probably doping up, and that it would be better if we just admit that we live in a world where people have high blood pressure.
And I think I'd find it .. about as absurd.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But shame is why people don't like going to church. (I actually don't have any problem swapping out high blood pressure for depression in that sentence -- I think beta blockers are a disaster.)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But shame is why people don't like going to church.
I don't like church because I don't believe in God.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So what's the point in shame? Your society has to have some reflection of ideals that an aberration from would be the cause for shame.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
To remind people that there better and worse ways to live, and we expect you to think carefully and choose the better.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But who chooses what's better and what's worse? I guess I should say, I believe that East Asians seem (to me) to have a very honor oriented ethic in their culture. But it comes at a price. I'm not really sure which parts of the culture are a necessary part of the price -- the sexism, for instance. And we're pretty racist as a group.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I like going to church because it pretty much the opposite of shame.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I go to church too. But people who don't go to church have often stopped because of shame.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's so Victorian of you, Irami (the whole group shaming principle).
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But who chooses what's better and what's worse?
The answer emerges in conversation between the individual and the culture's mores. Then the individual summons his/her courage and goes forth, taking the lumps that come along.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I go to church too. But people who don't go to church have often stopped because of shame.
I know. It's sad.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:But who chooses what's better and what's worse?
The answer emerges in conversation between the individual and the culture's mores. Then the individual summons his/her courage and goes forth, taking the lumps that come along.
Ideally. In reality, it emerges based on the tolerances and predilections of those with the most societal leverage.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:A sophisticated culture of shame, in the way of cultural expectations of upright, responsible behavior.
And this is the problem with pseudo-intellectual reformers. The world doesn't work that way. People don't work that way. You'd know that if you had anything to back up what you are saying besides your high opinion of yourself.
You haven't taken the time to learn about the issues you are talking about. It is ignorant, sneering people like you who make it difficult for people who have actual courage, who are actually out there doing things, to accomplish things.
You wield your ignorance like a weapon (You like weapons, which is probably why it ultimately comes down to destruction, not building) but the peopel you're hurting aren't the ones you seem to think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It is ignorant, sneering people like you who make it difficult for people who have actual courage, who are actually out there doing things, to accomplish things.
You wield your ignorance like a weapon (You like weapons, which is probably why it ultimately comes down to destruction, not building) but the peopel you're hurting aren't the ones you seem to think.
Please find a more civil way of discussing this topic.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Thanks for telling how the world really works.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tell that to Irami, Scott.
Bipolar people on medication aren't 'doping up'. He's being very insulting. We've even got some bipolar people around here on Hatrack, so it's not 'OK' in the sense that is often bandied about in forums that he's not talking about anyone here.
And anyway, Irami makes a habit more than just about anyone else around here of preaching about how the world really works. He is ignorant, he is sneering, and he actually does like using a very 'weaponized' approach to social issues, i.e. shame.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, the irony.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am enjoying the attempt to shame Irami into taking back his statements about depression.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Tell that to Irami, Scott.
I did. That's what the whole, "I'd like to see more discipline..." thing was about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Am I attempting to shame him?
Not really. Irami doesn't change his mind about anything, at least not that I've seen on Hatrack. But his rhetoric can be pretty seductive, or at least well phrased. I think it's important to reject it, as someone who has bought into (for myself, at least, in the past) the foolish and self-destructive notion that the best way to overcome mental and emotional problems is just to gut your way through it, overcoming by sheer force of will.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That's not the only other option (for the types of problems I have had, not necessarily for any kind of depression.) My depression dissipated as I worked a 12 step program for something else. I have no idea whether trying to work 12 steps directly on depression would work, though.
Anyway, I doubt that surrendering my problems to a higher power would be more acceptable in Irami's paradigm than taking a pill -- Opiate of the people and all that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Irami, I'm not trying to tell you how the world works. I don't know that. I'm just saying you are full of crap.
It doesn't take anywhere near knowing how things work to see how empty your statements are. You like to talk about courage and character, but I've honestly not seen much of either from you in your entire time here.
If you had them, you'd learn about the things you talk about from somewhere other than the Univeristy of What I Want to Believe. You'd stop using racism and other excuses to explain why people don't agree with your image of yourself as brilliant philosopher king. You wouldn't be so afraid of Barack Obama becoming President.
You haven't grown from the perosn who would make up nice-sounding emtymologies for words, get caught on it, but then still unashamedly hound and insult someone else for not knowing where a word came from. If you don't, you're going to achieve little more than a whole lot of justifications for why you haven't achieved anything.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Anyway, I doubt that surrendering my problems to a higher power would be more acceptable in Irami's paradigm than taking a pill -- Opiate of the people and all that.
As long as you aren't doing it for a bribe, but because you think it's the right thing to do, it sounds good to me. I don't have a problem with religion. If you believe in Jesus, believe in Jesus. I do take issue with those people who believe that the answer to social problems is to get people to go to church.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, the only reason many bipolar people are unhappy is because of societal pressures.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard today, but then again it's early.
No kidding. Yes, sometimes society's reactions don't help, but severe mental illness can be hell even with all the support in the world.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I do take issue with those people who believe that the answer to social problems is to get people to go to church.
Just so we're clear, I never put forth "church" as the solution to social ills. I was saying that the cultivation of shame sounded kind of church-like.
It's a sticky question for me, since I'm certain many people here can think of quotes in which people in my church have said that the gospel is the solution for society's ills. I'm not really sure how to describe my thoughts on that. I believe "the gospel" can bring about certain social benefits, but the church is merely the body of Christ and not the gospel entirely.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:We can all aspire to be pure, thin, drug-free ascetic aesthetes! Who choose to go to public schools. Yes we can!
If you replace "thin" with healthier, then you have a movement I can get behind. I fully believe we should cultivate a culture of pure, healthier, drug-free ascetic aesthetes. It beats the heck out of sixteen year-old boys slipping into diabetes and seventeen year old girls on anti-depressant cocktails.
I put thin in there because of your blanket condemnations of fat people as moral failures. And now you're doing the same thing with anyone who takes psychotropic drugs.
You're forgetting something: people don't want to be ascetic aesthetes.
This is really a full-blown case of projection of yourself onto an idealized (Iramized) society, to a cartoonish degree. I diagnose clinical narcissism, take a healthy dose of shame to cure your shamelessness and call me when it's morning in America.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Just so we're clear, I never put forth "church" as the solution to social ills.
Don't sweat it. I wasn't addressing you. There is a too influential segment of blacks who believe that the answer is for parents to take their children to church. It's not a segment I support. ___
Morbo,
quote: You're forgetting something: people don't want to be ascetic aesthetes.
People don't want to do a lot of things, including read to their children.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
And people don't want to do other things of doubtful utility.
You haven't made a case for why "Be like me" is a social panacea.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(hesitantly inserting something related to the original rail of this thread...)
E.J. Dionne has an interesting column out today that takes a historic figure's preaching style.
quote:One black leader who was capable of getting very angry indeed is the one now being invoked against Wright. His name was Martin Luther King Jr.
An important book on King's rhetoric by Barnard College professor Jonathan Rieder, due out next month, offers a more complex view of King than the sanitized version that is so popular, especially among conservative commentators. In "The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me," Rieder -- an admirer of King -- notes that the civil rights icon was "not just a crossover artist but a code switcher who switched in and out of idioms as he moved between black and white audiences."
Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."
As Dionne points out in his column, there was no YouTube back then - a very good thing for both King himself and the civil rights movement as a whole.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Much of white America is unfamiliar with the milieu of the black church. When clips from Wright's sermons began circulating, many whites heard divisive, angry, unpatriotic pronouncements on race, class and country. Many blacks, on the other hand, heard something more familiar: righteous anger about oppression and deliberate hyperbole in laying blame, which are common in sermons delivered in black churches every Sunday. The Rev. Terri Owens, dean of students at the University of Chicago Divinity School, says the black church tradition has its roots in the era of slavery, when African Americans held services under trees, far from their white masters. "Churches have always been the place where black people could speak freely," she says. "They were the only institutions they could own and run by themselves."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:As Dionne points out in his column, there was no YouTube back then - a very good thing for both King himself and the civil rights movement as a whole.
But perhaps a bad thing for the anti-war movement.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Much of white America is unfamiliar with the milieu of the black church. When clips from Wright's sermons began circulating, many whites heard divisive, angry, unpatriotic pronouncements on race, class and country. Many blacks, on the other hand, heard something more familiar: righteous anger about oppression and DELIBERATE HYPERBOLE in laying blame, which are common in sermons delivered in black churches every Sunday."
Yep, and anybody who has read enough black literature (I'm thinking of Toni Morrison, I'm sure there are others) knows this already, white, black, or whatever. This preacher's rage and invective are pretty garden-variety. I'm a little surprised more Hatrackers haven't run across this. I'd also be willing to bet that white people with evangelical backgrounds probably don't find the intensity as shocking as those whites without. Preachers...preach. Good or bad, wrong or right, you're going to find some intensity and some strong opinions in pulpits and religious literature in all major religions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:But who chooses what's better and what's worse?
The answer emerges in conversation between the individual and the culture's mores. Then the individual summons his/her courage and goes forth, taking the lumps that come along.
NOTE: Does not work for all individuals, no matter how wrong they think society is.
EXA: Irami Osei-Frimpong
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Oops.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)