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 ... Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I'm sorry if I missed this previously, but what sort of government would you have us use, Irami?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Irami just wants everyone to give up and not get anything done, and then feel horrible about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post, Squick. I'd recommend sending something based on it to your state's superdelegates.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
