Illuminati

[moon_lit_tears]

 

Yes, these are people who broke out in the entertainment industry by virtue of hard work, a good look, and a lot of luck. As happy as I am for Brittney and Christina, how many other people had a Disney advertising campaign backing them in their high school years? The fact that people can and do make it in show business really isn't pertinent to a conversation about what the average person can make of himself in a lifetime.

 

You say the average person doesn't not have the same chance that these people had? So these people had something different than you or I had? What is it? What made THEM different?

 

The average American is going to struggle through life. It sucks but it's the truth. The average person in most countries is going to struggle through life. It's there. Each country has there poor/homeless people. This debate is going to go no where because people can argue points from all views and it's going to be countered by another view, and yet another.

[CQI13]

You say the average person doesn't not have the same chance that these people had? So these people had something different than you or I had? What is it? What made THEM different?

 

The average American is going to struggle through life. It sucks but it's the truth. The average person in most countries is going to struggle through life. It's there. Each country has there poor/homeless people. This debate is going to go no where because people can argue points from all views and it's going to be countered by another view, and yet another.

 

They obviously had the "famous" gene.

[moon_lit_tears]

They obviously had the "famous" gene.

 

 

Damn. Where can I get one of them implanted into my kid (when I have one) so they can grow up and be famous and support me.

[shamelessposer]

You like the government education system?

 

Kinda? It fostered my love of reading, writing, and history. The shoddier side of things even taught me to go seek out information for myself, and to trust the opinions of experts over laymen.

 

How about we fix that first before we start giving money away for other subsidies?

 

How do you propose it gets fixed? So far you've been a bundle of negativity without so much as one idea on how to fix the stuff you're complaining about. Help me here, please. No Child Left Behind is a clear and major misstep, but nothing is going to be done about it unless a new solution is presented. How do you propose we fix the education system? Or maybe you don't have a solution. There's a good chance you're not a smart enough dude to correct a nationally-funded government program, and that's okay, because I'm not either. In that event, who do you think should try and fix the education system?

 

Every paycheck, 23% is taken out. And I'm nowhere near six figures. Guaranteed that things could get funded properly if politicians weren't buying votes with public funds.

 

What exactly when you mean when you talk about politicians "buying votes with public funds"? In unclear on your wording, here. If you're referring to pork barrel spending, it's a problem at the national level, yeah, but it's Economy-Boost-In-A-Can at the state level. There's some amount of corruption at every level of government, but simply dismissing "the government" as a corrupt and unchanging monolithic force does a disservice. If you're going to call your senator a thief regardless, what incentive is there in being honest?

 

The government has this belief that in order to fix a problem, you just throw money at it. Think of it logically:

 

Say you have a business, and it's failing. Do you scrap it and start over? Do you throw money at it without knowing what's wrong? That's what our government likes to do.

 

How about sitting down, and finding out what's wrong first, then attacking the problem directly? Nah, that'd make sense.

 

When a business is failing, a smart business, they fire the board of directors and bring in some fresh blood to correct the problem. At the national level, we already do this every two years.

[shamelessposer]

They obviously had the "famous" gene.

 

They have the hard work thing going for them, yeah. They went after their dreams or whatever. That only gets you a third of the way there, though.

 

A lot of it is luck. Showing up to the right audition at the right time and leaving the right impression on the right casting agent. Hearing about the audition in the first place. Having just the right sound or the right look to get picked up. Basses don't exactly bring in the same star power as tenors, after all.

 

The third thing is the look. No offense intended, but I doubt moon_lit_tears looks like Brittney Spears and I'm similarly doubtful that you look like Justin Timberlake. You can sing like an angel, but unless you've got a face to match there's not much of a chance that Disney is sticking you in The New Mickey Mouse Club.

[shamelessposer]

The average American is going to struggle through life. It sucks but it's the truth. The average person in most countries is going to struggle through life. It's there. Each country has there poor/homeless people. This debate is going to go no where because people can argue points from all views and it's going to be countered by another view, and yet another.

 

It's demonstrable fact that productivity has skyrocketed in the last few decades while wages have remained stagnant. As union membership goes down, the middle class shrinks. It's been proven that having skin that doesn't pass the "paper bag test" cuts your pay. We live in a country where the median single black woman generates $100 of wealth a year and the median single white woman generates $41,000 of wealth a year. If you'd like, I could go fetch some studies and charts. You can even look them up, if you'd like. Meanwhile, and I say this with all respect intended, your arguments have mostly been anecdotes about celebrities. Sadly, the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact."

[CQI13]

Kinda?

 

 

 

How do you propose it gets fixed? So far you've been a bundle of negativity without so much as one idea on how to fix the stuff you're complaining about. Help me here, please. No Child Left Behind is a clear and major misstep, but nothing is going to be done about it unless a new solution is presented. How do you propose we fix the education system? Or maybe you don't have a solution. There's a good chance you're not a smart enough dude to correct a nationally-funded government program, and that's okay, because I'm not either. In that event, who do you think should try and fix the education system?

 

 

 

What exactly when you mean when you talk about politicians "buying votes with public funds"? In unclear on your wording, here. If you're referring to pork barrel spending, it's a problem at the national level, yeah, but it's Economy-Boost-In-A-Can at the state level. There's some amount of corruption at every level of government, but simply dismissing "the government" as a corrupt and unchanging monolithic force does a disservice. If you're going to call your senator a thief regardless, what incentive is there in being honest?

 

 

 

When a business is failing, a smart business, they fire the board of directors and bring in some fresh blood to correct the problem. At the national level, we already do this every two years.

 

I have no comment on you liking the government school system.

 

Solution #1: Get rid of unions for teachers. Open up competition with charter schools and private schools for the same kids. Otherwise, nothing will change.

 

So because it "helps" the states, we should just ignore it? Maybe we should, I'll just make sure to pass that on to the next generation when it comes time for me to pay for these "boosts" which haven't boosted much.

 

Your comment on being a thief brings up a funny story. Back where I was born, I happened to be at a party where a politician was at (the former mayor of the capital city). While you may say "Well, that's not in the US!", it would be naive to think that some politicians here don't hold the same attitude:

 

He said, "If you're a politician and you steal, they call you a thief. If you're a politician and you don't steal, they call you stupid. I'd rather be a thief than stupid any day." And the government has been largely corrupt and monolithic force. Why is it that up until now, most every poll has Congress with a low approval rating, but when it comes to election time, most remain? Because people always say "We have to get rid of all those crooks...except for my guy, he's doing a good job." Problem is, just about everyone seems to think the same.

 

If you really need an incentive to be honest, that fits nicely with a society that glorifies athletes and "celebrities", but then again that could be applying my moral sensitivities to the subject.

 

As for "firing" the board of directors and as a country us being able to do that every 2 years...why not go a step further and putting term limits in? I know, because the people with the power to implement such a law won't do it because they don't want to work in the real world.

[moon_lit_tears]

It's demonstrable fact that productivity has skyrocketed in the last few decades while wages have remained stagnant. As union membership goes down, the middle class shrinks. It's been proven that having skin that doesn't pass the "paper bag test" cuts your pay. We live in a country where the median single black woman generates $100 of wealth a year and the median single white woman generates $41,000 of wealth a year. If you'd like, I could go fetch some studies and charts. You can even look them up, if you'd like. Meanwhile, and I say this with all respect intended, your arguments have mostly been anecdotes about celebrities. Sadly, the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact."

 

You keep going on and on about a situation that was here before you, and will be here when you are gone. It's a sad situation yes. Can you change it?

 

Is there something YOU can do to change it? Seriously. You have sat here pointing out facts figures and everything else you can yet it does no good. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed or looked at or done something about.

 

You're theory is bogus in some accounts. I know people (yes single situations but they happen) who have come from nothing and make damn good money and so do there children. My fathers best friend was an EX Cowboy. his wife works for a huge legal company. She makes in the 6 figure range. Someone brought this up to her. Her response was simply this.

 

"My parents had nothing, I went to school in rags. I payed attention I did my school work and I learned. I get so sick of hearing color keeps people down when it clearly isn't just color but peoples stupidity in general, black, white, or whatever color they are."

 

now that is coming from a Black lady who went from living on welfare with her mother (no father) to making a life for herself.

 

I get that in some cases race plays a part. Not everything is about race and you keep going back to it. If everything was about race there would be no rich black men and Oprah would be on welfare.

[shamelessposer]

I have no comment on you liking the government school system.

 

You missed my edit, I guess:

 

"Kinda? It fostered my love of reading, writing, and history. The shoddier side of things even taught me to go seek out information for myself, and to trust the opinions of experts over laymen."

 

There are problems, yes. Many of these problems stem from the way the schools are funded, rather than the schools themselves. Half the problem in education today is that the really bright people have a larger financial incentive to go into private industry than education. As a whole, though, the public education system has been an unmitigated success. My parents know more than their parents did, and I know more than my parents do, and I have the public education system to thank for it. I'll admit that sometimes progress is slower than we like.

 

Solution #1: Get rid of unions for teachers. Open up competition with charter schools and private schools for the same kids. Otherwise, nothing will change.

 

Everything you've suggested has been the stated goal of the No Child Left Behind program, aside from the teachers unions bit. What you're proposing is that we stay the course.

 

Teachers unions, by the way, mostly exist to ensure that college-educated professionals working in one of our most important fields are paid their fair due. There are just as many bad teachers outside the unions as there are out of it, and aside from some odd cases like Pennsylvania the unionization of education professionals hasn't caused the moon to turn to blood or frogs to rain from the sky.

 

So because it "helps" the states, we should just ignore it? Maybe we should, I'll just make sure to pass that on to the next generation when it comes time for me to pay for these "boosts" which haven't boosted much.

 

You shouldn't ignore it, but there are bigger fish to fry. Some estimates have earmarks and other pork barrel spending at no more than two percent of the US budget, which, yes, comes out in the billions, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to other things eating up tax dollars. Consider, for instance, the fact that we pay more for our military than any other continent, much of it to little or no effect. A B-2 bomber costs two billion dollars. It also isn't really much of a help against three guys with some AKs out in Afghanistan.

 

Your comment on being a thief brings up a funny story. Back where I was born, I happened to be at a party where a politician was at (the former mayor of the capital city). While you may say "Well, that's not in the US!", it would be naive to think that some politicians here don't hold the same attitude:

 

What country are you from, if you don't mind my asking?

 

He said, "If you're a politician and you steal, they call you a thief. If you're a politician and you don't steal, they call you stupid. I'd rather be a thief than stupid any day." And the government has been largely corrupt and monolithic force.

 

PROTIP: The government is only as good as the people we put into office.

 

Why is it that up until now, most every poll has Congress with a low approval rating, but when it comes to election time, most remain? Because people always say "We have to get rid of all those crooks...except for my guy, he's doing a good job." Problem is, just about everyone seems to think the same.

 

You've already taken my stock answer on approval ratings, but the truth is that Congress' notoriously low approval rating has stuck around for about as long as there's been a country. Before government fraud had really been refined to an art form, people still really hated the representatives of other states.

 

If you really need an incentive to be honest, that fits nicely with a society that glorifies athletes and "celebrities", but then again that could be applying my moral sensitivities to the subject.

 

All I'm asking for is a little bit of benefit of the doubt. There are politicians who aren't corrupt.

 

As for "firing" the board of directors and as a country us being able to do that every 2 years...why not go a step further and putting term limits in? I know, because the people with the power to implement such a law won't do it because they don't want to work in the real world.

 

Term limits are a bad, bad idea. Term limits are a large part of the reason California became what it is today. Senior members of Congress have decades of experience with how the system works, and term limits throw that away in favor of largely interchangeable fresh, young faces more committed to party ideology than results.

[CQI13]

I'm originally from El Salvador (born in 81, lived through the civil war there). Came up here the day after the OJ chase ('94), but have been a citizen since 2008. Been paying taxes since long before then (1997 or thereabouts).

 

I will respectfully disagree on the teachers unions bit, since they're another obstacle in my way of getting a job. Also, as far as the NCLB, it was passed when? What results have we seen?

 

I will wholeheartedly agree with the fact that the government is only as good as the people we put there. Problem is, some people are just now realizing that elections have consequences.

 

And you may very well be right on the California situation. But I think government unions (teachers, etc) are also a big part of the problem. Maybe I'm off base, but to me, unions have outlived their usefulness. I would possibly ask for the benefit of the doubt on these fresh, young faces that could possibly bring solutions to old problems, rather than the old guard being more interested in holding over for another term. We have terms on President and other elected officials. Why not for the people who really hold the power in government? These old timers grow complacent, and by virtue of knowing how the system works, mostly work on getting re-elected rather than on actual problems.

 

All in all, I respect your opinion, and the manner in which you presented it. Whether I agree or disagree is another story. But that's what makes conversations like this so interesting.

[d_w_w]

All in all, I respect your opinion, and the manner in which you presented it. Whether I agree or disagree is another story. But that's what makes conversations like this so interesting.

 

Indeed. I found this to be one of the better and more civilized discussions on the boards in quite some time and rather appreciated reading it.

 

Having said that, if it isn't apparent from my previous post on this topic, I tend to agree with shamelessposer on a wide spectrum of issues. His (and MJD's) presence on the board work to limit my keystrokes, which I also appreciate

 

The issue of unions is interesting. My grandfather and (to a lesser extent) my dad were heavily involved in worthwhile union endeavors, which clearly shaped my views on this topic. My academic reading of the contemporary functions and organizations of unions leads me to believe that unions are increasingly ineffective for their stated goals.

 

Which isn't to say that I'd advocate for getting rid of them, as I think I'll always believe that unions serve an important protective purpose. I think though, that the leaders (and thus the leadership) of many of the larger unions in the US would benefit from reading Poletta's work on participatory governance and decision-making.

[supershot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJi2HaJf1VI

[CQI13]

Clever video. I LOL'd.

 

EDIT:

 

There's entirely too many of these videos on youtube.

 

Kobe? LeBron? LOL

[shamelessposer]

I'm originally from El Salvador (born in 81, lived through the civil war there). Came up here the day after the OJ chase ('94), but have been a citizen since 2008. Been paying taxes since long before then (1997 or thereabouts).

 

If I'd known your country of origin it would have been a lot easier to understand your distrust of government.

 

I will respectfully disagree on the teachers unions bit, since they're another obstacle in my way of getting a job. Also, as far as the NCLB, it was passed when? What results have we seen?

 

No Child Left Behind was passed in Bush's first term. By linking school funding to standardized test results, all sorts of bad things have come about. Teachers have seen their bonuses and even continued employment linked to standardized test results, which means there is a major disincentive for good teachers to teach troubled students. Underperforming schools can be shut down, which means that students are then scattered to further away districts, which means that they have longer commutes (and by extension less time to study). Some teachers help their students to cheat on these tests, and others have started encouraging poor students to drop out rather than try to improve. Basically, an attempt to cut down on "big government" by moving money from the education budget to the free market instead led teachers to spend more time teaching to the test than to teaching important subjects, and more or less corrupted the whole education process.

 

I will wholeheartedly agree with the fact that the government is only as good as the people we put there. Problem is, some people are just now realizing that elections have consequences.

 

In late 2004 or early 2005, I had a classmate who said she voted for Bush not because he's a qualified candidate, but because "he's funny." So yeah.

 

And you may very well be right on the California situation. But I think government unions (teachers, etc) are also a big part of the problem. Maybe I'm off base, but to me, unions have outlived their usefulness.

 

Unions are still alive and well in other first world nations. You can't even really blame unions for Detroit's gradual devolution into a feral city, because foreign automotive workers are not only just as unionized, but as a whole receive better pay and benefits. As union membership in this country has shrunk, wages have become stagnant, benefits have slowly disappeared, work environments have become worse, and job security has become a thing of the past.

 

Two generations ago, a man could get a job right out of school and, assuming he was a capable worker, he could expect to work there up through retirement. These days, companies fire the middle-aged so they can bring in lower paid new hires fresh out of high school or college. By and large, the change has come because workers are in a worse position to defend themselves. The role of a union is to speak to employers as a group rather than an individual. Without unions, you're facing the company all by yourself whenever you have a grievance to air.

 

In short, the reason the average worker is scared of unions is because companies have been making them scary for over a hundred years. We tried out capitalism minus the unions a while back. It was called the late nineteenth century. All in all? It sucked.

 

With that said, I'll agree that some professions either shouldn't be unionized or should have their union's freedom curtailed a little bit. The prison guard union in California, for instance, is a major obstacle in turning the War on Drugs into something that makes sense. This is more a problem related to the fact we've turned prisons into an industry, though. Personal profit and the justice system are two things that really shouldn't be linked (See also: chain gangs).

 

I would possibly ask for the benefit of the doubt on these fresh, young faces that could possibly bring solutions to old problems, rather than the old guard being more interested in holding over for another term. We have terms on President and other elected officials. Why not for the people who really hold the power in government? These old timers grow complacent, and by virtue of knowing how the system works, mostly work on getting re-elected rather than on actual problems.

 

The term limit on the presidency really isn't that big of a deal. While a few Presidents have run for a third term, it wasn't until FDR found success in the Depression and a World War that voters were willing to take someone on for more than two terms. It was more or less self-enforcing even before the Constitution was amended to prevent "third termites."

 

Similar situations have come up with other positions. Consider, for example, Bill Weld. This is a Republican governor who cut taxes and social programs throughout Massachusetts to general approval, restored the budget to something sane, made necessary compromises that generally left everyone happy and, despite having a conservative brand name, won over the respect of both parties and was elected to two terms in the most liberal state in the Union. Why would you ever, ever let a guy like that out of office? A politician like that comes along, you chain him to his desk.

 

The idea of putting young guys in office is an admirable one. There are obvious problems with a legislature with an older median age than the citizens it's voted in to represent, but the benefits of experience often outweigh the downsides. A guy like John McCain, despite his baggage, is incredibly valuable to his party because of the connections he's gathered in office. Someday a new guy will take his seat, but even if he's got an ® next to his name it's going to lessen the party's power to lose a veteran officeholder.

[shamelessposer]

Indeed. I found this to be one of the better and more civilized discussions on the boards in quite some time and rather appreciated reading it.

 

I'm trying out this new thing, where I respond to dissenting viewpoints with cogent arguments rather than repeated usage of "************." It feels kind of weird.

 

Having said that, if it isn't apparent from my previous post on this topic, I tend to agree with shamelessposer on a wide spectrum of issues. His (and MJD's) presence on the board work to limit my keystrokes, which I also appreciate

 

Tomorrow I'm going to start a new thread in which I explain why Scientology is the one true religion, gun licenses should be given to helper monkeys, America should become communist, and Judas Iscariot was a pretty cool guy. I assume you'll continue to allow me to speak for you.

[Linsolv]

Tomorrow I'm going to start a new thread in which I explain why Scientology is the one true religion, gun licenses should be given to helper monkeys, America should become communist, and Judas Iscariot was a pretty cool guy. I assume you'll continue to allow me to speak for you.

 

Well, monkeys are pretty responsible. I've known a few in my time that were bright, clean, and articulate.

 

Communism is successful, as long as Josef Stalin doesn't try to stick his nose in again.

 

And if that well-known Old-English folk tune is to be believed, Judas only sold out Jesus because some woman stole his 30 pieces of silver that was to be used for feeding the apostles. That's obviously true, right? And Judas can't be blamed for that, all he was trying to do was buy food to feed his friends, right?

[d_w_w]

I'm trying out this new thing, where I respond to dissenting viewpoints with cogent arguments rather than repeated usage of "************." It feels kind of weird.

 

 

 

Tomorrow I'm going to start a new thread in which I explain why Scientology is the one true religion, gun licenses should be given to helper monkeys, America should become communist, and Judas Iscariot was a pretty cool guy. I assume you'll continue to allow me to speak for you.

 

Oh, you silly shameless poser you.