"Class Warfare"

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

What about you narrow-minded neo-cons? Are you offended by the term "religious right?"

I think the only one who appears to be offended by the use of political language is Ma'ake.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I think the only one who appears to be offended by the use of political language is Ma'ake.

LOL - actually I cooked up the OP as a potential (mostly facitious) rant for a newspaper, you know, something to stimulate debate.

But in catching up with the thread, a couple of observations about rightside labels

- religious right = social conservatives; RR is term they apply to themselves, ala "Moral Majority"

- NeoCon = self-label for a particular foreign policy school of thought (I grant this term is used negatively, mostly based on the results)

- Taliban wing = rarely used; Dems universally avoid this offensive term, excepting a few radicals who vote Democratic (who otherwise view the Dems as being sell outs, ie, the left side equivalent of libertarians.)


Another put-down from the right to the left - "Socialism" and "Socialist". American liberals are no more socialists than the right wing of the GOP are social darwinists. For example, terming Dem healthcare reform proposals as "socialized medicine" would technically mean the government would purchase hospitals outright. *Nobody* on the American left makes this suggestion.

Another example - Ted Kennedy labeled as "socialist", while he would neither use the term for himself, nor would genuine socialists (of which there are an infintesimally small number in the US) consider Kennedy as one of their own.

It's just another gratuitous slam, without merit, really.

I'm calling it as I see it, though I'm not too exorcised about it. "It is what it is".

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

For this reason, I find the term "liberal" as a negative to be ridiculous. Who would not want to be liberal towards all mankind? What is the opposite of liberal? Restrictive? Confining? Who wants to admit to that?

Reagan helped redefine "liberal" to be government intrusive, overspending hack.

And I have often laughed at the self-label of "progressive" for the reasons Y has demonstrated.

Personally, I define myself as "right" and anybody who disagrees with me as wrong.

On a sillier note, I like the label of "eclectic".

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

LOL - actually I cooked up the OP as a potential (mostly facitious) rant for a newspaper, you know, something to stimulate debate.

But in catching up with the thread, a couple of observations about rightside labels

- religious right = social conservatives; RR is term they apply to themselves, ala "Moral Majority"

- NeoCon = self-label for a particular foreign policy school of thought (I grant this term is used negatively, mostly based on the results)

- Taliban wing = rarely used; Dems universally avoid this offensive term, excepting a few radicals who vote Democratic (who otherwise view the Dems as being sell outs, ie, the left side equivalent of libertarians.)


Another put-down from the right to the left - "Socialism" and "Socialist". American liberals are no more socialists than the right wing of the GOP are social darwinists. For example, terming Dem healthcare reform proposals as "socialized medicine" would technically mean the government would purchase hospitals outright. *Nobody* on the American left makes this suggestion.

Another example - Ted Kennedy labeled as "socialist", while he would neither use the term for himself, nor would genuine socialists (of which there are an infintesimally small number in the US) consider Kennedy as one of their own.

It's just another gratuitous slam, without merit, really.

I'm calling it as I see it, though I'm not too exorcised about it. "It is what it is".

Ma'ake, you assume there can only be one brand of socialism when you attempt to make that distinction. Health care can be "socialist" to the extent it involves government purchasing or government control, or government structuring of health care, as opposed to market structuring of health care services.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Ma'ake, you assume there can only be one brand of socialism when you attempt to make that distinction. Health care can be "socialist" to the extent it involves government purchasing or government control, or government structuring of health care, as opposed to market structuring of health care services.

My friend Archaea,

By the same token isn't tax-payer funded education inherently socialistic? To be ideologically honest, aren't those who do not provide or pay for their children's education outright participants in accountability-robbing socialism?

This is something I've never really understood about arch-conservatives, particarly the LDS variety - how can taxes & publically funded social services be looked down upon, yet a coercive re-distributionist tax policy for primary education is somehow entirely different?

To be consistent, shouldn't the LDS libertarian mantra be - "don't have children until you can support them, their material needs, their healthcare & educational needs. If you don't have the means to provide for your children's education, don't have children! Don't pawn your irresponsibility and lack of accountability on others. Period."

Any dilution of the hard & fast truth of self-reliance is a surrender to the inherently evil forces of socialism.

Or is it?

I just got back from a community financed Rec Center. To some it was a highly controversial proposal - the private sector already provides for these kinds of services, and using tax money to compete with private interests is inherently wrong.

Tonight the Rec Center was full of families working out, enjoying different recreational activities, spending high-quality time together... a highly valuable & popular community resource, without constant commercial propositions.

I think a mixed model is best - there are some things public support justifies. There are some public investments that are wise, prudent & benefit society. Education, healthcare, disaster cleanup, military, etc.

Pell grants & other publically funded programs that assist young families while they prepare for their economic futures are a smart investments in our future.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Reagan helped redefine "liberal" to be government intrusive, overspending hack.

And I have often laughed at the self-label of "progressive" for the reasons Y has demonstrated.

Personally, I define myself as "right" and anybody who disagrees with me as wrong.

On a sillier note, I like the label of "eclectic".

Since you are out fishing, I will feed you here.

You strike me as being eclectic, which is a good thing. You seem to have a lot of different interesting pasttimes.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

My friend Archaea,

By the same token isn't tax-payer funded education inherently socialistic? To be ideologically honest, aren't those who do not provide or pay for their children's education outright participants in accountability-robbing socialism?

This is something I've never really understood about arch-conservatives, particarly the LDS variety - how can taxes & publically funded social services be looked down upon, yet a coercive re-distributionist tax policy for primary education is somehow entirely different?

To be consistent, shouldn't the LDS libertarian mantra be - "don't have children until you can support them, their material needs, their healthcare & educational needs. If you don't have the means to provide for your children's education, don't have children! Don't pawn your irresponsibility and lack of accountability on others. Period."

Any dilution of the hard & fast truth of self-reliance is a surrender to the inherently evil forces of socialism.

Or is it?

I just got back from a community financed Rec Center. To some it was a highly controversial proposal - the private sector already provides for these kinds of services, and using tax money to compete with private interests is inherently wrong.

Tonight the Rec Center was full of families working out, enjoying different recreational activities, spending high-quality time together... a highly valuable & popular community resource, without constant commercial propositions.

I think a mixed model is best - there are some things public support justifies. There are some public investments that are wise, prudent & benefit society. Education, healthcare, disaster cleanup, military, etc.

Pell grants & other publically funded programs that assist young families while they prepare for their economic futures are a smart investments in our future.

Regarding the education issue, I agree fully. I think there should be a separation of education and state. I would be first in line to support state laws that basically enforce all businesses to pay for education while enjoying tax relief for their doing so. Let them be free in which schools they support, give them a voice on policies for the schools they sponsor and allow them to be involved in the recruitment process to ensure the quality of teachers.

Get the government out of education. That is something I can agree with.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

Regarding the education issue, I agree fully. I think there should be a separation of education and state. I would be first in line to support state laws that basically enforce all businesses to pay for education while enjoying tax relief for their doing so. Let them be free in which schools they support, give them a voice on policies for the schools they sponsor and allow them to be involved in the recruitment process to ensure the quality of teachers.

Get the government out of education. That is something I can agree with.

Hi DJ,

Doesn't this model essentially move society toward (more) self-segregation? Public schools used to be the glue where people of different faiths & political philosophies (or at least their families) came together & learned to interact & respect each other / opinions, etc. Opening up education to wider educational philosophy choice works against this, by nature, it seems to me. In Utah I could see multitudes of Suburbans driving kids past their neighborhood schools to their preferred educational provider, increasing the pollution problem, diminishing neighborhood cohesiveness (at least the non-church part).

Then again, I can understand the common LDS view of seeking refuge from all bad things secular - teacher unions being a current enemy - and given the opportunity to join others who are like-minded, why not? It could become like a ward school.

(I live in a high % LDS area & acutely feel the natural tendency for LDS to unintentially exclude others. In truth LDS are far from unique in this regard. Maybe I just need to move to more of a like-minded community... but that doesn't help society, IMO. But maybe we're more like the Balkans than we realize or would like to think. It might be that genuine social diversity is a facade, to a considerable extent. It certainly feels that way from a non-LDS perspective surrounded by highly social - and harried - LDS families. I live in a ward, though I'm not of it. LOL )

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Hi DJ,

Doesn't this model essentially move society toward (more) self-segregation? Public schools used to be the glue where people of different faiths & political philosophies (or at least their families) came together & learned to interact & respect each other / opinions, etc. Opening up education to choice works against this, by nature, it seems to me. In Utah I could see multitudes of Suburbans driving kids past their neighborhood schools to their preferred educational provider, increasing the pollution problem, diminishing neighborhood cohesiveness (at least the non-church part).

Then again, I can understand the common LDS view of seeking refuge from all bad things secular, and given the opportunity to join others who are like-minded, why not? It could become like a ward school.

(I live in a high % LDS area & acutely feel the natural tendency for LDS to unintentially exclude others. In truth LDS are far from unique in this regard. Maybe I just need to move to more of a like-minded community... but that doesn't help society, IMO. But maybe we're more like the Balkans than we realize or would like to think.)

Society has historically and successfully educated its population to have a more productive workforce. We have the course of history.

We have no history of socially funded and controlled health care. I have no faith in government's ability to do a decent job of something so complex.

Perhaps government could do something such as allow the markets to educate, but then again I'm essentially cautious and not willing to upset a balance of things which have worked relatively well.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Hi DJ,

Doesn't this model essentially move society toward (more) self-segregation? Public schools used to be the glue where people of different faiths & political philosophies (or at least their families) came together & learned to interact & respect each other / opinions, etc. Opening up education to wider educational philosophy choice works against this, by nature, it seems to me. In Utah I could see multitudes of Suburbans driving kids past their neighborhood schools to their preferred educational provider, increasing the pollution problem, diminishing neighborhood cohesiveness (at least the non-church part).

Then again, I can understand the common LDS view of seeking refuge from all bad things secular - teacher unions being a current enemy - and given the opportunity to join others who are like-minded, why not? It could become like a ward school.

(I live in a high % LDS area & acutely feel the natural tendency for LDS to unintentially exclude others. In truth LDS are far from unique in this regard. Maybe I just need to move to more of a like-minded community... but that doesn't help society, IMO. But maybe we're more like the Balkans than we realize or would like to think. It might be that genuine social diversity is a facade, to a considerable extent. It certainly feels that way from a non-LDS perspective surrounded by highly social - and harried - LDS families. I live in a ward, though I'm not of it. LOL )

Integration for integrations sake is IMO not the ideal. Look at the gospel doctrine. While each soul has the same worth in the eyes of the Lord, we will all be eventually segregated into various kingdoms and even levels within these kingdoms. Why? Because (for us believers) we are all at different levels in our understanding and our willingness to comply with Gods plan.

So is it any harsher to see a segregation of schools in terms of not race or gender, but of ability. We have that at the collegiate level, so why not at the grade school level. This system breeds competition which invariably raises the quality of education. Bad schools will eventually be phased out and good schools will continue to improve.

Everyone has a right to pursue an education, but what they do with that is strictly up to them, not the state. My sister is an educator in the California Education system. She works in places where the substitutes can't even speak english even though the latino population of the school is about 30%.

And regards to your argument of like-mindedness, It is interesting that private universities have been able to exist for over a century and still seek to climb towards exclusivity. The difference in what I am saying is that corporations through tax incentives are able to swallow a state mandate of sponsorship to carry the burden of education vs for profit systems that garner the campus of Ivy league Universities.

Think about it. Come to Utah and set up your business. You will have to support the schools if you do, however because you have to, your tax burden will be substantially minimized. It may only add up to a shift in revenues, but even a small differential would have corporations scrambling to build along the Wasatch Front. You would have schools that would begin to beat the national averages by greater margins. You will have schools that would be bringing in some of the best minds across the globe to educate the future of these corporations intellectual capital.

The so called inner city school where the poor kids go would not exist since the mandate is for the entire state. Not for specified districts. This would be the only area in which a government control would exist. Preferably through an independent third party trust. Corporations if they wish could adopt schools in specific areas, but only a larger percentage of their funds would be allocated to the schools in question. The rest would be funneled into schools that may not currently enjoy an "adoption" situation. The rates could be adjusted to ensure a stable balance across the state.