DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Perpetual Change on September 17, 2011, 08:38:08 PM
-
So, did anyone actually watch this?
I did, and it made me pretty sad. Mostly the audience made me sad, proving once again that standards of human decency haven't really developed much since the days of the Circus Maximus.
Anyway, thoughts on each of the candidates:
Michelle Bachman: Is completely nuts, though I already kinda knew that. The way she laid it into Rick Perry for giving girls in his state cervical cancer vaccines was unreal.
Mitt Romney: Kinda the Mitt we all know. He's less of a grand-stander than he was 4 years ago, which is good, but he's still seriously lacking in some areas. I wish he would adopt a position on foreign policy more akin to Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul.
Newt Gingritch: Seemed decent some of the time, but he seemed to just be going on and on without saying anything. Surprised he's still in the race. Anyone who knows him knows he can't win.
Jon Huntsman: I kinda wanted to like him, but he was just so damn smug and sarcastic that I wound up really not being able to get on board with what he was saying. Then again, maybe the debate needed some more of that.
Herman Cain: Seemed like a decent guy. Not presidential material. Every time he says he wants to make politics "simpler" I can't help but think it's because he himself doesn't really understand what he's talking about.
Rick Perry: Liked him more than I thought he would. His policies toward immigration were moderate, which was cool. And he was getting ganged up on alot, which I guess made him more sympathetic.
Ron Paul: Performed badly, again. I like the guy, but I think he's past his peak. He's really having trouble delivering his message with the same clarity and conviction that he had 4 years ago.
Rick Santorum: Completely forgettable. Who is he, again?
God save us all if Michelle Bachman wins the primary.
For those who haven't seen it:
part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu0HTlxWjHI
part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-UTG6UUno&feature=related
-
I didn't watch it, but I will share my thoughts on (some) those people:
Michelle Bachman: Is an idiot, and probably an extremist.
Mitt Romney: Sounds alright. If he doesn't win the primary, something's seriously wrong with their voting base.
Newt Gingritch: Has been irrelevant for some time.
Herman Cain: Is still running?
Rick Perry: Don't agree with his ideas, but I find him easier to take seriously than Bachman
Ron Paul: Will not win.
Rick Santorum: Was a sexist and homophobic Repub Sen. who hasn't even held office for a few years, now. Visit this link for more info: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rick%20Santorum (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rick%20Santorum)
-
Michelle Bachman: Is completely nuts, though I already kinda knew that. The way she laid it into Rick Perry for giving girls in his state cervical cancer vaccines was unreal.
Idiot. It blows my mind that these people make it to the national stage.
EDIT:
By the way, it sucks that Blitzer didn't give Ron Paul a chance to answer the question about the federal reserve. The man brought the issue into mainstream politics and they sideline him.
-
Yeah, I found that so bizarre. Issues that Ron Paul brought to the table 4 years ago, like "should we leave Afgahnistan?" "How much are your dollar do you get to keep?" were given to other candidates while Ron Paul got to answer questions about whether the government should cut off someone's life-support system.
-
Yeah, I found that so bizarre. Issues that Ron Paul brought to the table 4 years ago, like "should we leave Afgahnistan?" "How much are your dollar do you get to keep?" were given to other candidates while Ron Paul got to answer questions about whether the government should cut off someone's life-support system.
Yeah, people treat him like he's the host of "Ask a libertarian" instead of giving him an opportunity to fairly participate in the debate.
-
What I noticed from this and the democrats is that nobody really runs on a coherent moreal philosophy except for maybe Ron Paul. I want a president that has 2 or three core beliefs concerning ethics, moralism, etc... and then derives his political beliefs from these truths.
All I see is a bunch of beurocrats whose actions constantly contradict what they have said/done in the past and what they prupose to do in the fuutre.
-
Michelle Bachman: Is completely nuts, though I already kinda knew that. The way she laid it into Rick Perry for giving girls in his state cervical cancer vaccines was unreal.
To be fair, I don't think her issue is the vaccination itself, but that he issued an executive order requiring them despite the opposition from Congress. Almost certainly because he's very tight with Merk, and one of his staffers was a lobbyist for them. I suspect Perry would be of the mindset that HPV is a great thing for keeping girls chaste, but he appears to have sold that out. Congress nixed his executive order, by the way.
-
Michelle Bachman: How can she even be on the national stage? She did point the gun @ Rick Perry though, which is good. Executive order for the vaccine is anti-freedom - even though I totally normally see the reason for forced vaccination.
Mitt Romney: The establishment candidate, but Romneycare is going to continue to bug him.
Newt Gingritch: He knows he can't win, he just wants to bring attention to himself again after being semi-absent from the political scene for a little while. No one would ever vote for him, and I can't believe he's being put on the stage instead of Thaddeus McCotter or Gary Johnson.
Jon Huntsman: LolHuntsman. I like the guy, but he never really gets to the core of what he wants to do to fix anything. At least he's a bit less authoritarian than the other candidates, and he said in a previous debate that troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
Herman Cain: Has good fiscal policy imo, want to hear more from him on monetary policy - which is the obvious area where he has no clue. Also, I'm suspicious of his possible foreign policy and as he has no experience in public service he wouldn't be the best candidate. He's better than at least half the bunch though, but won't win.
Rick Perry: Backpedaled on Social Security, just like Mitt did not too long ago. Plus his death penalty crap last debate was absolutely horrific. He's in the top tier though, but I don't know why he should be. He's fairly establishment otherwise though.
Ron Paul: Performed badly, unfortunately. He's not as sharp as he was two debates ago or whatever it was. Plus, he didn't get to answer some of the questions where his views differed the most from the other candidates. And he should've gotten the question of how much one should get out of an earned dollar. I hope he does win though, at least he has brought libertarianism and Austrian school to the forefront and mainstream discussion again.
Rick Santorum: Idiot neo-con. He is a tool of the military industrial complex, and corporations. Really, bringing the corporate tax rate down to 0% is going to create MANUFACTURING JOBS IN AMERICA AGAIN? America is a post-industrial nation, manufacturing jobs aren't going to come back. He won't win but he might get the vice-presidential role... which is scary.
I watched the crap the day after it aired, I was very dissapointed in many ways.
Also, Gary Johnson and Thaddeus McCotter should be included in the debates. Kick out Newt Gingrich, he's not going to win anyway.
-
Yeah, I've actually been really surprised at how inarticulately Paul's been conveying his points recently.
-
I think the Daily Show did a great job covering the horrendous way this debate was presented / performed by CNN. It was fucking horrible, and it is very telling a bout the actual political debate going on in this country. It was all theatrics, no substance, and more of a show for the the voters than a debate for them to be informed.
-
I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and many to come.
-
I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and NY to come.
Ron Paul completely owning on foreign policy two debates ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4)
-
I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and many to come.
This one seemed over the top to me, to the intro, to the way they introduced the candidates, to the stage set up.
-
Its still mind boggling that the RNC don't realize they are doing the whole Palin thing again with Bachman. The "America-f*** yea!" attitude will not work in the upcoming century. Of anyone up there,
I have most respect for Ron Paul. I disagree with more than half the things he says; but my lord what a breath of fresh air to have a politician with such fortitude.
I would love to see Huntsman get more attention; even not as president maybe a major influence in RNC. His world experience and ambassadorship will be crucial (particularly with our growing economic foe, China, of whose' culture and language hes fluent with).
I enjoy that Perry has a more moderate stance on Immigration; rather than just parading out "fences" and "they took our jobs." It shows critical understanding of the topic. Though I find his religious ties to the far right unsettling (though then again that may be just a political ploy to win favors)
That said, i find Romney the most favorable. So much so that if he runs up against Obama next year I will be voting for him (first time voting republican!)
I'm not familiar with previous Repub debates, but I bet they were as just much theatrics as this one and NY to come.
Ron Paul completely owning on foreign policy two debates ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4)
:hat
-
I could live with Romney being president. He's done good stuff in Massachusetts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4)
That was good by Paul, seriously. It is sad, SAD, that Paul's views on the rule of law and due process are seen by the right wing as a sign of weakness. They're really pushing for mosaic law.
I still wouldn't vote for the guy, mostly because I think his international policy would be hardly more than "let's trade more".
rumborak
-
This is enough of a reason for me to believe Perry would be useless.
"Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of more than 20,000 Christians Saturday, asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized."
I know that was weeks ago, but still. I know I'm not religious to begin with, but this is just too much. Granted America is not doing great, but to ask God to get us out of this mess while Japan is still leveled and Lybia is nothing but chaos, is just selfish and delusional to me.
-
Rick Perry is really like the Stannis Baratheon of the Republican Party. I wonder if anyone will get that.
-
Ron Paul is Balon Greyjoy.
-
This is enough of a reason for me to believe Perry would be useless.
"Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of more than 20,000 Christians Saturday, asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized."
That was another example of the mindset I referred to in the execution thread. He really just doesn't give a damn about anything except is only opinion of how things should be.
-
Ron Paul is Balon Greyjoy.
So W was Aerys, incapable and a little off balance. Obama would be Robert: didn't do much of anything :lol
-
I could live with Romney being president. He's done good stuff in Massachusetts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4)
That was good by Paul, seriously. It is sad, SAD, that Paul's views on the rule of law and due process are seen by the right wing as a sign of weakness. They're really pushing for mosaic law.
I still wouldn't vote for the guy, mostly because I think his international policy would be hardly more than "let's trade more".
rumborak
He would make every effort to end the nonsense we have going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least.
-
I could live with Romney being president. He's done good stuff in Massachusetts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl8IE1sqh4)
That was good by Paul, seriously. It is sad, SAD, that Paul's views on the rule of law and due process are seen by the right wing as a sign of weakness. They're really pushing for mosaic law.
I still wouldn't vote for the guy, mostly because I think his international policy would be hardly more than "let's trade more".
rumborak
What's wrong with trade? Anyway, I think you're wrong. Paul has one of the more developed foreign policy of any of the candidates.
-
There's nothing wrong with trade. But I don't have the impression Paul's foreign policy goes any further than trade. And frankly, there's a lot more to foreign policy than just trading. That in no way means I endorse the other candidates' blatant warmongering. I find none of the candidates I've heard has an acceptable approach.
rumborak
-
Ron Paul is Balon Greyjoy.
So W was Aerys, incapable and a little off balance. Obama would be Robert: didn't do much of anything :lol
So does this mean we're waiting for Jenna Bush to come flying in on a dragon to save us from the chaos? And I guess Sarah Palin represents the Others, being a scary creature from the frozen North that most people don't take seriously?
-
There's nothing wrong with trade. But I don't have the impression Paul's foreign policy goes any further than trade. And frankly, there's a lot more to foreign policy than just trading. That in no way means I endorse the other candidates' blatant warmongering. I find none of the candidates I've heard has an acceptable approach.
rumborak
Assuming that you're right, his foreign policy is essentially "let's trade stuff," That would be above and beyond anything we've had in many years - blowing shit up and pissing people off. But what would you like to see him add to his foreign policy?
-
There's nothing wrong with trade. But I don't have the impression Paul's foreign policy goes any further than trade. And frankly, there's a lot more to foreign policy than just trading. That in no way means I endorse the other candidates' blatant warmongering. I find none of the candidates I've heard has an acceptable approach.
rumborak
Assuming that you're right, his foreign policy is essentially "let's trade stuff," That would be above and beyond anything we've had in many years - blowing shit up and pissing people off. But what would you like to see him add to his foreign policy?
Interestingly enough, Ron Paul mentioned how he might consider putting someone like Kuccinish in his cabinet, and how you'd need a "Deparmtnet of Peace."
-
Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.
-
Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.
Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.
-
Man Bachman's eyes are spooky.
-
I find most American female politicians are creepy as fuck. They're all these botox monsters.
rumborak
-
Anyone feel like these shouldn't be public events? Broadcast them all you want, but the audience is just a distraction. Rather than let the words they say actually take measure, it's just one big race to see who can get the most claps.
-
What's needed in those debates is a much harsher refereeing. You're not answering the question or start rattling off standard phrases? Cut off the microphone, and you forfeit your next response.
rumborak
-
I agree with the two previous posts. I can't believe Bachmann's grievous misquote of Jefferson.
-
Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.
Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.
I see how you could draw that conclusion. But they're specifically after changing economic policy, nothing else. They're closer to the republicans than anybody else, but organized in response to the Republican party not staying true to their free market roots.
-
I derive that conclusion more from the fact that the only place they deviate from Republican policy is by taking it to the most ridiculous extreme possible, as we saw in the deficit raise deal.
-
Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.
Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.
I see how you could draw that conclusion. But they're specifically after changing economic policy, nothing else. They're closer to the republicans than anybody else, but organized in response to the Republican party not staying true to their free market roots.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=all
I think the Ron Paul libertarian movement, and the Tea Party, are something different at this point.
-
Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.
Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.
I see how you could draw that conclusion. But they're specifically after changing economic policy, nothing else. They're closer to the republicans than anybody else, but organized in response to the Republican party not staying true to their free market roots.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=all
I think the Ron Paul libertarian movement, and the Tea Party, are something different at this point.
Basically. I don't see what's to disagree with in the Times article. They're disaffected Republicans in many ways.
-
I suspect that if the next administration is Republican, the Tea Party will evaporate again.
rumborak
-
Well let's just hope that doesn't happen in 2012.
-
Well let's just hope that doesn't happen in 2012.
I really don't think it makes much difference either way.
-
It makes a very small difference; it keeps conservatism divided while we wait for a new New Left.
-
So your hope is that a new, truly leftist party develops while the current, extreme movement dies off, and the current "liberal" Democratic party ends up being the more Conservative group? Is this an allusion to the rise of the Lincolnian Republican party? (I'm just curious, it sounds a bit similar)
Sounds fair enough, if very optimistic.
-
More like a pipe dream really, but hey, the longer the conservatives can remain divided the better.
-
I'm good with that.
I hope though that in this pipe dream, your proposed new progressive party is averse to spending copious amounts of money. The last thing this country needs is more massive amounts of money spent. (I know full well that the libs are more fiscally conservative than the cons, due to the Repub's fetish for various defense departments and massive military presence in the 3rd world; I still say that less money needs to be spent, and taxes raised, if the US is to be taken seriously about wanting to fix its budget.)
-
Raising taxes? Ha! Good luck.
-
Cup it's not necessarily that less money needs to be spent period, it's just that we need to cut in the appropriate areas. If anything, spending should always go up, not down. That's what it means to maintain an infrastructure.
-
That can make sense, provided that enough is coming into the budget to spend in the first place, hence why we need higher taxes.
I'm for spending on the right areas i.e. ones that are of benefit on home soil and to our reputation as a reasonable and peaceful nation.
I'm all for cutting the massive increases in defense spending that ol' Ronny set the ball rolling with.
-
I've been looking at the spending charts, and I think spending more on defense than on education is insane. If it were up to me, education would receive the most funding out of any section of government spending.
-
I've been looking at the spending charts, and I think spending more on defense than on education is insane. If anything, it shows what kind of country this is. If it were up to me, education would receive the most funding out of any section of government spending.
Eh, let's be fair here. The amount of money required to adequately defend a nation the size of America is much larger than the money required to adequately educate it.
-
What would you define as adequately defending it?
-
What the hell do we need a defense for? We need a small army here. That's it. Get all the troops out of posts outside of the country and reduce the size of the one's here. Stop spending on everything involving the military. It only increases the violent mindset we have to come to expect out of America. No one is going to attack us if we don't start shit.
-
No one is going to attack us if we don't start shit.
Yeah, the world totally doesn't work that way, sorry.
-
If America was minding it's own business, doing nothing but churning out smart, successful, and educated individuals, and not starting shit and sturring shit up in the Middle East, what would anybody attack us for?
-
If America was minding it's own business, doing nothing but churning out smart, successful, and educated individuals, and not starting shit and sturring shit up in the Middle East, what would anybody attack us for?
-
So what, America's the only country capable of starting an unprovoked war? FFS, are you seriously naive enough to think that defense would be completely unnecessary if we just 'mind our own business', or that every war in history has been completely justified? There are a multitude of reasons why someone would want to attack. Resources, wealth, creating an 'enemy' to keep power in their own nation, etc.
-
Well, we do have a record of being one of the more trigger-happy 1st world nations. Germany hasn't exactly declared too many wars in the last half a century, and I haven't heard of people declaring war upon them, lately.
-
Iceland has been voted the most peaceful country in the world...they have NO standing military. None.
-
Iceland has been voted the most peaceful country in the world...they have NO standing military. None.
Yeah, because it's fucking Iceland. Besides a strategic naval position and an abnormally large proportion of ethereal post rock, there's literally no reason for a country to waste their time invading.
Well, we do have a record of being one of the more trigger-happy 1st world nations. Germany hasn't exactly declared too many wars in the last half a century, and I haven't heard of people declaring war upon them, lately.
Oh sure, you know, besides that whole "being split in half with a militarized border for thirty years" thing.
-
How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.
-
Yeah sorry Cup and Cole, I'm with Sigz on this one. We can't just say to hell with military spending completely, nor even with military bases. Downsizing, I can understand. We don't need to be constantly buying the next generation in stealthcraft technology either, at least not for a decade or two. But we do still need a comprehensive national security system with the flexibility to respond, and we can't do that if we just pick up and leave.
How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.
North Korea: Training nukes on the islands of Japan since 2006 at least.
-
They're also a considerably smaller nation, with 1/3 the population and 4% the land area of the US.
-
Yeah sorry Cup and Cole, I'm with Sigz on this one. We can't just say to hell with military spending completely, nor even with military bases. Downsizing, I can understand. We don't need to be constantly buying the next generation in stealthcraft technology either, at least not for a decade or two. But we do still need a comprehensive national security system with the flexibility to respond, and we can't do that if we just pick up and leave.
How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.
North Korea: Training nukes on the islands of Japan since 2006 at least.
That's my point though. They need to keep protected in case of shit involving North Korea yet they still don't go overboard with spending. America does not need to have 1000+ military basis around the world. Nor, like you said, do we need to spend money on advanced technology that we won't use.
If you want to talk size, look at Canada. 8th most peaceful. As big as the US and only 1.4 of the GDP. 21 billion is bearable(still a hell of a lot.) 700 isn't. I'm sorry.
-
Yeah sorry Cup and Cole, I'm with Sigz on this one. We can't just say to hell with military spending completely, nor even with military bases. Downsizing, I can understand. We don't need to be constantly buying the next generation in stealthcraft technology either, at least not for a decade or two. But we do still need a comprehensive national security system with the flexibility to respond, and we can't do that if we just pick up and leave.
How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.
North Korea: Training nukes on the islands of Japan since 2006 at least.
That's my point though. They need to keep protected in case of shit involving North Korea yet they still don't go overboard with spending. America does not need to have 1000+ military basis around the world. Nor, like you said, do we need to spend money on advanced technology that we won't use.
If you want to talk size, look at Canada. 8th most peaceful. As big as the US and only 1.4 of the GDP. 21 billion is bearable(still a hell of a lot.) 700 isn't. I'm sorry.
Yes, but that's because they have us; remember that Japan is a U.S. protectorate. We have bases and a response policy such that if North Korea so much as farts in Japan's general direction, Pyongyang will be incinerated in a matter of hours. That said, in recent years Japan has actually dramatically increased its military spending, and we may for the first time see a fully-fledged national security policy from them in a few years.
-
America does not need to have 1000+ military basis around the world. Nor, like you said, do we need to spend money on advanced technology that we won't use.
Exactly, Cole. This sort of stuff, our constant occupation of foreign nations and massive spending on weaponry certainly don't make us any less attractive to attack. It's like trying to tough out a thunderstorm by bringing a coat of tin-foil.
-
No one's saying we need to have hundreds of military bases around the world. All I'm saying is that we need to have defense. Our plan shouldn't consist of "have a small army and hope we don't bug anyone".
-
I just can't justify spending 700 billion dollars on our military.
No one's saying we need to have hundreds of military bases around the world. All I'm saying is that we need to have defense. Our plan shouldn't consist of "have a small army and hope we don't bug anyone".
That is not what I said. I said have a small army and don't bug anyone. I hate our interventionist policy. We need to get the hell out of many of the places we occupy. I mean, really, do we still think Germany is going to rise up and kill millions of Jews again?
-
I am for defense to a degree.
Just a heavily downsized effort that just would have enough forces stationed at our borders and within our country in event of an attack upon our soil, as well as a reserve to deploy in event of emergency. Perhaps some off-shore bases, and a functional Navy and Airforce.
I see no reason for a huge military industrial complex unless we're caught up in a situation such as WWII, in which a great deal of funds and troops were a necessity.
No interventionism. It waste our funds and troops and makes for more fearsome, better justified enemies.
-
I am for defense to a degree.
Just a heavily downsized effort that just would have enough forces stationed at our borders and within our country in event of an attack upon our soil, as well as a reserve to deploy in event of emergency. Perhaps some off-shore bases, and a functional Navy and Airforce.
I see no reason for a huge military industrial complex unless we're caught up in a situation such as WWII, in which a great deal of funds and troops were a necessity.
No interventionism. It waste our funds and troops and makes for more fearsome, better justified enemies.
Said it better than I could.
-
Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo would like a word with both of you.
-
Somalia developed a huge military with the helps of the US and the Soviet Union and then it all went to hell during their Civil War...I don't what that has to do with anything.
-
There's no reason why any one nation should be responsible for solving others' problems. That should be up to multi-national groups, such as the UN to solve, if the countries with the problems cannot deal with their own issues.
If the world doesn't want Team America to be its world police, it shouldn't be wanting Team America to be its world police.
-
The UN is an organization built to delay action, not put it into motion. That's why.
-
Here's my proposition.
No country in the world is self sufficient. Every country needs trade, every one. So, one could say that a country is dependent on the things it gets from countries outside itself. So, if there ever came a time where a country as a whole was committing a "crime against humanity," an organization (preferably a stronger version of the UN) should make it mandatory to stop trading with said country. No country can keep itself afloat without trade, so what choice do they have but to stop.
Admittedly, I've been thinking about this for a while, but I'm not sure how well it would work. I think it would, but I bet one of you could come up with fifty thousand holes in it.
-
I like that idea. It would need to be further fleshed out, but a good start, so far.
In the meantime, I don't see a reason why we would have any right to send our military to save other nations from their own failings, unless it is a direct and MAJOR ( think, platoons invading our home soil, shooting at our own people in areas of large population; something at least of that scale) threat to our home field.
I'm all for peaceful humanitarian efforts, even sending funding to legitimate repair efforts (provided that the money is used for that, as opposed to falling in the hands of the next native warmonger to screw things up again); that stuff I'd be cool with our gov doing.
But I'm not for sending in weaponry, funding for militias, troops, or anything of that sort. Call me horrendously cynical, but I bet that odds are, had we intervened in Rwanda, it could have escalated into something much, much worse.
-
I agree. I am the biggest pacifist you'll ever meet, which is why I hate intervening in situations like those mentioned whenever people's rights are being violated. However, I'm also a massive bleeding heart so I think that whenever a situation like the ones come about come about, others should do whatever they can do stop it. Peacefully. Enter my idea.
-
How do you get every single country in the organization, let alone the world, to agree to stop trading with that country? Enter the problem with everything international relations.
-
If the crimes that these hypothetical countries are committing are so bad, wouldn't most of the countries agree to boycott trading with them? If it is a vast majority than you boycott those in the minority as well. Or it could be done voluntarily, but that's an issue because we are all greedy.
-
Think of international relations as the state of nature on a massive scale. Nobody can make anybody do anything because morality doesn't exist on the international level, just interest. Thing is, even if a state goes into something with the best intentions (and actually probably especially so), there is a high chance the state that agrees to cooperate with them is just going to stab them in the back later. Case in point, Hitler's appeasement. It's the security dilemma (also known as the prisoner's dilemma), and it's present in every single event that takes place on the international stage. That's why, for example, the Mideast Road Map to Peace has basically been a complete standstill. What assurance does Israel have that once Palestine is a state that they can expect violence will cease? What assurance does Palestine have that Israel will lower trade barriers and end settlements?
Also as a side note, the philosophe's of the Enlightenment too believed in world peace through international trade. There are some in political theory circles who believe the two world wars are the result of relying too heavily on that assumption.
-
Just a heavily downsized effort that just would have enough forces stationed at our borders and within our country in event of an attack upon our soil, as well as a reserve to deploy in event of emergency. Perhaps some off-shore bases, and a functional Navy and Airforce.
Yes, and hence my original post - all this costs a hell of a lot more than education. It's really specious to say "zomg we spend more on defense than education look at how much we suck", because the two things are incomparable. Rifles and tanks cost quite a bit more than pencils and books.
-
My main concern about the military spending is the fact that it's way more than it should be, and the fact that it makes us enemies out if other, justifiably angered nations.
Now about education reform, I'd say it's less of an issue of poor funding than it is poor use of funding in conjunction with a far outdated system made to create factory workers in a post industrial nation.
-
Exactly on both accounts. One, we should not spend 700 billion dollars a year on guns.
Two, we need education reform which A) Puts more money into educational systems, and B) Changes the job of school from future job equiptment to educating citizens. I want our education system focused on the nuturing of the minds of the young. We need to develop thinkers and citizens, not sheep.
-
My main concern about the military spending is the fact that it's way more than it should be, and the fact that it makes us enemies out if other, justifiably angered nations.
Now about education reform, I'd say it's less of an issue of poor funding than it is poor use of funding in conjunction with a far outdated system made to create factory workers in a post industrial nation.
I get the sentiment, but it really isn't about how much money we spend. It's how we put the spent money to use that pisses others off. Theoretically we can maintain this level of spending (theoretically meaning without taking economics into account) without causing any substantial changes in our relations with other countries.
-
Exactly on both accounts. One, we should not spend 700 billion dollars a year on guns.
Two, we need education reform which A) Puts more money into educational systems, and B) Changes the job of school from future job equiptment to educating citizens. I want our education system focused on the nuturing of the minds of the young. We need to develop thinkers and citizens, not sheep.
I'm not entirely sure lack of money is the problem, but lack of money in the right area's. Too many administrators, superintendents, and other persons who don't do a whole lot to help educate our kids.
I completely agree with part b. It's time we start teaching philosophy in high school (at the latest). Teach kids music, foreign languages, and math when they're young, let the rest just sort happen after that.
-
I completely agree, dude. America's math and science education is pathetic. If you look at Finland's education, it is perfect. I understand that implicating that type of education system in the US with many more children would be difficult, but that is why I say we need more money in education. I also completely agree with philosophy. Kids need to start thinking, not spitting back information.
-
Exactly on both accounts. One, we should not spend 700 billion dollars a year on guns.
Two, we need education reform which A) Puts more money into educational systems, and B) Changes the job of school from future job equiptment to educating citizens. I want our education system focused on the nuturing of the minds of the young. We need to develop thinkers and citizens, not sheep.
I'm not entirely sure lack of money is the problem, but lack of money in the right area's. Too many administrators, superintendents, and other persons who don't do a whole lot to help educate our kids.
I completely agree with part b. It's time we start teaching philosophy in high school (at the latest). Teach kids music, foreign languages, and math when they're young, let the rest just sort happen after that.
At the latest? I mean, I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think too many boys or girls will really "get" it at the time they're figuring out boobs, penises, and the like. I would call high school age the "perfect fit," so you begin learning philosophy in your freshman year but not earlier.
-
Well, maybe if we fostered education early, maybe they can understand the stuff. We just think they can't because of what we have been doing to them. However, I wouldn't have a problem if they learned it in 9th grade. Or they could learn it in all of them.
-
I say we need to have more intensive education for all.
We have the few honor students put forth a great deal of effort to succeed and learn, while the majority linger around and generally act like cretin throughout high school.
From what I've read about say, Japan, everyone is forced to go through very tough and challenging courses, to some degree, and those who just screw around are totally ostracized. Hence, why they have so many hard-working, well-educated individuals and so few uneducated dumb-asses.
We could learn from them.
I mean, really, here, college is viewed as something many go to, but it's not the end of the world if you don't put enough effort in school to get there. There, you're a fucking imbecile (well, viewed as one) if you don't make it into college. We need that mindset.
-
Well, maybe if we fostered education early, maybe they can understand the stuff. We just think they can't because of what we have been doing to them. However, I wouldn't have a problem if they learned it in 9th grade. Or they could learn it in all of them.
I dunno if you went to private or public school in elementary and middle, but given my experience with private school, I don't think it makes much of a difference.
-
I doubt it would.
It's not the type of school kids go to that is determining how they are; it's our entire culture.
Our culture is largely vapid and complacent. We accept mediocrity to the point where it's the standard, and anything above it is essentially declared to be sheer genius. Unless it's too far above the norm, in which case, it's declared weird or crazy and ostracized.
In Japan, intellectualism is the norm; here, it's almost heresy. :facepalm:
-
If you want to see culture change, wait a few more decades. It's a slow, slow process short of an outright cultural revolution like the hippies.
-
What cup said is right. Here, in my school district, standardized test scores are so low, the goal by the end of the 2012 year is to have 60% of the kids pass...They are trying to fail!! Isn't there a problem with that? Kids have the ability to learn well beyond what we think. We just don't know that.
-
Seriously? Deliberately failing tests?
Did you hear that sound?
(T'was the sound of my hypothesis that kids my age couldn't get any less responsible and future minded being spontaneously disproved)
-
Nononono. They are not trying to fail the test. Their goal passing rate is 60%, which is failing on a test (out of 100.) So what I'm saying is, their goal is to have a failing amount of kids passing.
-
(Thanks for clarifying. I guess my hypothesis is still no longer true, though, because:)
Goal of 60%?
Fucking pathetic, that's what 60% is.
I mean, really, you and I both know how easy those damn things are. Anything less than a 100% passing rate on those tests is just plain unacceptable. Simple as that.
-
No shit. These are the easiest tests I've ever taken, and most kids fail them...
-
What do these kids do all day?
Sex and hard drugs?
-
Pretty much.
-
Nononono. They are not trying to fail the test. Their goal passing rate is 60%, which is failing on a test (out of 100.) So what I'm saying is, their goal is to have a failing amount of kids passing.
Uh, sorry, but no. Maybe the "problem" is kids like yourself (no offense) who are good and filling in standardized tests are told that they're the "smart" ones, whereas the other kids just get disgruntled and give up. When, in fact, standardized tests are a horrible gauge of intelligence.
-
Pretty much.
Same shit happens here.
I'd just like to know how the hell do they get away with that shit?
Are their parents really that negligent/emotionally-detached/apathetic/idiotic?
Nononono. They are not trying to fail the test. Their goal passing rate is 60%, which is failing on a test (out of 100.) So what I'm saying is, their goal is to have a failing amount of kids passing.
Uh, sorry, but no. Maybe the "problem" is kids like yourself (no offense) who are good and filling in standardized tests are told that they're the "smart" ones, whereas the other kids just get disgruntled and give up. When, in fact, standardized tests are a horrible gauge of intelligence.
Or, how about these "normal" kids get off of their asses and put some goddamn effort into their academic lives, for once?
All of the information required to get a passing grade on these fuckers can be acquired simply through attending class, paying an adequate amount of attention to the lectures, and doing the homework.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
-
Yeah, my school district is not the model though. Shit area, minorities are the majority (not racist, you just know what that tends to mean,) most don't speak English, so...yeah! I've become pretty disillusioned with the system.
-
Yeah, my school district is not the model though. Shit area, minorities are the majority (not racist, you just know what that tends to mean,) most don't speak English, so...yeah! I've become pretty disillusioned with the system.
My school is apparently one of the best public school in the state.
Even then, there are loads of meat-heads and broads, too many ESLs, and an unhealthy # of potheads/delinquents. In most of my classes, I'm one of the few who are actually giving a damn.
Almost every day, I see the school's assigned fuzz escorting some toker into his patrol vehicle.
-
Yeah man. What's killing us is the "hood" mentality. These kids don't think they will make anything of themselves so they don't try. Also, way too many ESLs...way too many.
-
Spot on.
Anyone who has this "hood" mentality should be gotten rid of. It's entirely possible for anyone to do a good enough job to get somewhere in society; they just have to care enough to put in the effort where effort's due! Except they don't, because they've got their sad little victim mentality going on. Sucks for them, I guess; hope they enjoy their lifetimes in poverty.
As for the ESLs, they should be forced to learn English. Over the course of the last 200 odd years, the US has had its share of immigrants, and though we accepted their differences (over time; our treatment of them was far from perfect, I will admit), they made their share of efforts into actually integrating into our society. The current crop shouldn't have anything less expected of them.
-
I don't think they should be gotten rid of. I just think they should learn a trade. Mind you, I only think this because of the situation education finds itself in. If it were up to me, these kids would be actively apart of the education system, learning well beyond what they are, and most importantly, caring.
-
Sadly, there are a couple things that prevent positive outcomes from happening.
A: they don't learn useful trades, because they are lazy/unmotivated, or because they end up taking up illegal trades.
B: for them to be taking part in the education system and to care, it'll take more than the education system trying to make them. It'll take a complete change in culture. Their culture taints them before they even hit the elementary school doors, it seems. Their worthless parents are just as much accountable for their upbringings and to blame for their failings.
Disclaimer: this is the best I know; I never grew up in an empoverished neighborhood, so I don't have any experience with this waste of student body aside from coming across them at school.
-
I agree. What we need is a cultural overhaul, which won't happen. My perfect culture is that of the ancient Athenians. Education was everything and the philosophers were the celebrities. There were debates in the streets and everyone participated in society. That won't happen here so what are we left with? A social darwinistic system of education that leaves those unable to learn down in the muck. Unfortunately, we need a social darwinistic education system but even that is not working because of No Child Left Behind. If you do well, go to college. If you don't, learn a trade. But no. Everyone is special.
-
Or, how about these "normal" kids get off of their asses and put some goddamn effort into their academic lives, for once?
All of the information required to get a passing grade on these fuckers can be acquired simply through attending class, paying an adequate amount of attention to the lectures, and doing the homework.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
With all due respect, when did the bureaucrats of the system you say you despise decide that you were "honors" student material? Because, from what I understand, most kids are arbitrarily put into one category or another at a very young age, which becomes their pre-ordained status unless they happen to do extraordinarily well or extraordinarily poorly, which isn't too likely given what their situation will become.
What I'm getting at here is, when you go through the entirety of grade school being told that you're one of the "smart" kids, it's a lot easier to feel like you should hold yourself up to that standard once you get to high school, even if you can't remember when, where, or why it was decided that you're "intelligent." Likewise, when you go through grade-school being told that you're are dumbass, you're a lot more likely spend your time after school's out hanging out with friends and getting high. Again, I'm not trying to take away whatever sense of pride having scored highly on standardized tests has given you, but from what I know who becomes an "honors" student and who becomes an "average" student is more based on deciding to categorize students at a young age based on some stupid test they took when they were 9 moreso than it is on any actual merit on behalf of the student himself. Again, people tend to meet the expectations that have been set for them. And once someone's been in one track for so long, it's really hard to move up or down no matter how well one does.
Sadly, there are a couple things that prevent positive outcomes from happening.
A: they don't learn useful trades, because they are lazy/unmotivated, or because they end up taking up illegal trades.
B: for them to be taking part in the education system and to care, it'll take more than the education system trying to make them. It'll take a complete change in culture. Their culture taints them before they even hit the elementary school doors, it seems. Their worthless parents are just as much accountable for their upbringings and to blame for their failings.
Disclaimer: this is the best I know; I never grew up in an empoverished neighborhood, so I don't have any experience with this waste of student body aside from coming across them at school.
....Or, maybe they've been grouped in with all the other "hood" kids and never told that they're intelligent. You know, I'll be willing to bed that if you took some of these minorities you're talking about out of sped and put them in classes with all the smart, self-motivated white kids, their grades would be a lot closer to yours are than what they would be in their normal situation.
Once again, I'm not trying to take away from how hard you study or anything. But you seem to believe very much in the idea that these little boxes the system you say you hate groups people into "based on their intelligence" are actually a reflection of reality. I'd say that they're likely not at all. Unfortunately, if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes true. In this case, it's the lie that some kids are just smarter or harder working than others simply because they've done better on a couple of tests.
-
I don't think a person should have to be told they're intelligent.
I'm pretty sure we all know very well just how intelligent we are.
It's mainly a matter of actually caring and being willing to put in the work to get that A.
I realize upbringing can have its effect on how much you care about education, but good lord, there's a point where this apathy expressed by those hood kids is just pathetic, and well beyond the grouping at early age explanation. Some people are just plain useless as human beings, as a result of their poor attitudes towards the idea of merit based on effort, and it's not limited to the low incomers. I see plenty of non-studious party animals who (at least appear to, at any rate) have their fair share of wealth, and I do not feel sympathetic towards them, either. If a student is not going to put in the bare minimum to pass, they are clearly failing, and should be doing better than that, regardless of how they were classified in elementary school; that can only explain so much. There's a point where that can't be used to justify a student's poor performance.
I know I'm capable of getting good grades through putting in the time to do my work and study. It's not that difficult for me, and much of it shouldn't be that difficult for anyone in my grade level, honors or not.
-
We need to stop focusing on test scores and start focusing on the kids. I mean, education should be individualized and focused on discussion rather than lecturing. The entire system needs a massive overhaul, but it is too difficult to do because it would cost more money and god forbid we put money into the future of America, that would just make too much sense.
-
For the focus to come off of test scores, schools need to not be funded based on them.
All (public) schools should receive the same amount of funding.
-
Um...that I'm not so sure about. A public school of 500 kids should not receive the same amount of funding as a school with 4000 kids.
-
By that, I meant the same ratio of funding per student body size.
So, if school A has 1000 students and receives $X per student, and school B has 2000 students, then B should receive $2X per student.
-
Oh, in that case. I'd agree. That can lead to some sticky situations in the future though. Anyway, I've lost track of the conversation and am typing on autopilot. I gots to leave.
-
Cup, I think you have a rather twisted perspective of how and why children perform the way they do. PC made some good posts. Why don't you start a separate thread about this, though?
-
Mitt Romney: he should just come out and say that "Romneycare" was WRONG, not DEFEND it. If he said it was a mistake, he'd become more credible. At this point, his position is: "It was okay for ME to mandate healthcare and force people to buy it in MA, but it's wrong for Obama to do it." Sorry, wrong opinion, Mitt.
Michelle Bachmann: Please go away. Does she know how to answer a frigging question? Every time someone asks her a question, she answers a completely different question!
Huntsman: condescending, arrogant. I don't like him, personally, but more importantly, he doesn't say anything, either.
Santorum: I do like his points and I do think he'd be OK, but..... he's not going to get anywhere. He's too much of a goofball. I know that sounds shallow, but it's true.
Gingrich: I like him a lot. Won't get anywhere, though.
Perry: Completely unprepared. "I'm at the debate, but..... I'll have my economic plan ready next week." What? Really? GO AWAY.
Ron Paul: he's just nuts. That's really all you can say about Ron Paul.
Gary Johnson: I LIKE HIM
-
Huntsman: condescending, arrogant. I don't like him, personally, but more importantly, he doesn't say anything, either.
Totally agreed here. The guy is smug as hell, and comes off as a complete snob.
Santorum: I do like his points and I do think he'd be OK, but..... he's not going to get anywhere. He's too much of a goofball. I know that sounds shallow, but it's true.
Some of his points are OK. But calling allowing gays in the military "social experimentation" is just lolworthy.
Gingrich: I like him a lot. Won't get anywhere, though.
Yeah, he's more than held his own in these debates. But his personal history makes him unelectable, I think.
Perry: Completely unprepared. "I'm at the debate, but..... I'll have my economic plan ready next week." What? Really? GO AWAY.
Weird, I think he's doing alright. I'm glad he hasn't sold out on his immigration stance yet, either.
Ron Paul: he's just nuts. That's really all you can say about Ron Paul.
Gary Johnson: I LIKE HIM
Yeah. Ron Paul has been ranting for years about the same issues, but takes stances so overblown and impossible that the ranting never ends in favor of proposing solutions that are plausible, but rather extreme ones that aren't ever defended by anyone but his most ardent supporters. Then Gary Johnson comes out of nowhere with far more realistic and practical solutions to the various problems Paul points out. It's a wonder after all this time Paul has never been able to get to them himself. But I guess that's what happens when you begin to let ideology frame your thinking.
You missed out on Herman Cain though. Honestly, he seems to be doing better and better.
-
ITT: We learn how prejudices against race and socioeconomic statuses are formed and maintained.
-
ITT: We learn how prejudices against race and socioeconomic statuses are formed and maintained.
Well, I'm glad someone else was willing to say it.
The thing that gets me the most is how some people will rant on and on about how the education system is broken and can't get anything right: except the part where it tells them that they're having performed better than others is solely due to their own merits and effort.
Shit. I'm starting to realize something: that's how this whole things works, isn't it...
-
I mean I wouldn't rule out every case, but I have also seen what you're talking about in my experience with public school.
-
ITT: We learn how prejudices against race and socioeconomic statuses are formed and maintained.
boom goes the dynamite
-
Perpetual Change:
Oh yes, Herman Cain. I like him, he seems genuine, BUT..... I don't know about running the country. But, then again.... Obama. :lol
-
ITT: We learn how prejudices against race and socioeconomic statuses are formed and maintained.
Well, I'm glad someone else was willing to say it.
The thing that gets me the most is how some people will rant on and on about how the education system is broken and can't get anything right: except the part where it tells them that they're having performed better than others is solely due to their own merits and effort.
Shit. I'm starting to realize something: that's how this whole things works, isn't it...
Ever see the documentary where a women did a little experiment, and told the class that blue eyed people were better than brown eyed people (or maybe the other way around), slightly enforced the stereotype, and quickly saw horrible outcomes?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/
I think it's amazing that we think a 7 year old is going to listen to himself, and not the social message he's getting, and how he's being treated by his parents, family, teachers, etc.
-
I didn't read the entire thread, but I think of the candidates currently on the scene, Mitt Romney has the best chance against Obama, and most of the polls support that. The problem with Mitt Romney, though, is he's fairly wishy-washy in the typical red-meat issues that conservatives embrace.
[attempt at humor] For example, it's pretty well documented that Mr. Romney was for being against taking a position against being for agreeing with anyone who once took a position against supporting being for those who are against gun control. [/attempt at humor] :P
But seriously, even though I'm a Democrat, I actually thought Romney wasn't that bad of a governor. I live in MA and the fabric of reality did not implode on itself when he was running things as some liberals would have you believe.
-
Let me clarify my statement: I don't think it's this huge conspiracy to raise certain groups and keep others down. I do however believe in what Scheavo is saying, that those messages follow kids for so much longer than anyone might think, and that the consequences are so great as we now see.
-
ITT: We learn how prejudices against race and socioeconomic statuses are formed and maintained.
I hope you are not refuring to me, but I need to comment on this. Anyway, I completely agree. You of all people know my stance on racisim and prejudice. The problem is, the education system in general is exactly what perpetuates the ideas that have been talked about.
Everything is about standardized test scores. Everything. That is wrong because standardized test scores don't test anything other than one's ability to spit out information. No thought process need be involved and those that can't are looked at as "stupid." What this does is ostricize those who are not the best in math or English, and it tries to make students conform toward that of the perfect student. The emphasis on arts or music or any number of things that are not science, math or English gets cut and cut and cut and cut. It truly is a horrible thing watching all these different programs get destroyed before your eyes. That is why we need to stop focusing on test scores.
What standardized testing also does is fucks with kids who don't speak English well. I go to a school that is 75% Latino. I'd be amazed if 50% of the Latinos could speak English with proficiency. What that does is brings the school's over all grade down which in turn brings the motivation of the students down. Unfortunately, poor tests scores also makes the district think it is doing some thus thereby increasing their efforts to better grades. It is a vicious circle that we can't get out of without educational reform. We can't exactly say, "Well learn to speak English" but we don't realize just how hard it is.
As for stereotyping, PC had it spot on. It's unfortunate that white people have a leg up on the competition because it causes many minorities to struggle for whatever they can have; growing up in slums and getting shitty jobs. This enviroment is not suitable for a child. In a life where you are constantly shown that you can't make anything of yourself because of your race, you won't. You are constantly exposed to sub-par performance, and why do anything about it when odds are, it won't help anyway? These are the things running through the kids' minds when they go to school and do badly on the tests. They are put down so much, they stop giving a shit. You can think it is because of whatever. Personally, I think the problems lie in the foundation of what it means to be a "good student." Education needs much more money and a complete overhaul, and it sadly won't happen.
-
Not you so much as Cup. :P
-
I can believe you guys to an extent about the psychological/socioeconomic stuff.
I don't believe that their lack of effort should be completely excused or given a pat on the back, though; everyone going through the education system mentally capable should be held accountable for their own actions.
-
I can only speak for myself, but I'm talking about the opposite of patting them on the back. I believe those kids need to be challenged more, and with some assistance on the side they could rise to the challenge rather than being discouraged. I won't deny there are some kids that actually prefer the sex and hard drugs, but there are some who might see it differently if given another chance.
-
I like that idea.
I would like to know how you'd (hypothetically) go about assisting/challenging these kids to elevate themselves.
Most of those type of kids I see don't seem to care. At all. I'd imagine it'd take quite the program to make them change to such a degree, but if such a program can be implemented, I'd say that's good.
-
Oh I have no idea, I'm just proposing a theoretical approach. :lol
-
Well, your basic framework seems to be in the right sort of basic direction.
I bet if someone here in the education field like James came in here, said framework could be shaped into more of a specific idea.
-
Well yeah but he's a teacher, I don't know how much he knows about the administrative side of education. Guess I could PM him.
-
Um, I have some experience with sticking those types of kids into higher classes...it has not been working.
-
everyone going through the education system mentally capable should be held accountable for their own actions.
At what point does this happen though, and at that point is it too late? We don't think an 8 year old is accountable for their actions an anywhere else, why should we when it comes to education and long term goals? By the time someone is capable for this kind of thing, in high school, it's probably a little too late to start addressing it.
-
everyone going through the education system mentally capable should be held accountable for their own actions.
At what point does this happen though, and at that point is it too late? We don't think an 8 year old is accountable for their actions an anywhere else, why should we when it comes to education and long term goals? By the time someone is capable for this kind of thing, in high school, it's probably a little too late to start addressing it.
I'd say it's probably around the end of middle school/the beginning of high school, when students' grades really start having an effect on their ability to be accepted into a college.
I also bet that more students would understand and embrace personal accountability had
A. their primary education before this point included more emphasis on this to sort of ease students into it,
and B. the students' parents done their jobs as parents to make known to them the importance of education, its ultimate effect upon one's path in life after high school, and the great role of personal responsibility in success in school.
-
I've sorta been following this thread and thought I'd chime in here because I think Shakeman makes a pretty good point.
...the students' parents done their jobs as parents to make known to them the importance of education, its ultimate effect upon one's path in life after high school, and the great role of personal responsibility in success in school.
Schools, in my opinion, can't be responsible for developing a student's motivation to learn; that has to come from within. I suppose being out of high school now for five (fuck where'd that go) years and now working in a job I've strived/studied/worked-my-arse-off for, I'm a good example of what can come about from the combination of schooling and motivation. I was always told by my parents that to get a decent job with good pay and conditions and in a field that I wanted to be in, that I needed to work hard for it. It was never a case of being tied to the chair and being forced to do 4x9 until my eyes bled, it was that knowledge that I wouldn't get where I wanted to go without working for it. My parents always ensured that I knew where a good education would get me, rather than blindly saying "do your homework" and leaving the rest up to the school, which is what I think a lot of parents expect of schools these days.
Schooling should be secondary to what you learn at home and socially. I mean, have I ever needed to use any of the shit I learnt in my last two years of high school directly? Besides economics (durp I wonder why) and probably critical thinking from english classes (although I think you either have it or you don't when it comes to this), I struggle to think of anything. What has put me in good stead in the motivation and work ethic which I developed at home, applied at school (and then work, and then uni).
My two bobs on why this has occured? The focus on exams as the means of entry into higher education. From my experience, these were an excercise in memorisation - if you could regurgitate a pre-prepared essay on "what did the second world war mean for Australia", you win. Ask the same students who got really high scores (I got a high score, btw, I'm not just trying to piss on people who are megabrains lol) to stand up in front of a room and articulate and defend their position on said topic - which is what, IMO, constitutes intelligence; they'd flounder. I guarantee that.
Options for reform? Make entry into higher education more wholistic rather than a pure emphasis on your grades. I don't know what the answer is to that, though, as it would be impractical to hold interviews or something similar for every student wanting to enter higher education. But relying solely on a student's performance in a make-or-break exam is too narrow and too focussed on those who can memorise.
/rantyrantrant. Education policy sometimes really gets me fired up, not that you can tell.