"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 12:06 AM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone
got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to
watch.
====================
Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of
Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit
an
entire system.
It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every
socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized
medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.
Why do you have socialized education?
Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to
fight
them all the time.
Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?
No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money
from
people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual
parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't
pay,
don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches
and
harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it,
and
at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens.
Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future
starting
with infancy.
No, I hold the parents accountable.
But the child suffers.
Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity.
You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
No, I don't, actually.
There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who
cannot access education or health care.
My, what a
beautiful world you would build.
There's no better way to stimulate parents to be successful than to make
them realize that the future success of their children depends on their
willingness to work hard and provide for them. We've seen for many years
now
the result of granting the poor and uneducated "entitlements" that does
nothing but bind them and their children ever deeper into economic and
social poverty and degradation.
The one million illegal immigrants who come to this country each month
know
this full well, which is why they come here and go to work in those jobs
that "Americans won't take," so that their children will have the
opportunity to prosper.
What's successful for the poor is denying them the public dole that binds
them to the public teat while forcing them to advance themselves in the
workforce. It builds self-esteem, character and gives them skills that
will
serve them well in their lives. America is indeed the "Land of
Opportunity,"
but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an
equal
opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to
strive
to excel and advance.
As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to
squash everyone flat."
You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry,
uneducated, and without access to health care.
"Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash
collection to access to federal lands, why not education too?
It's just that usual nonsense about trying to give all kids a reasonable
opportunity to access what the world has to offer.
Public education is, by and large, a dismal failure, particularly in poor
communities where an education, free or otherwise, is not viewed as
necessary to one's future...mostly because welfare dwellers see the future
of their children as being merely a repeat of their parent's failures.
There
is no stimulus to succeed, and generational failure is inevitable. Only
when
one has to work to succeed is one likely to value the education one gets
and
wish it for one's children.
Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.
How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.
Can someone draw me an irony meter please!
Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable
contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even
businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy
for
them to support education for the next generation of workers they will
need
to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be
far
more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a
non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an
appendix.
The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.
True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.
Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.
In your fantasy world.
Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.