Re: The value of shopping local

Page 2 of 12  


You've consistently disavowed any fellow feeling for the rest of the country, as well as any responsibility to other individuals in it. If you think that you have the resources to make it on your own outside the infrastructure generations of citizens of this country have spent generations building, don't let the door hit you in the back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plenty of *authentic* people vote with their feet when they dislike the government the inherit. A close (white) friend of mine left South Africa in the 60's as a young man because he couldn't stand the system there. Many of my father's generation left eastern Europe before the iron curtain came down and never saw their native lands, or families, ever again.
Others commit themselves to transforming their countries by political engagement within their native lands. They get together with like-minded people and try to remedy the flaws in their systems. Both these routes take guts.
Maladjusted, self-centered misanthropes, surrounded by caches of Spam and ammo, should consider their options and grow a pair. They won't of course, neither will they take their happy meds, but "I Can Dream, Can't I?"
--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Voting with one's feet... My sister moved to England, and then to Australia (having married an Aussie), and has never looked back - she loves it there.

Or even not necessarily political. I think that any positive action has a ripple effect. As does any negative action. And whatever sort fo ripples onemakes do tend to come back to one... SO as I see it, beingt at least occasionally interested in others benefits my own self-interest ;)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow. Must have hit a nerve.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What? Can't handle the fact that I can have a reasoned discussion without getting shrill? Didn't you know? People who _actually_ value independent thought don't have to launch into that kind of attack when someone has a contrary opinion. You say you value thinking for yourself, but you only value the thoughts of people whose independent thoughts mirror your own. News flash: that's exactly what you've been criticizing.
-Amy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
William wrote:

Makes me think of sci-fi films where one goes back to the past, and the very act of going back changes who they are-- even rendering them non-existent.

>>

Was that that shrill sound we heard up here?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's already been argued at length, and better by other people, than I can. In a nutshell, education (and no, ot the current public warehouse system, as I've already gone into at length) allows for a diversity of work and a higher skill level for workers; it informs people as to the value of things like Liberty and Justice. THere is a correlation between lack of education, and criminla lifestyle, ebcause people who have no job qualifications tend to resort to crime to live. Democracy itself, whether direct or representational, relies on poeple's ability to understand facts/situations, and make better choices whcih will preserve their rights. ANd so on - as I said, others have gone into this at length, and better than I prob. can.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it's not a leap of faith. It's based upon what I knmow of societies that are getting education as opposed to communities which don't, and upon what I know, and have observed, of how communities function.

Not lack of crime, *reduction* in crime.

Many convicts end up back in prison primarliy because they have never learned basic life-skills, including literacy.

During the Depression, people were on fairly equal footing - the division between the completely impoverished and the fabulously wealthy was not as great as it is now.

True, but when one cannot find work because one is uneducated, one is likely to resort to crime, not because one is immoral, but because one is hungry.
Also, when on eis illiterate and innumerate, one is far elss likely to realize that there are better ways to live. Education **can**, if it's truely education, teach both skills, and the fact that ther are productive ways to use them.

From what I can tell, most of the current school system sucks. So no, I don't give a hang what they're currently pretending to teach. WHen schoold had out birth control pills (i.e., hormones) to 9-yr-ols without parental knowledge, and with Zwero regard to the child's current or future health, it shows that both soceity, and the schools, are totally FUBARed.
Dopn't put words into my mot\\uth as though I'm saying anything different - I'm trying to think of how education can be made available to children, NOT abotu the current cluster-f*ck that gets *passed off* as being some sort of "education".

WHcih is **not** the same thing as saying that "under no circumstances whatsoever can the education of children be of benefit to a society".

Because the current mess is little more than a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, which merely uses education as a pretext or excuse for its existence. WHen a school graduates nealry half o f its children while they're still illiterate, yet takes a couple million $$ to build a friggin' football stadium for the high school, that is not education, it a bureaucracy run amok.
For tha umpteenth time: I believe in education, not in ever-expanding bureaucracy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Other people's children sure are, Don, especially when they begin to torture and rape.
If recalled, you just moved from a place that had an apparent murder nearby, or at least dubious activity that you seemed 'curious' about.
'None of you business' also comes in shades of gray.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Cripes.
It could have been about you, about your murder. Then whose business is it? Certainly not yours, since, if you were dead, your business would be to lie very still. In another context, if I truly was a worm, it would then be my business to slide right on in and help decompose you.

A line drawn in the sand is composed of a billion grains.

...Like how little Johnny next door likes to treat little Missy (and her kitten) when her parents aren't watching? (flip the sex of the characters if it makes you feel any better)
...Not that it's any of _your_ business... or that you don't get your ass arrested for pretending not to notice it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Then I suppose we need to _qualify_ what we mean by minding one's own business. Here's mine: If I catch someone bopping their kids *while minding my own business*, then I'll step in. I call that minding my own business in the protection of others.
Rest assured that, at the same time, I'm also against people sticking their shnozes in others' businesses where I feel they shouldn't, but various abuses, when "accidentally discovered", are exceptions.
Another exception would be turning a blind eye and/or failing to act on somethings like the above, such as in the name of 'minding one's own business', or of 'just following orders': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, if I was six years old and my mother was a drug addict and so I never had nutritious meals or support to get a good education, I suspect I'd be very grateful if a responsible adult intervened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(1) Such people should not be allowed to raise children - I say that because these people are *doing harm* to another human being, and worse, to one who does not have the power to help him/her self, change the situation. (2) When you see what some people do to their kids, well, letting them just have, and keep, *more* kids is just plain criminal - I mean literally, since it is supposedly illegal to harm others. If these slobs are going to keep having kids, they should never be allowed to keep them. And once the kids are adopted, they should *never* be given back to such people, as has happened far too often.
I would have been very grateful had another adult intervened and take me away. But it's not just about money. There are poor people who nevertheless do not neglect their kids. And there are plenty of people who are getting by, and even people who are well-off, who DO neglect their kids. If someone is into drugs, OK, yes, I think it's good to *try* to help them - but "three strikes and you're out" - AND kids should *never* be in the picture, because kids should never have to live with someone who cares more about getting drunk or high than they care about the kids. Griwong up with that sort of scumpig messes a kid up, and it can take decades to clean up the mess, and that's if the mess can be cleaned up at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Amy Blankenship wrote:

No, her children are in a no-win situation. I cannot legally do anything for her children. Giving her more money doesn't directly benefit the children--she gets food stamps, and other assistance, that covers food related issues. I can't force her to spend her money wisely, for her kids. They're just plain stuck...and I feel the worst for them. They really would be better off with "real" parents, but again, I can't do anything (unless I can get solid evidence of some sort of abuse).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

However, this whole conversation started with a discussion of education. If her children have no access to education (which is the practical effect of the policies it seems you advocate) they have less ability to extricate themselves from their bad situation as adults. I do recognize that the odds are against them, but removing the chance at even an adequate education is not going to help them. Remember, the education goes directly to children, people who haven't made many decisions in their lives, good or bad. Removing education from those children punishes them, not parents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Amy Blankenship wrote:

They're already punished because of the parents. The ratio is 95:5 of those who get out without the parents fully being invested in their education. Most parents aren't, and that's true across income levels.
The other problem is that we keep pouring money into public education, yet things are getting worse. It's not a function of money. It's a function of living in a society that really doesn't pay attention to the needs of children...on a parental level. Sure, the kids are scheduled to death with various activities. They're provided for (the most part) with whatever the creature comforts of life might be. But they're not taken care of.
It seems, as a society, we have moved towards the idea that the school is responsible for our children's learning, and the state is responsible for funding this learning. We have abdicated our responsibilities as parents. We have also let the very false idea that moneyucation permeate our society. History is filled with examples of people who came from nowhere, educated by those with little to no means.
We will never always have parents who care. And we need to stop thinking that if we collectively pick up the slack, we'll solve the problem. We can only solve the problem individually--you and me, individually, without requirement or prompting from the government, finding someone who needs the help and giving it to them. The government will never fix this problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So punish them worse by denying them _any_ opportunity?

So you think kids who aren't offered an education will do better?

And eliminating public education will make people more responsible parents how...?

We can keep it from becoming worse.

I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we would have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to countries that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for this country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Amy Blankenship wrote:

Why do you insist on missing the point? I've not said to get rid of it. I've simply said that public education is not the solution to the problem. The problem isn't "education". It's that we're actually not "educating" in the public schools to a degree that makes any difference. It's not for lack of teachers or money or anything like that. The problem is that parents do not know what is being taught, nor do they really care.
Parents, by and large, claim to have their children's best interest at heart, but rather than back up a teacher who disciplines a child, they sue the school. Rather than expect their kid to read--and read stuff worth reading, they're happy to have their kids be able to pass some stupid standardized test. Rather than let kids be kids--have some ability to get outside and run around, or have chores, they fill their homes and cars with videos and video games. They feed their kids preprepared junk and wonder why they're fat, lazy and mentally unstable. I know these parents. They're the majority. They're their kids worst enemy and they don't know it.
These aren't problems solved by the government (it'll try and destroy our liberty in doing so). They are solved by individuals making good choices. The current educational system is not helping. Couple that with the abysmally poor examples provided by their parents and other "adults" and things, for the most part, don't look good.
I'm also now saying that if we're hoping for it to be the answer for 1-2% of the population, it's a bad economic choice. Paraphrasing Einstein: We can't think that we'll solve a problem with the same thinking that got us into the problem. I'll restate: Public education works when it is an augmentation to learning that occurs at home. Otherwise, it is warehousing children at best and creating dependents at worst.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That has seemed to be your suggestion throughout the thread. If that was not your intention, then I guess we're at cross purposes ;-).

I disagree there. At least the majority of people who go through school can read, write, and do basic math. Additionally, they have at least a hazy idea of history and geography.

So we have exactly the system the vast majority of people want.

But they were raised that way themselves, and they're managing to get along in life, often quite well (well, obviously, otherwise they'd _need_ their kids to do chores and couldn't afford the games and players).

So what is your solution to try and change adults into decent role models? I think the schools can only do what they can do, which is to lay the standard fare in front of the children and hope it takes.

The vast majority of people who go through the public school system come out of it employable. That is what public schools are designed to do. As you so rightly say, the minority that excel and the minority who fail are most often influenced by excellent or terrible parenting.

While they're being warehoused, they learn to read, to do math, and often computer skills. And if all the parents had to do all of it themselves, there would be no work force to speak of.
-Amy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The key, then, is to somehow get the kids to care. One caring teacher really can make a big difference...what a child needs is at least one caring adult, even if it isn't a "parent" (I put that in quotes, because IMO, just contributing to the dropping a wriggler into a doctor's hands is in no way equivalent to actually being a Parent...). I sure as heck didn't learn about what motehrs are from my female chromosome donor; my frined's parents were more involved with my activities than my own (and they bever had to beat me black and blue to get me to follow their suggestions).
Parents are important, but it is erroneous to think that bad parents are the end all and be all, and that nobody else can step in and be a great influence in a child's life - and education.

More to the point, they don't care - their protstations of "caring" are self-delusion, and illusion, created so that they "look good" and "keep face". Actions speak ouder, however, than words - if you care about a child, you learn what to do to try to keep teh child healthy, which includes nutrition. If one does not, it's nothing more than self- centeredness and laziness. Well, sometimes sheer stupidity...
Part of the problem is precisely the ntion that kids are basically [porpoerty, and what "parents" do to them is "nobody else's business". If people treated a dog or cat teh way many people treat their kids, there would be hell to pay.
Yes, people are nosey - but that is far different from being *concerned*. Merely gossiping about someone's neglect or abuse is low and stupid and destructive.
OK, so really, we know all of that. Most people suck. But does that make it ethical to merely ignore what happens to children? In a way, part of the problem is that people are so obsessed over what they think tobe their own individual rights, that they refuse to learn from, or take advice from, ANYONE. ANd they also refuse to answer to anyone. They have, they beleive, the "right" to "raise" their kids however they damn well please, regardless of whetehr it is harmful to the child.
No. Poeple have the right tio harm themselves if they wish, but a child is a human being, and taking into account different styles of child rearing, there are things which harm children, period. Malnutrition is one such thing, and ther eis no excuse for it to exist in a houshold that is materially decently well-off - it's nothing more than parental laziness (and yes, many kids *are* malnourished, precisely because of not being provided adequate nutrition because it's "too hard" or "takes too much time" to provide erasonably-helathy food). WHy is this permitted? Why is it OK to allow poeple to harm other poeple, just becaus ethose other people are not adults? What kind of mindset is it to accept that someone has a *right* do harm their child, simplybecause the figure that the child is their "property"?

SO what is the solution? Or not even "the" solution, but at least some possible solution?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.