To degree or not to degree?
I’m sure the higher educrats clamoring for more money from the state budget were heartened by the AP story in today’s paper that said those with college degrees have an easier time finding a job.
But for the long haul, they may want to listen to Charles Murray’s take on the worth of a four-year bachelor’s degree:
This entry was posted on Friday, Apr. 22, 2011 at 09:15 AM
and is filed under Thomas Mitchell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
61
Responses
to "To degree or not to degree?"
Employed or not, one must continue education throughout the career. That original degree is just a start.
Dr. Murray is off base on a number of things. First of all, he says that classroom lectures involve sitting and listening only. They do not, at least not in my classroom. Lectures are discussions. I listened to the Feynamn lectures, and they were great. Still, I wish I'd had a chance to ask Dr. Feynman a few questions.
Dr. Murray says that a college degree should be replaced by some sort of certification allowing an employer to be reasonably certain the person in front of him is possessed of a particular set of skills. In other words, Murray want to replace the college degree with the college degree.
There are certain certifications you can use to land jobs in the absence of a degree already, like the MCSE, or Oracle and Cisco certifications. But the holders of htese certifications have a specific, and very limited, set of skills. A college graduate has a much more rounded education. I'm an Oracle certified DBA, but that certification didn't require that I be able to fashion a proper sentence or do any math. With that certification I could have found a job, but it would have been the only job I could qualify for, and the only job I would ever have without additional education.
That additioanl education - a liberal arts education - Murray tosses off with nary a mention, saying that today's college graduates aren't getting it. That's a cop out, even if true (and I don't believe it is).
Murray's argument seems to be that traditional universities are no longer necessary because technology allow us to disseminate information in new ways. While that's a bit extreme, it is true that technology has changed that particular paradigm. But while we have additional delivery methods that doesn't change the need for the education itself.
And just out of curiosity, Mr. Mitchell, how many reporters have you hired in the last twenty years who didn't have a college degree?
Dr. Murray says that a college degree should be replaced by some sort of certification allowing an employer to be reasonably certain the person in front of him is possessed of a particular set of skills. In other words, Murray want to replace the college degree with the college degree.
There are certain certifications you can use to land jobs in the absence of a degree already, like the MCSE, or Oracle and Cisco certifications. But the holders of htese certifications have a specific, and very limited, set of skills. A college graduate has a much more rounded education. I'm an Oracle certified DBA, but that certification didn't require that I be able to fashion a proper sentence or do any math. With that certification I could have found a job, but it would have been the only job I could qualify for, and the only job I would ever have without additional education.
That additioanl education - a liberal arts education - Murray tosses off with nary a mention, saying that today's college graduates aren't getting it. That's a cop out, even if true (and I don't believe it is).
Murray's argument seems to be that traditional universities are no longer necessary because technology allow us to disseminate information in new ways. While that's a bit extreme, it is true that technology has changed that particular paradigm. But while we have additional delivery methods that doesn't change the need for the education itself.
And just out of curiosity, Mr. Mitchell, how many reporters have you hired in the last twenty years who didn't have a college degree?
Read Walter Williams editorial from yesterday. Then tell us all how wonderful this indoctrination program called 'higher education' really is.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
Athos: I checked out the editorial you suggested. It's called anecdotal evidence. It has no validity and isn't really germane.
No doubt there are profeesoer saying such stupid things. There are also professors saying equally stupid things from the right. You should hear what the professors at the university I teach at have to say about liberals in general and President Obama in particular (although the ones I work with keep it out of the classroom). It's enough to warm the cockles of your reactionary heart. :-)
Using such examples as a way to condemn all higher education is ridiculous. These people represent a small minority of educators. I teach business classes and we have to discuss political issues, but I never take sides and I never grade students down for taking political positions that differ from mine.
For instance, I asked the following question on my last exam in my introductory tourism management class: Do you agree or disagree with the policy of government partnering with the private sector to promote tourism through joint ventures like convention and visitors' bureaus? Why? Do you agree with the use of dedicated taxes like hotel room taxes to promote specific industries? Why?
As long as students gave solid, cogent reasons to support their positions they got full credit regardless of whether they answered yes or no. All professors with whom I work treat politics in business in exactly the same way.
No doubt there are profeesoer saying such stupid things. There are also professors saying equally stupid things from the right. You should hear what the professors at the university I teach at have to say about liberals in general and President Obama in particular (although the ones I work with keep it out of the classroom). It's enough to warm the cockles of your reactionary heart. :-)
Using such examples as a way to condemn all higher education is ridiculous. These people represent a small minority of educators. I teach business classes and we have to discuss political issues, but I never take sides and I never grade students down for taking political positions that differ from mine.
For instance, I asked the following question on my last exam in my introductory tourism management class: Do you agree or disagree with the policy of government partnering with the private sector to promote tourism through joint ventures like convention and visitors' bureaus? Why? Do you agree with the use of dedicated taxes like hotel room taxes to promote specific industries? Why?
As long as students gave solid, cogent reasons to support their positions they got full credit regardless of whether they answered yes or no. All professors with whom I work treat politics in business in exactly the same way.
While it can be possible to suggest that more education is not always necessary, I don't know anyone in business that thinks that less education is better than more education.
John F, I've read that north of 38% of all UNLV students, need remedial classes. How many students would that be, John F? Over 2,000? And at what cost? (to the student - or their parents; and to the school - that has to staff the 'high school' classes)
What is the purpose of the LVCC? To enrich the chosen ones that sit on the board? To reward some faithful relative with a cushy job?
What is the percentage of increase costs for attending college over the past 3 years?
And something that's always puzzled me, Duke costs $46,000/yr vs UNLV @ $22,000/yr. Are you getting more than 2ce the education at Duke?
Or is it simply a case of people with more money than brains?
What is the purpose of the LVCC? To enrich the chosen ones that sit on the board? To reward some faithful relative with a cushy job?
What is the percentage of increase costs for attending college over the past 3 years?
And something that's always puzzled me, Duke costs $46,000/yr vs UNLV @ $22,000/yr. Are you getting more than 2ce the education at Duke?
Or is it simply a case of people with more money than brains?
It's always interesting when the uneducated or poorly educated, such as yourself and Heidi Harris, try to minimize the emportance of a solid education. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@ Athos; The number of UNLV students requiring remedial classes has dropped to almost zero since the university stopped offering remedial classes. That change took place a number of years ago. Students requiring remedial classes aren't allowed to attend UNLV.
If you were looking for a place where we're enriching the chosen ones who get to sit on the board, you shouldn't have chosen the community college as your target (I assume that's what you meant by LVCC). The University of Southern Nevada is the far bigger waste of taxpayer dollars. Why create an entire new administration and support staff for something that easily could have been incorporated into UNLV?
Duke is more expensive for a number of reasons. First, it's private. Second, the public perception of the value of the degree is that it's a more valuable degree than a UNLV degree. Third, their faculty get paid a heck of a lot more.
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Dr. Murray's argument. Duke's being a better school than UNLV (in most, but not sll areas) doesn't mean the students at UNLV don't need a college education.
If you were looking for a place where we're enriching the chosen ones who get to sit on the board, you shouldn't have chosen the community college as your target (I assume that's what you meant by LVCC). The University of Southern Nevada is the far bigger waste of taxpayer dollars. Why create an entire new administration and support staff for something that easily could have been incorporated into UNLV?
Duke is more expensive for a number of reasons. First, it's private. Second, the public perception of the value of the degree is that it's a more valuable degree than a UNLV degree. Third, their faculty get paid a heck of a lot more.
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Dr. Murray's argument. Duke's being a better school than UNLV (in most, but not sll areas) doesn't mean the students at UNLV don't need a college education.
Why does Tom try to equate the value of an education with the amount of money that someone is willing to pay a person who either has or doesn't have an education? From my own experience, I suggest that many people who have, for one reason or another, declined higher education, feel the need to de-value that education to make them feel better about themselves. The funny thing is, the rest of us usually, unless those without the higher education push us, try to assure those without a higher education that its a personal choice and the one they made is fine, so long as they are satisfied. The problem is that the people who chose not to get the education seem insistent on telling the people who got a degree that THEIR choice was somehow wrong, or not worth it, or some other nonsense. Inferiority is a tough row to hoe I guess.
Its fascinating that some people who have decided, for whatever reason they have, NOT to pursue higher education are constantly attacking the people who do chose that path. In my experience this is usually done out of a sense of inferiority that they have and its too bad but you can see that they suffer for their choice even if its evidenced in these feelings of inferiority. I say, you made your choice, learn to live with it and stop trying to bring people who made a different choice down to your level.
Or trying to hold another persons chosen specialty as somehow lower than ones own.
Any of the professional positions in the labor force need education, most require ongoing efforts to maintain that profession.
Any professional should understand this. I call it "paper envy" my sheepskin is better than yours! nya,nya,n,nya! Childish.
We should respect each others specialties equally. When we don't, we realize that, very appropriate, push back.
Ongoing education is a must have for professional people today, everything changes so fast. I do not believe this requires formal ongoing education, though there are times when that would be desirable over remote classes but those are fast becoming better and better.
The virtual classroom is coming, it is currently in its infancy but make no mistake it has a real chance of taking away the lecture hall.
Any of the professional positions in the labor force need education, most require ongoing efforts to maintain that profession.
Any professional should understand this. I call it "paper envy" my sheepskin is better than yours! nya,nya,n,nya! Childish.
We should respect each others specialties equally. When we don't, we realize that, very appropriate, push back.
Ongoing education is a must have for professional people today, everything changes so fast. I do not believe this requires formal ongoing education, though there are times when that would be desirable over remote classes but those are fast becoming better and better.
The virtual classroom is coming, it is currently in its infancy but make no mistake it has a real chance of taking away the lecture hall.
John F. My mistake. I meant LVCVA, not LVCC. That is the quasi government entity responsible for boosting our casino visitors, right?
No more remedial classes, right? So how do you handle the remedial instruction that's offered at UNLV? Students pay? Tutoring?
No more remedial classes, right? So how do you handle the remedial instruction that's offered at UNLV? Students pay? Tutoring?
Some of the smartest, most knowledgeable, most talented people I know have little or no formal education. The best kitchen manager I ever had never finished high school. But the bottom line is that, in today's economy, if you don't have a college degree you are putting yourself at a serious competitive disadvantage. People like Charles Murray - who has a PhD, by the way - can argue all day about how a college degree should not be necessary, but if you're competing for a job or a promotion with someone who has a degree and you do not, your chances are slim, indeed.
Dr. Murray said it himself; employers want some kind of indication that the person applying for a job is possessed of certain skills. While I'm the first to admit that the college degree is not the guarantee it once was (the same goes for the high school diploma), it's still the best indication an employer has that the applicant can reason fairly well, write a complete sentence, and handle basic mathematics.
Dr. Murray said it himself; employers want some kind of indication that the person applying for a job is possessed of certain skills. While I'm the first to admit that the college degree is not the guarantee it once was (the same goes for the high school diploma), it's still the best indication an employer has that the applicant can reason fairly well, write a complete sentence, and handle basic mathematics.
@ Athos: Students who need remedial work go to CSN for it and come back to UNLV when they're ready.
I can't say that I've ever been comfortable with the LVCVA and the way it's funded. I don't think taxes should be dedicated for the benefit of a private entity or even a semi-private one. I'm not a fan of government aid to promote specific industries.
Tourism, however, is thought to be a special instance. The general argument is that the promotion of tourism is good for the entire community and not just the businesses directly associated with hospitality. There's a point to be made there. Consider the multiplier effect of money. People come to Las Vegas and leave money behind. That money is then respent building roads, houses, gas stations, supermarkets, etc. Pretty much everything in Vegas was built using tourists' dollars, and we can see all too clearly what happens to the city when those tourist dollars go away. On top of that, the taxes used to pay for this promotion are drawn from the tourists themselves in the form of hotel room taxes and rental car taxes.
But does that justify government taking an active role in promoting private industry? I know this isn't a constitutional question, but if there was ever a case to be made that promoting a particular industry also promoted the general welfare, I guess that argument could be made for tourism. Still, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that this is something government should be involved in. There are too many other industries that could make the same claim. ConAgra and ADM make the same claim. Where does it stop?
So I'd have answered my own exam question: No.
I can't say that I've ever been comfortable with the LVCVA and the way it's funded. I don't think taxes should be dedicated for the benefit of a private entity or even a semi-private one. I'm not a fan of government aid to promote specific industries.
Tourism, however, is thought to be a special instance. The general argument is that the promotion of tourism is good for the entire community and not just the businesses directly associated with hospitality. There's a point to be made there. Consider the multiplier effect of money. People come to Las Vegas and leave money behind. That money is then respent building roads, houses, gas stations, supermarkets, etc. Pretty much everything in Vegas was built using tourists' dollars, and we can see all too clearly what happens to the city when those tourist dollars go away. On top of that, the taxes used to pay for this promotion are drawn from the tourists themselves in the form of hotel room taxes and rental car taxes.
But does that justify government taking an active role in promoting private industry? I know this isn't a constitutional question, but if there was ever a case to be made that promoting a particular industry also promoted the general welfare, I guess that argument could be made for tourism. Still, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that this is something government should be involved in. There are too many other industries that could make the same claim. ConAgra and ADM make the same claim. Where does it stop?
So I'd have answered my own exam question: No.
John F, I agree with your assessment of the LVCVA. I, too, would answer your test question, no. And there lies my fundamental lament with the road our society has traveled over the past 50 years.
My question remains: Is man capable of self governance? Jefferson and the boys back in the 18th century, believed the answer was yes, if we remained a moral society.
I believe the moral fiber of our country has been under serious attack since the 60s, and we've found ourselves turning to government to escape our own personal responsibilities.
In Utopia, this would actually work well, but we don't have a perfect world ruled by perfect people, do we? And the one constant by-product of government is corruption, greed, and the self serving lust for power.
That is why it is important to keep government as small as possible. Otherwise, more and more of our freedoms (even the freedom to fail, be wrong and possibly self destructive!) are being sold for a 'bowl of pottage'.
This is quite a deviation from the blog topic, but it's late, my mind is wandering, and I truly believe (to paraphrase Ben Franklin) He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither...
And I believe history confirm this to be true.
And I ponder why any man would chose to go down this path. There are only so many spots available for the ruling elite.
My question remains: Is man capable of self governance? Jefferson and the boys back in the 18th century, believed the answer was yes, if we remained a moral society.
I believe the moral fiber of our country has been under serious attack since the 60s, and we've found ourselves turning to government to escape our own personal responsibilities.
In Utopia, this would actually work well, but we don't have a perfect world ruled by perfect people, do we? And the one constant by-product of government is corruption, greed, and the self serving lust for power.
That is why it is important to keep government as small as possible. Otherwise, more and more of our freedoms (even the freedom to fail, be wrong and possibly self destructive!) are being sold for a 'bowl of pottage'.
This is quite a deviation from the blog topic, but it's late, my mind is wandering, and I truly believe (to paraphrase Ben Franklin) He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither...
And I believe history confirm this to be true.
And I ponder why any man would chose to go down this path. There are only so many spots available for the ruling elite.
Athos: I think we're alot closer politically than you think. I, too, am for limited government. I believe government ought to be limited to doing essentially two things. The first, and most important, of those things is to ensure that a free market exists. We've seen all to well what happens when too few people control too much of our economy and therefore our government. The federal and state governments are essentially run by business interests that have used the power of the state to protect their interests. They do it by creating legal barriers to entry (licensing, for instance), granting favorable tax rates (mining in Nevada), and on and on. Further, government has allowed the creation of oligopolies.
The second function of government is to provice those things essential for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that a free market cannot or will not. Things like roads, national defense (not offense), police and fire protection, enough food and protection from the elements not to die of starvation or exposure, and the opportunity to see a doctor.
After that, government should shut down and go home. No department of energy, but a much more powerful SEC that is not run by the Wall Street people it's supposed to regulate.
The government should see I have enough not to starve and then let me make it - or not - on my own. Equal opportunity, yes. Equal outcomes, no.
The second function of government is to provice those things essential for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that a free market cannot or will not. Things like roads, national defense (not offense), police and fire protection, enough food and protection from the elements not to die of starvation or exposure, and the opportunity to see a doctor.
After that, government should shut down and go home. No department of energy, but a much more powerful SEC that is not run by the Wall Street people it's supposed to regulate.
The government should see I have enough not to starve and then let me make it - or not - on my own. Equal opportunity, yes. Equal outcomes, no.
And yes, we've wandered off topic mightily.
John F, off topic but check it out:
Atlas drops from 6.3 to 6.1 as more people vote. 1501 votes today. Actual viewers effecting ratings. link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
You will see they rate based on user votes and eventually those will take over the critics. 136 user reviews so far too. Inconvenient Truth is holding up well for a 5 year old movie. Theatre stay is no longer an indication of a pictures value any longer.
Atlas drops from 6.3 to 6.1 as more people vote. 1501 votes today. Actual viewers effecting ratings. link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
You will see they rate based on user votes and eventually those will take over the critics. 136 user reviews so far too. Inconvenient Truth is holding up well for a 5 year old movie. Theatre stay is no longer an indication of a pictures value any longer.
Despite the fact that it was showing in an additional 166 theaters this week, Atlas Shrugged Part I took in only about half as much money as it did last week, or about $880,000, for a total box office of a shade over three million.
According to the web site Box Office Mojo, the movie had a production budget of $20 million and studios earn about 55% of the final gross. This means the movie needs to gross a little over $36 million for the studio to break even.
I'm betting part two never gets made.
According to the web site Box Office Mojo, the movie had a production budget of $20 million and studios earn about 55% of the final gross. This means the movie needs to gross a little over $36 million for the studio to break even.
I'm betting part two never gets made.
For any movie today, home video is a big telling point. Need to wait for that but I think you are right. This one has too small a core audience. Inconvenient truth is still attracting user reviews. Though a comparison is difficult due to its worlwide release. Atlas has 299 screens. Rocky Horror Picture Show? Just have to wait for video.
A college degree is a worthy pursuit if one can afford to do so. There are other jobs out there that pay decent wages such as plumbing or electricians. Labor jobs in fields of mining do not require a degree, yet they pay pretty well. Not everyone needs to go to college. Some become well off with creating a small business.
as for the type of degree, if I was a business owner that has nothing to do with politics and had two candidates in front of me, one with a 4 year degree in Political science and the other in Engineering, I would take the person with the engineering. degree. Conversely, if the business I owned did have some politicial things to work out, the applicant with the Political Science degree will be more handy to hire.
There are plenty of people who do not get degrees that do well in society. A degree can give you an edge at times, but I don't see an overwhelming need that everyone needs a degree to be productive.
And as for a professor recognizing all views as valid? Not true. Maybe where you are John and that is good to hear, but definitely not where I went. There were professors that graded me down when I took a stance with research backing it that opposed their view. One professor even told me that I would only get a C in his class no matter what I did. When I took tests or turned an assignment in, he wouldn't even look at it. He would simply write "C" on it and give it back to me.
Unfortunately, politics seeps into higher learning. denying that is short-sighted.
as for the type of degree, if I was a business owner that has nothing to do with politics and had two candidates in front of me, one with a 4 year degree in Political science and the other in Engineering, I would take the person with the engineering. degree. Conversely, if the business I owned did have some politicial things to work out, the applicant with the Political Science degree will be more handy to hire.
There are plenty of people who do not get degrees that do well in society. A degree can give you an edge at times, but I don't see an overwhelming need that everyone needs a degree to be productive.
And as for a professor recognizing all views as valid? Not true. Maybe where you are John and that is good to hear, but definitely not where I went. There were professors that graded me down when I took a stance with research backing it that opposed their view. One professor even told me that I would only get a C in his class no matter what I did. When I took tests or turned an assignment in, he wouldn't even look at it. He would simply write "C" on it and give it back to me.
Unfortunately, politics seeps into higher learning. denying that is short-sighted.
John F, thanks for the response. I believe we differ in some core fundamentals of government, so we may be further apart than you believe.
To me, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the general welfare clause, does not guarantee my receiving food, shelter or a doctor visit, paid by the state. Nor do I want the state to regulate my food, shelter or medical care.
Point 2. I would rather be under the thumb of a corrupt businessman, than a corrupt politician. I can chose to escape the clutches of Snydley Whiplash, but the IRS will follow me where ever I go. AND send men with guns that can legally kill me. Corrupt businesses SHOULD be handle by the rule of law. If only the judges weren't in the pocket of special interests, eh?
Your premise that it's the government's duty to ensure you don't starve, so that you'll have a chance to 'make it'. What if your neighbor just wants someone to feed him, and never makes an effort to 'make it'? And after you've reached a certain level of 'making it', do you then lose your food stamps?
There is too much opportunity, and way too many overweight people, for anyone to 'starve' unless that's their choice. Welfare payments keep people from trying to better themselves. This government dependency is as evil and wrong, as slavery. All we've done is change the Masters.
Finally, Government's number 1 role (to me) is to protect the citizens from enemies domestic and foreign. Number 2 is to regulate the money. We've punted on both these critical issues, and we will pay a terrible price for doing so.
I would love to see a Congressional Hearing on the machinations of George Soros, wouldn't you?
To me, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the general welfare clause, does not guarantee my receiving food, shelter or a doctor visit, paid by the state. Nor do I want the state to regulate my food, shelter or medical care.
Point 2. I would rather be under the thumb of a corrupt businessman, than a corrupt politician. I can chose to escape the clutches of Snydley Whiplash, but the IRS will follow me where ever I go. AND send men with guns that can legally kill me. Corrupt businesses SHOULD be handle by the rule of law. If only the judges weren't in the pocket of special interests, eh?
Your premise that it's the government's duty to ensure you don't starve, so that you'll have a chance to 'make it'. What if your neighbor just wants someone to feed him, and never makes an effort to 'make it'? And after you've reached a certain level of 'making it', do you then lose your food stamps?
There is too much opportunity, and way too many overweight people, for anyone to 'starve' unless that's their choice. Welfare payments keep people from trying to better themselves. This government dependency is as evil and wrong, as slavery. All we've done is change the Masters.
Finally, Government's number 1 role (to me) is to protect the citizens from enemies domestic and foreign. Number 2 is to regulate the money. We've punted on both these critical issues, and we will pay a terrible price for doing so.
I would love to see a Congressional Hearing on the machinations of George Soros, wouldn't you?
Back to the theme of the blog, should the government guarantee a college education for anyone that wants it?
Has going to college become a right? Does it promote the general welfare?
Has going to college become a right? Does it promote the general welfare?
Athos: The Declaration of Independence say we all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is not simply the right to be born, it's also the right to survive. The government was also formed for the purpose of promoting the general welfare. It says so in the preamble to the consitution and again in Article I. "General" meaning of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category; the group in this case being American citizens.
Clearly, seeing to it that the citizens of the United States don't die from starvation or exposure or lack of medical care is something the federal government is empowered to do.
You are correct when you say there are those who choose subsistence-level living on the government dole because it means they won't have to work. They way to end that, however, is not to let them starve, but is to require they work in exchange for the money.
And no, the government - at least not the federal government - should not guarantee a college education for anyone. In fact, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of education at all. That is something properly left to the states.
Clearly, seeing to it that the citizens of the United States don't die from starvation or exposure or lack of medical care is something the federal government is empowered to do.
You are correct when you say there are those who choose subsistence-level living on the government dole because it means they won't have to work. They way to end that, however, is not to let them starve, but is to require they work in exchange for the money.
And no, the government - at least not the federal government - should not guarantee a college education for anyone. In fact, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of education at all. That is something properly left to the states.
John F, require they work in exchange for the money? And if they won't/can't then what?
Anyone who invokes S. Whiplash esq. has my vote.
Anyone who invokes S. Whiplash esq. has my vote.
@ Pat: If they won't work they either prove they're disabled or they don't get the money. I have a bumper sticker on the door to my office that reads TANSTAAFL. It stands for "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
John F, you're not ignoring the subculture that lives for generations on welfare, are you? They live within the system, they know how much they can make, and still remain in their ghettos.
How do we change that mindset? The way I was taught was to cut me off completely, and let me sink or swim.
Fortunately, I listened to those that made it, and did the same. But there were many lean years.
How do we change that mindset? The way I was taught was to cut me off completely, and let me sink or swim.
Fortunately, I listened to those that made it, and did the same. But there were many lean years.
Athos, that is how birds learn to fly. Not a bad way either because you really understand the alternative.
Maybe it is time to change our education system and admit Obama is wrong.
John F, I agree with your concept but not your simple solution of then we simply cut off their government checks. The question remain, then what? We already have the highest rate in the world of those citizens among us who fail to live up to established standards. They're called inmates. We have room, national resolve for millions more? Camps? Final solution? I suggest it becomes a bit of sticky wicket when it comes down to reality, more then a slogan on a bumper sticker or sound bite from on high.
I think we're in a place that has it's own ingrained momentum until one day we tip over. Not anytime real soon but someday. As much as we click our heals folks, we ain't in Kansas any more.
Personally I'm not too concerned at this stage in my life as my life, world, is the only thing I have real control over. I too am in a very good place after many lean years, all under my own steam and direction. But that's me and I may fit the sticker on the door. That's why I ask you what then? The get real answer is?
I believe you march or die but then neither do I have a large following (nor want one). I'll leave that to better men, OK OK women too, then I.
I think we're in a place that has it's own ingrained momentum until one day we tip over. Not anytime real soon but someday. As much as we click our heals folks, we ain't in Kansas any more.
Personally I'm not too concerned at this stage in my life as my life, world, is the only thing I have real control over. I too am in a very good place after many lean years, all under my own steam and direction. But that's me and I may fit the sticker on the door. That's why I ask you what then? The get real answer is?
I believe you march or die but then neither do I have a large following (nor want one). I'll leave that to better men, OK OK women too, then I.
The problem with 'sink or swim' is the possibility of those sinking. And they will be get center stage for 24/7 main stream media coverage, with their tales of woe.
And Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will galvanize into action to denounce how heartless we are, to free these slaves from the government plantation.
And the preachers will write sermons asking 'what would Jesus do?'; totally ignoring the fact that Jesus never told us to send money to Caesar, so that Caesar could feed the poor, He told us to feed them.
It would be surreal.
And Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will galvanize into action to denounce how heartless we are, to free these slaves from the government plantation.
And the preachers will write sermons asking 'what would Jesus do?'; totally ignoring the fact that Jesus never told us to send money to Caesar, so that Caesar could feed the poor, He told us to feed them.
It would be surreal.
Pat of course hits the nail right on the head; we just cannot let those who refuse to work die and suggesting that we do ignores the problems that will inevitably result. See, even those who would refuse to work, will not simply go off into a corner and die peacefully. If history has taught us anything, it is that men (and women) will not die without a fight and that means taking lots of people with them. Evolution means that we have discovered that the law of the jungle is not where most of us want to live. Unfortunately, some people completely ignore this fact, and take positions on issues that can ONLY lead to the kill or be killed mentality that existed early on in man's history. Oh, and I have to say here that the "just say no" lecture that some suggest is the way to go, has never worked, and I wonder why the same people that lived through that constant stupidity would cling to it today?
So since they refuse to work we reward them with money, good "job" if you can get it.
That would be the Arlenspecter way! Pay the extortion money. Of course, Arlen uses OTHER PEOPLES MONEY to pay. That's the liberal solution.
I said don't pay them. I didn't say let them starve. We can still operate shelters where they can get a cot out of the cold and a baloney sandwich.
Thank you John F, I agree that would make a very decent and effective phase one. I'll not belabor the point any further as the additional phases were well covered in our good friend Winston's biography.
We now have our "road map to peace"
(where have I heard that before?)
We now have our "road map to peace"
(where have I heard that before?)
Come on, Pat and John F. You've never heard of Catholic charities? They've been feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor for centuries.
Of course, you can't do drugs and alcohol when your a guest of the shelter. That drives quite a few away, unfortunately.
Of course, you can't do drugs and alcohol when your a guest of the shelter. That drives quite a few away, unfortunately.
You got me there, Athos. Of course my stated motive is only a ruse to be sure that everyone has a safe place to get high.
Catholic charities, and others, have been doing good things for a long time, granted, but they can't take care of them all. And it can't be the policy of our government that we state as our purpose for being the promotion of the general welfare, but we'll leave the actual execution of it to somebody else.
Catholic charities, and others, have been doing good things for a long time, granted, but they can't take care of them all. And it can't be the policy of our government that we state as our purpose for being the promotion of the general welfare, but we'll leave the actual execution of it to somebody else.
And therein lies the gaping chasm that separates us, John F. As a people, we delegate distinct functions to be done by our chosen government servants. But WE are the ones responsible for the execution of these functions.
Looking over the last 45 years of failed welfare programs, it is lazy and irresponsible to continue this cottage industry, with government workers in charge.
We are free to donate to the non profit organizations that we feel would best address and take care of these problems.
When it comes to feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor, private enterprise wins hands down.
And doesn't cost the American taxpayer $900 billion a year.
What do you think would happen if charitable organizations received HALF that money?
Looking over the last 45 years of failed welfare programs, it is lazy and irresponsible to continue this cottage industry, with government workers in charge.
We are free to donate to the non profit organizations that we feel would best address and take care of these problems.
When it comes to feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor, private enterprise wins hands down.
And doesn't cost the American taxpayer $900 billion a year.
What do you think would happen if charitable organizations received HALF that money?
Athos: Just because our government hasn't done a good job doesn't mean it should abdicate its responsibility. The administration of benefits needs to be fixed, not abandoned.
I'm sorry John F, if you can't "fix" this problem in 45 years, and it's progressively getting worse, it's time to fire the government, and let some one else take a shot.
Government has 'abandoned' their responsibility. Time to shake up top management (gov.) and bring in the charities.
Government has 'abandoned' their responsibility. Time to shake up top management (gov.) and bring in the charities.
Athos, shake up the top gov.? Really? For many years now I wear my Che' Guevara T-shirt I acquired in the outback of Guatemala every time I go to the polls. The reaction from the older poll workers is priceless. The younger ones are clueless.
Helps me keep things in perspective and goes to my sence of humor not my politics.
Helps me keep things in perspective and goes to my sence of humor not my politics.
And back on topic........
I asked nearly a week ago, Mr. Mitchell, how many reporters have you hired in the last twenty years who did not have a college degree?
We're still waiting for a response.
I asked nearly a week ago, Mr. Mitchell, how many reporters have you hired in the last twenty years who did not have a college degree?
We're still waiting for a response.
Pat, the difference today, is $14.3 Trillion in debt, and climbing $1 trillion plus, each year. Can you remember the howls of pain when the deficit was "ONLY" $400 billion?
Is that the nostalgic 'good old days' we'll be remembering?
Is that the nostalgic 'good old days' we'll be remembering?
How ignorant can a person be to suggest that our government hasn't done a good job? Are you serious? Tell you what, FIND a government in the HISTORY of the world, that has done, in the same or similar circumstances a better job? Want to talk about how bad the system is today; find one better in HISTORY, that has done what this government has. Suggesting that the dynamic wonder that is this country would have happened in spite of the government we have today, and have had for the last 200 plus years is nonsense; there ain't been one. Never, in the history of man, has so much freedom, and so much wealth, been accumulated in one place in such a short time. By ANY measure supposed, this government of ours has presided over incredible gains in health, wealth, education, exploration, freedom, and countless other characteristics that have never existed before. The unadulterated nonsense that is preached on these pages, by people who have been both the product of, and the beneficiaries of, that system is incredible and demonstrates that spoiled children are everywhere no matter what you do.
Aformerrepublican Excellent post. Only one thing to add, this country is a result of these very opinions coagulating over time. I for one hope it cotinues.
ArlenSpecter, you want a government that does better than this fiscal circus show in DC today?
How about America 1921 to 1925? Personal responsibility was the rage and people were too proud to take a government handout. (Harding cut spending by 50%! and we didn't explode as a nation. Mull that over, Arlen)
The scary thing is that we had more freedoms in 1995! You socialist (who have corrupted our education system) have patiently driven us towards your Marxist utopia by pounding your lies into our kids.
Now those kids have grown up (brainwashed) into thinking it's all the 'rich's' fault! George Bush and Dick Cheney did it!
It was only oral sex! It depends on the meaning of the work "is". The ACLU is out to protect the little guy (that should read the working comrade!)
Ah de do.
By the way, Arlen. Your boy Øbama has said he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. Reading what you posted about America, it sounds like you're calling Dr. Utopia a liar! (good job!)
How about America 1921 to 1925? Personal responsibility was the rage and people were too proud to take a government handout. (Harding cut spending by 50%! and we didn't explode as a nation. Mull that over, Arlen)
The scary thing is that we had more freedoms in 1995! You socialist (who have corrupted our education system) have patiently driven us towards your Marxist utopia by pounding your lies into our kids.
Now those kids have grown up (brainwashed) into thinking it's all the 'rich's' fault! George Bush and Dick Cheney did it!
It was only oral sex! It depends on the meaning of the work "is". The ACLU is out to protect the little guy (that should read the working comrade!)
Ah de do.
By the way, Arlen. Your boy Øbama has said he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. Reading what you posted about America, it sounds like you're calling Dr. Utopia a liar! (good job!)
Children like to imagine how wonderful their lives would be if there just weren't any rules. Cake and cookies, staying up late, not taking showers, throwing clothes where ever they please, loud music, never going to school, stealing money from others without regard. Some people grow up this way, but you'd think they'd know better than to suggest that this would be "good" under any circumstances. Children though, can usually be taught, Altholes just refused to learn in spite of the fact that he has been coddled his entire life by a system that he now says was "bossing him around". That child is what most of us would call spoiled and immature, but here he is ladies and gentlemen; the boy that never grew up.
Arlen! What a humorist you're turning out to be! You, who clamor post after post for the nanny state to take care of you, (got all your new light bulbs installed, yet?), and you call me coddled!
Did Dave Plouffe tell you to post that funny? It doesn't really sound like him. He's such a Marx and Engels devotee, after all, isn't he?
And you've been taught to be a good little state controlled citizen, haven't you, Arlen? Probably since childhood, am I correct?
I'm sure your master is very pleased with your defense of the nanny state. 'Cause it's a scary world out there, when you don't have Big Brother to tuck you in at night, isn't it?
You might have to spend your OWN money! Horrors!
On second thought, you're not missing your mommy telling you to go to bed, eat your veggies, and brush your teeth, are you? Is THAT why you need thousands of pages of laws, regulations and proclamations to rule over you now?
No self governance for Arlenspecter! He's a good little boy that does what he's told! (aren't you?)
Did Dave Plouffe tell you to post that funny? It doesn't really sound like him. He's such a Marx and Engels devotee, after all, isn't he?
And you've been taught to be a good little state controlled citizen, haven't you, Arlen? Probably since childhood, am I correct?
I'm sure your master is very pleased with your defense of the nanny state. 'Cause it's a scary world out there, when you don't have Big Brother to tuck you in at night, isn't it?
You might have to spend your OWN money! Horrors!
On second thought, you're not missing your mommy telling you to go to bed, eat your veggies, and brush your teeth, are you? Is THAT why you need thousands of pages of laws, regulations and proclamations to rule over you now?
No self governance for Arlenspecter! He's a good little boy that does what he's told! (aren't you?)
"I can govern myself" says Bernie Madoff. "We can govern ourselves" said Goldman Sachs "I can govern myself" said Ken (kenny boy) Lay. "Don't you believe in people governing themselves"? Atholes Tell you what Atholes, find me a time in history when A man "governed himself" such as to not cause harm to another man, then ask yourself the question again...no wait, that won't help. Ask someone with some SENSE that question and see what you come up with. You've lived under a protective umbrella your entire life, you've taken advantage of that umbrella your entire life (and your childrens lives) and now you whine about the umbrella. As I said, you're a spoiled child that lives with his parents, eats his parents food, sleeps in the bed they provide, and you say that you don't "need" them. What a tragic joke you are. Grow up child.
Man governing himself was the key point of our revolution, Arlen. It's what produced this greatest country. We don't work so the 'King' can take the lion share of our efforts, and leave us with whatever he wants.
Will there be a price to pay for freedom? Yes, Arlen, there will. Men will take advantage and try to 'game' the system.
But all those fellas you mentioned were caught and punished, weren't they? You can't legislate away all man's sins. The only controlled place for perfect behavior is prison, and that doesn't work very well for me, Arlen.
Is that the life you want?
Will there be a price to pay for freedom? Yes, Arlen, there will. Men will take advantage and try to 'game' the system.
But all those fellas you mentioned were caught and punished, weren't they? You can't legislate away all man's sins. The only controlled place for perfect behavior is prison, and that doesn't work very well for me, Arlen.
Is that the life you want?
Atholes: I hate to break it to you, but what "we" fought for, was a DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT. Not no government, not a group of millions, soon to be over 400 million of us "governing ourselves" cause that just don't, and has never worked. And to prove it, all you need do is look. As I said before FIND me a time in HUMAN HISTORY when men "governed themselves" so as not to harm other men. You can't, and yet living in ignorant land, under the umbrella, you chant "yes we can, yes we can". And, you cite the fact that GOVERNMENT "caught" Bernie Madoff, and Ken Lay, and Goldman Sachs as some "proof" that individuals can govern themselves? Are you serious? You live in a dream world of your own making. You think the commies or the socialists are crazy cause they believe that people will ultimately do good for others just because? Well you ain't nothing but the reverse side of the coin; you think men will do good if left to their own devices and as I said, from day one, that just ain't been so. The day man becomes as moral as you dream of is the day that their will not be a need for rules, or laws, or regulations, and until then, the more men demonstrate their inability to do so, the more they have forced the rest of us to come up with laws which make sure that when they do, they will pay for it.
Arlen, no wonder you got bounced from the senate! You're beginning to foam at the mouth. Take a deep breath, man! I know having your Marxist beliefs smashed to bits is a little overwhelming, but this is America, Home of the brave, land of the Free.
I know you've never quite gotten over the fall of communist Russia. Maybe you should take a little R&R in Cuba, and restore your socialist soul.
In the mean time, we'll kick the community organizer out of the White House, restore fiscal sanity, and put this country back on the path best exemplified by the Harding/Coolidge era.
I know you've never quite gotten over the fall of communist Russia. Maybe you should take a little R&R in Cuba, and restore your socialist soul.
In the mean time, we'll kick the community organizer out of the White House, restore fiscal sanity, and put this country back on the path best exemplified by the Harding/Coolidge era.
Altholes is definitely the spoiled child that are all glad is not ours. We do feel sorry for his parents, but at the same time, we blame part of it on them for not doing their job; they passed irresponsibility right on down the line and the kid wasn't strong enough to break the chain. Can't win 'em all.
We're reading the sound ........of crickets................
Cowboy hat worked out his contract dispute?
The beat continues at:
http://4thst8.wordpress.com/
http://4thst8.wordpress.com/
I will post here to the legacy of Cowboy Hat ... cause that's what dope ropin'
goat smoker's do.
goat smoker's do.
I am in a closed thread eating all ter cookies...
Nice job web site team.
High 5's all round!
might as well make it an even 60, eh, Jack?
Jack smokes crack
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (61)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.