The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: Bimmicus on October 11, 2007, 07:37:13 am
-
http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=10112007 (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=10112007)
So, is Ray a closet Bill Gates fanboi seeking cosmic retribution for his scorned idol? Or is this merely a testbed for another one of his million-dollar ideas?
Ooooohhh gaaawwwd I am SO lost. Or maybe bored. Yeah, definitely bored.
-
damn. Steve Jobs is way too old to be doing stuff like this.
I am imagining him wearing a very specific brand of shoe, and I can't remember what it is. the one where the tread is a billion interlocking zig-zags?
-
There is something about this strip that weirds me out. I'm not sure what it is.
-
The image of the fountain pen that cost more than any vehicle I have ever owned, just HOVERING there...thinking about a person with that kind of power to alleviate suffering but does not...that gives me acid in my tummy. However, from what I understand, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has done a wonderful amount of philanthropy. That is awesome. I have a lot of respect for folks who try to make the world a better place.
I think the tummy acid is because I'm still fuck*ng angry about this, an obscenely wealthy man who just fought and won to have NYC schools (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/11/2007-10-11_city_required_to_pay_for_executives_sons-1.html) pay for his son's private school education. I mean, what the fuck. Disabled kids deserve a fair shake, but for someone of obscene wealth to siphon money out of impoverished kids' education is just the most insanely selgiraffe thing I've ever heard. The court said that the burden of proof will be on the parents to prove that the private education will be better for their child, but christ - how could it not? Of course private school is going to be better for just about any kid. This sounds like it's going to be disastrous to the school district. Having known several people with disabled children, finding appropriate care for them is almost always a huge struggle and huge burden, but I fail utterly to see how this is going to be fair legal precedent.
-
damn. Steve Jobs is way too old to be doing stuff like this.
I am imagining him wearing a very specific brand of shoe, and I can't remember what it is. the one where the tread is a billion interlocking zig-zags?
Keds?
I ain't sure about the tread, but it has to be Keds.
-
Ray just knows who has more money to spend on a vanity book.
Also, Gates has never been cool, and the internet has had a bead on his forehead since 1996 or so. Jobs has a cult. It's more fun to make fun of someone like Jobs than someone like Gates. Onstad likes to irk the easily made indignant. Hence the Vegan jokes. Microsoft doesn't really have "fans" so much as people who find Office adequate. Say bad things about apple and messageboards heat up. It's a lot funnier.
I'm saying this using Linux on an iMac.
I used to really hate Microsoft until I realized that they're pretty innocuous as far as megacorporations go. There are plenty of businesses out there that do to... say... the farms of indigenous peoples what Microsoft does to computer desktops. Bill Gates is definitely not the worst richest person in the world we could have.
And I don't even think he's actually the richest person in the world. Many countries don't have institutions quite like the IRS that require such precise reporting and bookkeeping by their most powerful citizens. That is, in many parts of the world, Gates would BE the government and probably wouldn't be taxing himself.
-
I think the tummy acid is because I'm still fuck*ng angry about this, an obscenely wealthy man who just fought and won to have NYC schools (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/11/2007-10-11_city_required_to_pay_for_executives_sons-1.html) pay for his son's private school education. I mean, what the fuck. Disabled kids deserve a fair shake, but for someone of obscene wealth to siphon money out of impoverished kids' education is just the most insanely selgiraffe thing I've ever heard. The court said that the burden of proof will be on the parents to prove that the private education will be better for their child, but christ - how could it not? Of course private school is going to be better for just about any kid. This sounds like it's going to be disastrous to the school district. Having known several people with disabled children, finding appropriate care for them is almost always a huge struggle and huge burden, but I fail utterly to see how this is going to be fair legal precedent.
Here's how: he forced the NYC school system to admit that his kid couldn't get a quality education at their public schools, and to pay for an alternative situation. The fact that he could afford to pay for it himself doesn't matter. Next time a parent can prove that his disabled kid can't succeed at his school, they're going to have to obey precedent and pay for his tuition elsewhere too -- or else provide adequate facilities for disabled kids in the public system. This guy had the money to fight that legal battle. The next family probably won't.
I'm lucky to live in a place where the public school system has a great program for dealing with my particular child's particular disability. But if I didn't, I'd sure as hell fight as hard as necessary to make sure that he had every opportunity the "typical" kids have -- it's his right under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
What I don't get is why the court was split. Just because the guy is a jerk and a millionaire doesn't mean he has any less of a legal case. The same welfare state that provides education for impoverished children is obligated to provide for the children of the wealthy as well. It's the only way to provide for equality under the law.
-
What I don't get is why the court was split. Just because the guy is a jerk and a millionaire doesn't mean he has any less of a legal case. The same welfare state that provides education for impoverished children is obligated to provide for the children of the wealthy as well. It's the only way to provide for equality under the law.
And she used to be a Marxist
-
There are no millionaires in true communism.
I see my argument as being pretty consistent with socialism. The question is not whether or not the guy can afford to send his kid to private school -- the question is whether or not the state should provide an appropriate educational environment to every child regardless of race, color, gender, creed, disability, or income.
If you're a socialist, the answer is yes.
If you're a libertarian, the answer is no.
Black/white, the way I sees it.
-
Yeah, arachnocapitalist, of course. Of course, pure Marxism doesn't work.
Of course as you live life, you realize the way that nothing is as cut-and-dried as an -ism.
Nothing works in real life the way that it works in a classroom or in a book.
But what what jayelle is saying and what happened are both basically humane and that's what matters.
Not what sounds nicest in a lecture, what helps the most people the most times.
-
I do not understand the huge sense of entitlement people have in this country. Yes, everyone wants the best for their child, and it must suck to have a disabled child, but it doesn't seem fair to shortchange other kids to provide luxury care to specific children. Just because there are expensive programs out there doesn't mean that the taxpayers should have to foot the bill.
I'd sure as hell fight as hard as necessary to make sure that he had every opportunity the "typical" kids have -- it's his right under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The reason why I fail to understand this ruling is that while the law stipulates that children have a right to education, it is discriminatory against the other children in the district to pay for luxurious private schools for certain children. I don't think it's fair at all to siphon money out of the public school system and pump it into private schools, although with the voucher system it happens a lot. Any child is going to excel in an expensive private school, so why should disabled kids get such luxuries? Yeah, it sucks to be disadvantaged, and I'm sure that special education could be improved, but come on. If the litigants prevail, the number of allegedly disabled children will skyrocket.
I'm sure that it really sucks for parents of disabled kids, but the attitude of entitlement is pretty ridiculous. I am sure that any child - whether disabled or "normal"/neurotypical - would benefit from highly intensive, one-on-one training, but it's still unfair to expect taxpayers to foot the bill. With enough money and schooling, any child could probably grow up to be a Rhodes scholar. It is natural for parents to want their disabled child to be high-functioning, and every child has a right to a basic education, but it's just unfair to expect luxury education as a free handout.
-
With enough money and schooling, any child could probably grow up to be a Rhodes scholar.
wow, you have a lot of belief in modern educational systems.
-
The thing is, while any kid would benefit from one-on-one attention, for some kids, that's the ONLY way they can learn. My son has a one-on-one therapist at his preschool, but if he didn't, it wouldn't be a question of whether or not he's getting some luxury the other kids aren't getting -- without that personal attention, he wouldn't be able to attend preschool, period. He would be too anxious, too disruptive, too out of control to be allowed to stay in the room, let alone learn anything. Is this an extreme case? Actually, for a two and a half year old with autism, being able to attend half-day preschool twice a week (even with a one-on-one) is damn good.
And there are many kids who still need this kind of attention into their teens. A young man with autism that I know, after being denied access to services through the public schools, is now being accompanied to the tenth grade by his father -- every day, every class -- because he is not capable of participating in the public school programs available to him without full-time, one-on-one assistance. Here's another case of a Dad who can afford to rearrange his work schedule and cut his work hours significantly to provide for his disabled son.
Besides, what do you think is more expensive: sending a couple of kids to private school, or developing, staffing, and executing a comprehensive special-education program for a school system as big as the NYCPSS to address every possible disability? You can't just stick kids with autism in a classroom with the kids who have Downs syndrome, hearing impairments, visual impairments, and cerebral palsy. In order to serve the kids -- in order for them to really learn, a little thing we idealists like to call equal educational opportunity -- you've got to group them according to their abilities and needs (a dash of Marx bastardized just for you, arachnocapitalist).
I am a big believer in the public schools. My dad has been a public school teacher for forty-three years. My brother is in his nineteenth year as a public school teacher. My sister-in-law just started her fifth year in the public schools. I am just starting the complicated process of navigating the special education programs in my county (Little P ages into the program this February.) I am pretty well in touch with what public schools are all about. Ideally, all kids with special needs could be served in their neighborhood school by qualified, well-paid professionals with sufficient resources and adequate funding. But sometimes it makes more sense, particularly from a financial standpoint, to send kids who need extra help and attention to a private school.
Regarding the "attitude of entitlement," I do not believe that equal education is a luxury. (I also don't believe that health care is a luxury, but I realize that this puts me in a certain political camp with which not everyone here agrees.) While many private schools offer students opportunities public school students don't get -- specialized coursework, smaller classes, etc -- as I've pointed out previously, some kids actually require these kinds of adjustments to be able to participate. I don't know the diagnosis for the kid involved in the lawsuit, and just from the photo I can tell his Dad is probably a big-time asshole, but clearly, if he can't learn in a public school environment, then to deny him access to an environment in which he can learn (either by improving the public schools or paying his tuition to a private school) is discriminatory.
Just because there are expensive programs out there doesn't mean that the taxpayers should have to foot the bill.
But taxpayers should foot the bill to provide hot lunches to poor kids? Nobody's raising a fuss about free and reduced-priced lunches for kids below the poverty line. And you can bet that if some poor child from a broken home who lives in a one-room apartment in Harlem were getting sent to a private school because he's got a learning disability, people nationwide would be cheering. Taxpayers have already agreed to foot the bill for the education of children. If this guy can't prove that the program he's sending his kid to is necessary, he should be required to pay for it himself. But if there's no acceptable program available at the public school, the school system needs to step up to the plate and fulfill their obligation to educate this kid, regardless of his socioeconomic status.
If the litigants prevail, the number of allegedly disabled children will skyrocket.
My only response to this is that I know that you don't have kids, so I can only assume that you are incapable of imagining how deeply and irreparably one's heart breaks when someone tells you that your son is broken.
I can't imagine a parent seeking a special-ed label for her child just for the sake of getting a free ride at a ritzy school. Those kinds of labels are often permanent, and they're not exactly the fast track to an Ivy League university. They place an incredible burden on the parents and they place limits on the potential of the child. Any parent who would seek a false diagnosis for a perfectly normal child is either incredibly selgiraffe or incredibly ignorant. Even with a private-school education, the special-ed label would close far more doors than it would open.
-
United States public schools are socialistic, and have been that way from the start, on purpose. It is one of the things that makes it possible to have a half century of shittiness and still be a decent country.
-
I guess my personal philosphy, besides general apathy, has devolved to a quote I saw that basically stated. "Liberals make mistakes, conservatives prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - Some Guy
Except for police brutality, man that shit pisses me off.
-
Except for police brutality, man that shit pisses me off.
I spent a little time in police custody today. I didn't suffer any ill treatment at their hands though.
-
OK Paul, you've gotta elaborate on that one.
Anyway...
As a lawyer, I say that New York has to pay for private schooling because the statute says they are required to. We've made a policy decision that requires school systems to provide a certain level of education for everyone. They can either do this by providing the program themselves or by "outsourcing" it to private providers. That's what the law requires -- the financial condition of the parents is entirely irrelevant. So, I guess I think the court made the correct decision, given the current state of the law.
Do I think this law is good policy? That's a lot tougher question.
Should society pay for everybody to be educated, regardless of their educational capacity? Do we really believe that absolutely everybody is entitled to a free public education? Where do we cut that entitlement off? Do we make that determination based on need, talent or something else?
What about the cost-benefit analysis? Maybe it's more cost-effective for the public school system to pay tuition instead of bearing the cost of running their own program.
I'm not very good at answering these kind of questions, although I think I'm pretty decent at raising them.
-
the attitude of entitlement is pretty ridiculous
Here's why I think it's justified: If you're paying taxes you ARE entitled. The gub-mint don't take our money because they are entitled to it, we give it to them because they are able to provide services that benefit the majority of tax payers in a way that is (theoretically) more efficient/affordable/regulated than if each individual had to pay for it. If the school district cannot provide education to this child they are not fulfilling their end of the contract.
Is this guy a douche for putting a burden on others that he could easily shoulder himself (we're just assuming he can do this because Mass Media is telling us he is welathy)? Well maybe, but he pays his taxes, isn't he entitled to the same service from his government as anyone else?
-
OK Paul, you've gotta elaborate on that one.
My guess is that a brother-in-law who is a cop locked him in a closet once.
-
Well maybe, but he pays his taxes, isn't he entitled to the same service from his government as anyone else?
Well, see, this is the problem. He isn't entitled to the same service. That would mean that his kid was entitled to go to public school. He is entitled to Equitable service, not Equal service. Equitable meaning, roughly, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability." Equity is based on desert (as in deserving), and in this country we believe that every child deserves a (good) education up to a certain standard. We need people to be educated up to a certain level because, you know, otherwise we'd have a bunch of fools running the country!
Why yes, we did talk about the concepts of Equality and Equity as they apply to the US School System in my political theory class the other day! How did you guess?
Also, Somebody nice, as to the "with enough money" question... I know a few leaders of the Free World who seem to be counterexamples.
-
Just to neaten things up around the edges of this conversation:
1. This guy does not care if the government pays for his kid's education. He did not take the city to court to save money. The money he paid his lawyers to appeal this business to the Supreme Court could probably have bought a private school. This guy took the city to court to fight for the people in the same situation who could not do so. (That situation being a kid with disability shunted into a school system unable to address his needs.) You might think he's fighting for an idiotic cause (in which case the US Judiciary disagrees with you), but you shouldn't go around thinking he's using the US Government as a half-off coupon. This cost him a great deal.
2. There are people who pretend their kids are disabled to get benefits. They are despicable. It seems unlikely to me that you would train your kid to show up as profoundly disabled in a government doctor's diagnostic test, and then have him try to get the most out of private school once he is shunted into a class of profoundly disabled kids. Maybe I misunderstand the kind of fraud people are suggesting.
3. Paying for private school for disabled kids (where appropriate) saves the government money in the long run. While I love the institution of public school, in many parts of the US, it can't serve disabled kids. It has trouble enough serving poor kids. Public school officials should recognize when their programs are not effective (I'm not holding my breath here) and send these kids to other programs regardless of the premium cost. Because if you shove a disabled kid through the school system who cannot benefit from it, you get an adult who cannot provide for herself, often cannot take care of herself. At that point, you're looking at institutionalization, personal assistance, and welfare all of which end up costing more than private school over time. Or we may just neglect this person until they conveniently die off. This sort of thing does still happen in our country.
For more information about things that are awful, look at Conversations on Institutionalism (http://www.autistics.org/library/conversation.html).
4. Wake County Public Schools, North Carolina, the United States of America, the age in which we live, and you guys are all absolutely nifty. I've looked around, and these things are hard to beat.
-
Here's why I think it's justified: If you're paying taxes you ARE entitled. The gub-mint don't take our money because they are entitled to it, we give it to them because they are able to provide services. . .
Maybe you voluntarily hand over your hard earned money to the government out of some benevolent belief that politicians have everyone else's interest at heart, But I do it because if I don't then men with guns will come to my home and put me in jail... a place paid for by people who would join me if they too refuse.
-
Maybe you voluntarily hand over your hard earned money to the government out of some benevolent belief that politicians have everyone else's interest at heart, But I do it because if I don't then men with guns will come to my home and put me in jail... a place paid for by people who would join me if they too refuse.
You could always move to Uruguay.
Also, for those of you who don't know him, that's my Pedro a couple of posts upthread. Just so you know he isn't some weirdo newbie who comes in all trying to get up in the kool-aid without knowing the flavor.
Glad you decided to join us, papa bear.
-
You could always move to Uruguay.
Uruguay - Great rugby team, no personal income tax, but im not going near south america.
-
Government being in charge of the basic things that can only be reasonably provided from a collective buying stand-point... and funding those projects through taxation... are what separate the first world from the third, arachnocapitalist. That's why we ain't in Uruguay.
The logical endgame of liberatarianism is a disjointed and terribly inefficient feudalism.
The logical endgame of liberatarianism is best expressed in the form of Dark Ages Europe.
If there ain't a strong government to protect us from each other, a few assholes who are in the right place at the right time can quickly hoarde resources... and by having a hoarde of resources, using that hoarde to get an even larger hoarde and so on and so forth until... you've got a few dozen families with All Kindsa Wealth and everyone else as serfs.
Because there ain't a government to prevent that.
And, yeah, the local warlord can build his own damn road if he wants but... I doubt he's gonna get to use the other warlord's roads.
There needs to be collective efforts wherein the scale of the entire community, region or state... and indeed, world... are necessary.
And to provide the stability to get the people together to get those things done, certain basic rights and standards of living and health and education need to be maintained... else everyone's so greedy from starving from want or too sick or too dumb or too angry from the inequity to accomplish anything and it's just a bunch of people trying to get each other to do stuff by killing them.
It's not perfect but it's the only human system that's ever come even CLOSE to working on a large scale.
It's this or shoving berries up our noses in stone castles.
And... not to get to preachy here?
But what has always killed me about unfettered-capitalism, about libertarianism, about Objectivists, about anarchists, about strident social-conservatives... is the underlying assumption that if all the rules of civil society were off, oh man, every capaliberobjectanative believes that THEY'LL be the one freed to do everything they want in that Aynrandtopia and all the other weak people will just fail and fuck off.
The odds say that with all the rules of civil social democracy off, nearly all of us are just fuck*ng serfs again.
Either the people who held the most power on Ayn-Day or the people who lucked into advantageous positions just after A-Day... those'll be the only small handful of people who ACTUALLY get to be the unfettered awesome people who can do whatever the hell they want.
Very very few of us would luck into that. Odds tell me, arachnocapitalist, that if that day went down, both your and my necks would be under the same boot of whoever lucked into the position of having the resources and the ability to do to us whatever they wanted because there's no real public services left to stop them.
It's not a perfect system, our governmental system, but it's a damn sight better than what Greenspanvania would quickly become.
-
I spent a little time in police custody today. I didn't suffer any ill treatment at their hands though.
Did you go down to the precinct to chat with salinapd??
-
Government being in charge of the basic things that can only be reasonably provided from a collective buying stand-point... and funding those projects through taxation... are what separate the first world from the third, arachnocapitalist. That's why we ain't in Uruguay.
Sometimes I think you just type whatever pops into your head. Uruguay still has plenty of taxes, just not a national personal income tax. Uruguay, like many South American countries, is a product of socialist regimes. Govt does a lot of things beyond what "only be reasonably provided from a collective buying stand-point". By your logic, the greatest nation of all time was the USSR where everyone gave everything to everyone and everyone had a job working for the state's goals. And that worked out perfectly. I think if you actually look into history, the success of a nation is a positive relation to its degree of freedom (economic and otherwise) and a negative relation to how much the government took from its population.
-
No, man, the USSR took it too far in the other direction. That's my whole point.
The middle path, as opposed to the -isms, is probably what will work best.
Much of Western Europe, Canada and Japan all seem to have stumbled onto shades of what would actually work.
Collective tax-fueled assurance of health care, education, roads, police, army, minimal housing and food... heavy regulation but no direct control of semi-essential businesses such as energy concerns... fair taxation but no direct or indirect control of non-essential business enterprises and small business enterprises.
Ayn Rand was as full of shit and theoretical as Karl Marx was. Neither works. None of the dogmas work.
A middle ground where our individual freedoms are balanced against the debt we owe to each other in our shared humanity.
Both of those concepts are important. Co-equal, even.
Pretending that if you just have all of one or the other, everything will work, well... that's the stuff of bullshit textbooks on all the extreme edges of the debate.
EDIT: As long as it is pretended that everyone involved is a hot lady, make-outs for all! That's something we can ALL agree on!
-
According to Transparency International, Uruguay is the second least corrupt country in Latin America (after Chile), with its political and labor conditions being among the freest on the continent.
But if you want to split hairs, fine. Go to Hong Kong or Singapore (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm) if you have a problem with taxes. In terms of "Freedom from Government," they do a lot better than the States. (So does Uruguay, but they're 33rd overall due to low scores in the areas of corruption and financial freedom.) That's my only point. There are places in the world where you don't have to give much money to the government, if you're all that opposed to it. The rest of us, well, we enjoy having the police show up when our houses get robbed.
Asherdan -- to which "two" are you referring? LFM and A-CAP? Because, honestly, I'd sort of dig seeing that, too.
-
yayyy Chile for beating Uruguay! I knew you could do it, home of my ancestors. I knew you could pull that off.
-
I don't even want to look at Argentina. Things are...bad...there.
My consolation? I only married into that culture. I'm not really one of them.
Then again, I don't really want to look at Poland, either.
FOR ASHERDAN: I AM MENTALLY LICKING INEV'S EARLOBE AS I WRITE THIS
IS THIS ENTERTAINING
DOES IT MAKE YOU LAUGH
-
um, that is my ear you have there.
-
I am not making out with Mike, no way. I'd probably catch some commie brain parasite.
-
OH NO INEV PLEASE DON'T GRAB MY BOOBIE
WHAT WOULD PEDRO SAY
WHAT'S THAT PEDRO? YOU WANT TO WATCH
WELL OKAY THEN
when the hell did I turn into motherfuck*ng BLISTER?
-
I was talking to a chinese post-doc in my lab the other day about how their government works, they obviously don't vote on a national scale but apparently local officials are elected. It got me to wondering if our system of government wouldn't work better if we just had one major party but still elected the individuals that made it up, wondered if it would result in more voting for issues and individuals rather than blind party-following. Places like japan kind of have this by dint of one party being crazy-powerful.
Oh I mean SLURPGOBBLEGOBBLEGOBBLEURGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
-
I was talking to a chinese post-doc in my lab the other day about how their government works, they obviously don't vote on a national scale but apparently local officials are elected. It got me to wondering if our system of government wouldn't work better if we just had one major party but still elected the individuals that made it up, wondered if it would result in more voting for issues and individuals rather than blind party-following. Places like japan kind of have this by dint of one party being crazy-powerful.
Oh I mean SLURPGOBBLEGOBBLEGOBBLEURGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
The problem with that is, you'd just be voting on whether you want the torturarium painted blue or painted yellow, whereas with the American system, you actually get to choose between evil and incompetence.
-
what, JL!? I would never grab your boobie! I don't grab, I caress.
-
I was talking to a chinese post-doc in my lab the other day about how their government works, they obviously don't vote on a national scale but apparently local officials are elected. It got me to wondering if our system of government wouldn't work better if we just had one major party but still elected the individuals that made it up, wondered if it would result in more voting for issues and individuals rather than blind party-following. Places like japan kind of have this by dint of one party being crazy-powerful.
Oh I mean SLURPGOBBLEGOBBLEGOBBLEURGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
On this note I feel it acceptable to announce that a friend of mine and I are working a paper for publication about how a betting system of voting would work. Where the voters have direct financial interest in who wins the election, like in a hoss race. Its not meant to be taken seriously, but rather a thought experiment. We also presented a paper on how voting in a democracy could work like voting for MVP in sports, where whoever wins the most head to head competitions would win. As in, you would compare each candidate to the other and whoever had the most "points" at the end would win the election. The result is that every voter could say "well at least Mr.X didn't win". Democracy in the U.S. is, after all, a compromise on most fronts.
-
Massage.
In a firm yet gentle yet completely platonic kinda way.
Y'know, like two vikings.
Two vikings just firmly massaging each others buttocks, so secure in their viking friendship that there's nothing sexual about it. Like two vikings.
-
DO NOT UPSET THE BREAD, PEOPLE!
-
Did you go down to the precinct to chat with salinapd??
It's all explained here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmcd9/1548471798/).