Guccifer casts out Hillary

[FireIceTalon]

That statement is NOT an honest assessment of the theater situation. Having to choose your seats at a theater at the time of purchase does NOT equate to some loss of freedom or a big government conspiracy theory as she implied. Do people complain about a loss of freedom with having to pick their seats when purchasing an airplane ticket, or not being able to park in a red zone? Not typically.

And it has everything to do with politics, and even if it didn't she sure made it so with her comment. She turned a simple task of choosing her seats into a political issue, if it wasn't political beforehand due to the fact that is the companies policy, which in itself is a form of politics. The intersection near my apartment just had a traffic light put in there because there were many complaints about the lack of a light - that is political too. Any form of policy, or rules, in ANY sector of society indicates the existence of politics - especially when such policies are upheld through ANY type of force.

Also, I'm not sure you know what a buzz word is. A buzzword doesn't have to be a made-up term to impress people. It can also be a normal word that a particular group likes to throw around but has little meaning in the context of things. Often they are used to present a particular concept to be something that it really isn't, or something perceived to exist but really doesn't. Democracy, freedom, and entitlement are unquestionably buzz words, often used to obfuscate the real or contradictory social workings of a (capitalist) society.

Lastly, the capitalists are indifferent (at best) to whether I can buy a house or not. What they care about is making a profit, and nothing else. If it is profitable for them for me to be able to buy a house, they will be all for it. If it isn't profitable, then no. This is why supply and demand is a folly concept. In most markets, demand is artificially created through means of advertising to be able to generate profits (for instance, the beauty industry makes billions of dollars off women's insecurities through advertisement and the perpetuation of cultural sterotypes of what beauty is), while at the same time the capitalist system creates artificial scarcity because it is based on production for profit and not human need. That is why there is such a huge demand for clean water and electricity in the 3rd world, but little supply of it - because it isn't PROFITABLE to supply those things there. There are almost as many empty houses in the United States as there there is homeless people. This is a real-world description of how the capitalist system ACTUALLY works at its core, regardless of whatever idealized version you have of it.

[kandrathe]

That statement is NOT an honest assessment of the theater situation.

Nuh, uh. Is too! You made the statement, and now you claim it is dishonest?

Also, I'm not sure you know what a buzz word is. A buzzword doesn't have to be a made-up term to impress people. It can also be a normal word that a particular group likes to throw around but has little meaning in the context of things. Often they are used to present a particular concept to be something that it really isn't, or something perceived to exist but really doesn't. Democracy, freedom, and entitlement are unquestionably buzz words, often used to obfuscate the real or contradictory social workings of a (capitalist) society.

How about we just go with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword

I still don't see Freedom, or Entitlement on the lists.

[FireIceTalon]

You could have stated things clearer that you were referring to my analysis of her statement, and not her statement itself


*Sarcasm mode on* And yes, we all know wikipedia lists are comprehensive and all knowing. *off* Though the wikipedia definition would actually agree with me if you read it carefully enough. You kind of shot yourself in the foot there, did you not?

Anyone can make a list of words and call them such, but the only way to really tell if they are is to understand how each word or phrase is actually used in an abstract sense, and then compare it to its material application. This is what interests me more than the lists themselves.

You mentioned the "pursuit of happiness". This bourgeois tagline is a perfect example of a buzzword phrase. Lets look at this term in its idealist context (myth), and in its material form (reality).

Myth/ideal of the statement: Everyone has equality of opportunity, or should at least. Everyone should succeed if they just work hard enough, and the State is there to keep order and protect everyone equally. Yada yada yada.

Reality/translation of the statement into what it ACTUALLY means: If you are wealthy and powerful enough, you can enjoy and are entitled to the necessities to survive. And to top it off, your elite social status is protected by a State apparatus - the police and the courts have your back. If you are poor, well, that's YOUR fault and you are SOL - and the State will suppress you should you become too unruly for the liking of your rulers because you abhor your miserable conditions.

One thing the wikipedia definition certainly got right is that it appeals to rhetoric over reality, because almost all political buzzwords are used to mask a particular agenda or ideology, or present said agenda/ideology to be something that they really are not. This is done to keep any political debate or conversation within a specific framework, as anything perceived as radical or unorthodox could be a threat and it therefore must be shut out from all discourse. Buzzwords are one of the most convenient ways to ensure this. If we follow this to its logical conclusion, it is pretty easy to see how words like "freedom", "entitlement", and "democracy" have come to be buzzwords - especially among many types right-winged pundits of both the republican and democrat variety. Where is my evidence you say? Just turn on the TV and watch any of the current political candidates spout their jargon, and you will have all the evidence you need.

[Taem]

Sorry, I can't contain myself any longer;

Lastly, the capitalists are indifferent (at best) to whether I can buy a house or not. What they care about is making a profit, and nothing else. If it is profitable for them for me to be able to buy a house, they will be all for it. If it isn't profitable, then no.

Of course a "Capitalist" interests lie with making money, but so does most normal people. I have two issues with your statement; 1) if you had enough money to purchase a house outright, you could negotiate a lower rate than the asking rate from the owner, bypassing the bank completely except for the title transfer, and this deal would be between you and the owner, no banks involved. If the owners intention was to make a profit on their home, such as a fixer-uper, then of course you'd expect to pay a bit more than asking price once the current owner has fixed the place up. This is logical. I assume by your logic, people should be given homes simply because they are alive? 2) it is human nature to covet what they don't have, and no degree of socialism or Communism will solve this problem because that's how humans are, and it's not some type of forced ideology, but the core of who we as a species are. There is no entitlement just for being you in any society that has ever existed... you must earn your respect and earn your way through life, and no matter how separated a society is from the rest of the world, such as the still indigenous tribes in South America, even they adhere to this rule, the rule of mine is mine and yours is yours. According to your doctrine, people have been breed to believe this jargon, but history speaks otherwise. It is in our very nature.

This is why supply and demand is a folly concept. In most markets, demand is artificially created through means of advertising to be able to generate profits (for instance, the beauty industry makes billions of dollars off women's insecurities through advertisement and the perpetuation of cultural sterotypes of what beauty is)

Not at all. Women have made the market due to their own greed and desires since the dawn of time guy. Ever study fashion in college? You'd know how womens fashion went in and out of style due to the whims of womens (en mass) desire to out-dress their competition, i.e. other women. Capatists may have jumped on this concept and made a pretty penny, but make no mistake, it is women who made the market, and decide what "is" beauty by scrutinizing one another. You're a fool to believe some rich person with hidden agendas decides what women should and shouldn't wear... that's not how it works at all! The womens greed decides the fashion of the day, and the designers create what the women want, then the capitalists find a way to milk that concept. In regards to makeup, better makeup is more expensive, but you can find startups selling their wares for dirt cheap also, problem is the quality is not as good. You get what you pay for, but again, women are free to chose what they want, and most of the time, they want what they don't have, what *that* other woman wants, and that's what drives the market!

while at the same time the capitalist system creates artificial scarcity because it is based on production for profit and not human need.

Using your womans beauty example, this is dead wrong. Using something well known to be exploitative, blood diamonds, then you might have a point, however again, if the need wasn't so high, there wouldn't be anything for those entrepreneurs - the ones you like to refer to as capitalists - to hock in the first place. Currently where I live in California, we have a severe water drought, and the prices of water have gone way up. Why? It's not like raising the rates buys us more water when there's none to get from other counties currently. They do it as a demotivator, a caution to not abuse the water we currently have left. Will the water companies take this excess money and use it to purchase desalination plants? I doubt it... it will most likely line the pockets of the rich and the city will be forced to raise taxes to pay for the desal plant, but hey, kudos to the man pulling the strings hiding behind his cloak making an extra buck while he can.

That is why there is such a huge demand for clean water and electricity in the 3rd world, but little supply of it - because it isn't PROFITABLE to supply those things there. There are almost as many empty houses in the United States as there there is homeless people. This is a real-world description of how the capitalist system ACTUALLY works at its core, regardless of whatever idealized version you have of it.

If it concerns you so much, why don't you help kickstart a donation for third world nations that need this type of stuff? There are plenty of multi-billionares who donate millions of dollars to [read] real charities where money does reach those in need. The Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation for example. There are rich capitalists who do see a problem with the system and try to do some good in this world with their money, but all the money in the world can't solve our incessant need for greed, the desire deep inside us all to be better than our neighbor, the old biblical adage of Exodus 20:17,

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

and yet, its what we do FIT. It was never a learned system, but something in our DNA, the reason we are competitive, the reason we play sports and try to "beat" our opponents, and for whatever reason, a concept you don't seem to comprehend despite being integral to our very species.

[FireIceTalon]

Do you actually believe everything there you just typed? Can you honestly say with a straight face that WOMEN make the beauty industry what it is, without playing yourself? So you don't think that men created a prototype conception of what a "beautiful" woman is or should be in our society and the beauty industry doesn't make billions off the insecurities of women because of that perpetuated stereotype and image? If so, you are truly delusional and are looking at how markets function through rose-colored glasses. Saying women's greed made the market is about as logical as saying that some supernatural being up in the sky makes earthquakes and hurricanes to make us pay for our "sins" Greed didn't create market based systems - it is a social phenomena that is presupposed by the very existence of markets to begin with. You are looking at it backwards, so saying "history speaks otherwise" means little when you yourself, are looking at the historical development of markets through an idealist lens and not a materialist one. The whole idea that political economy is somehow derived from our DNA is laughable at best, completely preposterous and unscientific at worst.

You say humans have a need for greed, where has this been scientifically proven? How do we "need" greed, considering our species survived some 100k years without even knowing the very concept? Greed is social and ideological (not biological), and is a result of how people relate to commodities. It has zero to do with our DNA. I read something once that the average person sees about 300+ advertisements per day, every day. If this is so, it is no wonder we are greedy, since we have companies of all kinds shoving advertisements down our throat at every turn trying to get us to buy more crap that we probably do not need. You say greed is in our DNA, I say PROVE IT (I think you will be very hard pressed to do this legitimately). Cause as far as I can tell, it is a social construct. Your whole appeal to the human nature argument to apologize for capitalism has long been debunked - human nature is, again, a social and dynamic construct, a reflection of human thought based on their material environment, circumstances, and social relations - not an intrinsic or immutable human characterization.

As for charities, they are pretty meaningless since they exist as a result of capitalisms social inequalities. If we didn't have production for profit and instead had production for human need, there would be no need for charities or welfare states to begin with.

Capitalists who donate to charity. So now an appeal to 'Great Man' theories of history? Too bad they only do it for the tax write offs and/or to look benevolent in the public eye. This is the type of crap that explains why we have such an odd culture of celebrity worshipping and why poor people are so fascinated with rich people, when they should fucking despise them. This isn't to say that capitalists are motivated to act in naturally anti-human or evil ways for the sake of itself, but they do so because it is due to their particular social relationship in the capitalist system. Capitalism is not the material expression of our human nature - it is the ALIENATION of it, and this goes for both capitalists and the working classes. How is being competitive integral to our species? If anything, it is detrimental to it and should be discouraged in almost all aspects. I don't have a problem with friendly competition in games. But games and the social/economic organization of our species are two very different things. Thankfully greed and competition are NOT inherent to some sort of binding human nature that we cannot intrinsically change, or we would have gone extinct long ago.

Next, quoting biblical idealism does not validate or strengthen your points, in fact, it weakens them. Since when did the Bible have ANY scientific validity or data in understanding the workings of the world, or human biology? Last I checked, never. You cannot refute material reality with sloganeering and buzz words, especially not from a source as quacky and fiction-driven as the friggin Bible. Seriously, as misled as you may be, I think in general you are a smart cat, and I would expect better of you Taem, then to use an argument like this to justify your point.

In general, I think most of your post really does more to strengthen my analysis of how influential bourgeois ideology is, than it does to refute it. I can't be mad at you though, since you have been spoon fed this crap for x amount of years now, and to shake free of it is extremely difficult since the ruling elite ideologically dominates all of societies institutions. I've always maintained, even in my discussions with other Marxists, that the bourgeois' ideological control is actually much stronger than their political and economic control is, it sort of has to be. Nevertheless, ideology and behavior is indeed learned, and has practically zilch to do with our DNA. I suppose racism is in our DNA also, according to your logic? No man, that shit is fucking LEARNED, pure and simple. Yes, there are some things about us that can be attributed to biology - such as our need to eat, drink clean water, have shelter. We need these things in order to physically survive. Greed, however, is not something we "need" (nor is it necessarily something we should desire), nor is it biological - it something you LEARN just like virtually every other idea is.

Lastly, yes I think every person is ENTITLED to have shelter, one of the basic necessities of survival. This is a basic human right, which gets violated everyday because of capitalism. Capitalism by its very nature is a gross violation of MANY human rights. If the charge then is me being part of the "entitlement generation", then fuck, I STAND GUILTY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY....I MAKE NO APOLOGIES ABOUT IT. In fact, I wouldn't have it any other way. Yes, I am one of those entitled lazy socialists that deplores the fact he is forced to work or starve, especially when the ruling class does squat yet has access to all the privileges in the world.

On a side note, I will leave you with this: I don't say all this stuff for the sake of being right and trying to look superior, because believe me, I wish I was wrong about all of it; I really do. But sadly I'm not. The world, as it is now, just sucks. Becoming a Marxist was like a gift and a curse for me, a gift because it gave me a way to make sense of the world like I had never been able to prior, a scientific way. It allowed me to break off the ideological shackles and cut the bourgeois Gordian Knot, so to say. It also gave me hope, in the sense that there is an possible way out of this mess. On the other hand, its also made me very cynical in my views toward the world, and I think I even suffer from mild cases of depression and anxiety because I KNOW ALL TOO WELL how the world is and works. Sometimes I wish I would have never seen the truth, but alas the cat is out of the bag, and it is what it is.

[kandrathe]

That is why there is such a huge demand for clean water and electricity in the 3rd world, but little supply of it - because it isn't PROFITABLE to supply those things there. There are almost as many empty houses in the United States as there there is homeless people. This is a real-world description of how the capitalist system ACTUALLY works at its core, regardless of whatever idealized version you have of it.

If it concerns you so much, why don't you help kickstart a donation for third world nations that need this type of stuff? There are plenty of multi-billionaires who donate millions of dollars to [read] real charities where money does reach those in need. The Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation for example.

Yeah, don't fall for the "See, it's broken by Capitalism" argument. It is no more valid than analyzing the Soviet Union, and saying "See, it's broken by Communism". I'd say that in a perfect world, without the failings of people, which you outline, a command economy might be possible. Yet, it will never be as efficient as a free market economy driven by supply and demand, which determines the fair market price. Even the issues in the boom/bust cycles of a Free Market Economy, have to do with the failings of people in attempting to manipulate the economy.

You have to ask "Why is electricity and water in short supply in parts of the world?" According to that link; 1) tariffs prohibit the export of power 2) fossil fuels are the largest source of generation, and also the most expensive, 3) low demand for power

"Coupled with low tariffs, the low demand for electricity does not permit utility companies to generate a good return on their investment. " So there it is -- countries are too poor to provide public subsidies for power consumption, and there is little profit motive to encourage private development. Without demand there is little desire to increase the supply.

There are other known issues such as the inability to maintain/sustain their infrastructure. Nigeria has about 7000MW of generation capacity, with about 4600MW available, and producing only 3800MW of power. It is a very inefficient use of this resource, resulting in a higher cost per MW generated. Civil war and conflict also results in destruction and looting of the infrastructure. We can swoop in and build more supply, but someone needs to buy the energy at a price sufficient to maintain the infrastructure.


International Energy Agency - Africa Energy Outlook

"Unreliable power supply has been identified by African enterprises as the most pressing obstacle to the growth of their businesses, ahead of access to finance, red tape or corruption. Relieving this uncertainty helps every dollar of additional power sector investment in the African Century Case to boost GDP by an estimated $15. "

In this case, it seems the heartless bastards keeping Africa in the dark relates more to poor governance.

As far as the foil, "There are almost as many empty houses in the United States as there there is homeless people." Which is true in the aggregate. Many foreclosed homes are unoccupied and not for sale... yet. They are being prepared for re-sale by the owners. Another issue is the local supply and demand for housing... There is a 19% vacancy rate in Detroit, but not many people flocking to live in one of the most economically broken places in the US.

But, again, why are people homeless? 1) 1/3rd suffer from mental illness, physical disabilities, or substance abuse issues. 2) Housing/Rental supply is low driving prices higher than the low wages. 3) Lack of employment opportunities - lack of market skills 4) domestic violence -- 3/5ths of homeless women are fleeing domestic violence.

#1 and #4 are social issues that "the market" will not address, and must be resolved through social services. #2 and #3 are market driven, which our government has failed to address, or has worked against the interests of the poor and homeless. Again, this criticism of Capitalism denies the existence of social services to relieve the suffering of the poor. In the US, as well as EU nations, the "normal" system is Capitalistic, with a social safety net. Homelessness, hunger, and lack of access to health care for that matter are a failing of the social safety net, and not the free market system. Ah, then the argument goes back to taxation rates. In 2014, only 11 percent of the US federal budget was devoted to programs for the poor. So, again, it's a governance issue, maybe also the corrupting force of money in politics, but not a failing of the Capitalist system.

[kandrathe]

You mentioned the "pursuit of happiness". This bourgeois tagline is a perfect example of a buzzword phrase. Lets look at this term in its idealist context (myth), and in its material form (reality).

Or, maybe, you'd rather understand it in the context of Ho Chi Minh's independence speech; Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

Where is my evidence you say? Just turn on the TV and watch any of the current political candidates spout their jargon, and you will have all the evidence you need.

You're going to make a hell'uva political scientist. ^1

^1 "The Highlights of 100." Seinfeld. Fox. WNYW, New York City. 17 Feb. 2009. Television.

[shoju_dos]

It's a pipe dream. At this point, I will probably be voting Sanders in the Primaries, unless someone comes in and wows me.

Sanders is far too liberal for my taste. Liberal as in spending other peoples money. $300 billion a year for his "free college" plan -- which I fear is a gross under estimate. To me, this move smacks of pandering to the younger voters. Politics as usual. Buying votes with other peoples money by F'ing with the tax codes.

Sanders says, "We have got to make sure that every qualified American in this country who wants to go to college can go to college -- regardless of income ..."

What do he mean by "qualified"? Why do they need to go to college? I'd say what we need to do is ensure that all high school graduates have an opportunity to find employment and pursue their dreams. Since when is it the governments job to dole out dream insurance? But, if you really want to go to college, then you work hard and get good grades. Then, you study hard and get really high ACT and SAT scores. Then, you get lot's of scholarships, to supplement your student loans. In other words, you need to work really hard to get to college, while in college, then work hard after college to pay for it. Opportunity yes, free ride no. The American Dream to me is a level playing field where everyone can pull themselves up, not queue up for an expensive government sponsored elevator.

I wont jump into the debate with everyone else. I just want to point out one thing:

College Loans, due to the cost of college, are a scam. They are awful. They are a drain on society.

You should have the right to be educated, without becoming an indentured servant.

At this point, my wife and I are counting down the payments on her loan for her degree, until it will be wiped clean for being a social services worker.

There is just no other way it's possible to repay it, on that salary, while raising a family, and being... you know, happy.

For me? I like his plan. I look at other countries, where there is no cost to go to "State" Colleges / Universities. They make it work.

Many of them, also have government healthcare that makes ACA look like a joke.

But, most of them don't outspend the next 20 countries in line on military either.

[kandrathe]

I wont jump into the debate with everyone else. I just want to point out one thing:

College Loans, due to the cost of college, are a scam. They are awful. They are a drain on society.

You should have the right to be educated, without becoming an indentured servant.

Well, rights are rights. Being educated has actually been mandated for k-12 for many years. Adding in four more years of liberal arts is probably not crucial for the national well being, and is probably a large waste of money. What might make more sense is to rethink k-12 into a k-10, then add a vocational 11-14 fours years that are Gen Ed if you are on a college track, or technical if you are moving into the trades.

The UNCHR Article 26;

• Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  
• Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  
• Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

At this point, my wife and I are counting down the payments on her loan for her degree, until it will be wiped clean for being a social services worker.

There is just no other way it's possible to repay it, on that salary, while raising a family, and being... you know, happy.

For me? I like his plan. I look at other countries, where there is no cost to go to "State" Colleges / Universities. They make it work.

It would probably also burn you to know the government will earn $110 Billion from student loans over the next decade. So, that loan's interest rate hides what amounts to an education tax. The original intent of the Perkins and Stafford loan plans were to make them a zero sum for the government. That is, the interest rate would be enough to sustain the program. No profits.

[Hammerskjold]

Well, rights are rights.

That's the U.N. charter\declaration though. While it is nice and all, and to be more serious while the UN charter contain some agreeable things. It's probably more practical to discuss the U.S. and the states laws on the matter, when you're discussing education in the USofA.

Being educated has actually been mandated for k-12 for many years. Adding in four more years of liberal arts is probably not crucial for the national well being, and is probably a large waste of money.

Yeah, kinda agree on that. 4 years for college or uni, depending on the programs can be just a cash grab. It wasn't that long ago when 2-3 years was the average for college. Just informally chatting with some faculties, again this also depends on the program but in general. The ones I've talked to seem to regard 2 years is very do-able for serious students. 3rd year is either for an apprenticeship \ field work, final proving project, or final polishing of skills that are near mastered already. 4th year...really seems to be mostly a way of some schools to extend tuition fees. Unless the vocation you're going for is medical doctor or rocket surgeon, IMO I rarely see a good -academic- reason for a 4th year.

What might make more sense is to rethink k-12 into a k-10, then add a vocational 11-14 fours years that are Gen Ed if you are on a college track, or technical if you are moving into the trades.

It's ambitious, it does have a good chance to work if the details are fully examined and critiqued. But it's an uphill battle you're facing here. If the technical side is relegated and treated as a low tier option like what I'm seeing in some cases currently, it's doomed to failure. If the college track prep course is treated as just hypotheticals only, with no regards to the practical, or observational and research skills. It's doomed to produce walking Ids who does not understand the difference between a thesaurus, and a dictionary.

It would probably also burn you to know the government will earn $110 Billion from student loans over the next decade. So, that loan's interest rate hides what amounts to an education tax. The original intent of the Perkins and Stafford loan plans were to make them a zero sum for the government. That is, the interest rate would be enough to sustain the program. No profits.

Hmm, how did that shift happened exactly. I'm curious about the specifics, was it related to the 2007 investigation of U.S. federal student loan practices.

[kandrathe]

Well, rights are rights.

That's the U.N. charter\declaration though. While it is nice and all, and to be more serious while the UN charter contain some agreeable things. It's probably more practical to discuss the U.S. and the states laws on the matter, when you're discussing education in the USofA.

Yes. I feel in many ways the UNCHR is more comprehensive, and built upon various western nations constitutions. My unspoken premise being that the US has not determined basic education (or others like health care) as a acknowledged right, while many, many other nations have included basic education within the legal rights of their citizens.

The best we can do therefore is to refer to the Bill of Rights, and their foundation from Lockian natural law;

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., §123)

It is not mentioned by either natural or legal rights in our constitution, therefore, in the US we consider it important enough to have compulsory k-12 education, but I don't feel it is guaranteed. Why not?

Being educated has actually been mandated for k-12 for many years. Adding in four more years of liberal arts is probably not crucial for the national well being, and is probably a large waste of money.

Yeah, kinda agree on that. 4 years for college or uni, depending on the programs can be just a cash grab. It wasn't that long ago when 2-3 years was the average for college. Just informally chatting with some faculties, again this also depends on the program but in general. The ones I've talked to seem to regard 2 years is very do-able for serious students. 3rd year is either for an apprenticeship \ field work, final proving project, or final polishing of skills that are near mastered already. 4th year...really seems to be mostly a way of some schools to extend tuition fees. Unless the vocation you're going for is medical doctor or rocket surgeon, IMO I rarely see a good -academic- reason for a 4th year.

The system of accountability in higher ed in the US is a bit convoluted. The states authorize the higher ed institutions to educate in their state. They base their authorization on national accreditation bodies, like the Higher Learning Commission, to review each institutions commitment to program quality and sound fiscal operations. They provide the backbone to rooting out the bad actors by withholding or revoking accreditation. The federal government doubles down by denying loans and grants to students pursuing unaccredited programs. On the one side then you have the masses of consumer demand for programs, and on the other you have the institutions building that product, within the oversight of the HLC and similar accrediting bodies. We are required to submit comprehensive fiscal and academic information to the HLC annually, and once you are in "good standing" they only do a very detailed review of operation once every 10 years, although if anything of substance occurs they will intercede in the interim. If they discover anything of concern in their review, the institution is put onto probation until the concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. If the concerns are not addressed adequately, the institutions accreditation will be revoked. When in a probationary state, the detail reviews are more frequent until you again are considered to be "in good standing" (i.e. doing it the way they want you to do it.)

That said, in the US, we sort of let students choose where, and how much, higher education they will consume, whether it is good for them, or not. The federal and state government has limits on the number of years you can get financial aid, but has not stepped in (much yet) to evaluate their ROI, so currently, student are "free" to choose what they want to learn in higher ed.

What might make more sense is to rethink k-12 into a k-10, then add a vocational 11-14 fours years that are Gen Ed if you are on a college track, or technical if you are moving into the trades.

It's ambitious, it does have a good chance to work if the details are fully examined and critiqued. But it's an uphill battle you're facing here. If the technical side is relegated and treated as a low tier option like what I'm seeing in some cases currently, it's doomed to failure. If the college track prep course is treated as just hypothetical only, with no regards to the practical, or observational and research skills. It's doomed to produce walking Ids who does not understand the difference between a thesaurus, and a dictionary.

I'd agree, especially if the bulk of general education can be accomplished in grades 11-12, instead of their college freshman, sophomore years. In Minnesota, we have a statewide program (called PSEO, paid for by the taxpayers of MN. Also, called Dual Enrollment) that allows students in grades 11-12 to attend college courses for credit, instead of a high school course. Our university is seeing many new enrolled student entering as sophomore, or juniors. It's becoming normal to see the bulk of new students entering with 16-48 college credits completed. We had one musical prodigy last year who at 16 years old, entered as a Senior, and graduated 18 months later at 18. Then began her MFA, which I've no doubt she'll get before she's 20.

You are spot on though in focusing on the 2nd class nature of "trades" educational programs. My opinion is they need to be shaped, and held more accountable by the industries they serve. One of the more renowned around here is Dunwoody, which is non-profit, and accredited like other colleges and universities. They have a post program placement rate of 97%.

It would probably also burn you to know the government will earn $110 Billion from student loans over the next decade. So, that loan's interest rate hides what amounts to an education tax. The original intent of the Perkins and Stafford loan plans were to make them a zero sum for the government. That is, the interest rate would be enough to sustain the program. No profits.

Hmm, how did that shift happened exactly. I'm curious about the specifics, was it related to the 2007 investigation of U.S. federal student loan practices.

Here is a brief history of Federal Student Loans in the US. It sort of went from a good idea by Milton Friedman for the government to promote higher ed by investing in people, to the federal government squeezing out private lending and running loan programs instead of banks. As it works now, those who attend colleges and universities, who are mostly middle class and up, benefit at the expense of all tax payers. In other words, it is the lower, and middle middle class who subsidize the higher education of the middle middle, and upper classes.

Friedman's original proposal was that a student would get a "free education" in whatever program they desired, in return for a fixed % of income repaid over a fixed period of time. Students who chose lucrative fields, or were "lucky" in their career paths would pay more (although the same %), and those who chose lesser paying, or who were less "lucky" would pay less. This would socialize both the gains and losses in our investment in students.

Currently the loan program is more onerous for those who do not complete or who are unlucky, and beneficial for those who end up in higher paying professions due to their investment in their education. In other words, now, we socialize the losses, but most of the gains go to the student in whom we the taxpayers have invested. Friedman would oppose the Federal Student Loan system as it now stands.

I'm not sure all the history of the Perkins Loan, but it has been fixed at 5% for awhile. The other major student Loan program, Stafford, is indexed to the prime rate + x%, where X is determined by Congress. In 2008/9, Congress did away with the indexing for new loans, making them a fixed rate, now it is 4.29% for both subsidized, and unsubsidized Stafford program loans.

Now, being the biggest provider of loans and Pell grants, the government is flexing their muscles with Gainful Employment rule making. In essence, the direction this is taking will squeeze out the arts and humanities, in favor of programs that are very vocational (higher earnings) in nature (e.g. business, education, sciences, engineering, etc). If you had your heart set on being a philosopher, or archaeologist, then in the future, you'll be hard pressed to find any institution that can offer you that type of program. I'm guessing that the government will not stop at "for profit" institutions once they've kicked some behinds for awhile (2-3 years). All institutions need to report Certificate level programs, and for profit institution must report on ALL program levels (Certificate, Associate, Bachelors, Graduate, Doctoral).

The unstated goal of the government "force" in this gainful employment law is to deny federal funding to "for profit" institutions that offer a plethora of simply obtained and expensive Certificates for everything from Applied Animal Behavior, to Welding. The governments measure will be the wage rate increase of the graduated student, compared with the loan default rate for every program. In this case, if the preponderance of students are making bad choices, it is the institutions programs for which funding will be cut. If people were getting sick by insisting on eating meat raw, you'd resolve the problem by shutting down those vendors who sell to the ones who get sick. Not so fair to the people who are just selling a product. In this regulatory change, an institution will not want to have low completion rates, nor would they want low employment success for students after completion. It will do two things; 1) schools will be more selective in to WHOM they sell (able to complete, and employable), and 2) they will modify their programs to enable more "success" which may be detrimental to the trade skills required. The intention is to shut down this type of education, but I don't think all the consequences of the impact have been thought through. For example in Truck Driving, maybe the programs DO create an educational standard that employers rely upon to determine qualification. Without this type of program setting an education standard, perhaps it will require employers to hire more people without any credentials, resulting in more accidents.

[kandrathe]

In other on topic news, how much will the TPA / TPP play in Democratic candidacy?

[Hammerskjold]

Yes. I feel in many ways the UNCHR is more comprehensive, and built upon various western nations constitutions. My unspoken premise being that the US has not determined basic education (or others like health care) as a acknowledged right, while many, many other nations have included basic education within the legal rights of their citizens.

If you're using a UN charter as a springboard for comparison and analysis, sure ok. But again, for practical purposes I find it better to look at the local, state, federal law of said nation. You cited some examples, so let's head on over there.

The system of accountability in higher ed in the US is a bit convoluted. The states authorize the higher ed institutions to educate in their state. They base their authorization on national accreditation bodies, like the Higher Learning Commission, to review each institutions commitment to program quality and sound fiscal operations. They provide the backbone to rooting out the bad actors by withholding or revoking accreditation. The federal government doubles down by denying loans and grants to students pursuing unaccredited programs. On the one side then you have the masses of consumer demand for programs, and on the other you have the institutions building that product, within the oversight of the HLC and similar accrediting bodies. We are required to submit comprehensive fiscal and academic information to the HLC annually, and once you are in "good standing" they only do a very detailed review of operation once every 10 years, although if anything of substance occurs they will intercede in the interim. If they discover anything of concern in their review, the institution is put onto probation until the concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. If the concerns are not addressed adequately, the institutions accreditation will be revoked. When in a probationary state, the detail reviews are more frequent until you again are considered to be "in good standing" (i.e. doing it the way they want you to do it.)

That said, in the US, we sort of let students choose where, and how much, higher education they will consume, whether it is good for them, or not. The federal and state government has limits on the number of years you can get financial aid, but has not stepped in (much yet) to evaluate their ROI, so currently, student are "free" to choose what they want to learn in higher ed.

Sounds relatively similar in concept to what I've heard from some college profs here. The fly in the ointment is always striving for a balance and vigilance.

I'd agree, especially if the bulk of general education can be accomplished in grades 11-12, instead of their college freshman, sophomore years. In Minnesota, we have a statewide program (called PSEO, paid for by the taxpayers of MN. Also, called Dual Enrollment) that allows students in grades 11-12 to attend college courses for credit, instead of a high school course. Our university is seeing many new enrolled student entering as sophomore, or juniors. It's becoming normal to see the bulk of new students entering with 16-48 college credits completed. We had one musical prodigy last year who at 16 years old, entered as a Senior, and graduated 18 months later at 18. Then began her MFA, which I've no doubt she'll get before she's 20.

That young student sounds inspirational. She sounds like she's absolutely dedicated to learning and honing her craft.

You are spot on though in focusing on the 2nd class nature of "trades" educational programs. My opinion is they need to be shaped, and held more accountable by the industries they serve. One of the more renowned around here is Dunwoody, which is non-profit, and accredited like other colleges and universities. They have a post program placement rate of 97%.

Now, being the biggest provider of loans and Pell grants, the government is flexing their muscles with Gainful Employment rule making. In essence, the direction this is taking will squeeze out the arts and humanities, in favor of programs that are very vocational (higher earnings) in nature (e.g. business, education, sciences, engineering, etc). If you had your heart set on being a philosopher, or archaeologist, then in the future, you'll be hard pressed to find any institution that can offer you that type of program. I'm guessing that the government will not stop at "for profit" institutions once they've kicked some behinds for awhile (2-3 years). All institutions need to report Certificate level programs, and for profit institution must report on ALL program levels (Certificate, Associate, Bachelors, Graduate, Doctoral).

The unstated goal of the government "force" in this gainful employment law is to deny federal funding to "for profit" institutions that offer a plethora of simply obtained and expensive Certificates for everything from Applied Animal Behavior, to Welding. The governments measure will be the wage rate increase of the graduated student, compared with the loan default rate for every program. In this case, if the preponderance of students are making bad choices, it is the institutions programs for which funding will be cut. If people were getting sick by insisting on eating meat raw, you'd resolve the problem by shutting down those vendors who sell to the ones who get sick. Not so fair to the people who are just selling a product. In this regulatory change, an institution will not want to have low completion rates, nor would they want low employment success for students after completion. It will do two things; 1) schools will be more selective in to WHOM they sell (able to complete, and employable), and 2) they will modify their programs to enable more "success" which may be detrimental to the trade skills required. The intention is to shut down this type of education, but I don't think all the consequences of the impact have been thought through. For example in Truck Driving, maybe the programs DO create an educational standard that employers rely upon to determine qualification. Without this type of program setting an education standard, perhaps it will require employers to hire more people without any credentials, resulting in more accidents.

It's definitely a bit of a bind. I understand the need for government oversight and accountability as well as from industry. Especially in either high tech trades, or a field that can have dire consequences for ignorance \ incompetence. Too much extremes in either direction can create a mess. There was an investigation a few years back in my city with some diploma mills, and it's almost hilarious if wasn't for the type of papers they were handing out. IIRC it was nursing and security certificates. Not something I want to be carelessly handed out.

In other on topic news, how much will the TPA / TPP play in Democratic candidacy?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership? I asked about that in pg.2, though in the general election sense. Personally, not a big fan of it at all from what I've seen so far.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e24378924/

I thought NAFTA was a bad deal all around, and the TPP is at least twice as bad. If it does get any airplay, I expect it will be couched in JOBS JOBS JOBS. Or fighting some thinly veiled boogeyman, something something countering China's economic influence.

[Taem]

Donald Trump for president !





Did any of you actually hear his speech? Lol, comedy gold, please watch this:
Trump Stumpers

[FireIceTalon]

The fact this moron is even possibly a candidate and actually has a following is in itself rather terrifying, much less him actually getting elected as president of the most powerful imperialist nation on the planet. Just goes to show the iron grip that the reaction has on the joke that is the chauvinistic American political culture. Trump is truly dumber than a rock. Seriously, this guy is making even Dubya look like Sir Isaac fucking Newton.

The satire video in Taem's post would be funny if wasn't so disturbingly true.

[Hammerskjold]

Jeb Bush tossed his hat in the ring. It could come down to Clinton v Bush, deja vu all over again. Then again both brand names while well known, might have brand name fatigue by now.

Donald Trump for president Big Grin Tongue

He's not likely going to make past first round if we're talking real talk here. He's a candidate sure, but a loon candidate, even with Trump money (which his hyperbolic inflated claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny). I'd agree he's entertaining as a sideshow candidate, sure.

Going past the sideshow distractions, what issues and ideas will be brought to the playoffs, and would they even be covered or discussed by most media. I wouldn't be surprised if extreme and shallow identity politics will get trotted out, while things that can use closer scrutiny gets sidetracked. Not a new pattern if a distraction play happens, but there are some things worth the serious discussion and closer scrutiny on.

[kandrathe]

Going past the sideshow distractions, what issues and ideas will be brought to the playoffs, and would they even be covered or discussed by most media. I wouldn't be surprised if extreme and shallow identity politics will get trotted out, while things that can use closer scrutiny gets sidetracked. Not a new pattern if a distraction play happens, but there are some things worth the serious discussion and closer scrutiny on.

I want them to resolve the run off by some variant of the reality show Ninja Warrior meets Thunderdome.

22 candidates enter, 1 leaves...



Think of the benefits;

1. ) Entertaining, no matter which side you are on.
   
2. ) No chance of seeing them again in a future political race
   
3. ) Only serious candidates need apply
   
4. ) The Commander in Chief will get some cred with the troops
   
5. ) Think of the advertising money saved
   
6. ) Better than a debate
   
7. ) It best represents the current state of the American political system
   
8. ) Furthers the prophetic vision of "Idiocracy" the movie
   
9. ) Trump tromped on live TV
   
10. ) The worlds superpower needs a super human leader

[Hammerskjold]

Think of the benefits;

1. ) Entertaining, no matter which side you are on.
   
2. ) No chance of seeing them again in a future political race
   
3. ) Only serious candidates need apply

#2 on the list is something I've been wanting to see implemented for a while. Though I was thinking more along the lines of a 5 year cooling off period that includes all levels of political races. But, nothing succeeds like excess, so why not go for the gold on this one.

) Think of the advertising money saved

Forgot where I read the Modest Proposal piece, but instead of saving ad money, why not think about generating more of it? Have NASCAR style jumpsuits for candidates, with the amount of donation be proportional to the logo size. Shake and bake man, shake and bake.

) Furthers the prophetic vision of "Idiocracy" the movie

) Trump tromped on live TV

) The worlds superpower needs a super human leader

Idiocracy while one of my favorite movie, is looking less like satire nowadays and more like a fairytale. Prez Camacho despite his cartoonish larger than life character, is actually a pretty good leader considering. He genuinely cares for the people, and does not seem power hungry.

As for Trump, he's no Ted "Million Dollar Man" Dibiase.

[kandrathe]

As for Trump, he's no Ted "Million Dollar Man" Dibiase.

Yes, I mean, really. Our rich "buy" the presidency for others, and don't jump into the mud pit themselves. Low class, Donald. Low class.

In other related news, Sidney Blumenthal's role in the formation of The Daily Beast.
... and, of course, Sid is the man behind the woman... New Hillary Clinton emails show expansive role of Sidney Blumenthal

[Hammerskjold]

Low class, Donald. Low class.

Yep. All that money (which I would ask for a verified second look, since Trump is prone to over-exaggeration about his wealth) and still can't buy class.

In other related news, Sidney Blumenthal's role in the formation of The Daily Beast.
... and, of course, Sid is the man behind the woman... New Hillary Clinton emails show expansive role of Sidney Blumenthal

At first I thought wait what? He was a great director and even small parts he did in "Eyes Wide Shut" was great. But I didn't know he was also a political animal. Also, I thought he passed away.

Then I remembered waaaait a minute, that was Sydney Pollack.

Sidney Blumenthal. Hmmm, name sounds really familiar for some reason. Innernet search here says he was a former presidential aide to Bill Clinton as well as journo. While there may not be anything untowards about hiring \ talking to past associates in general. Fair or not, something about it does seems kinda curious. Something about the fourth estate, and the role of the press and such.