Kitch

So patriotism is based on comparisons to other countries? It makes sense to be proud of some of the ways your own society works compared to other societies, but if your focus is on others who you perceive to be 'behind' you in some way, then you likely won't progress. Let me flip the question. What does it mean to be unpatriotic?

I find it interesting that the 'economists' out there avoid discussing major assumptions made by economists.

Ya, I already realized that it was ridiculous for me to say age isn't a factor. But I still don't know that it's as important as you say. I thought about my own life, and well, I can't say that I was every poor. I mean, as a 13 year old, living entirely off my parents, of course I had no money. But that didn't make me poor... I was under the care of my parents. And now, as a new teacher, I'm not making near what I will make in 10 years, so I am less 'wealthy' now than I will be, but I'm by no means poor now. The point is that poverty can be considered a relative concept but at some point it doesn't matter how wealthy other people are. If you can't provide yourself with food and/or shelter, you're poor. That's not relative to the median income. And it might be more likely that young people are in this situation, but noting the correlation implies that these people naturally cease to be poor as they age, which is not necessarily true.

You're not wrong that I reacted emotionally. Because while I 'tremble with indignation' at what I perceive as injustice leading to poverty, you seem indignant of the poor. So, my emotional response was amplified. And you're right, I did start the attacks. I apologize. Poverty can, though, happen by chance and it can happen as a result of the decisions that other people make. It's not always the poor's fault for being poor and I don't think we should immediately treat them all like free loaders. If you saw somebody carrying too many groceries in one bag (bad decision) and the bag broke, would you not stop and help that person pick up their groceries? Obviously this is very simplistic but I think it shows that bad decisions don't always NEED to be punished, or allowed to be punished by consequence. I know that you didn't deny the possibility of reasons other than poor decisions.

But what if you feel so strongly that your country is 'great' that, if such a time should come that your leaders do things that you disagree with... torture people... and the citizens of your country respond with patriotic apathy? Then you have reason to be ashamed of your government and fellow citizens. Just asking. I'm assuming that some one would disagree with torturing people.

What is it about a country that can make a person so emotional? Is this necessarily a good thing?

I haven't watched the video and so it wouldn't be reasonable for me to comment on what you said. But is it not possible for a person to have beliefs but not impose them on others?

I really have no use for this conversation anymore. It's not progressing anybody's understanding of anything. It's simply a tennis match of insults, which I thought would be considered infantile by some one of your high intellectual ability. You are arrogant and closed-minded. Your view of poverty is very narrow, as others have noted, and you label me as weak minded because I disagree. I am not stupid because I don't arrive at the same conclusions that you do. Nor is anybody who disagrees with me. Your attacks on my abilities are unfounded and ridiculous. My writing is just fine. My ability to communicate my thoughts is just fine. I do not have a weak mind. You have no reason to claim that I do other than the fact that I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you. You've read posts that I've written just fine, and presumably understood it. So where's the problem with my writing? Perhaps in your mind my ideas aren't as sophisticated as yours. I disagree, but who cares!! Were it true, that wouldn't make me weak minded. I called you ignorant, you didn't like it and lashed out like a child. I do not write essays for my students to read and learn. I speak with them, give demonstrations, let them give them passages to read from books/articles and sometimes write short notes, often in point form, for them to transcribe. So no, my ability to write is only moderately important as a teacher. If you want to discuss effective education with me, I'm game. Start a new thread. I'm confident that I'll have much to learn from you and your expertise.

So if we were to nationalize certain industries... say health care, but leave others open to market forces, that's a transition toward communism?

We do that now, but only in high school. Perhaps it would be effective for the young kids too, but I've worked at high schools where the kids with the lowest potential are streamed and it breaks my heart to hear how many kids think that they're stupid. They are well aware of the stigma attached to the schools that they're forced into. They're not offered courses that allow them to get into university (not that I necessarily think they could make a cut off to get in to one anyway), and sometimes they're encouraged to not even think about college. I'm all for meeting the needs of the students, but I don't like the idea of limiting options. On the other hand, I can't think of a better way to accommodate the students who are not strong learners.

Planning is not simply an expression. It's an expression of a plan of action. Conspiring is, I think, an act... or at least a potential act similar to the way a threat is a potential act. (I'm struggling here, but I still don't think it's grey).

It provides one possible frame, indeed, but there are others that lean to varying degrees in both directions. But it says nothing about the magnitude to which inequality is a vice nor the severity of the misery. Nor does it give room for hybrids of varying composition.

My ability to write doesn't have a whole lot to do with my ability to teach. And my ability to express my opinions is just fine. You dislike what I'm saying... that doesn't mean I'm not being clear. (Just out of curiosity, because I'm unaware... what grammatical/punctuation errors have I made? For real.) Tunnel... vision. Tunnel... vision. Other reasons (some of which have been stated but ignored, presumably due to being blocked by blinders): Losing one's job due to a poor economy Losing one's job due to illegal termination of employment Losing one's ability to earn a living but denied disabled status Decrease in a person's buying power due to inflation w/o wage increase Poor choices Good choices (because some people want to live poor and don't ask for/receive any help) Loss of home due to poor real estate market (foreclosure) I'm sure that there are many more possible reasons... and probably even better (realistic?) reasons that I can't think of because I'm a weak minded putz. Typical. We disagree, so I'm stupid. A reasonable conclusion. You're still a closed-minded clown though. You exemplify what I imagine this quotation is aimed at: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith So sensitive... I was way wrong.

I think you're missing the word 'indefinite'. Argus and Eyeball said it best. The economy CAN'T grow forever because the Earth can't simply increase output. There is an endpoint. I'm not nearly qualified to guess at when that is, but I know for certain, as certain as I know anything, that there is an endpoint. So why do we pretend that there is no endpoint? Sure people don't want to give up the comforts that we (in the minority of the world) enjoy but we cannot continue to grow the way we do now. So either we change something, or it will be changed for us. We're in big trouble if this earns me the distinction of being a member of the infamous tin foil hat club.

Yes. That is not a grey area. Those people have minds of their own and are responsible for their own actions.

Clearly it does matter whether or not you're involved in education. You are telling me that I'm wrong when I live this stuff and you merely speculate! You don't know what I'm getting at? You quoted part of what I said but left out the important parts. Did you even read the info that I provided? 135000 teachers in Ontario and 5000 principals. They both pay close to the same in union dues. That means that the principal's union doesn't have the same ability to financially back their members in law suits as do the teacher federations... especially because a given principal is more likely to be named than a given teacher. (Less principals = HIGHER risk for them... I can't understand why you don't see this). Each principal could have ~100 teachers working for them. Let's say three are sued. That's one law suit for each teacher AND THREE FOR THAT ONE PRINCIPAL! And by the way, we don't have 'insurance' policies as you seem to think. We pay union dues and the union provides us with legal representation and, if need be, takes on any financial liability. It is an 'insurance policy' in some sense, but that's not how it's described typically. Of course every situation is different for a principal. But that doesn't answer the question! WHY are they reluctant to discipline students!? Kids who get sent to the office are often sent back with nothing more than a warning. Kids know that they will not be punished. I've heard it from their mouths! I specifically asked some students what happens when they are sent to the office. The overwhelming response is 'nothing much'. My fiance, who is also a teacher, has had the same experience. Her mother AND father are both teachers and have told me that principals are more reluctant to follow through with threats of discipline these days. I asked you to explain why you think this is so. You simply deflected by saying their response depends on the situation. Well, what are some of these situations? I've heard of people being passed over for principal positions because they called the police when a student approached them and accused a teacher of sexual abuse. This brings negative attention to the board, and the big shots in the board don't like this. Regardless of what's in the interest of the student. Principals are subjected to unnecessary politics that teachers are not. We have our own, but they don't prevent us from doing our job. I've given much evidence to support the idea that principals can't/won't do what is needed in order to discipline students, which is to the detriment of ALL the students in a school because teachers are spending more and more time with the problem students. It seems, unfortunately, that few of you "believe" what I've said, even though I'm not aware of any other individuals on this forum who have ANY experience as an educator.

Good call. That was a dumb thing for me to say. I don't think that this trend, assuming there is one that applies to the population, is as important as some might think it is though.

Again, how can this continue to grow indefinitely.

I'm sorry, how does this explain why Chomsky doesn't provide good insight into the way media works? Pants have been done to death by people for years. That doesn't make them any less useful. I don't know who Galbraith is.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were a teacher, principal or somehow involved in the education 'industry'. Teachers are members of the Ontario Federation of Teachers (Which is the umbrella organization for the actual unions). There are about 135 000 members (teachers) in Ontario. Have a look for yourself: http://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/about_otf/organization.php Principals are members of the Ontario Principals Council (OPC). There are about 5 000 members, all of whom are not principals. Look here: http://www.principals.on.ca/cms/default.aspx One of the Ontario teacher federations, the OSSTF, Ontario Secondary School Teacher Federation, requires 1.3% of a teacher's gross salary for membership. Teacher salaries range from 40K to 83K depending on your placement on the grid (4 categories based on qualifications with pay increases for years of experience up to 10 years) in 2007 in the Toronto District School Board, for example. (http://www.osstf.on.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=3952,3949,580,442,365,Documents&MediaID=926&Filename=wheretoteach-Nov-2006.pdf). According to the OPC requires $1017.00 per year for membership (http://www.principals.on.ca/cms/display.aspx?cid=4457). Principals in Ontario make between 83K and 107K, in 2006 at least (http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/newproposals/archives/pdf/newsletter-June2.pdf). So, 135000 members x 1.3% = $1066 assuming that teachers are all paid at the top of the OSSTF, TDSB grid Vs. 5000 members x $1017/year. The OPC cannot provide the type of 'insurance' that the OTF unions can. And, as you can see, principal salaries are good, but not significantly better than teachers. So, principals can't necessarily afford to pay for settlements. Fewer principals = reduced risk? For real? Most parental complaints are aimed at teachers... because there are more of them, therefore higher risk, as you say. But each teacher in a school has the same boss... the principal, who is also frequently considered responsible for the actions of the teachers. And the school board is usually named on a law suit because of their deep(er) pockets and the idea that they are held responsible for the principals that they hire. These three are usually named on law suits. So, the fact that there are fewer principals does not mean less risk. In fact, it means MORE risk for them. I don't know how to find examples of individual law suits, but If you can find some, you'll likely find the principal named on many of them. Please, if you can drop some more of your wisdom, explain some of the many reasons why principals are reluctant to oppose parents and/or effectively discipline students? If you're going to speculate again, at least provide some reasonable justification for your guess.

I'm jumping in here late and may be misunderstanding what was said... but are you implying that a country's citizens must be patriotic in order to be respected? What does it mean, exactly, to be patriotic anyhow?

If you want a real look at how the media works, read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Spare me any personal attacks against Chomsky. Most are easily discounted.

Well, I've recently been convinced that reducing business taxes would result in a better local economy. That's speculation as well. We'll always have 'feelings' about cause and effect relationships. You're right that until we can truly come to any conclusions until proper studies have been performed. But sometimes, particularly in social science, it is nearly impossible to identify causality in a correlation. So, sometimes we are reduced to relying on inductive reasoning. With that understanding, it doesn't always progress a discussion by identifying the obvious that causality hasn't been determined. If you don't believe that income gap causes problems, continue to make points about that. (The tone of this post might sound aggressive and condescending... I didn't intend it to... my apologies).

But it's not just the parents that suffer! The children are being viewed as a possession of the parents rather than members of our species!

I don't disagree that people should be and ARE accountable for their choices (sorry for jumping in). But to make such a strong statement... that people should suffer the consequences, without any consideration for reasons or the nature of the consequences... that's not what I would describe as civilized. This would imply that we don't tolerate anything less than perfection from ourselves. Learning happens when mistakes are made. If we don't help a person to utilize what they've learned when they can't do it for themselves, then we're definitely not an 'advanced' species.