I suppose that if you really stretch and have a very literal plodding mind, they both are. In the first quote, what I was doing was taking the opportunity to swipe at you a little because I thought that it would be fun and, in the context on your blind partisan posting history, amusing as well.
The second quote was part of a spin off conversation that was touching on the value that I perceive (to society at large) in entertainment that is free of commercials.
But insofar as they are both indirectly talking about taxpayer subsidies for PBS, boy you sure got me.
I do like how you worked “bile” in. Care to fry for “froth” or “spittle”?
I don’t think anyone would like to fry for spittle. True, I was once arrested for spitting on a policeman, but:
[ol]
[li]I didn’t do it.[/li][li]It was raining that day, so there was no proof.[/li][li]It was all just an excuse to get me, and any other anti-wto protestors off the streets.[/li][li]It is not a charge worthy of frying.[/li][/ol]
Now, while I don’t like the claim that Shodan is making here, I would not care to see him fry for spittle, for spit alone is not a good reason to use the death penalty.
Sure you can. But the likelihood that the IRS will ever change the tax code so that the poor pay the same amount as the rich is about as slim as one of those Olson twins on crack rock. But you are welcome to your dreams.
That’s good, really. Sorry for your loss. There are thousands of others who have not been so fortunate that they could just pick up and move to where work is. Things like poor health, shoddy transportation, and no money is a big impediment to many of your neighbors. Be glad that when you were in school, you were in strong enough health that you could provide for yourself and help your family out.
Glad that we can at least agree on that.
Well, that’s fine and dandy and all, but what does that mean for the rest of your neighbors who live in states where tuition has skyrocketed within the last few years? Doesn’t that kind of indicate that luck has a lot to do with the ease at which many people succeed? All the people living in your hometown state have the privilege of attending a school where in-state fees are affordable, while most people in the country have to take out loans and second mortages to do that.
I happened to go to undergrad in Georgia at a time when all I had to do was keep a 3.0 GPA and I could receive a full scholarship, due to the lottery-funded Hope Scholarship program. This was great because it allowed both me and my twin to go to college with no big hardship to my family. When I went to vet school, I had classmates that were not so fortunate. They were looking at graduating with not only thousands of dollars of loan debt from vet school, but also substantial debt from undergrad. But lucky me only has to pay back the loan I took out for vet school ( a big fat $70,000). I don’t delude myself into thinking that I had that advantage purely due to my hard work in school. In the absence of that scholarship, there’s a good possibility that I would have lost out on many opportunities because I would have needed to juggle a high-paying job while going to school. As it was, I did work but at low paying jobs, and the money I made went towards thriving not merely surviving.
Doesn’t mean you would have been successful, either. Or least not as successful. Did your father make as much money that you have been able to make? If not, does that mean he simply didn’t work hard enough? Should we look down on him because he didn’t live in a big house and wasn’t able to send his kids to the Ivy Leagues instead of cheap ass state schools? Of course not. (I say this as another kid who went to a cheap ass state school. That doesn’t mean it’s not a kickass school, though.)
Of course. Never said otherwise. But let’s not kid ourselves here. The kid that starts off in the worst set of circumstances through no fault of his own (unstable family life, bad neighborhood, poor health, poverty, etc.) will have a tougher row to hoe than a kid who starts off in a good set of circumstances. Where you start off depends on luck, unless karma is real, and we have no evidence that it is.
You seem to downplay that so that you can justify why those with little deserve to have to so little. It’s not necessary, man.
No, it was luck. They were opportunities that came along through no concerted effort on my own and I was smart enough to seize upon them before they slipped out of my grasp. But there was no reason that those opportunities had to happen in the first place. They didn’t “flow as a natural consequence”, as you said earlier.
Yes, there is “luck” that has to do with where you’re born and what you’re born with. If you’re born deaf, you have to struggle harder than if you were born hearing.
Is that what you meant by “luck?”
Then I should express my appreciation for my “luck” by giving back to “society?” Because I was lucky in not being born with a birth defect, in a war zone, or near Chernobyl?
I don’t quite see the connect-the-dots, here.
People should give to chairity, and work for charitable causes, because the desire is in their hearts.
At one time, I remember being on my knees, screwing in a hinge for a door we were replacing at Christ House, the shelter at which I volunteer. (The old door had been kicked apart by a resident). One of the residents came by, looked at me, and said, “Yeah, man, that’s right, fix my shit!”
Now, that’s not the greatest way to give thanks to someone who’s helping you.
But I realized after a moment that I wasn’t doing it because I wanted kudos - I was doing it because it was the right thing to do.
So I’m not blind to what you’re saying.
But you want to take it a step further. You want to take that good feeling of giving, the sense of rightness that you get when helping others in need… and force it upon everyone. This is where you and I part. You cannot tell me I have to help. I want to help, and I will help, but not as a debt. I didn’t owe the folks at Christ House a new door. And if you tell me I have to give them one, I’ll resist you. Let them buy their own damn door. I owe them NOTHING, but what I choose to give.
Baloney. If you are going to spout about an outreach project, you should at least bow to the precepts that those projects are engendered under: “As you do to the least of these, so you do to me” precept–sorry to paraphrase Jesus, but I am not near a Bible at present.
So, I call bullshit on your “I don’t HAVE to”–if you are participating in a so called “Christ” house project --you are compelled to do His work and you do indeed OWE the needy your time, talent and treasure. As do we all, as either spiritual folk or living breathing members of the community.
And the innuendo-- using an ungrateful recipient as an example of the uselessness of helping the poor is kinda obvious and rather low.
Walk a mile, and bear the burden of always having to be grateful to the Man–it’s hard as hell to take charity. Maybe that person felt deeply ashamed and embarassed to carry the stigma of poverty. Maybe he was trying to make a lame joke. Maybe that person works the system and milks it for all is worth-I don’t know and don’t presume to know. YOU don’t know that, but characterize him/her as dis-courteous and ungrateful. How Christian of you. I can see your cup spilleth over with milk and honey for your fellow man.
Frankly, to all here who don’t want to give back, who see no benefit in public education via TV or radio etc–I have nothing but contempt for you all. CPB etc benefits the public. All of us. But it’s not about the nation for you guys is it? It’s all about YOU–YOUR money, YOUR luxuries, YOUR entitlement.
It(public education) IS vital to our nation’s interest–something that conservatives bizarrely think of as only pertaining to military spending. Our nation’s greatest interest should be the people who are its citizens.
Yes, all right – I do owe it… as a Christian duty. Not as a civic duty. The two are miles apart. You cannot call on me to do my Christian duty as a matter of civic responsibility.
Unless we’re going to inform our public policy by reference to Christian religious guidance? Then, I will freely admit we are called to the duty of charity, and each of us owes it. But I’ll also have some other modifications to public policy that I’m guessing you may not go for.
What does PBS have to do with public education? I went to public schools, funded by tax dollars, and PBS was not a part of the curriculum. No PBS/CPB=No Public Education is what’s baloney. Sesame Street may be an educational program aimed at kids, but it’s not the sum total of all public education.
rjung tried to make the same assertion back on page 1. Since I had learned to read and write sans PBS (and during a similar military involvement), he figured I should tutor 60 hours/week to make up for any lack of PBS funding. I never figured out where I got any 60 additional hours/week of tutoring (over and above my public school education).
I would call the claim that since PBS didn’t teach you to read and write, that it isn’t educational to be disingenous if it weren’t so silly.
I consider people to be learning all their lives–whether they want to or not.
I consider any outlet that seeks to enhance the intellectual prowess(or education) of people as its primary purpose to be a Good Thing.
So, I support tax money for public libraries, public schools (which could do a whole lot better if we truly made children a priority in this country), educational TV and radio, such as PBS and NPR. IF there were a commercial venture that didn’t bow to the pressures of its bottom line and provided this, I would also support that–NOT as a replacement, but as an adjunct. There is more than enough room for both. I see no reason not to fund CPB --it is a minor budgetary expense, compared to some of the pork in DC. There is too much risk in the corporate sector of them altering the focus so as to plump up their profits, especially when it comes to kids. I cite any breakfast cereal commercial(they claim the sugar loadened stuff is nutritous when it’s not). I cite any toy sold at Toys R Us with the label “educational!” emblazoned on its cover. Chances are its crap in a box, but marketed as educational. I do not trust the business sector to provide genuinely educational programs and products. Occassionally, they do it well–but not often enough to convince me.
From where I sit as a mother with kids across demographics–business doesn’t really care about 1. reinforcing values in my kids (yes, I know it’s my job to instill them, but like Miss Manners said long ago–wouldn’t it be nice to have more than just dolls that can only get into church as bad examples?); 2. teaching them critical thinking(school can help with this); 3. exposing them to behavioral norms; 4. exposing them to other cultures and lifestyles that are not neccessarily readily available to them at home–there are more, I am sure.
We are not isolated bubbles in this world–it does indeed take a village to raise a responsible, caring child into a productive, contributing adult.
Why are you against providing something that may help an underprivileged child, at minimal expense to you? Are you hurting that badly? Should we all start out not speaking English and climb that mountain, because some here did? What kind of reasoning is that? Isn’t this a case of it’s easier to blame the victims, since then no actual work has to be done to change inherent inequities contained within the structure?
Shouldn’t those on that made it to the top of the mountain, through whatever means, stop and help those still climbing? Or do we really believe that there are those who “deserve” to live in poverty and those who are “entitled” to live in luxury? I am no communist–I think that’s a crock, but so is the thought that there should be no help, no public good, no support of arts and education etc. How are these optional? What are we without culture? Sorry, going OT.
I would not be so harsh, if I could rid myself of the vision of all these conservatives clutching their wallets, saying “mine! mine!” like recalcitrant two year olds. You GOT yours. How about helping some who need it? We won’t take all your money, really. And the benefits to you may be immeasurable over the years. Take a chance. Do a good thing.
Do something that I consider to BE your civic duty. What is civics if not man? Politics is people.
What about local symphonies? Don’t they benefit the public? How much do you give to your local symphony, eleanorigby? And how about art museums? Animal shelters? Wildlife preserves? Soup kitchens? After school programs? Arts education? Nutritional supplements for poor children? AIDS hospitals? Community rec centers? Voter education projects? Veteran recognition events? Breast cancer prevention?
Don’t all these things benefit the public? Don’t they indirectly benefit you? Sure they do. Do you contribute time or money to all of these things? Of course not. We each do what we can, motivated by our conscience, our means, and sense of what does the most good in our worldview. Bricker gave his own example, in order to make a salient point or two; frankly, I applaud him for his work, and don’t particularly care for your patronizing tone here:
Do you have a moral imperative for everyone? I’m not quite snotty enough to tell you what I think YOURS is. I trust you’re a big enough person that you can figure out your own obligation, and it’s between you, your conscience, and/or your God.
In short: fuck you and your ignorant and shortsighted view of “all here who don’t want to give back”. You have contempt for me because I may not think it’s the government’s job to sponsor public media? Once again: fuck you.
By chance, I actually DO support our local community theater and several other cultural institutions. What I am saying is that there needs to be an undergirdment for the arts, and for public education–ie, tax dollars.
Frankly, I don’t care where or what you spend your money on. I have no interest in what you think of me or my “moral imperatives”. You are not understanding me(and I am being generous here)–I am saying that I think that each of us has an imperative (moral and civic) to support cultural outreach and public education in all its guises.
I don’t care for post-modern art, much. Does that mean that I don’t want my tax dollars to go towards that ? Absolutely not. Because the GREATER GOOD over-rides my personal taste/desire. Even if lil ole me does not directly benefit.
As I’ve already stated in this thread, I think that breaking free of direct government funding would be the best thing that could happen to CPB, but…
Is there any validity to the argument that, since the airwaves are considered public property, the government has a vested interest in maintaining at least a subset of those airwaves for public use? If that’s valid then it would make sense that you would not allow a profit-motive or commercial control of those stations, the prevention of which would most likely require federal funding until such time as endowments and grants could take over.
I can’t seem to find a chart that shows Federal funding as a percentage of all funding over the last 30 years. I know the raw dollar total of federal funding is going up, but if the % is coming down, then eventually CPB could be free of tax money without any loss in service.
And I would point out that I never said such a thing.
Me too.
Very early in this thread (post #10) I pointed out that I do contribute to PBS. And FWIW, not just some feel good $10. And I’ve never claimed my donations as a tax deduction. You are very good at putting words in my mouth. I never claimed I was against PBS/CPB. I never said I was against government funding. All I ever said was (a) I contribute to PBS, and (b) PBS was not a part of my primary education. Now I hate children, I’m “hurting”, I probably stomp kittens in my spare time when I’m not greedily stashing my sheckles.
The government never told me how much to contribute to PBS. I contribute of my own free will. I freely donate to one of your pet causes. As for the rest of your guilt trip, play it on somebody else.
I define luck by all good circumstances that find their way to you through no effort of your own. When we talk about the rich and the poor as two collective bodies and determine who had the most luck between those groups, the rich come out ahead. Coincidence? Not hardly. Usually by virtue of birth, they receive a set of priviledges that the poor do not. Of course there are the rags-to-riches cases. There are also a few riches-to-rags. But for the most part the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. The fact that there are plenty of hardworking people out there who scrub toilets, flip burgers, and work multiple shifts but still don’t have enough to move into a house, let alone save for retirement or send their kids to college, tells me that it doesn’t all just boil down to hardwork and determination.
Why not? Understanding that you have had more gifts than a lot of other people should make you feel charitable. Why would you help a poor person out if you thought that they had only themselves to thank for their condition? Because it is right? Well, why is it right? Afterall, they only brought their pain and suffering on themselves, based on the rational you’ve espoused in this thread.
And what should spark that desire? Compassion? Well, where is that compassion coming from, if not from the place in one’s heart that says “You don’t deserve to suffer”? Think about it.
Of course not. That’s why good works should not be done in pursuit of praise and gratitude.
Exactly. But why was it right?
I don’t think you are. Maybe a little deaf, though.
Where are you coming up with that? My involvement in this thread has primarily been devoted to getting you to recognize how fortunate you have been. Hubris was overfloweth in your posts, and I just had to respond to it. But I have said nothing about forcing people to do charity. I will say, though, that comparing helping the poor–whether that be through community service or through government-funded welfare–to armed robbery goes against all that I believe Jesus represented. To begrudge an innocent child food and shelter because you don’t believe Uncle Sam should “mug” you…well, let me just say that is it disheartening to read from an avowed Christian.
Duke of Rat --I am confused. Did you not say this:
Or did rjung say it and you refute it?
Why are you taking my entire post as a diatribe against YOU? I don’t even address you in it!
I consider the premise of “since PBS didn’t teach me to read or write, I shouldn’t have to help fund it” to be silly. IMO, if it helps even a small minority of kids, it’s valid.
I have not nor do I intend to put words in your mouth. I am glad you give to PBS–I do too, as well as to local charities and conservation programs. I am sure you do also.
I believe firmly that with great privilege comes great responsiblity. That is the focus of my posts here–there is no “guilt trip”.
you with the face --I couldn’t have said it better. Thank you.
I think you are perhaps misinterpreting the point Duke of Rat was making. I don’t recall anybody arguing the above premise. Some here have objected to government funding going to PBS, but not for that reason (namely, “since PBS didn’t teach me to read or write”).
On page #1, rjung made this comment:
This seems to imply that “Govt taking away PBS funding” results in “nothing for teaching kids how to count and read”. Many people jumped in to point out the $ 71.5 billion per year budget for the Dept. of Education – which I’m pretty sure counts as major-ass public funding ;). And in continuing posts, we had this exchange:
Duke of Rat: I learned to read and write during the Vietnam war and without PBS. rjung: Oh, good. Then you’re available for tutoring 90 million folks, I take it?
The latter statement still seeming to imply that without the govt. funding PBS, 90 million folks will never get ed-yoo-muh-cated.
Later, in post #228, when you said:
I think Duke of Rat interpreted this as a similar statement to the one rjung made (although yours was not so specific as his), hence his reply:
I bolded what I thought his basic point was. Which is: “No PBS/CPB” is not equivalent to “No Public Education”.
You said that the following premise is a stupid argument:
“I shouldn’t have to pay for PBS because it’s not how I learned to read or write.”
Duke of Rat is saying that the following is a stupid argument:
“People should have to pay for PBS because without it, kids will never learn to read or write.”
You’re both saying different things. (And you’re both right – they are both lame arguments – specifically, the “because” clauses).
