How Do you Vote?

[ravital]

Education isn't just good for me, it is good for America.

And there you have it, folks. It's compelling, it's logical, therefore it must be correct, and true.

In the Hitchens vs. Sharpton thread, there's a video of the two debating the existence of God. At some point, Hitchens makes the following argument (quoting from memory, but the video is available to anyone who wants to click on it):

"It's one thing to say 'the universe is so well ordered that it is evidence of the existence of a supreme being,' and a completely different thing to say 'the universe is so well ordered that it is evidence of the existence of a supreme being -- therefore thou shall not sleep with someone of your own sex!' those are two completely separate things."

Same here. "Education is good for America" is one thing, "education is good for America, therefore all taxpayers of America must be drafted into paying for it, Universal High Ed dammit" is a completely different thing.

Sure, the GI Bill did more to change America for the better, than anything before or since, no doubt about that, but don't forget that the operative term in "GI Bill" is, well, "GI" - those guys gave something to the country first. Massive government funding of higher education is likely to bring the same thing it brought to several European countries - waiters with law degrees. Don't see the benefit to society in that.

[mikepd]

Education, while important, is not the most important problem facing this country. We need to start tackling the larger issues of corporate and other special party influence on the politicians who are supposed to be working for the benefit of the average citizen but do nothing of the sort be they Democrat or Republican.

Politicians have to get back to debating the issues instead of going into posture mode and simply pander to whatever group they think can deliver them the greatest number of votes come election time.

This nation has become way to much polarized then it ever was back in the '60s, complicated issues like the Middle East are reduced to 30 second sound and video bites that more often than not are attacking someone than explaining an issue.

College students are ever the same- if you do not agree with them then their idea of 'free speech' is to riot against the speaker until the event gets canceled. So much for the claims of Academia as a bastion of critical learning and exploration where ideas get challenged but never trashed.

Duke University anyone and of course, let's not forget that bastion of academic freedom, Columbia University.

[Techie2000]

And there you have it, folks. It's compelling, it's logical, therefore it must be correct, and true.

In the Hitchens vs. Sharpton thread, there's a video of the two debating the existence of God. At some point, Hitchens makes the following argument (quoting from memory, but the video is available to anyone who wants to click on it):

"It's one thing to say 'the universe is so well ordered that it is evidence of the existence of a supreme being,' and a completely different thing to say 'the universe is so well ordered that it is evidence of the existence of a supreme being -- therefore thou shall not sleep with someone of your own sex!' those are two completely separate things."

Same here. "Education is good for America" is one thing, "education is good for America, therefore all taxpayers of America must be drafted into paying for it, Universal High Ed dammit" is a completely different thing.

Sure, the GI Bill did more to change America for the better, than anything before or since, no doubt about that, but don't forget that the operative term in "GI Bill" is, well, "GI" - those guys gave something to the country first. Massive government funding of higher education is likely to bring the same thing it brought to several European countries - waiters with law degrees. Don't see the benefit to society in that.I am sorry, but you presuppose specifics of a policy position not yet established to then argue against.

[joseftu]

Education, while important, is not the most important problem facing this country.
Well, we're going to have to disagree about that! Education is far more important than (and has the potential to solve) the other problems.

I am sorry, but you presuppose specifics of a policy position not yet established to then argue against.
Noticed that, did you? ;) Me, too!

[mikepd]

Well, we're going to have to disagree about that! Education is far more important than (and has the potential to solve) the other problems.





Of course, I expect you to disagree! :) While I don't think it's the number one most important problem in this country, it certainly is in my personal top 5 list. Especially here in Florida where the educational system is so far behind the North that it is to cry. My cousin who is a retired art teacher/director of the art program at the high school where he taught, says Florida is about 20 years behind where Pennsylvania is today.

I can believe it as down here children are taught only how to pass the FCAT test which is a statewide standardized test that the state uses in part, to determine how much money to give to each school district. The higher the combined score, the more money each district gets.

You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to see the following link which explains what the FCAT is used by the state in evaluating both students and schools:

http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/FCATStatewideUses.pdf

Even though I already had done college level work while living in Pennsylvania, I could not get in to a 4 year college because my private high school had closed and the state of New Jersey only tracks public schools and not private ones. So then I tried to get in to the local community college here and I almost did not get in again because of not having a high school transcript.

Their reason- up until 1968 anyone could get in to college down here without having graduated from high school or even attending much of high school at all. I had to go to the Director of Admissions and get an exception after typing a letter showing that New Jersey does not keep records of private high schools and the damn clerks behind the desks were still reluctant to let me in even after he told them to do it.

This state is hicksville all the way. Don't let NASA and the space shuttle launches fool you one bit.

[ravital]

Noticed that, did you? ;) Me, too!
Oh really?

What exactly does it mean then, "Work on issues like student loans" which is exactly what Techie said? "Pre-suppose specifics of a policy prosition not yet established" Really?

I did notice that Obama DID establish it quite clearly and vocally, right here (http://obama.senate.gov/news/050330-obama_unveils_student_loan_pla/), fellas.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama was at SIUE on Tuesday to announce his first legislation as senator - a bill that would increase the amount students can receive in Pell Grants.
The bill, the Higher Education Opportunity Pell Grant Expansion (HOPE) Act, would increase the maximum amount available to students by 26 percent from $4,050 to $5,100 per year and increase it each year at the same rate of inflation.


Sounds pretty specific and established to me. Pell grants are taxpayer money, and "grant" means it's never paid back. But then I never went to college. That's why I can notice your obfuscation, and Matt's. Anything to score a point in a debate I suppose. At least we now know what a higher education is good for.

[Techie2000]

Oh really?

What exactly does it mean then, "Work on issues like student loans" which is exactly what Techie said? "Pre-suppose specifics of a policy prosition not yet established" Really?

I did notice that Obama DID establish it quite clearly and vocally, right here (http://obama.senate.gov/news/050330-obama_unveils_student_loan_pla/), fellas.



Sounds pretty specific and established to me. Pell grants are taxpayer money, and "grant" means it's never paid back. But then I never went to college. That's why I can notice your obfuscation, and Matt's. Anything to score a point in a debate I suppose. At least we now know what a higher education is good for.But that is not the policy you were discussing.

"education is good for America, therefore all taxpayers of America must be drafted into paying for it, Universal High Ed dammit"

It is more than clear you were discussing the idea of universal higher education, also reinforced by your later references to waiters in Europe with law degrees. Maybe some higher education communications and writing classes would have helped you clarify that.

[ravital]

It is more than clear you were discussing the idea of universal higher education, also reinforced by your later references to waiters in Europe with law degrees. Maybe some higher education communications and writing classes would have helped you clarify that.

Ah.... er... Read again, sir, you and you alone, and no one else, introduced the argument "education is good for America" in response to Copzilla's (quite correct) argument that you were supporting the candidate that promised you an entitlement. You said it, not me. You argued "education is good for America," not me. I simply showed you the logical conclusion of such entitlements, because I've seen them elsewhere.

The time when people would cut you a pass because of your young years is over. You are now an adult, and you need to take responsibility for what you say, instead of spinning so fast you don't even notice you attribute to others what you have said yourself. If this is what they are teaching you, then you are really becoming a master at deflection, obfuscation, and never admitting when you're wrong, even when given the direct quote and the source that prove the opposite of what you claimed. Congratulations!

[Violet1966]

Just a reminder to any and all participants in this very interesting debate, please remember keep it civil. I'm off to bed in a few and don't want to wake up tomorrow to see the board was ripped to shreds or something. ;)

[Copzilla]

I don't think public education is bad for America, and I've certainly seen little to indicate that those who go to college are at some sort of disadvantage in society, or that the presence of college or financial aid to it has caused negative financial impact on America. Education isn't just good for me, it is good for America.

I don't disagree that education is important, Techie. What I'm pointing out is that you're not indicating any focus on any part of America other than what affects you. That is a me-first entitlement approach no matter how you want to indicate otherwise.

What about farmers? What about innercity? What about elderly? Economy? Taxes? None of these incredibly important issues has a thing to do with youth and education.

Nope... youth and education, that's your reason for voting for him. Look beyond that. You may still like him if you do, but I charge you to not make *ME* the reason for the vote. Make it the common good.

[Techie2000]

Ah.... er... Read again, sir, you and you alone, and no one else, introduced the argument "education is good for America" in response to Copzilla's (quite correct) argument that you were supporting the candidate that promised you an entitlement. You said it, not me. You argued "education is good for America," not me. I simply showed you the logical conclusion of such entitlements, because I've seen them elsewhere.

The time when people would cut you a pass because of your young years is over. You are now an adult, and you need to take responsibility for what you say, instead of spinning so fast you don't even notice you attribute to others what you have said yourself. If this is what they are teaching you, then you are really becoming a master at deflection, obfuscation, and never admitting when you're wrong, even when given the direct quote and the source that prove the opposite of what you claimed. Congratulations!It seems I have my own version of Godwin's law. When people lose an argument to me, they pull the age card. Reminds me Monty Python.

King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
[the Black Knight doesn't respond]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
[No response]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): I seek the bravest and the finest knights in the land who will join me in my court at Camelot.
[No response]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me?
[No response]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy!
[Attempts to get around the Black Knight]
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): None shall pass.
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): What?
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): None shall pass!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Then you shall die.
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): I move for no man.
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): So be it!
[They fight until Arthur cuts off Black Knight's left arm]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): No, it isn't!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): Well, what's that then?
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): I've had worse.
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): You liar!
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Come on, you pansy!
[They fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): Victory is mine!
[Kneels to pray]
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[Cut off by the Knight kicking him]
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Come on, then.
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): What?
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Have at you!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!

[Techie2000]

I don't disagree that education is important, Techie. What I'm pointing out is that you're not indicating any focus on any part of America other than what affects you. That is a me-first entitlement approach no matter how you want to indicate otherwise.

What about farmers? What about innercity? What about elderly? Economy? Taxes? None of these incredibly important issues has a thing to do with youth and education.

Nope... youth and education, that's your reason for voting for him. Look beyond that. You may still like him if you do, but I charge you to not make *ME* the reason for the vote. Make it the common good.I don't think that those other issues are unimportant, nor that they don't matter to me. I merely feel that among what differentiates candidates, is their priorities, as opposed to their positions, and I like Barack's. I have as much of a stake in this country as anyone else, and want what is best for it, and I also want what is best for me. Our interests are inextricably linked.

[ravital]

It seems I have my own version of Godwin's law. When people lose an argument to me, they pull the age card. Reminds me Monty Python.


It seems like when you refuse to admit you were wrong, you pull the Godwin card.

Techie: non-established policy
Me: Provided link for the policy
Techie:Godwin! Godwin!

[Techie2000]

It seems like when you refuse to admit you were wrong, you pull the Godwin card.

Techie: non-established policy
Me: Provided link for the policy
Techie:Godwin! Godwin!That's not the policy you were talking about originally, and you know it. You are being disingenuous.

[the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): You'll what?
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): Come here!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/): I'm invincible!
King Arthur (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001037/): ...You're a loony.

[ravital]

That's not the policy you were talking about originally, and you know it. You are being disingenuous.


Still appending comedy to your spins?

You said Obama had no stated policy. I pointed to his agenda as a senator. Oh, by the way, is the record of a senator a good indication of what he might do as president? If so, then I am correct, and you are spinning out of control. If not, then I'm sure you'll agree that Fred Thompson's record as senator is nothing like what he'd do as president, right?

What a tangled web you weave. I'm done trying to undo your fine academic training of denying your mistakes to the grave. You right me wrong have a nice day.

[Techie2000]

You said Obama had no stated policy.That is a blatant lie.
I am sorry, but you presuppose specifics of a policy position not yet established to then argue against.I did not say there was no policy position, I said the specifics you presupposed (the universal higher education intiative) in that post were not established.

[ravital]

Upon reflection, I'd rather not reply.

[Techie2000]

I used it because you were reluctant to use it, for obvious reasonsYes, for example it would be wrong, incorrect, counterfactual, erroneous, or even false.

I don't see virtue in claiming to hold a position I do not. I like Obama's position on education, I stated that, and I re-affirm that. However it is not universal higher education. To claim so would be a utilization of the slippery slope logical fallacy. I'm not a supporter of universal higher education.

[MNeedham73]

Here you go, Matt. (http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Education) Obama does in fact appear to be for universal higher education. Granted, his stance was when he was a state senator, but he has supported it.

<center> Free public college for any student with B-average </center>

Principles that Obama supports on education funding:
Fund public school education in Illinois by increasing certain state taxes and decreasing local property taxes.
Provide state-funded tuition and fees to any Illinois student who attends a public college or university as long as they maintain a B average.

[ethics]

I don't disagree that education is important, Techie. What I'm pointing out is that you're not indicating any focus on any part of America other than what affects you. That is a me-first entitlement approach no matter how you want to indicate otherwise.


Not to be Debbie Downer in dog-pile on Matt (get it? Mat? the pun!!?? ;)) but who DOESN'T vote like Matt?

Seriously? You think you are better, and I bet you do vote for the betterment of others, but who doesn't go in to a Voting both with the me first attitude? What do you think the % is?

[tke711]

Exactly, and with each age and economic group there will different priorities that will endear certain candidates over others.

[ravital]

Seriously? You think you are better, and I bet you do vote for the betterment of others, but who doesn't go in to a Voting both with the me first attitude? What do you think the % is?

Well, that's true enough. And given how many times all of us here have bemoaned the problems of our election system, the two party system, and so forth, including Matt lecturing us about being part of the problem and not part of the solution because of how we vote (yes, I do remember that quite well), I think Copzilla's comment on the "Me first last and always" attitude was well placed. As far as I recall (anyone can scroll up and verify this), nothing was said about voting for the betterment of others, but voting for what's good for America, before "what's good for me."

[ethics]

but voting for what's good for America, before "what's good for me."

Same difference to me. On the average, who here in America (hell, the world!) votes for what's good for America vs. what's good for me? Granted, sometimes both overlap each other but...

[ethics]

Wanted to split the thread from Clarke = Girly man thread.

But Rav, here's another example of thinking of America first (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182007/news/regionalnews/obamas_wall_street_plea.htm):

Barack Obama yesterday called on a crowd of Wall Street types to stop focusing on their own bottom lines and start sharing in the pain of the little guy because "we are all in this together."

And this is where the problem comes in. Matt believes in education as priority, and I don't disagree, but what if Matt believed that ALL abortions were immoral? Or that Education shouldn't even BE Public? He may feel those issues were for the great good of America.

I am not really arguing with you, just pointing out that there's no right or wrong way to vote and most people do vote based on their own ideologies, bias, and issues they deem important.

[ravital]

I am not really arguing with you, just pointing out that there's no right or wrong way to vote and most people do vote based on their own ideologies, bias, and issues they deem important.

Ok, fair enough. I wonder though, why is it, that every election cycle, people come out of the woodwork, especially on the left, who moralize and lecture others about "the right way" to vote? I'm sure you've heard them all - it's wrong to vote straight party, or it's wrong to vote for corporate interests, and so on? Always coming up with a moral judgment depending on how you vote? And why do so many people even pay attention to them?

There will always be people who can separate their personal interest from a cold, calm analysis of where the country is and where it needs to be. Some may even vote according to the latter rather than their narrow interest. I am only guessing this is what Copzilla meant when he, initially, pointed out the "vote for entitlements for me" aspect. Maybe we should wait for his input, because I sure wouldn't want to second-guess anyone.

For the record:

1. I don't disagree either, that education is important, and benefits all of society. But it's much more complicated than that. For starters, and just for starters, if using my tax dollars puts x students through Med school, what percentage of their earnings will I ever get? See? Who is the primary beneficiary here? The student. Therefore let the student bear the cost, or at least the greater part of it. Obama is pandering to the youth and to their parents - aging boomers - who have to come up with the funds for a higher education.

2. The quote from Obama above - I understand, you presented it just as an example to illustrate what you were trying to say. But I have to tell you (and I'm sure you know), it is one more nail in his coffin as far as I'm concerned. Plucking the populist heatstrings is one of the oldest tricks in the world. In this economy, the "little guy" has a job, health insurance, and a pension, when corporations do well on Wall Street. And exactly whose pain has Obama shared lately?

[ethics]

Ok, fair enough. I wonder though, why is it, that every election cycle, people come out of the woodwork, especially on the left, who moralize and lecture others about "the right way" to vote? I'm sure you've heard them all - it's wrong to vote straight party, or it's wrong to vote for corporate interests, and so on? Always coming up with a moral judgment depending on how you vote? And why do so many people even pay attention to them?

And there you have it! The problem is when a voter (any voter) believes his beliefs are what's for the greater good!!!!

1. I don't disagree either, that education is important, and benefits all of society. But it's much more complicated than that. For starters, and just for starters, if using my tax dollars puts x students through Med school, what percentage of their earnings will I ever get? See? Who is the primary beneficiary here? The student. Therefore let the student bear the cost, or at least the greater part of it. Obama is pandering to the youth and to their parents - aging boomers - who have to come up with the funds for a higher education.


I don't disagree.

2. The quote from Obama above - I understand, you presented it just as an example to illustrate what you were trying to say. But I have to tell you (and I'm sure you know), it is one more nail in his coffin as far as I'm concerned. Plucking the populist heatstrings is one of the oldest tricks in the world. In this economy, the "little guy" has a job, health insurance, and a pension, when corporations do well on Wall Street. And exactly whose pain has Obama shared lately?

You nailed what politicians are about.

[Copzilla]

Not to be Debbie Downer in dog-pile on Matt (get it? Mat? the pun!!?? ;)) but who DOESN'T vote like Matt?

Seriously? You think you are better, and I bet you do vote for the betterment of others, but who doesn't go in to a Voting both with the me first attitude? What do you think the % is?

Not trying to dogpile Matt. Matt is a young voter who has as a right to vote how he chooses.

I think a great deal of people vote with strictly themselves in mind. BUT - I also know that the downfall of a capitalist society is when the public realizes they can vote themselves every little comfort they want, as opposed to work for it.

Techie alluded to why I addressed him about his post. Yes, his success and America's success are linked. Voting for the common good IS voting for one's self, just because of that reason. And so as a voter, with this awesome obligation to decide who will lead the free world, we must consider more than one single topic of that common good. That's all I was doing with Techie. Because his post was singularly decisive about his reasons for making his vote, and if I impressed a young voter to look around a bit, then I'm tickled beyond belief.

[Techie2000]

I considered a lot of things, but only gave the really short version. I expressed an opinion. Nothing was wrong with it. Instead of making arguments against Obama's actual policy proposals, ravital made arguments against extreme extrapolations of what he might consider doing as President. I was amused.

Copz kind of made an assumption as to my motives in the youth/education bit. It was sort of wrong, and I corrected it. I never stated it in terms of my personal interest, just in general terms of the issue itself. It's all good.

[ravital]

ravital made arguments against extreme extrapolations of what he might consider doing as President.


Wrong again. Mike gave you a direct link to Obama's stated policies, scroll up and you'll see it. You stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la la" and post entire Monty Python skits - and none of it changes the simple fact that this is his stated intent. "Free public college for any student with B average" - that's as close as you can come to universal higher ed without actually saying the words. Your stubborn denial is just more evidence that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Good night.