If abortion weren't an issue, what would American politics look like?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Ideally, there should be equality of opportunity. But in the real world, there isn’t equal opportunity.
Gladwell had a great first chapter in his book “Outliers.” Someone is watching an all-star hockey game, and his wife looks at the program and realizes that–I’m making up the numbers here–if there were 36 players, you would expect three to be born in each month. But the wife notices that the majority of the all stars were born in the first three months of the year. What’s going on here? Discrimination against those born later in the year? And, in fact, yes. The cutoff date for the first tier of hockey was Jan. 1. If you turned (again, I’m making up the actual numbers) 8 on Jan. 1, you were eligible to join the mini-league. You got coaching, you practiced, and you were older and more physically developed than boys who turned 8 later in the year. You had an advantage from day 1. And you are, more likely than not, an all star.
It’s the same way with all of us: some of us have advantages in certain areas, some of us in other areas, and a few of us don’t have any advantages at all. It could be genetic, financial, support from parents or a desire to be like a sibling. How many 6 ft 7 inch guys don’t play basketball? And how many 5 ft 8 in guys are in the NBA all star game? Did the 6 ft. 7 inch guy “work harder”? Of course not. He has a tremendous physical advantage. Should he be penalized for that? No…but…
There is a great drive for diversity and equality pretty much everywhere except basketball. The vast majority of players are black. Why? They have all sorts of advantages–genetic for one. Different types of muscles. Background: They’re more likely to have someone in their family who has played basketball at some level. Interest: Basketball is “cool.” Neighborhood: courts with basketball nets, and others willing to play. Etc. So should we insist that each team be 25% white? Or 12% Asian? And where are those basketball players from India?
Take Betsy in a white suburb. For several generations her ancestors have been lawyers, accountants, etc. Betsy’s mother read her a bedtime story every night since she was born. In her house there are thousands of books. Her parents both read books every day, and Betsy notices that. Betsy has a tremendous advantage academically over someone who comes from a household where they never read bedtime stories, they don’t own or read any books, and where the parents don’t value academic success.
Could you take someone from one of these disadvantaged homes and stick them into a university filled with thousands of “Betsy’s” and expect them to compete? Would it be in any way a level playing field? Could I go one-on-one with LeBron James? Are you kidding?
So do you penalize Betsy and her family? No. But you certainly need to help out, as early as possible, those who don’t have her advantages. And it’s not just to “help” them, it’s to help society as a whole.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that equality is a lofty and noble goal, but let us make sure equality means on the highest possible level rather than a mediocre level in which brighter and more advantaged people are penalized for their achievements. I believe that those who are disadvantaged from the start should receive a helping hand, while ensuring that helping hand encourages their own independence, not dependence. The students who enter the specialized high schools in New York are still at a disadvantage, as you state. They do not magically become better students, but what might very well happen is that their entrance has the effect of lowering academic standards so that eventually the specialized schools are no longer elitist and based on merit. And this is exactly what I believe Mayor de Blasio’s ultimate goal is in the name of equality. No more entrance exams, no more competence of any sort. It took place decades ago in the City University of New York system with their ill-fated open admissions program in the early 1970s, and CUNY has had to work hard ever since to regain a semblance of their former level of excellence. Now, beginning in the spring semester, the administrators want to abolish any and all standards of admission to the CUNY colleges, again in the name of equality, except for the high school GPA. The New York State Regents exam, already dumbed down considerably, is likewise possibly going to be abolished altogether. Our whole society, not just our educational system, is, in my view, falling apart and headed in the direction of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
In my scenario, which is rapid, we would take all the money from the rich, and gave something less than $5000 to each man, woman, and child in the US, what we would have is a destroyed economic system, and each person would have about enough to buy a mediocre used car.
We would also destroy our economic system.
Even if we did it slowly, it would do each person only a little bit of good, and injure our economic system severely.
Life is not completely fair and equitable. Some people have more of what society values than do others, and are compensated for that.
I don’t think we have the perfect economic system myself. Buy I also don’t see the point in severely damaging it because it is not perfect. That would hurt not only many many people, but the very people you claim to want to help.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Wrong goal. I don’t think anyone is saying all people are equal. In fact, I’ve been arguing the opposite–some have innate advantages. Now if you want to add some qualifying words like “equal opportunity” I’m with you.
Can you create a fairer playing field without penalized the privileged? I think so, although the wealthier are going to end up paying for it. And it’s not easy.
I once did substitute teaching in a Catholic boys high school in the mid-80s. There was a Chinese student or two, but the other students were of European descent. I visited the school again in about 2010. I looked at the photos of graduating students on the wall. 100% Chinese for several years in the past. I have a hunch the Chinese parents weren’t too thrilled about this–if they had wanted to send their children to an all-Chinese school, they could have sent them to China or Hong Kong. So what’s the answer? Quotas? No, that’s unfair. Admission simply based on test scores? That’s probably how they ended up with 100% Chinese. Ignoring race altogether? Nope, again that favors those with an advantage. Admission based on several factors, including race? Probably, and that’s where we are today in the US. Race can be a factor in admissions, just not the dominating factor. What about desire to work hard and get ahead? What about feeling passionate about helping others? What about a driving curiosity about some field? A lot of things (hard to measure, admittedly) could be used.
In the 80s I was an alumni interviewer for prospective freshman at a fairly elite university. I went to a meeting held by the admissions dept. They gave an example of an actual applicant who looked good in all ways but one–didn’t do well in some senior h.s. classes. Probably blew them off. We were asked how we would deal with that student. I voted to admit him/her. It was a one-time thing, they deserved a chance, etc. etc. The admissions officer (black, by the way) said no. She would turn down that student because there were others waiting in line who had unblemished records. One mistake = out you go. I don’t think that was particularly fair, but people need to be aware that point of view is out there.
Various charter schools have had some success in raising standards, although it’s not clear that charter schools in general are better than public schools. Probably putting students in an atmosphere that values learning is the answer, but obviously (?) if you create a school with 100% disadvantaged students, you’re not going to get far. So what’s the magic % of advantaged vs. disadvantaged, and are you just creating two separate worlds in one school rather than a unified student body? Raising expectations works–Jaimie Escalante with calculus in California–but only if the students buy in. One thing is certain: just throwing up your hands and giving up is not the solution.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
more…
As I’ve said many times on these threads, you have to link employment ($$) and grades. How many of you have had to submit a transcript to get a job (except an academic job)? No one? I never have. What if McDonalds, etc. announced a new hiring policy: in order to apply you need a B average. No good grades, no job. I suspect a lot of students would begin studying a bit harder.
As I’ve said many times on these threads, you have to link employment ($$) and grades. How many of you have had to submit a transcript to get a job (except an academic job)? No one? I never have. What if McDonalds, etc. announced a new hiring policy: in order to apply you need a B average. No good grades, no job. I suspect a lot of students would begin studying a bit harder.
I don’t recall ever having to submit a transcript, but I have had to furnish a diploma. At my last job, they had this requirement, so I put all three of my diplomas (BA/MA/MBA) in my briefcase and took them to human resources. When I produced these for the hiring officer, she said “Oh, Lord, I’ll just make a copy of the most recent one!”. We both got a good laugh out of that one.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’m only quoting one sentence, but replying to your entire post.
I’m not sure you are INTENTIONALLY misunderstanding what I am saying. May you are, maybe not. “Fairness and equity” doesn’t mean everyone gets exactly the same wage or lives in the same house. It means that, as far as possible, society allows everyone a fair chance to succeed. This is an unachievable goal, but it’s worth trying to do and worth trying to come as close as you can.
Say Joe Blow invents a thing-a-ma-jig. Does he deserve to profit from his invention? Sure. Should he be able to drive potential competitors out of business? No. Should he be able to use his monopoly on thing-a-ma-jigs to charge $100 for something that costs him $1 to make? No. Should he be able to pay his workers minimum wage (because he can…) while he’s raking in $1 million a day? No. So what’s “fair”? Well, that’s debatable, and it should be debated. But as it stands now, Joe Blow can do all those things–drive competitors out of business, rake in $1 million a day and pay his workers minimum wage, sell a product that costs $1 to make for $100, etc. And the only thing that can stop Joe Blow from doing all these nasty things is the federal gov. If anyone has another suggestion, feel free to let us all know.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Yes. I’ve seen that–mostly to get rid of a perfectly good employee who doesn’t have a college degree. You change the requirement of the position, and that high-priced (because she’s been there 20 years) employee is fired and you can hire a recent graduate for a fraction of the salary. Nice!
Meritocracy: this was meltzerboy’s word, but other people support it. In my experience (8 full time jobs, something over 50 years in the work force), merit is a word in the dictionary, nothing more. In one job I had to go to weekly meetings with the marketing dept. At one meeting I referenced supply and demand. The director of marketing said (really, not a joke) “Supply and demand? What’s that? What do you mean?” And she was director of marketing. In another job–again, in meetings–one guy presented an Excel spreadsheet of sales every month. And every month I took him aside (not in the meeting, I’m such a nice person) and said “Jojo, you’ve added the wrong figures in column A, and you haven’t factored in such-and-such in column B.” The next month he would come in with yet another totally inaccurate spreadsheet. It got to be so much fun that I took the spreadsheets home and began a party game: I would give a spreadsheet to each visitor and give them 1 minute to spot just one horrific mistake. These were random visitors, not accountants. Men off the street. Invariably they found at least one mistake in a minute. This guy got promotion after promotion. His boss never noticed any of the mistakes. Why not? Easy answer–she knew less about it than he did. I think she became the youngest VP in company history. Merit? Nah. It’s a myth.
J
JimG
Guest
Merit may be a myth. I’ve seen people in a lot of different types of jobs who were sometimes clueless about what they were doing. If that’s the case, it ought to be easy for every one to get and keep a job. But even the clueless ones show up every day or they don’t last long. A lot of employers now are happy just to find somebody who will show up every day and be willing to work. And that seems to be getting harder, and it keeps a lot of people unemployed.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
At my most cynical, I would say that meritocracy once did exist but today the damage has gone too far due to the lust for egalitarianism (not merely a level playing field of equal opportunity), and that is why the supervisors know even less than their employees. And with each generation, the downward spiral accelerates: a very Andy Rooneyish summation of our present situation, who said shortly before he died when asked about the future of our society and the world: “It’s only going to get worse.” But that assessment is only on my most cynical days; otherwise, I tend to keep on fighting the good fight.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
I see what you are saying, but reaching into this level of oversight by the government would be really tough. We hope that market forces reign in some of the excesses (altho charging $100 for thingamajigs when they are first sold is reasonable from an economic point of view, and later as they sell more the price goes down… flat screen tvs?)
And I think in terms of opportunity, the West offers more opportunity to more people than has been available anywhere or any time.
I think a bigger problem is the materialism we are forced into, to a certain extent. Cell phones are now everywhere, and there are no longer amy payphones, so you pretty much have to have a cell phone in order to function in society. Homeless people have cellphones–an elderly lady I know fell and injured herself on the street and a homeless man called 911.
So economics are the basis of our society and not God. So business owners do immoral things and hopefully if they don’t treat their employees well the employees are able to “vote with their feet,” altho in tough economic times they can’t. So encouraging business owners and boosting the economy then turns out to be a boon for the poor, even when things are imperfect.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
That is the real position we are in.
I live in the Middle US. Our construction companies have about a 10% legitimacy rate in job applications. In other words, 90% of the job applications are automatic toss-outs due to
1 felonies
2 drugs
And then you have
3 no work ethic. There are many people who work for 2 days 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and quit.
Our local temp service is screaming for employees to fill jobs. Literally any sober person can walk up and get a job today.
The temp service exists because of the loss of work ethic. Employers cannot deal with the revolving door problem.
Realistically, western culture will not survive without a work ethic. People must be productive. And we have millions of especially young people who are lost.
Anyone who works with young people knows this. There are millions of people who cannot put their cell phone down long enough for a coherent thought. These people are not going to contribute to society. At best, the most talented device operators may get tech jobs, the rest are like lost souls drifting through life, medicating themselves with screens, drugs, sex.
I mentor a young man like this, and the biggest challenge he faces is turning off the screens. That is sad. He may never hold down a job if things don’t change. And he has the intellectual ability. His own mother can’t get away from screens long enough to be a responsible parent.
Last edited:
It also needs to be said that the $5000 would be spent on something, unless the recipient put it in a savings account. That money would eventually end up somewhere. First, it would end up in the hands of whomever sold the recipient X, Y, or Z. Then that person would spend the money. And so on. I’m not sure how well American business and commerce would reconstruct itself from this “revolution scenario” where the riches of the most wealthy are confiscated and redistributed, but I think it’s fair to say that some people would get wealthy, maybe some of the same people as before, maybe some different people. Entrepreneurship — the capitalist “thing” — is an intangible. Some people are better at it than others. In time, you would have inequality all over again, and most of the people who spent the $5000 would be right back where they started. Then what?
M
Maximus1
Guest
In 1973 Southern Baptists were pro choice and praised the majority in Roe v Wade in their official publication. ( Can Google it)
Their change coincided with a single issue political strategy.
Their change coincided with a single issue political strategy.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Southern Baptist Convention publication. Good luck.
P
Peeps
Guest
No, I haven’t heard this.
I feel badly that you have such a nasty group of people in your parish. I hope you are the “shining light” that makes up for these naysayers.
Quite agreed.
When my son was born, we had a medical emergency, his system wasn’t processing bile properly, so we had to rush and have the hospital deliver a “billi-bed” (think a tanning bed for babies!) for him to sleep on, to draw out the jaundice. I told a pro-life advocate about this and she said “back in my day we’d just put the baby in the front doorway and let the sun shine in on him”. Very off-putting remark. My son could have died without prompt professional medical care. He had a full recovery.
The born child is a person too.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(I got this photo online, this isn’t my son.)
Last edited:
- Status