What are the reasons the right hates Obama these days?

Really, it’s just that he’s a Democrat. I actually think that any Dem who held that office would be just as reviled in this extremely partisan environment. All of the rhetoric is just red meat to fire up the rabble.

I wasn’t following politics as closely during the Clinton years. Were the accusations just as vile then as now?

Oh, I think he was just as much a boogie man. The economy was going big guns then, though, so there was less popular rancor to be channeled against him.

I always sort of thought the reason Bush beat Gore (you know, besides the whole FL debacle), was because Clinton’s sexual behavior outraged the moral majority enough to mobilize them to elect a “moral” Bush. Bush’s spiritual adviser was Ted Haggard

[Throwing out some content from one of my answers on a different thread, just to add some fuel to this fire]

I can’t really give a reason why these people say what they say, but I have heard (in person) people say the following accusations:

-
Obama has made a mistake in “everything he does.”
Obama’s goal is to destroy America.
Obama is not Christian and has never attended church in his life.
The church Obama attends teaches the Bible the “wrong” way.
Obama always lies.
Obama is taking Christianity out of the government.
-

Whenever there is debate about [pick one: morals / ethics / family life / contraception / abortion / stem cells / terrorism / teaching evolution in schools], religion will be pulled into the mix simply because religion is not neutral on these issues.

Well, as we all know: Obama isn’t a blindingly ignorant capitalist who follows the ideology of Ayn Rand. Since he hasn’t relegated the poor people of America to compartmentalized ghettos until they can pull their heads out of their butts and become rich, he’s not very popular.

It mostly because the role of the opposition is to oppose.

Are there any new allegations these days? Like I heard on the radio today that some feel he isn’t doing enough about gas prices. Like there’s something he could do to suppress the price of a free market good in which demand is increasing as supply gets more expensive to produce. Maybe subsidies? Wouldn’t that be popular? Fricking socialist.

They don’t have any reasons which is why they make them up.

Oh come on, they don’t make them all up.

True, he is a Communist, Muslim well he is a Democrat.

Well, I mean the GOP has a case when they pin Solyndra on him. You know, that sort of thing. I’m just saying. While I don’t have any major problems with his overall presidency, he isn’t infallible. I don’t want to come off like all GOP ideas are necessarily to be be ridiculed. But I will state that I’m of the general belief that the right is way further right than they were 15 years ago. Even 6 years ago.

You are correct that the Right has swung further to the right. Colin Powell is no longer considered Conservative enough to be considered a Republican, John McCain was losing ground amongst his base until he choose an extremist running mate, and I have heard some complain that W was too Liberal.

So it all boils down to Obama not being such a rabid Conservative that he makes Reagan look like a Socialist.

Of course, not all Conservatives are like that (is really only the vocal ones) so there is a growing divide on that side of the aisle.

I also love how people questioned his religion in the first place, when it says in the constitution that there shall be no religious test for office…..The test may not be official, but it’s definitely de facto.

Mostly the Republicans don’t like Obama because he is BLACK & most of the Republicans are WHITE (Republicans as a whole do not like people who are darker skinned than they are – including Mexicans), & it has galled them ever since he got elected. Of course, he is still being accused of being born outside of the United States (& some fool Republican has actually brought charges against Obama for ‘faking’ his Birth Certificate!). Mostly it is a culture clash. The Democrats (young, college age people) who are struggling against mounting college loan debt, against the entrenched wealth of the 1% Republicans (& the religious fundamentalists & evangelicals who want to be rich).

@cockswain I think what you are addressing here is precisely why there is such a polarizing perspective of our President. You either like him or you don’t but if you choose a side it would be wonderful if everyone actually was in possesion of their own personal reason for liking or disliking him.

He is our President and you should like him for the great job he is doing as the leader of our country or you should dislike him for the lousy job he is doing. But sadly people are choosing to like him or hate him because he might be muslim, or he was born somewhere else than the USA, or he is a Socialist and not by the quality of his service as our leader.

My gripes with him is when you don’t have money you don’t go borrow or print more money to create a bigger problem to be handled on someone elses watch. You don’t go NOT stopping the insanity in Afghanistan just so you don’t carry that black mark of failing to deliver into the election next November. Sure let more American soldiers die just so you can get re-elected.

One of the news-est reasons is because of his acceptance of $1 million donation by Bill Maher. Obama speaks out against Rush but accepts money from Maher? Politics as usual.

I’m sure you can find out here and here. If you have the time that is.

There are going to be a couple of seats to fill in the SCOTUS possibly before the next 4 years. The last 2 he got in were not amenable to the right as it brought the court a tad more to the left. Judges are forever and they don’t want to chance any more liberal judges getting in.

@Paradox25 You are on Sodahead too? I though I was just about the only Jelly here that is schizophrenic enough to take both sites in one sitting. :-)

There was plenty of vitriol directed at the Clintons. They did impeach him, after all. And there were constant “leaks” about how Bill Clinton was somehow responsible for several murders and secretly made a ton of money on the Whitewater land deal that he lost money on. But the attacks today are far more foul, and often reek of underlying racism.

The far right is a well managed tool of a handful of billionaires, numerous corporate CEOs and their lackeys such as the National Chamber of Commerce. They want the government to serve their interests to the exclusion of all others. When you want things run to serve the interests of 0.01% of the population, it’s hard to run on that agenda and win over 50% of the votes. So you need to run on a series of Big Lies.

The oligarchs behind the GOP fund a 50-state network of conservative think tanks and PR firms that craft these lies for them. They feed bumper-sticker slogans and talking points supporting these Big Lies to the Vast Right-Wing Noise Machine which most of their constituency feeds constantly on.

Through this noise machine, they wind up the religious right on abortion, birth control, gay rights and prayer in schools. They wind up white supremacists on racial and immigration issues. They wind up ultra nationalists on apologizing to the world and not believing in American exceptionalism. They wind up John Birchers by telling them Obama and the Democrat [sic] Party in general are commie, socialist, Nazi pigs. Never mind that communists and Nazis were mortal enemies. The overlords know the critical thinking skills of their target audience will never catch the flaws in their claims.

What it is really all about is that the US middle class still has substantial assets that the overlords want for themselves, and they need some middle class voters blinded enough by hate to vote against their own economic interests and give them yet another massive tax break, cause they’s the job creators.

I just started watching politics a little bit again in the last month. From what I can tell they are questioning Obama’s actions regarding apologizing for some deaths in Afghanastan. For gas prices (I swear the rght wingers around me I find so fascinating that not one of them remember gas prices being this high during Bush. Really? How can that be?). They still are saying he sucks regarding creating jobs. That’s all I can think of right now.

@ETpro I still have my profile on there but I’m currently taking a break from SH right now. It is quite difficult to generate any type of quality discussions on there. Also their stupid media (pictures) feature has helped to destroy any chance of quality debates, along with their abuse of the blocking function. I do find it ironic that it is usually the so-called ‘conservatives’ on there that usually do both of those things. Free Republic is much worse than SH though. At least on SH there are enough non-‘conservatives’ to balance the site to some degree. The book on Amazon looks interesting.

@Paradox25 I can understand taking a break. I just post there now. I hardly ever bother to go back and look at what sort of hate the right spews in response.

The book is definitely worth reading. I must admit being a cheapskate, though. I borrowed it from the library. :-)

@cockswain The republicans are pretty busy tearing each other apart with the primaries. What I find interesting is when they do attack Obama, and the dems in general, are incredibly quiet about fighting back hard. I can’t wait for the Republicans to pick their guy, and then really, hopefully, see Obama and the Dems in general come full force to counter the crap. I feel like Obama is careful not to tip his hand. I figure the people who work for his campaign are saving up sound bites like crazy, and I think the debates will be very interesting. Well, interesting if the candidate is Mitt. Anyone else, and I think the debates might have too much ridiculous in them. Maybe not, maybe if they stay away from social issue questions it won’t get too bad.

@ETpro Oh I’ve looked at many of the responses to your posts on there, and I did always wonder how you kept your composure. Now I know. It’s a good thing you didn’t check back to look at them either. Where’s the moderation on that site?

@Paradox25 The moderators used to kill the account of anyone expressing liberal or progressive ideas if they get into a flame war with their cherished cons. I can’t swear it is so, but my impression is that’s begun to change in the last year. It seems as if they may want a tad more balance.

@bkcunningham It might have to do with the fact that while Bill Maher has made a few bad statements, Rush built an entire career off of being inflammatory. Or maybe because much of what Bill Maher says is more reasonable than asking for sex tapes.

@jerv & @bkcunningham Actually, it is funnier than that. It is because the conservative 5 on the SCOTUS came up with a rule book that says corporations, billionaires and special interests can donate unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, but those Super PACs cannot be directly connected with the politician/s they support. So legally, Obama can’t ask the Super PAC to return Maher’s money

Relevant

You guys make me laugh. Even in a thread I assumed to be semi-lighthearted, you are good soldiers. Read back through how many people actually answered the question without turning it around to bash anyone who disagrees with Obama.

Primary reason: He is black.

Secondary reasons:
– he is educated
– he is a democrat
– he wants to improve peoples’ lives
– his middle name

Everything follows from his blackness

Obama’s Unforgivable Blackness. I know it’s definitely a component of those who hate him, but I wonder how large. I think it’s more that he’s a liberal than black that draws the most ire, as there are black republicans.

@JLeslie What primaries indicate is how much these guys (in both parties) are really just pure politicians. They attack each other with the same vitriol with which they will eventually turn on Obama when the time comes. I like what @ETpro says about the Big Lie machine that is perpetuated by the .01% oligarchs that prey on the minds of those who’d like to be led by their beliefs. I’m sure a republican will argue to same point about liberals drinking the Kool-Aid, but from this guy’s point of view it seems way worse on the GOP side. Notice how the GOP throws around the word “liberal” as an accusation towards the other candidates, as though it’s the worst possible thing someone could be? Ron Paul even called Rick Santorum a liberal. And all these guys are calling Romney a liberal. What the hell.

@jerv I know it’s unconstitutional, but Mississippi and Alabama voters should be forced to take a basic competency test of some sort to maintain voting rights. I kid, I kid! mostly

Astute observation there @jerv. Yes this poll is relevant in that Obama has a serious hurdle to overcome with the Religious Right in that even after over 4 years of standing in the Presidential limelight that 52% of those represented in this poll still embrace the notion that Obama is a Muslim. Stunning.

A large percentage of residents in Mississippi and Alabama are Black, @cockswain. I hope all the negative comments about the residents of those states are racist. ; )

I’m aware of the demographics of those states. And regardless of race, anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim (or even cares), and doesn’t believe evolution, is a fool.

@cockswain I think that the education system down there plays a role. Now, I am not saying that religious people are stupid (I know many people who are both intelligent and devout), but when you combine strong religion and weak education, what you wind up with is The South.
Of course, poverty also plays a role, and that isn’t exactly the most affluent region of the country. Since poverty and pope education often go hand in hand, it’s not really a stretch to say that you can expect that sort of thing from down there.

I guess you’re sort of saying it isn’t their fault for being ignorant, which I suppose is something that happens all around the world. But it’s like they have a Third World mindset in a First World nation (not all of them, I’m obviously generalizing). So the GOP panders to the ridiculousness of their beliefs, making them think a “moral values” president is what we need. And voila, Rick Santorum is somehow a viable candidate now.

I really actually believe that some adults shouldn’t be qualified to vote. The political future of a very powerful nation shouldn’t be decided by the those that are ignorant of general science and economics. I know that’s a controversial statement, but it’s what I think. Defining “ignorant” in that context is a whole topic in itself. And I the way I’d like to see it decided wouldn’t really go over too well with tens of millions of Americans.

@cockswain There are just so many educated people who still are very far on the right, the religious right. I didn’t think it could be such a high number, until I lived down in the south. Probably the least educated, with the least advantages, in the south are actually democrats. They are socially conservative, because of religion, but many of who I describe are black, and likely to be democrats. Even white people who are poor, might still vote democrat at least in reasonable percentages, because they are voting for the social systems, but I am not sure of the stats on that.

You might want to look at the inner cities as well. Not exactly a hotbed of Summa Cum Laude’s

@Jaxk Great point. On this link scroll down and watch the short Bill Maher clip. After rolling the film of man-on-the-street interviews with Mississippi voters, they note that exact same sad sentiment.

@Jaxk I admit that made me LOL. Then it starts to sound racist again doesn’t it? The poor in the south. The inner city.

I wonder, I don’t remember you ever mentioning, do you consider yourself to be a religious person? Or, is your conservative views mostly about the fiscal stance the Republican party takes?

This thread is going off topic, and I’m fine with that since this is an interesting idea. If we’d apply the idea of not letting the “ignorant” vote on a national level, holy crap what a racist seeming mess we’d have on our hands. Yes, there would be a shitload of minorities that would fit the bill. But the spirit of what I’m suggesting is to get the idiots out of the election process. Sure, I don’t politically see eye-to-eye with @Jaxk , but he has a researched viewpoint and I would never suggest he can’t vote because he isn’t liberal. He has studied the topics and come up with a reasoned view. An incorrect one, but that’s his problem.

But in truth, I don’t want any idiots voting. Race doesn’t factor into my thinking, and both parties would lose some base of voters. It would force the politicians to elevate their arguments to a level more in tune with what is real because they’d have to consider the fact that most of the voters actually understand the issues. Imagine that. Voters that understand the issues. Revolutionary!

What if we just made every voter at a minimum pass the basic test an immigrant has to pass for US citizenship? Hell I bet some of us would lose our voting rights.

@cockswain Will it be given orally to those who are illiterate, or don’t read English? Obviously, what you suggest will never happen. But, it would be nice if the conversations were elevated. Both sides do speak to or pander to the lesser informed in the parties. They both also recruit the votes of those who probably would not bother to vote if no one was dragging them into the voting booths, or casting shame and pressure on them for not voting. I vaguely remember an episode on West Wing where the President argues he is not going to dumb things down in a speech he is giving, or something? Maybe it was when he was running for reelection towards the end of the show. Can’t remember exactly. I guess what I am saying is, I bet the less educated, less intelligent would not bother to vote if they weren’t being targeted to vote.

@cockswain I wonder how the percentages pan out? If the people you prefer not vote don’t, I wonder which side it helps the most?

I guess you’d have to give it orally to the illiterate, but I don’t know how someone could be well-researched on the issues and be illiterate at the same time. I’d imagine that would comprise a small number of the revised voting populace.

Regarding the West Wing episode, that reminds me of when Ross Perot presented graphs and charts to explain his point of view. I don’t recall the details of what he was showing, but he was mocked for doing it. I don’t think that was a dumb idea at all. And yes, I’d love it if the politicians purely spoke intellectually because they were all very smart, not just great at socializing and knowing what people like. That sounds more like sales to me. And I’m glad you touched on the idea of likely voters, as that was floating around in my head since we began discussing this. The ignorant wouldn’t be targeted. Economics would be just as prominent but would be so much better understood. Think of how many articles you read by economists like George Will or Robert Reich that basically are pointing out the fundamental flaws in the opposition’s understanding of basic economics. All of it would reach a generally higher level.

I don’t have a clue how the percentages would pan out. But everything about each party would fundamentally change if they were forced to alter their discourse to target a smaller, more intelligent voter base.

@JLeslie

I have no religious beliefs beyond letting everyone believe what they want to. Being religious doesn’t make you stupid and being atheist doesn’t make you smart. Hell, if I could make myself believe that there was a better place waiting for me when I die, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I just can’t buy into it.

I always find it interesting that a bigoted view of southern whites is perfectly acceptable. If you apply the same criteria to inner cities, you become a bigot or a racist. How does that work?

How does that work?

It doesn’t. Everyone should recognize the hypocrisy of such thinking. But there is a lot of history regarding opportunities and equalities for blacks vs. whites that comes into play in such discussions. For the confines of those involved on this thread and the context in which we’re addressing it, there isn’t a problem.

@Jaxk Huh? I was the one who said I know a lot of very educated right wingers. I never ever said all religious people are stupid.

People associate both the poor in the south and the inner city with being predominantly black and minorities. Of course there are many poor white people, I don’t know how all the percentages pan out, but I would guess the minorities are over represented below the poverty line relative to the total popuation.

I in no way was accusing you of being stupid or racist, or religious for that matter. I was saying we start to sound racist when we say we want to exclude undereducated people in the south and inner cities. We, Cockswain, you, me, and others who mentioned it on the Q, not the royal we.

@JLeslie

Point well taken. I addressed my post to you and then used the collective we. My bad.

@cockswain

I’m not sure how you figure there is no problem in this context. Any change in voter laws has been labeled as racist by the left. Hell, you can’t even ask for an ID let alone assess the knowledge of the voter without being labeled as racist.

I’m sorry, @Jaxk , but I don’t see where I or anyone else on this thread made those allegations. In fact I seem to be the one floating the idea that we do change voter laws. Not sure what your point is. Would you care to discuss whether or not it would be racist to change the voter laws to exclude the ignorant, a group of which minorities are indeed a subset? I don’t have a problem with that.

I for one, to be clear, am against any tests to be able to vote. I also am for ID requirements to vote.

I’d have to see what the test was before I could say that. Designing a test that is fair to all citizens would be difficult. But I’m not against the idea of it.

I mean, do you think it would be reasonable to have the test have a question like, “If supply of a good decreases and demand remains constant, the price will______”?

Or “True or false: The President has the power to write and pass any law he wishes without approval.”

@cockswain I don’t find that question reasonable.

Really? Why not? I mean when people start saying “the president should lower oil prices”, don’t you think at least that level of economic understanding should exist?

@cockswain I think the language is difficult for too many people. Even if they understand the concept, they may not know the vocabulary used. But, I am against testing to begin with.

At the same time I encourage people not interested in politics, and who don’t understand the issues to not vote.

Hmmm, interesting point about the language. People would lose voting rights for not not interpreting the question properly. But with extensive enough study for each question with test groups, I would surmise that one could properly word questions that 99% of people would understand.

It sort of ties into another question I once asked, about if people should be allowed to vote on economic issues. I feel that is an area that is important and complex enough to not be left to amateurs. The flip side is that we give democratic power away though. A difficult topic to find a reasonable solution to. But I sort of look at it like how we make people be properly licensed to practice law or accounting. Voting shouldn’t have nearly as stringent criteria, but why not some level of knowledge?

I guess “encouraging” people not to vote vs. banning them is another topic too. Obviously banning is removing freedoms which can be viewed as a big problem, but relying on idiots to follow wise encouragement likely won’t have the desired effect of stopping them from casting an equally weighted vote to that of a well-researched voter.

Even though you’re against testing, could you think of a question you think would be reasonable to expect of any voter?

@cockswain

I would love to see the voting changed to make it more secure and more intelligent. I’m not sure there’s anyway to do that without skewing the results in an unfavorable way. Education is primarily an exercise in theory. Practical application of that theory is learned elsewhere. Being uneducated doesn’t mean your stupid, only uneducated. And being educated doesn’t mean you’re smart. We’ve been electing lawyers to represent us for a century. On issues such as finance, health care, industry, welfare, the list goes on. What makes a lawyer more knowledgeable than others? They’re main expertise is to write laws in a way no one else can understand. And I admit, they are very good at that. It’s not just the stupid people that elect these clones.

”

Or “True or false: The President has the power to write any law he wishes without approval.”

The truth is, the President has enormous power to create laws without approval. Through executive orders and the plethora of government regulation. Not to mention the selective enforcement of laws through the Justice Department. The Supreme Court is the only check on his virtually unlimited power and he can appoint those people without approval through recess appointments. As he can with cabinet heads. So whereas the answer is ‘No’ the limits on his power have been eroding for years.

@cockswain How about this, the policians pretty much all have higher educations, what the hell is there excuse for being narrow minded idiots?

I don’t know if I can come up with a question.

We are at the opposite end of discouraging people not to vote, we encourage.

Ugh, gotta run, I’ll be back with more comments.

I don’t think you could make any question anything beyond layman. You’re correct about specialized lawyers; they make a career out of the subtleties of an issue. And I agree with your point about education not being necessarily an indicator of ability to apply knowledge practically. And I would never suggest that one needs to have any sort of diploma, even high school, in order to have voting rights. But having a degree definitely implies a certain basic level of intelligence, which is why employers usually require it for most professional jobs.

I agree that the intelligent would still get duped by overly complex laws, but the intelligent also can state “look, we’re reasonably intelligent and haven’t a clue what this says. Therefore you may be trying to intentionally mislead us.” No intelligent person should feel ashamed of not understanding the differential equations behind the mathematical models designed by MIT grads that underpinned the derivatives market, nor have been able to find flaws in them. But I recognize this notion of deciding what is a reasonably understandable is a very difficult topic in itself.

Regarding the example question about the president’s power to write laws, I no longer think that would be a good question to ask since an intelligent person could reason as you did and choose false (when my intention was for it to be true). Then again, an intelligent person should be able to recognize the intended level of complexity of the test and not get that one wrong :) Perhaps a question more like “Congress is comprised of…(multiple choice to select House and Senate).

@JLeslie and @Jaxk , yes I think it would be extremely difficult to create and administer a 50 question test that a large percentage of American adults would find fair. Anyone who failed the test would find it unfair. Not to mention the nightmare of getting the funding to run the program. Oy.

@cockswain

Not to mention the fact that an attempt to go this way would require moving the voting laws to the federal level instead of at the state level. Another major hurtle.

Since I haven’t answered the original question let me inject my 2 cents worth. Whereas I don’t hate Obama, I hate what he has done to the country. His main thrust has been to divide us. Rich vs. poor, White vs eveveryone else. Male vs female. Corporations vs workers. Unions vs corporations. If you can be categorized, He’ll tell you who to hate. This is the worst division I’ve seen in my lifetime and it’s been manufactured. Reason enough to dislike the guy.

@jaxk – that is your interpretation.

Mine is the opposite. I would say that the right wing opposition saw that his blackness was a vulnerability and seized on it every change they got, and the divisiveness came from the republicans trying to dehumanize and defeat him

The right wing is not blameless in the “divisiveness’ debate.

You know, it’s weird. I read @Jaxk‘s last response and I sort of feel identically about the right-wing/Tea Party/Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin/Limbaugh/Santorum/Gingrich movement. Strange how we both think that is the negative result of the current state of affairs, yet feel the opposite party has more of the blame. Like we both know it’s happening yet don’t want it to be the fault of who we’d likely vote for. Not that I really embrace the Dems, I just really reject the GOP. So obviously I don’t share the sentiment that Obama is responsible for these divisions. Not by a long shot.

@elbanditoroso

Obama started his presidency with an 83% approval rating. According to the last poll I saw, he is now at 41%. That didn’t happen because they suddenly realized he was black. No one is blameless in all this but every policy dispute somehow becomes a racist stand. That’s the Democrats. The evil corporations and the war against women, all manufactured by Democrats and cheered by Obama.

Right or wrong Obama is president and he sets the tone for all of this. And not surprisingly, the populace is noticing.

Hmmm. So when Obama says he’d like to “reward companies that choose to invest or bring back jobs to the United States, and eliminate tax advantages for companies moving jobs overseas”, you see that as a racist stand, as well as a war against corporations? Sounds to me like he’d like to instate policies that would get people back to work in the US while reforming tax code a bit. Man, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that was GOP policy.

I will grant you that if George W. said the same thing, there would be voices on the left decrying tax advantages for corporations.

Going back to a test to vote. I think our focus should be to improve education in the country, and to somehow dial down the hate and fear. America celebrates when a country turns to democracy and has an open vote for all citizens, now you want to take away voting privilages? I say this when I agreed with what sounds, and was by many, a very racist view where I live that they were freaked when Memphis wanted to give up their school charter and hand it to the county. That meant Memphians could vote for the school board, and they screw it up. Memphis is over 60% black, and the people who are white, the majority go to private schools. It is not really about the being black, it is about the socioeconomics and education of the people who are voting.

I will say that I think there should be stricter rules on how propositions are voted on. Double negatives and wording in the negative so a yes vote means the item will not be allowed to happen has to go away. It is purposely to trick people.

I completely agree there needs to be way more focus on improving education in this country. How many college graduates in our nation don’t actually have the math skills of a 8th-10th grader in other nations? And I also agree there is way to much hate and fear. Paranoia really. I don’t like the tone of the implication that I’m seeking to remove voting privileges, but I have to accept it since it’s what I’m suggesting. Rather, I’m suggesting reforming voting privileges. Maybe other nations shouldn’t all have voting rights for all citizens. Perhaps the path to a better governed nation is to force greater intelligence of the politicians and voting populace.

Overly confusing propositions on ballots is a load of crap and shouldn’t ever happen. There is zero reason the wording should be confusing, and if the intent is to obfuscate, someone should be prosecuted.

@cockswain

I’m not sure how you get that impression. I don’t see any of these issues as racist. It is the Democrats that see everything as racist. And I might add, in my experience Democrats are not about incentives, they are about penalties. I’m not aware of any proposal that would incent companies to invest here but rather proposals that would penalize companies that invest overseas.

This article highlights the topic. I recalled it because at the same time, Gingrich and Perry were attacking Romney for being a job-killing capitalist, and Gingrich called Obama “ultra-liberal.” I found the irony of all that happening the same day amusing and notable. Seemed like everything was upside down that day.

And I got “racist impression” this way:

YOU: every policy dispute somehow becomes a racist stand. That’s the Democrats.
ME (thinking in my head): Obama is a Democrat
THEREFORE: @Jaxk is stating that Obama makes every issue a racist stand.

@cockswain

I’d be a lot more interested in what he proposes rather than his rhetoric. They don’t always match.

I know you must have heard the racial rhetoric against anyone that opposes an Obama position. Not always directly from Obama but usually from his surrogates. Example. Regardless of whether this is a real issue or not, it’s not racism.

@cockswain, people on the left are raising holy hell because Texans want you to show a photo ID to vote. Good luck trying to make people show any reading skills to cast a ballot. We saw what happened in the last election.

@Jaxk I don’t think everything is about racism, but what happens where I live is it turns into that, because there is such a socioeconomic division between blacks and whites. Remember above I argued that if @cockswain got his way with a test, it would most likely be seen as racist, because black people would probably fail the test more often than white people, especially if it is written with language aimed at people with a tertiary education. The failure rate would be even worse among Hispanics possibly, Funny enough, I think over half the country would fail @cockswain‘s test, white, black, green, and purple. So, things that are not racist still wind up hurting certain races.

Well, @Jaxk , I honestly tend to dismiss many of the racial allegations, which I think are numerous. But there are unquestionably some that have merit, and thoroughly disgust me. If you view liberals as having universal acceptance of all racial allegations against Obama, then you’re painting with a broad brush indeed. But this is easy to do in political discussions. While some may apply to me personally, this one does not.

@bkcunningham I haven’t heard of this issue in a while, but read up on it a couple years ago. I recall the problem is that there is statistical evidence that legally registered Hispanics don’t tend to own photo IDs. Not sure why that is the case, but is that the main counter-argument?

@JLeslie I think the details of creating a truly fair voter test would be nearly insurmountable.

I think that is the main argument. I think people who oppose photo ID for voting also throw in old people and poor people along other minorities. Funny how everybody who talks shit about these groups all of a sudden have their heart strings pulled when it comes to getting someone they like elected.

@cockswain My mom is adamant that Hispanic non-citizens are voting. I really don’t see how legal US citizens don’t have ID. Don’t all states have an age of majority card? How much can it be, $50 for ten years?

Meanwhile, early voting through the mail I assume opens up a lot of possibilities for fraud too.

@bkcunningham I am not among those that talk shit about the elderly, poor, and Latino. One would typically stereotype the liberals as sticking up for them and the GOP attacking them, which seems to be the case here, so I don’t quite see what’s atypical about this situation.

@JLeslie I don’t know the logistics of why they don’t tend to have IDs. They can get them, they just seem to not have them at a disproportional rate to white people. I’d have to read up on it to see what the deal is.

In SC there was a controversial debate about whether voting should require a government-issued ID card such as a driver’s license or other ID card. It was passed through legislation but was blocked by the Justice Department because it would prevent minorities from voting, which, as we know, has been a major problem in the state’s history.

Like any voting ID bill, it turned into a debate of “reducing fraud” vs. “discrimination against minorities”.

But, this is what I have to say: The fact that requiring a state ID card does actually reduce the ability of minorities to vote is a sign of a much deeper problem in society. Requiring ID shouldn’t be something that would cause voting discrimination, but it does.

@cockswain My inlaws hold their US ID’s pretty dearly. They waited a long time, or went through a lot of paperwork, nerves, and hoops, to get their legal status whether it be citizen or some other type of legal resident. I would be in favor of giving free ID’s to people on a national level, but I do think everyone should have ID.

Surprisingly, where voter IDs are required, turnout has actually increased. All states that require a photo ID provide them free of charge. Unfortunately many of the issues we face these days hinge on the ability to define the issue. Democrats have been fairly good at getting the main stream media to define the issue in their favor. And I know this sounds quite biased but Obama has supreme confidence in his ability to persuade the people. If he defines this as a poll tax or some other such infringement he believes he can win that argument. I’m not sure he’s right but he obviously thinks he is.

There’s enough haggling over the integrity of elections, that it seems appropriate to shore it up somewhat. Hell people are still screaming about the 2000 election. Given the data available, I really can’t see the objection.

@Jaxk Thanks for that info.

Assuming we can believe the statements of a Republican senator from Texas are not presented with a bias or distortion in that link, that’s interesting information to consider. But of course I have to do more research if I want a better approximation of the truth.

Overall though I don’t see a big deal with every citizen having proper ID, particularly if the gov’t pays for it. Not sure why people don’t get one, it seems to make life easier in general. Perhaps it’s a bureaucratic nightmare for Latinos to navigate the DMV forms if they aren’t fluent? So they just blow it off?

@cockswain Depends on the state. Most states, especially states with large numbers of Latino citizens, DMV is fairly bilingual, my MIL took her driving test in Spanish.

Hmm. I wonder what is stopping them in TX.

When I took my son to get his driver’s license, the line was out the door and down the street. I thought we’d use the time to drill him on the sample questions. There were no questions in English. I went to the information counter and asked them why. What they told me was significant. It seems the law requires them to have all materials in Spanish and Chinese. But there is no requirement for them to have it in English. So if they run out of anything it will be materials in English. It would seem we have Hispanics covered.

You live in CA though, right? Do you know if you have the same disparity in that state as in TX?

Not sure what you mean by disparity but I am sure they provide materials in Spanish

@cockswain It would seem so.

Sorry, I was referring to a link I skimmed about it with stats that I thought was in this thread. I can’t open the link. The gist was that some unusually large number of Latino voters don’t have ID and I don’t recall the numbers. Hundreds of thousands out of like 2.5 million Latinos or something. I was wondering how that percent compares to CA (that’s the disparity I meant). But I really don’t know the answer to this one. I’m going to bed.

@JLeslie Yep, that guess was incorrect. Maybe someone can find the reason.

@cockswain I don’t understand your last comment. I linked the TX driving handbook in Spanish. Reason for what?

The only reason I got away with not showing my ID to vote most of the time in NH was because I lived in a small enough town that the Town Clerk was on a first name basis with most of the town; she already knew who I was and knew that I had a valid ID.

As for WA, we mail it in. They send us a ballot with return postage, we send it back.

@jerv

Did she know you were a Democrat?

@JLeslie I said: “Perhaps it’s a bureaucratic nightmare for Latinos to navigate the DMV forms if they aren’t fluent? So they just blow it off?”

You provided a link showing the material is available in their language. Therefore my guess about why Latinos weren’t getting their ID was incorrect as you showed.

@jerv Don’t you think there is room for all sorts of “cheating” with the mail in? People who have relatives who don’t give a damn could fill out ballots for their whole family.

@cockswain Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

I just heard on TV TX said they were going to give free ID’s but then they changed it and said they wouldn’t, so for now they are on hold with making ID mandatory, because they have to make it free to make it mandatory. I would guess they hate the idea of having to spend tax dollars to ID everyone. Just guessing.

@Jaxk She knew that I wasn’t but only registered that way since “Independent” was not an option.

@JLeslie Yes, there is, which is why I thought it was ass-backwards. Then again, in WA, when you buy a car, the tags come with it whereas in NH the tags follow you; I am used to removing the plates and having the new buyer mount their own.
WA is weird…

@jerv Bunch of liberals in WA. Just kidding. Lots of states allow mail in ballots, I was not picking on WA. We have lived in states where you can’t move your tag to a new vehicle and we found it annoying. Here in TN we can transfer from a car we sell, to a new one we buy. We also have old plates in our garage on a wall from the states you can keep them. It’s kind of cool to have the old plates, especially if a state has changed them to an new updated version.

@JLeslie Only the Seattlites; the rest of the state is full of Right-leaning rednecks.

@jerv Like so many states. Political leaning is more a community thing than a state thing. You have probably seen me complain about the electoral map, and how it gives a false impression of the states.

@JLeslie That is quite true. NH is a little on the Red side overall, but Cheshire County tends to be more Liberal.

@jerv Illinois has liberal Chicago and the southern part os the bible belt. I think Oregon is the same with Portland and the rest of the state. Even NY is fairly conservative upstate. Southeast FL mostly liberal, but the rest of the state fairly conservative. The list goes on and on. The pattern is big city compared to small town I think. I think of NH as being fairly independent, willing to listen. Maybe that is incorrect?

I once asked a question on here about why big cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas. I got some good responses.

@cockswain That sounds interesting. I looked it up, but it’s too late to study it tonight. Therefore the link. Anyone else that is interested, have at it.

Thanks for doing that. That was a good thread. I enjoyed rereading it again. Good ol’ @JLeslie is all over that one too. Hope you enjoyed sifting through the randomness of my question history as well :)

Anyone have any comments about that thread?

@cockswain So I see. That thread sure attracted its share of flame throwers, as well. Thanks for two very though provoking discussions. I was amazed on the other thread how many conservatives denied the obvious, that rural areas tend to vote Republican and the there is a direct relationship between educational level and liberalism. Given all the time spend demonizing the “liberal elite” on our college campuses, this came as a surprise to me.

It is interesting that with all the talk of the uneducated being conservative there is a statement in the link provided by @crisw that disproves this. “A survey of income and economic status indicates that poorer and less educated than average regions also tend to vote for liberal candidates at a higher rate than their conservative counterparts” It seems the uneducated vote Democrat. Who woulda guessed.

@Jaxk I was just talking about this very thing on a Q a couple days ago, can’t remember which one. It doesn’t surprise me. I have a city full of uneducated people a few miles from me, and the majority of the citizens are democrats. Minorities are more likely to be democrats and more likely to not have a higher education. Although, the minorities around me tend to be socially conservative, but they still vote dem usually.

@Jaxk I’m not sure you can jump from income and economic level to educational achievement. They may correlate, but you would need to prove that as well before the study would support your conclusion.

@Jaxk You are saying that the South votes Democrat? Funny; every recent presidential election result map I’ve seen has a lot of red in that region of the country. “Dixiecrats” are a thing of the past.

Now, is it a coincidence that The South has higher poverty rates and a worse education system than the national average as well as a history of leaning to the Right? Possibly. However, if you have a region like that for more than a statistically significant period of time then any intelligent person could at least understand how one might arrive at the conclusion that Conservatives tend to be poor and uneducated.

If you want to change that then either improve the economic and educational systems in the Red states, or get the South to start voting Democrat. Otherwise, that stereotype will remain, and will have an uncomfortable amount of truth to it!

@jerv Parts of the south do vote Democrat. The electoral map is deceptive.

@JLeslie I have seen the county-by-county breakdowns (I don’t trust the state maps). Granted, some states are closer than others, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are generally more Conservative than Yankees.

@jerv Definitely more conservative than yankees. In my opinion it’s the religion more than anything. That and group think. Group think I would guess affects the north also to some extent.

@JLeslie Speak for yourself! ;)

@Cruiser Since I am a yankee living in the south I think I am exempt. :)

@JLeslie That would be a double whammy for you then! OUCH!

@ETpro

That statement is a direct quote from the study. The Bay Area Center for Voting Research came to that conclusion.

@jerv

I don’t think I said anything about the South. It was in response to the uneducated and how they vote. Is it you contention that the South is the only place there are uneducated people?

Wow, this is a big shock. That study that shows a trend between education and political leanings has touched off irritation on this thread too (far less irritating I’ll concede though). I fully understand why the gut reaction of a conservative will be to seek data that bucks the trend and discredits the study. And why liberals may simply accept it while making little to no attempt to vet it.

Along these lines, @Jaxk , what is your opinion of the cheers that greeted this recent gem of a quote:

‎_“President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh I understand why he wants you to go to college he wants to remake you in his image._” —Rick Santorum, on the value of education

Seems to me a lot of people like that attitude. Really I’m just curious if your instinct is to justify it, or condemn it as a major embarrassment as someone from the party you prefer.

I have a comment on Santorum’s statement, but I’ll hold off for now.

Well, please add it before too long. You know how it is with momentum on these threads sometimes. Better to keep it moving in the shortest time period. I’m interested in your opinion on it.

@Jaxk There are uneducated people all over the place. Take it from someone who has lived in all four corners of the US, traveled a bit in between, and dealt with transplants from everywhere. But given that people tend to live near where they grew up, it stands to reason that most voters went to school where they live, or fairly nearby.
Again, it may be a coincidence, right along with urban areas tending to be more liberal than rural areas, but there is evidence of a causal relationship as well. Plus, of course, it’s not a hard and fast thing either; there are exceptions.

Just stumbled across this lovely bumper sticker. I’m guessing there’s more than one vehicle in the US with this sticker. Just in case anyone is wondering if racism is indeed playing a role in the 2012 election of Obama. And in case anyone wonders if liberals are being silly when they allege it could be a factor. Want to bet this guy likes the Tea Party?

@cockswain

Poorly worded at best. I don’t believe that everyone is college material nor do I believe that a education of less than a BA should be cause for derision. I do believe that more education is better than less and that college professors are generally liberal. But I certainly wouldn’t have worded a statement like Santorum did. Of course I could say the same for many politicians on both sides.

Personally I don’t feel embarrassed, just don’t agree. Do you feel embarrassed when a Democrat makes some jackass statement? Just for the sake of clarity, Santorum would be my fourth choice in the current primary.

Has anybody here actually watched and listened to the very comment Santorum made that the Liberal Bleeding hearts have spun into this cold heartless comment about higher education Rick supposedly made??

I just read a very compelling expose by a University Professor who actually understood, validates and defends the essence of Mr. Santorums comments. He said…

“These are important truths about Jacksonian America that Rick Santorum clearly understands and taps into.

This helps make sense of the former Pennsylvania senator’s otherwise bizarre and confounding foot-in-the-mouth comment calling President Obama a snob for wanting all Americans to go to college. Santorum made these remarks at The Americans for Prosperity Forum in Troy, Michigan on Saturday February 25 to a very receptive audience that burst into applause as he spoke. Here is a video clip of Santorum’s comment. ”

The video of the actual “un-edited” comment Rick gave are here and once again here

Amazing what a little bit of context can bring to this debate.

@Jaxk I’m glad you said that. And to a slight extent, I’m a little embarrassed when I hear someone I voted for say something idiotic. And a little embarrassed to explain to non-US citizens when any US politician says something stupid how I feel about it personally.

For humor’s sake, there was a recent Onion article entitled something like, “Santorum Grateful No One Has Questioned Views on Interracial Marriage.” If you find it, it’s funny.

@Cruiser I confess I did not search out the context of the entire statement. When I have more time I’ll watch the links. I am well-aware that sound bytes taken out of context can be completely unfair, so if that happened to Santorum, rancid piece of filth that he is, I’ll be forced to stop holding that particular quote against him.

@cockswain When you do watch it you just might say that was a calculated and gutsy move by Rick as evidenced that he has now said it not once but at least twice on 2 separate occasions and was merely highlighting that not all people need too nor want to go to college and was the root of him calling Obama a snob for wanting good hardworking blue collar people to in essence abandon good hard working jobs that only non college educated people might take pride in doing over going to college.

I will never forget my dad telling me I had my whole life to work and to go get a sheepskin while I watched my best friend graduate High School get a job as a printer apprentice and by the time I graduated college he had a home, paid for car, wife and a baby and today his house is paid for and he retired at 50. Me….I have another 15 years of busting my ass to pay off my college influenced dreams! I can see how my friend would be in the same shoes I am in had he followed Mr. Obama’s call to college. ;)

@Cruiser It isn’t that comment that made me dislike Santorum. I am sure I am not alone when I say that my feelings for him are based on a longer and earlier history of far more egregious statements.
Personally, I agree that college is overrated. I know many people like your friend who did perfectly fine on a high school diploma and a trade. But when a person causes as much bad blood as Santorum has, even the least little thing will cause detractors to get up in arms.

@Jaxk Help me a bit here. That’s a 47 page paper and it’s nearly 3 AM. What page?

@ETpro

Excutive summary, page 4.

About what Santorum said, I am close to where @Jaxk stands on it. I am very unhappy that many people in America make it sound like if you don’t have a college drgree you are worthless. I don’t know the percentages, but probably half of America doesn’t. A large portion of those without degrees work hard every day, and should feel good about themselves whether they make $10 an hour or $1 million a year. We need to get rid of the condescending talk.

If it is true that Obama said he “wants everyone in America go to college,” I take issue with the wording. I would be fine if he said he wants everyone in America to have the opportunity to go to the college. But, I need to qualify that further, because I think we should possibly be more selective amd realistic about who does go. We have colleges in America that are not worth much, AA degrees are only useful for a handful of degrees from what I can tell, but of course if the student goes on for his Bachelors that is a different story. I think education is never a waste in the sense that it is always good to learn, but sometimes paying for a specific vocational skill is more realistic for certain people.

The other part of what santorum said, the accusation that education is some sort of liberal brainwashing pisses me off to no end. Really disgusts me. The right broadens that to all education, including k-12, when the truth is you would be hard pressed to find liberal agendas in public schools, or any politics at all. If they mean the teaching of evolution, what is that twice for two weeks during a childs entire primary and secondaty education? Give me a break. No one is saying God doesn’t exist in k-12, no one is mentioning God, especially in liberal communities.

And, he ended with “remake you in his image.” Huh? Didn’t Santurum go to college? Bush? Reagan? The people these right wingers look up to? Priests pursue education, in fact the Catholic Church is pretty great on education at all levels, primary, secondary, and tertiary.

@JLeslie, don’t you have to get an Associates in order to get your 4 year degree?

@bkcunningham No, you don’t automatically get an Associates enroute to getting a B.S., but you could by taking some extra classes usually. It all depends on the program really. And you definitely don’t need to get an Associates in order to get a B.S.

I think Obama’s rhetoric on education ties into the future of the American economy. Sure, there are plenty of blue collar jobs in which we can take pride in doing. But many blue-collar jobs are just being outsourced now, and those jobs aren’t coming back. Not without economic incentives to corporations to pay more for the same skill level in the US relative to other nations. America’s economic future seems tied to our continued innovation. We aren’t going to be able to continue to compete with the rest of the world at a high level in terms of innovation without a highly educated population.

Students in China can do calculus in 8th and 9th grade. The same cannot be said about US students, not by a long shot. The comparison isn’t direct, since nearly all US kids go to school, and in China they may get yanked out at a younger age due to “ability.” But you get what I’m saying. I don’t need to pull sources to demonstrate the US has fallen way behind in terms of education compared to the top tier of rest of the world. So where are the scientists and engineers that are going to propel biotech, nanotech, energy, and every other high tech you can imagine going to come from? If not here, and those from other nations lose the economic incentive to move here, then we’ll fall behind competitively.

I think that’s what Obama is saying. I don’t think math and physics teachers are liberal indoctrinators. High tech is the one terrific export we’ve still got.

@cockswain The irony there is that two of my last three manufacturing jobs were/are at places that export more than half their output. What they make can be made elsewhere for cheaper with ease, but not good enough, so customers are willing to pay a premium for quality.
In other words, manufacturing may have taken a hit in recent years, but is far from actually dead.

@bkcunningham As @cockswain said you don’t need an associates degree to get a BA/BS I have never even ever heard of a 4 year college or university offering an AA, only community and jr. colleges. I could be wrong, maybe some colleges do offer associates and bachelor level degrees.

@cockswain Your point about children in China doing calculus goes along with my point, not all kids can do calculus. As you said, children are yanked, or placed on different tracks maybe? I don’t know their system. I would guess rural areas maybe the children are still undereducated. And, ironically China has children who can do calculus, but also an incredible amount of blue collar workers doing factory work.

I don’t want children in America to get tracked at a young age. My father did not learn to read until 3rd grade, and a teacher once told him he would never amount to anything, never go to college for sure. He has his PhD from Wharton. If teachers and administrators had been setting him on a track he would have been screwed. But, he did well in high school, tested well, was very smart, so he went to city college for free. A good college, known as the poor man’s Harvard at the time in NYC. They only took the top kids, where many city colleges are taking the opposite. I say, let’s make sure the smart kids, who are very academic can get college degrees period. Not whether they have money or not. And the kids who are not interested in a tertiary education have vocational education available to them either in the high schools or post high school, but let’s not convince them they have to go to college to amount to anything or feel good about themselves.

I agree blue collar jobs are leaving or have left America to some extent. If we are lucky we will have some new businesses bring some of it back.

Also, as much as I am pro-immigration, I do wonder if all the borders were sealed up, and all the illegal immigrants were sent home, then would most of our blue collar unemployed be employed? I say no, because it seems to me that so many Americans have become snobs about what work they are willing to do. I guess part of it might be that if a job is perceived to be occupied by Hispanics (I’ll pick on them for a moment) non-Hispanics are less likely to apply? I say that because a family member of mine was saying that regarding various jobs being always filled by black people, and then whites don’t want to work it.

I knew a McD’s franchisee about 20 years ago, and he said back in the day he would get smart high school kids wanting to do a good job, wanting to make a buck, and now the high school kids won’t work there, McD’s is beneath them or something. I think this varies greatly by community. I am sure high school kids still work in McD’s in some parts of the country.

It all sounds borderline racist I know, or like an incedious bit of self segregation, but it seems this might be the reality in some places.

@JLeslie The problem with what Santorum said is he lied about what the president said. Obama never said that all Americans should go to college. It’s easy to be right when you fight your own straw men instead of confronting the reality of what the other person said.

ummm @ETpro I seems he did….
“I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training,” Mr. Obama said in February 2009. “This can be community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.

What a snob! ;)

links
another

@Cruiser But, that is not how Santorum quoted him. That is what I was wondering in my answer…if the quote was true, and it isn’t according to what you wrote. Still, I do prefer Obama say that we should give the opportunity to all Americans, rather than this expectation. And we should have vocational opportunities in our high schools, so they can graduate without needing more school, and be trained and skilled in a field. IMO. I think we need to stop talking about 4 year olds, and stop talking about college, and throw a lot of conversation, time, and money into what we do during the high school years. How we prepare children for grauation, for life, whether they go onto more education, or out into the working world. More field trips to businesses and college campuses, more apprentice opportunities. More i formation on how to apply to schools and jobs and more.

I’m completely with you on the notion that the best education should not be the domain of the wealthy and well-connected. When someone inner city kid just wants a good education to move up in life and some spoiled white idiot just squanders the education and gets into a university with Cs, that’s annoying. Did you ever see “Waiting for Superman?” That’s a good documentary on the subject.

I frequently wonder how many Einstein’s we’ve lost in the human race because such a mind was unfortunately born in Bosnia, India, or Somalia.

I don’t have a problem with Obama pointing out the simple truth that employers want someone with some technical post-high school training in order to operate their sophisticated robotics. You may not need to know how to build a robot to operate it, but you damn well need more than HS education/training to not break it. Or have a clue what it does and why. It’s a fact that employers in the US now are having trouble finding qualified candidates for higher tech jobs. This is the point to which Obama directs his statements. At least that’s my interpretation.

Maybe we should alter the HS curriculum to reflect this changing future. And if we got our fiscal house in order (which may actually never happen), I’d ideally prefer a free/low-cost Ivy league education for the smartest students.

Oh, and @JLeslie, I like your point about focusing more on getting kids successfully through high school instead of creating this linear future for them in elementary school. Kids change a lot during middle school, and again in high school. If we lose connection with them through poor parenting skills, then it really doesn’t matter how good they did in elementary school any longer.

@cockswain I’m glad you kind of dwelled on my point about focus on secondary education. I always say 8 year olds don’t drop out of school 16 year olds do. Maybe we should take head start money and put it at the end of k-12 education instead. I think it is worth a try. We see over and over again studies that show by third grade kids almost all level out whether they started reading at 4 or 6. From what I understand there are studies showing children do better the earlier education starts, but I question those studies. Did they start education early because their parents are focused on education? I think those studies come out of countries that start education before America as a comparison, but the studies regarding America only, show early education is often a waste of time and money in the long run for the American tax payer. Those kids who need the most help still get screwed by the other negative forces in their lives as they get older, including the disadvantage they have in their public schools. It has been shown many times how even programs as late as high school can bring a child up to speed if they are smart and willing, not that I would want to wait until high school to offer quality education to a child.

I think part of it has to do the brain being ready. Some kids need a few more months before thay can talk, or another year before they can read, or another year to be able to sit still that long ina classroom, or until they are 3 until they are potty trained. But, by third grade a lot of those milestones are levelling off. Just my opinion.

I have watched way too many smart children not get their act together and apply to college, they need more help more guidance, and I don’t mean a guidance counselor, I mean as part of the curriculum.

I like everything you’re saying. I think as psychology and neuroscience about the K-12 brain have advanced over the last many decades, our school model hasn’t necessarily changed to accommodate it. Sort of, but not lockstep, that’s for sure. And I’m no expert, I’ve just read random stuff here and there over time. My opinion is that helicopter parents are idiots. Maybe idiot isn’t the right word, but then maybe paranoid dorks. I know a bunch of new parents and they act ridiculous about how important it is for their child to reach certain “critical milestones.” One lady kept bragging about how she had to leave work to go to “parent-teacher conferences” at daycare for her 6 month old. And she likes to talk about how her child is “advanced.” Guess what, stop pressuring your kid to learn the alphabet and recognize colors and simple words like it’s the most important thing to them getting into college in 17.5 years, and you’ll be a better parent.

Studies have shown that the middle schooler’s mind is not conducive to learning things like math and science at that age. They are better at learning concepts more geared towards morality and ethics, how to treat each other, psychology, that sort of thing. I may be mis-speaking as I’m not well-versed in this subject, but it’s something like that.

Most importantly, you have to stay connected to your child throughout his/her teen years. You don’t just yell at them and ground them if their grades take a hit. You learn what is going on in their lives. Otherwise all that “groundwork” you feel you laid may just end up being a waste of time. Best to learn who your kid is than teach them who you want them to be.

@JLeslie As long as I have been alive everybody HAS had the opportunity to have a higher education you just need the moxy and desire to keep going to school another 2–4 years after graduation High School. I mean admit it…probably ½ the kids I knew in high school had little to no ability to go on to college let alone really deserve to graduate High School.

It’s great to champion higher education but I think there is a more pressing matter we face in giving our kids a better primary education so they CAN be prepared to actually take on the challenge of a higher education even at community college standards.

@cockswain ”...employers want someone with some technical post-high school training in order to operate their sophisticated robotics. You may not need to know how to build a robot to operate it, but you damn well need more than HS education/training to not break it. Or have a clue what it does and why.”
I think that the CNC mills and lathes I set up and sometimes run qualify as “sophisticated robotics”. I learned to not only operate them, but program them, set them up (fixturing), and some things about materials all in a one-year vocational program I took during High School. Of course, that was at a well-funded public school (CNC machines are not cheap, even a used smaller one) which means that I had an opportunity I probably would not have in a more impoverished school district.
We have also taught people how to operate them safely in a fairly short amount of time, though those people rarely ever learn anything beyond routine operation and, “If anything goes weird, pound this big, red button.”. But a reasonably smart person can learn to do their own setups in a few months of on-the-job training, and the really smart ones will be able to get at least the basics of programming within a year.
Now, it’s kind of a pity that Apprenticeship is largely seen as no longer valid. You can learn a lot that way without any formal (as in “classroom”) education. Some apprentices learn some pretty hefty stuff. Trust me, if you don’t know the difference in properties between CA6NM and Inconel 718, you can break a lot of stuff.. and usually in ways that produce shrapnel and/or cost a lot of money to repair, but a good apprentice will already know that.

@JLeslie I resemble that last remark. I was in Head Start at 3 (already semi-literate enough to stumble through three-syllable words) and graduated at 17 (would’ve been 15, but my mother felt, for social reasons, that it was a bad idea for me to skip two grades). Well, the schooling I got in the Navy was college-level (about 32 credits worth) but not only did I never go to college, I actively avoided it.
Look, I want knowledge, but spending enough money to put myself in debt for at least the next 20 years seems stupid enough to me that I feel that those who do so may not be as smart as their diploma says they are. And as for going the grant/scholarship route, that path requires an innate talent in how to manipulate people and navigate bureaucracy; how many Aspies have those sort of political skills?

@jerv We are agreeing right?

@cockswain I saw an interesting clip, I think it was on 60 Minutes, about one of the Bill Gates schools where the children learn at home and in class on their computers, and then also while in class the teacher is not lecturing, but helping children having trouble with the unit they are on. She can see how far along they are as they move at their own pace. It was very interesting. It basically meant homework is done with the teacher, flips teavhing on it’s head, and children can move along at theor own pace.

@JLeslie Pretty much.

They’re calling those Bill Gates schools? That’s Salman Khan’s idea, of KhanAcademy.org. He started all that, and I know Gates loves it and has been helping him. Sal did a TED talk about it. Check it out.

It’s a brilliant idea, and prevents kids from falling behind. Frees up teacher resources to focus on the kids that need help, and lets the ones that get it fly ahead. Excellent idea. I love Khan Academy.

@cockswain Bill Gates uses Kahn’s idea, exactly right. Gates has funded Kahn I believe. Or, he is part of the funding.

@jerv I agree with everything you’re saying. Also that CNC has become pretty high tech these days too, I’ve seen some impressive stuff. I don’t quite get your point relative to mine though. Are you saying that we should make our high schools offer classes more relevant to technical careers? I agree, and stated that earlier. And I know any capable person can learn anything, whether or not they have attended school or not. But the issue becomes what the employer is looking for, right? Could you hire someone to analyze NMR or Mass Spec data, or run an electron microscope without some sort of relevant training and/or experience first? The whole idea behind a degree is generally proving, more or less, that you have this base level of intelligence and knowledge about your subject. I mean, when you say someone will get the basics of programming in a year, what if you want to hire someone now and not wait a year for them to get up to speed? Get what I’m saying?

With tech changing so fast, they need to get modern equipment into high schools (and community colleges) that can get the students prepared to walk out with a relevant skill set. That will help our economy and innovative exports.

@cockswain Exactly. Opening up the opportunity to learn even the basics of the sort of jobs kids will have in the future will help. Right now, we try to teach only the building blocks (basic math and science) but without context. I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard, “When will I ever actually use this in real life?”, as a common excuse to blow off school work. I myself did that a bit until i got into more practical things.

Now, suppose you want to cut titanium. You have a 1–¼” tool with three cutting edges and you know (from looking it up) that titanium likes being cut at 150–200 surface-feet per minute with 0.006–0.008” per tooth. If you never took basic math, you would have no chance of figuring out the right feeds and speeds. If you never were trained in a machine shop, you world never learn the formulas. But cutting titanium is more awesome than figuring out how many apples Johnny has left, so the context may make kids want to learn.

We kind of did that a bit with computers; my school taught us how to program in BASIC before we even hit Middle School. But not all of us want to be IT people; some prefer other things that schools either don’t offer or might make available as an elective to those that have enough free slots in their schedule to take them. Mostly, school prepares kids to vacate so that next year they can move people up another grade; teaching them the sort of stuff that will actually get them a job is considered the domain of post-secondary education that not all people can afford.

Sure, there are some things that really require a few years of college. I wouldn’t want a brain surgeon that got their degree in six weeks of correspondence classes. But for the majority, a little more vocational training in the high school years would be enough to make for a more qualified workforce. If nothing else, actually showing a kid the cool things they can do with just a little more attentiveness in class would help.

As for tech changing so fast, that is why it’s tricky to balance teaching. To narrow and the skills will be obsolete before graduation. To broad (like we mostly do now) and kids will get bored and not bother learning. Lucky for me, G-codes haven’t changed in decades (M8 means Coolant On whether you are on a 1960s punched-tape 3-axis or a modern high-end 5-axis mill), and the only real differences between cutting titanium and cutting plastic are the speeds, so technology doesn’t change everything.

@Cruiser No, it does NOT seem he did. Santorum claimed Obama said that every American should go to a four year college or university. He never said any such thing. Santorum flat out lied—not exactly a Christian value.

Here is what Obama actually said.

And here’s how Santorum lied about it!.

@jerv My high school had vocational electives. We had cosmetology, when kids graduated they just needed to take the state exam and they could immediately start working cutting hair. Also, automechanics, I am not sure what type of certificate a student graduated with, I know we had apprentice programs also, and some of those kids left school early to work at a shop. We also had accounting, that a student could graduate and easily be a bookkeeper (I worked as a bookeeper and data entry when I was 17, the accounting classes gave me familiarity with the lingo, using adding machines, the basics). We also had AP classes, which meant kids who were doing very well academically could get college credit while in high school. I wish someone had explained all this to me and my parents before I started high school. Some of these things I understood too late.

I would assume some high schools do have much better computer programs than others. So many things depend on where you go to school, and it is not always about money. Some private schools are small, and only offer so much variety in class. In most public school districts some of the schools specialize in certain classes, and a kid can get a transfer based on wanting to go to that field of study.

@ETpro The only comment I have to those links is my answer still stands and your link still proves Obama’s take on higher education is not only snobbish but it is not based in reality as where are we going to get all this money to fund Obama’s pipe dream???

At least one person in your first link has a clue…

“I appreciate that the president wants to hold top administrators accountable for keeping education affordable by holding federal funding over their heads,” Chacker said, “but at some point we need to be more critical about where the funding at every level is going instead of expecting it to magically reappear.”

@ETpro That article with stats in college tuition increases and student loan debt makes me wonder again, I say again because I have asked q’s about it, why really is tuition going up so much? Why are expenses so much higher at universities than 20 years ago, and is the increase truly justified? Someone argued on one of my q’s that student loans and grants increase tuition costs, and also I have to wonder if our whole mentality through the 80’s and 90’s of buying everything on creodt, and having debt be a normal thing, good thing did not help tuitions rise at a much much higher rate than other goods and services, and certainly much faster than inflation.

@JLeslie You are correct that a large part of it depends on where you go to school. However, there are places where the schools themselves are not well-funded enough to offer such programs, and those are often areas where the parents cannot afford to send their kid to school after high school either.

@jerv Ironically some very well to do private schools have less choice in electives also, definitely less vocational training, but even fewer choices in many areas of interest. A private school might only offer two languages while a large public school might offer four, and total district 8. My public school offered accounting, psychology, and many other atypical classes, the private school students I speak to hear are not offered have what I had available to me. Large public schools tend to have more of a variety of classes. I am not disagreeing with your point about money affecting what is offered in our public schools, but money is not the entire problem.

@Cruiser I can only assume then that your hatred is so powerful that the words someone says have no impact, you hear what you want to hear.

@ETpro From what I can tell you are expert at assuming a lot about me. ;)

@Cruiser That may be, but your answer on the links provided shows confirmation bias in the extreme. Just a straightforward observation, no assumption required.