Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Nevada Republican: Public Schools Are 'Slavery'" video.

  1. Read John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education.  It explains how the US public education system very well in how it is indoctrination and destroys the mind.  Public education is a form of slavery in a sense.  Woodrow Wilson said this "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." And as Mr. Gatto said, if the only thing that you are guaranteed is that you will end up in jail if you don't surrender your school age child to the government, than what does the public in public schools really mean? Kyle mentions how the ends justifies the means with radical conservatives, and that is true.  It is also true with radical liberals which there exists more off.  That is the reason why as a moderate I despise liberals and only get annoyed with conservatives.  Liberals push for more money in education and stronger teacher unions staking claim that you need the government to educate you.  They never explain how, they just say that you need to surrender your child to the government to be "educated" for 12-13 years.  They are pushing now for pre-school to start earlier on the premise on what?   And when things fail they say that we need more, that we didn't have enough government.  It is the end goal for the radical left to simply gain control of society.  It can't be done overnight, it has to be done in parts.  Similar to healthcare and Obamacare.  Obamacare is designed to fail, and when it does the solution would be more government to the point where they control it.  This is not a conspiracy theory, every single major empire in the history of the world has fell apart at one time.  The US time is coming and we can simply blame the radical left for it.  The constantly screwing over the public for their need is the reason why.  And when the US falls apart they will be fine, it is us that will suffer.
    4
  2. karl john I am surprise you don't suggest me to Gitmo considering I just questioned the holy public education system.   
    1
  3. thewanderandhiscomp In the US we spend more per pupil than any other industrialized country, but yet get poor results (that can be argued but to me we do get poor results).  Schools and teacher unions keep asking for money just to push the same curriculum and status quo which doesn't help the real people who need education, those that are in low income areas and those with special needs.  Education these days also destroys creativity, and makes kids afraid of being wrong.  Sir Ken Robinson mentions that in a Ted Talk, you should watch him sometime.  We over diagnose children with ADHD and remove art and plays from schools.  But oh no, that isn't the problem, the problem is that we need more money.  More money fixes everything.......no it doesn't.   
    1
  4. thewanderandhiscomp Just because someone has an "education" doesn't mean they know everything or should run the world.  That is a myth I hear a lot, especially from the liberal left.  It is one of the reasons (not the main one) why I am pushing to get a PhD, to counter that point.  Working in education for over a year now, and just following politics and taking notice in how our society is running, I do see this elitist mentality amongst those who are "educated" and how people are so easy to trust them.  While studying education I had a great teacher tell our class that when we become teachers we should avoid "playing school".  An example is that when he mentioned something we all starting taking notes and writing it down, that is what "education" has become, saying something and someone else regurgitating it.  It isn't being creative, or problem solving or exploring.  It is someone saying 2+2=4 and than the students repeat and viola, they are educated.  We force these kids in the classroom, label them, removed things like apprenticeships and hands on experience in the real world which prevents children from actually learning.  During my graduate studies I have met PhD candidates and people holding a PhD who were incredibly myopic  but people feel are the brightest in the world due to them having a PhD.  I have met people who didn't have a college degree who I thought were more intelligent, but they have less weight in society just because they lack a piece of paper giving the some credential.  In all of this what I am saying is that Gatto has great points.  The problem with education now is that we have tried to become "innovated" when we should have stuck what we had.  Instead education is becoming indoctrination.  No longer are we pushing for children exploring jobs or careers but instead we are pushing for children sitting in classrooms, than go from one to the next at set times to learn to regurgitate more "facts".  We label those who are lower tier as "special" or just ignore them to where they struggle in society and live off of the government, those that are exceptionally bright we rush along to be the future "educated" in the world, basically elitists, and everyone are just cogs in a wheel.   It is not a good system. 
    1
  5. nenafan1 Because it is happening.  Look at public education, the low income schools continue to struggle along with special needs students.  The higher income schools do well along with more "advanced" students.  The public education should be there to see that everyone has a chance to do well and the ones that need it the most are low income and special needs, but they are the ones that get shoved aside the most. They are just pushed along to become cogs in a wheel or living off of the government. Occasionally one catches a break (either receives a scholarship from a university or is a good athlete) and excels, but most of the time those students stay behind and no one cares about them.  
    1
  6. thewanderandhiscomp You don't need the government to be educated.   
    1
  7. nenafan1 Academic performance being linked to funding is a correlation, not a causation.  If all it took was funding than the vast majority will be pushing for more of it. The fact is that it isn't that simple.  Higher income schools have more funding due to being in richer neighborhoods and have more veteran teachers.  A problem with education is that due to strong teacher unions (the number one thing we can do to improve education is get rid of teacher unions) veteran teachers are in lined to get first picks at job openings and get paid more.  Veteran teachers work to get to those high income schools as opposed to those lower income schools which end up getting younger, less experienced teachers and are also paid less.  There is very little, if any incentive to work low income schools if you are a teacher.  Thus schools that will perform better either way do so with higher paid teachers and more funding due to their location. Also, the US spends the most in education in the world, it is arguable not doing well.  There should be funding for schools, but we have to be smart about it.  Just throwing money at a broken system isn't going to help it.  The one thing that scares me about education is this.  You mentioned how the GOP want to remove the department of ed.  I feel we should remove the department of ed. at the federal level because the federal government shouldn't be involved in education, it should be left up to the states.  Let the states set their own standards.  Those on the radical left want more involvement from the federal government.  Creating this one size fits all program doesn't work.  Also, there is a lot to be gain from the government, that he people have little say of, in controlling education.  Looking at it like this, the country was designed so that the federal government would control foreign policies, enforce the constitution on the states and local governments, and deal with commerce between states.  The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government.  In this set up the states had more freedom and citizens were able to set up policies that worked in their community and helped each other out.  It developed community strength.  A problem we have right now is that we have gotten away from that and we see it in our education. Instead of creative programs as in arts and plays and group projects, we have these federal standardized tests that ingrain in students minds that they have to know these facts and must study them.  It tears the individual down and makes them concern about themselves.  It destroys the strength of the community. When you look at how politic are conservatives are more rural area.  They support smaller government because they help each other.  In more urban areas they support a larger federal government because in the city people are conceded.  They only think about themselves.  They don't want to help people.  That is a problem and that is how our education system is going. A local middle school had a playground that was all dirt and rock.  They wanted grass.  The teachers told the students to do it themselves so it became a project where the students figured out the cost, raised money, and worked to get a grass playground.  They got it through working together.  We can develop a system that teaches that to where people are willing to help and work together which will strengthen the community and people can help each other.  We can see lower poverty rates and more growth because people will be willing to help each other instead or begging the federal government, which really doesn't care about your vote much (because you only are able to vote for a handful of politics there), for help. In all, what I am getting at is that the left has pushed education to be this program that removes thought, community strength, individualism, creativity, and overall growth of a society.  Instead of developing programs to promote being  a strong citizen it promotes passing a standardized test, and just learning "facts" and being a drone.  It teaches to label others and not care about them.   It is a radical system.  And the left just wants to give more money to the program and have more government involvement.  That isn't going to help it.
    1
  8. nenafan1 As I said before spends a lot in education.  I was slightly off in saying it spent the most, per pupil it is second behind Switzerland.  But even at that we still get poor results.  I have also said before that schools that are funded the most are those from high income areas.  They have students who from the beginning are already going to do well due to simply the household they come from.  Connecting funding to school results is a correlation and a weak one at that.  Higher income schools have better students simply because of their parents.   A problem with teacher unions is that it leads to situations like that and leads to situations where certain teachers are underpaid.  For example, an AP history teacher teaching 20 years gets his pick of what school to teach at first.  They will pick the higher income school due to having better students and will pick the overall better job.  Due to seniority as opposed to ability and demand he gets paid more.  A teacher willing to work at a low income school or a subject of lower tier students doesn't get paid anymore, and are usually done so by younger teachers looking for a job and thus are paid less.  That is why teachers at schools in low income areas are generally paid less, it isn't because of demand or ability but seniority.  At a local school we had a school shooting where the shooter ended up killing himself and a teacher.  I know one of the special ed. teacher who taught him and that teacher has since been to three different jobs and is still going through counseling which they have to pay for.  I know of another special ed. teacher who works SIP and they had to have counseling.  They were working with students who would stab others with scissors and compasses and were really aggressive.  Due to teacher unions those teachers don't get paid anymore, or not very much if they do.  They are in a high stress situation though, that compared to an AP history teacher at a high income school.  Those special ed. teachers also work with the students who have a greater chance of being a burden to society.  Instead of compensating them well teacher unions treat them like everyone else.  Teacher unions only care about themselves and not the success of the students.  The idea of state rights is that it were to allow for more control of the government.  It is easier to control and change policy at the state and local level and we see this all the time.  You are so quick to allow the federal government to control education when you have little control on what the federal government does.  Also with state rights you create competition where states will actually work in improving as opposed to working with a federal standard even if it is inferior to what we can do.  It is funny how you brought up TX.  If you look at any education ranking by state TX is in the top half of most of them.  They have a very local way of doing education.  This is so despite the fact they had one of the largest growth in Hispanic populations.  I live in a state that was in the top five in Hispanic population growth and it is a burden on education working with students who hardly speak English.  But TX is able to succeed through it.  Your fear of teaching creationism in science class is a weak one in that due to Dover vs. Pennsylvania it was ruled unconstitutional to teach creationism in science in that it establishes religion.     Also, allowing states to control education means states will do what they can to improve it if they are struggling.  With federal standards we won't do that.  In one of my education courses we had to interview teachers on standards.  One of my colleague supported federal standards in that it would put everyone on the same level.  He cited a teacher who said that he received two new students from different states.  One was ahead of the class and another was behind.  That teacher was concerned about how one student was behind and that they should be caught up.  I made the comment on what about the student who was ahead?  So now they will get held back?  Why can't that state try to set up a way to catch up to states that are doing better and find a way to help students who move to their states and are behind?  Why do we have to set federal standards to hold everyone back?  That was my concern but people don't care, we just have to all be the same I guess. I am aware of NCLB.  One, I never said that republicans were completely for state rights.  They do their fair share of expanding the federal government.  That is why I am not a republican.  They just expand it less than democrats.  Democrats support expanding the federal government where republicans don't do it as much.  You should take not that Ted Kennedy was a huge author in that bill.  To say it was Bush and the republicans is a lie in that the democrats had a strong hand in Ted Kennedy in writing that bill.  We got into a political discussion because there is a lot of politics involved in public education.  When comparing democrats to republicans (at the federal level, at the local level they are different),  you do see that those who typically vote republican are people who support smaller more local government.  They want to get away from a strong centralized government.  When they support that the left calls them greedy when nothing could be farther from the truth.  They do help people out a lot, they just don't want to be forced to "help" out someone they know nothing about.  Being around both conservatives and liberals I do see those on the right help out others a lot.  They do it in that they help out friends and family.  Being low income myself (you don't get paid much as a grad. student) I see those that I work with that do make more money help me, and others out.  They pay for meals, or pick up the tab at a bar or give other rides, very small things, but they do it often.  They do it to friends and family because those friends and family help them in the end.  They do it to people that they know and work with.  It is the basis of a strong community and society.  It is personal connection that drives it as opposed to just giving someone money.  Democrats support a stronger federal government to take care of situations where if someone is struggling or is poor as oppose to having a strong community or personal connection in those people being helped.  They see people who struggle and as opposed to befriending them or allowing them to live with them, they just want the federal government to take care of them.  Now I am not talking about bringing in some homeless person, what I am talking about is that they see someone who is struggling and the mentality of the left is that the federal government should help them as opposed to that person asking for help and receiving it from friends and family.  When my friends was struggling and lost her job I allowed her to move into my apartment for free.  Now that wasn't to say that she got a free ride, she was looking for a job.  But that is the point, I helped her out and she worked to get better as opposed to just asking for a check from the federal government. The most annoying part of democrats is that when they do feel like they are helping (through the federal government) they are actually invading on people's lives who don't want their "help".  I remember watching an episode of Bill Maher where they interviewed people from Mississippi and Maher said he just wants to give one of those people teeth.  In reality that person wants to be left alone.  He doesn't want you to give him teeth.  He is just fine.  Democrats feel the need to invade in people's lives that they feel need "help" when in reality they don't.  They just want to mind their own business and not live your life.  You are doing it yourself (this is how this is connected to education), you want the federal government to run education because you feel you will be helping the people of TX because you view them as not being "educated" and should live up to your standards.  TX is doing fine.  They have a strong economy, they have a strong university system, they are creating jobs.  They don't want your "help" or want to live up to your standards.  If it isn't working than let them fix it their way.  As long as the government stays within the confines of the constitution than they are fine.  I bet you won't like it if TX and their citizens tried to change your state or your way of living.  That is the overall problem with democrats, they "help" people by forcing them to conform to their way of life. You say you are in favor of reforming education.  That is great, the problem is that your way of doing it is vague in that you want the fed. to take care of it.  You solidified how vague you are by saying we need more money and some "common sense".  Now money aside because I said before we can spend a lot of money on education, but investing more in a broken system doesn't help, you using the phrase "common sense" explains nothing.  What is "common sense"?  I say this and a usual rebuttal is that common sense isn't common.  Maybe common sense, to you, isn't the best approach.  When I hear common sense from someone they are saying either "my idea is best and yours suck" with no justification making it a genetic fallacy or "I don't know what I am talking about so I will pretend I do".  Now that aside, who is going to determine what we should do at the federal level?  The president who close to half the country and states didn't vote for?  Some senator that less than 1% of the country voted for?  Some bureaucrat who the public as a whole doesn't even know?  That is the problem and we are doing just that right now.  To reform education we need to stop back and start removing a lot of overhead and becoming more local.  Removing the department of ed. would be the best start.  Teacher unions would work as well.  But asking for more money, and "common sense" and pushing the status quo of more government isn't going to help. 
    1
  9. nenafan1 I will add on, even though I was verbose in my previous comment, in how in more rural areas you have people who typically vote republican.  In more urban areas you have people who typically vote democrat.  In rural areas that is where you see most of your volunteer firefighters.  I hear from the left a lot, in support of more government use firefighters as an example.  In a more urban setting you have career, full time firefighters and thus they are use to the government providing such services.  It is easy to see why they support more government when they visualize all of these government programs being given to them.  Same goes with roads, they see paved roads. In a more rural setting you have lesser quality of roads which is fine, they drive a lot of big truck or old cars.  A lot of firefighters are volunteer which is part of the community strength.  They see that they don't need big government and thus don't support it.  
    1
  10. nenafan1 With students coming from rich parents we can cut funding for their schools by a lot and they will still do well.  Funding isn't the issue for them, it is their background they are coming from.  You still think it is all about funding when it isn't, it is more complicated than that.  Those students come from a situation where they have parents that are more involved, hold more prestige jobs and thus their child is going to do better.  This is one of my problems with the political left, to them it is just spend more money when it is far more complicated than that.  I also like how you criticize me for not citing anything but you refused to do so as well.  You just keep preaching how better funded schools do better when I shot that down by stating the fact that those students come from a stronger background, they already have an advantage.  In state right, the federal government is to deal with commerce between states and foreign policy (the military for example), that is it.  It isn't suppose to deal with education. The federal government was not suppose to have the potential, and overall ability to have power over the citizens and states.  Look at the bill of rights, none of them potentially gave the federal government power over the people.  If you allow the federal government to control education than you create that scenario.  Federal standards do hold back schools.  Schools don't receive funds from the federal government to fund for at risk schools if they don't adhere to standards similar to federal ones.  Basically what you have is the federal government taxing the citizens, and than telling the states, with the citizens they taxed, they can't have the money unless they do what the fed. wants.  TX does hire more Spanish speaking teachers and they are doing well.  And me mentioning Dover vs. PA is that there isn't going to be creationism or ID taught in science classrooms.  You don't have to worry about it.  Competition is always good.  You mention profit as you assume that profit means more money.  No, a profit means more wealth and from individuals who are educated they will bring in more success and wealth to that area and state.  What is the best form of education?  That is hard to say. That is why we can't have the federal government involved in education.  The states will set their own benchmark and will do what it takes to succeed.  I find it funny how you call my argument biased when you brought up TX as if they will do poorly being such a conservative state but yet they have one of the stronger education systems in the US. I like how you brought up the ACA.  That is another clear law, passed completely by democrats, that shows how they like to invade people's lives and enforce more federal law which enhances our problems.  Healthcare, along with education, should be left up to the states.  We can't just keep passing he buck to the federal government which the political left likes to do.  We have to work on these problems as a state and local community.  We have seen states pass their forms of healthcare and they are doing well.  After the ACA we have seen insurance prices go up and the democrats lost because of it.    So what is this benchmark?  You talk about teaching evolution.  While it is important to teach, is that more important than working as a team?  Or being innovated and creative?  The vast majority of the people don't completely understand evolution, that includes public school teachers.  I admit, I don't completely understand it and I am pursuing my PhD in Physical Chemistry.  It is a very complex subject.  As it is really vital to one's success in life?  Same with the quadratic equation, or reading The Scarlet Letter and so on.  What is more important, learning "facts" they can regurgitate or learning how to be hard working, helpful and responsible citizens?  With how our society is set up we do have plenty of JuCos and Community Colleges to get individuals up to speed if they lack basic course work for 4 year colleges.  Around 50% of new college freshman lack remedial course work.  And people, and states will migrate to what will give them the most success.  You have this fear that if the federal government doesn't set a benchmark than society will be stupid, the fact is they won't.  They will proceed to what makes them successful.  If someone believes in creationism, and can't understand evolution but is a very successful businessman that pays their employees well and brings in a lot of wealth to society, than so what?  You want to teach remedial "facts" instead of teaching people how to be creative and hard working.  You complete trust of the dept. of ed., which you have no say in who gets hired is a flaw in your part.  You assume they know how to educate.  Really?  Why do you so easily trust these individuals.  You are following the lead of a group of people without question.  These are individuals that possess kids for a living.  They raise other people's kids with little to no recourse.  Read the book I mentioned in the beginning.  Read the first 10 pages at least, you can find a PDF version online.  But I find it sad you are so quick to trust the federal government that you have little say in what goes on. And on common sense, it is a phrase that creates a genetic fallacy.  Those that say it are saying, along with I mentioned before, "well if you don't know it than you are dumb" without justification. I can easily say that it is common sense that federal government's involvement is a problem.  I refuse to do that since I am more intelligent than that.  I see that the public education has taught you well in trusting the federal government and using shallow arguments as in "common sense" to state your point.   You know, if I were to say "common sense" during my PhD defense I wouldn't receive my PhD. 
    1
  11. nenafan1 The firefighter example is to show that state and local societies will do what is best for their area.  In rural areas they don't have the funds to simply tax people more to have a lot of firefighters, thus there are people who volunteer and get paid nothing.  It helps out their local community.  As in roads, there simply isn't enough money to pave all the roads thus the local citizens don't mind.  In larger cities they do have more money (and cost of living is greater) to pay for more fulltime firefighters and better roads.  It is also an incentive to have them since they are dealing with more people.  In the end the local communities are investing in themselves. This goes back to education in that you feel that without some sort of federal standards than states and local areas will just fall apart and destroy their education system.  That isn't true and we see that in multiple ways how the local societies do invest in themselves.  The problem with you, and the political left is that you see rural areas and uneducated by your standards.  You will be the person who comes into a rural town and upon seeing people who don't understand science or math (by your standards) than you see that as horrible and feel the need to "help" them when they are living just fine on their own.  That is the issue.  The state and local societies can run those programs, especially education, just fine on their own.  We don't need federal standards or the federal department of education.  We did just fine without it before 1980 and we will do better if we removed it now.
    1
  12. nenafan1 No, their background is that of better parenting.  You can give anyone a lot of money but if they don't know how to invest it than it is a waste.  As I said, you can cut funding for higher income schools and those students will still do well.  They come from better parenting. On the constitution the founders saw a time where technology would get better.  That is why they wanted the states to change and control domestic policies.  What they wanted was for the citizens to have control over the government.  And they didn't want a centralized government.  With state rights you can have government with control over it.  That was the idea and it should remain intact.  Here is a recent discussion on funding and Common Core. http://www.hslda.org/commoncore/topic3.aspx OK recently decided to opt out of common core, there is fear that they can lose federal funding because of it. Now i can't find a source for this, but in my education class a speaker, who is pretty much a common core expert, said Wyoming adopted common core standards but said that they won't assess their teachers until 2022.  The federal government said if they did that than they won't receive funding.  WY basically said watch us.  They like the standards but don't want to pressure their teachers yet.  CA is considering the same thing.  In all, if you don't put in place federal standards than you lose money. The Dover vs. PA ruling was a constitutional ruling.  You are not going to see religion in our science classrooms.  TX is doing great.  There were second in GDP growth recently, they are around average in poverty rate, so not last despite having an influx of hispanics who have little money.  TX was number 1 in job creation since 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/10/22/texas-job-creation-dwarfs-every-other-state/ Texas is doing just fine. On healthcare and education being rights, it comes down to that we can't give the federal government the potential to gain power over the people.  That is what the founding fathers wanted.  In healthcare and education that is a huge part of our lives, do you really want to give an entity, that you have little control over, that much power?  Also, what is they about healthcare and education being rights?  Seriously, why not a car?  There are people who can't get a job simply because they lack transportation.  What about a home?  Or food?  Healthcare doesn't matter if you don't have a roof over your head.  You lack understanding what a right is and what the federal government can, and should be allowed to do. In education it comes down to what do we want to teach our kids?  We can teach them remedial facts, or we can teach them to be problem solvers, and help out each other, and being creative.  You are so set on teaching facts, as if evolution or reading Romeo and Juliet is vital to life.  I can solve a time dependent perturbation problem, it is important to me because it is a huge part of my research.  My cousin, who is a smart mechanic, can live on life without knowing anything about quantum statistics or even gravity.  You asked how I can trust a businessman so much, because I worked with them for 7 years.  How can you trust the government so much?  A politician whose main job is to get into power.  I can argue with the people from the dept. of ed.  I can easily do it and have in a couple of times which is a big reason why I left education to begin with.  I simply say sticking with the status quo isn't helping, we need to change.  The refuse to do that and basically preach what you do, more money when we are second in the world in spending per pupil. I love how you attack me in my grammar in the end.  This is a Youtube comment, not my PhD dissertation.  I spend a few minutes writing these with no editing.  There will be poor grammar.  The main message is what i want to get across.  In my experience I have seen that when someone criticizes my grammar than they have nothing relevant to say.
    1
  13. nenafan1 Smaller communities invest in themselves, they do it through time, something that is actually worth something.  Plus, you showed a flaw in your argument.  You want to establish what you feel is "best".  As if you know what is best for all.  Your fear isn't justified.  You feel that people who are "uneducated" by your standards will vote in ignorant politicians.  They won't, and if they did than they will remove them from office and put in place someone who will improve the situation.  If they do ruin their economy than they will ruin their economy, not the country's economy.  And local and state laws are easier to fix and change.  I guess we can be like CA, mess up and than pass the buck to the federal government.  Or we can force local states and societies to fix their own problems.  Here is something for you, with state rights, just because Billy Joe from the backwoods doesn't believe in evolution doesn't mean you life is going to be ruined.  You will be just fine.  Just like you having now clue how to, I am assuming, rebuild an engine, or maybe solve a perturbation problem in quantum, or play the guitar.  That doesn't hurt anyone.
    1
  14. nenafan1 Ok, that is fine.  Ignorance is bliss.  I actually don't have much time to respond to this due to work.  I will pick out a few points.  One, education is connected to a lot of things.  A successful society is one that is intelligent and trained and an important role in that is education.  That is how GDP is connected to education.  The fact you don't realize that is quite sad.  I guess according to you they aren't, so we don't need education. It isn't creationism in the schools that is a problem, it is creationism in a science classroom.  You can have a class on creationism in school as long as it isn't mandatory, and isn't consider science. On rights, you have the right to pursue happiness.  You don't have the right to someone else's services (as in healthcare or education).  And there is a strong case to be made that if we establish socialized healthcare than it is a form of slavery.  We simply don't have enough doctors to cover everyone so what do we do?  Do we lower the quality?  We can always force doctors to take on more work for not anymore pay which is slavery.  Plus, it doesn't answer the fact of what about a home?  Or food?  Or a car?  Those can be tied into you shallow argument of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which you seem to misunderstand.  And you criticize my comprehension skills?  Quite sad. 
    1