Not at all. The world I envision is very much like modern day sports. Some people hit the genetic lottery and some don't.  But no one from the gov't intervenes because I'm not as tall as Shaq, as fast as Chris Johnson and can't throw as hard as Strasburg.

Genetics may have been the wrong word, but its still a birth lottery.

You're saying its unfair that the wealthy having an advantage. A 7 footer has an advantage making it in the NBA.

Max wrote:

We're not talking genetics, Fors.  We are talking environment.  The poor kids can be as tall and string as you want, we're attaching weights to their legs and putting blinders on their eyes.  The rich kids are all given a nice headstart.  The ref yells: "life's not fair".  And the game begins . . .

You are right Max.  There are no young black males from poor families or bad environments in sports.

forsberg_us wrote:

Genetics may have been the wrong word, but its still a birth lottery.

You're saying its unfair that the wealthy having an advantage. A 7 footer has an advantage making it in the NBA.

It am stating the obvious, that the children of wealthy parents have an advantage from the time of conception, and children of poor parents have a handicap from time of conception.  I don't think many people disagree with this.  Where we diverge is when we ask, 'what should we do?'  Your answer seems to be 'nothing.'  Mine is to follow the common wisdom of the past hundred years or more, as it is practiced in basically every country in the world with a developed economy , and most others as well, which is that government should intervene to decrease the gap between wealthy and poor and combat hereditary wealth and hereditary poverty.  Very common practices, that you seem to have a beef with, include estate taxes, a progressive income taxes, and government programs for prenatal and postnatal care for the poor.

If you want to say you oppose all estate taxes, support a flat tax, and oppose government funded prenatal and postnatal care for the poor, that is fine.  You will, IMO, position yourself well outside the political mainstream of pretty much any country except that of Texas.

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I think it is a retarded method to sell iteams.  And "Scientists" studies can say whatever that person wants them to say. 


http://www.livescience.com/health/070814_bad_baby.html

Well, if you read closely, what I wrote was: "if we don't tend to believe there is something to that."

First off, the original study that got that all started was about listening to music, not watching DVDs.  Even then, the idea that listening to Mozart does something "better" than, say, listening to Beethoven is speculative, to say the least.

Next, the choices in life are often A or B, not A or perfection.  If you don't have time to interact with your kids, they are probably better off watching a DVD than sitting in an empty room with no stimulation.  Once you have made that compromise, then an hour of Baby Einstein is probably better than an hour of random TV . . . that's my hunch.

But the take-away message is that the brain develops like any other part of your body, and certain parts need to be used prior to puberty-ish or else they pretty much have no chance to develop at all.

Baby Einstein is a series of videos that puts classical music to various objects like puppies playing.  That is why I tied it to you idea that that kind of stuff makes kids smarter.

We do not disagree on that.  My comparison was vague at best.  My wording was that we spend money on that stuff because we believe there is something to it.  I did not mean to imply that the science of Baby Einstein DVDs is as solid as that of, say, exercise and improved health.  On the other hand, the science for it is a lot stronger than is that of healing crystals.  So, we believe there is something to it and we give it a whirl, whereas we are pretty sure that healing crystals is complete hogwash and only the truly desperate go that route.  Nevertheless, I concede that wasn't crystal clear in my original post on the topic.

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Well, if you read closely, what I wrote was: "if we don't tend to believe there is something to that."

First off, the original study that got that all started was about listening to music, not watching DVDs.  Even then, the idea that listening to Mozart does something "better" than, say, listening to Beethoven is speculative, to say the least.

Next, the choices in life are often A or B, not A or perfection.  If you don't have time to interact with your kids, they are probably better off watching a DVD than sitting in an empty room with no stimulation.  Once you have made that compromise, then an hour of Baby Einstein is probably better than an hour of random TV . . . that's my hunch.

But the take-away message is that the brain develops like any other part of your body, and certain parts need to be used prior to puberty-ish or else they pretty much have no chance to develop at all.

Baby Einstein is a series of videos that puts classical music to various objects like puppies playing.  That is why I tied it to you idea that that kind of stuff makes kids smarter.

We do not disagree on that.  My comparison was vague at best.  My wording was that we spend money on that stuff because we believe there is something to it.  I did not mean to imply that the science of Baby Einstein DVDs is as solid as that of, say, exercise and improved health.  On the other hand, the science for it is a lot stronger than is that of healing crystals.  So, we believe there is something to it and we give it a whirl, whereas we are pretty sure that healing crystals is complete hogwash and only the truly desperate go that route.  Nevertheless, I concede that wasn't crystal clear in my original post on the topic.

I dont believe it helps at all.  Someone simply came up with the idea that it did to sell a bunch of CDs nobody wants to listen to.

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Baby Einstein is a series of videos that puts classical music to various objects like puppies playing.  That is why I tied it to you idea that that kind of stuff makes kids smarter.

We do not disagree on that.  My comparison was vague at best.  My wording was that we spend money on that stuff because we believe there is something to it.  I did not mean to imply that the science of Baby Einstein DVDs is as solid as that of, say, exercise and improved health.  On the other hand, the science for it is a lot stronger than is that of healing crystals.  So, we believe there is something to it and we give it a whirl, whereas we are pretty sure that healing crystals is complete hogwash and only the truly desperate go that route.  Nevertheless, I concede that wasn't crystal clear in my original post on the topic.

I dont believe it helps at all.  Someone simply came up with the idea that it did to sell a bunch of CDs nobody wants to listen to.

I believe it helps because, as I stated before, the option is typically not between Baby Einstein DVDs and a state of the art Montessori preschool.  The option is often between the Baby Einstein DVDs and whatever else happens to be on TV.  I am one of those who believes that content matters.  I believe that broadcasting a bunch of senseless violence has small, but real, effects on our society.  All that was shown by the study you linked to was that watching more TV is worse than watching less TV.  Well, who's gonna argue with that?

I think it is easy to make a case that the government does enough, maybe to much already to help families on the lower end of the economy.  I single mother get school paid for if she wants, day care paid for,  child support if she didnt bang a deadbeat, in most cases free health care and $1,000 rebate for her first two kids.  All those programs already exist.  In fact I know of some families (man and women) who are forced by the state to send their kids to daycare because the state thinks that is best for them.  Of course the state flips the bill while mom and dad sit jobless at home.  I went to a house the other day to serve them a paper for not paying there credit card bill and got their cleaning lady.  I am sure she is paid for through state aid.  I have a friend that manages a small appartment mostly made up government housing.  Most of his tenants live there free and some have cleaning ladies.  I have a hard time believing the government needs to do more.

Estate tax is the most unAmerican piece of shit tax I have ever heard of.  If you are going to believe in that tax why dont we just jump straight into  communism.

While I'm opposed to government intervention in theory, I not foolish enough to think it's going away.

As much as anything, our difference of opinion is that you think you're helping people when you create these cycles of government dependence, whereas I think it has a greater long-term detriment. If you have to have social programs, make them unbearable and of a limited duration for anyone capable of moving off of them. Care for the mentally/physically handicapped, but tighten the criteria for qualifying.

You believe that hereditary poverty can be resolved by social programs.  I believe that social programs contribute to the cause by creating generations of people satisfied with doing nothing than living off government programs.

I'll give you an example that I think will at least illustrate were I come from. Every night I check my kids' homework. If they get a problem wrong, I tell them "you have x wrong."  But I don't say "you got #2, #4 and #7 wrong.". They have to figure out which one(s) they got wrong and correct it. Would it make their life easier to tell them--sure.  But I've found that by doing it this way, they take their time the first time to avoid mistakes and they've become more adept at finding and correcting their mistakes. In the long run, I think I'm helping them more than if I made it easier. Just my opinion.

I'd have a lot less problem if the existing social programs came with incentives for moving off of them. But they don't, and in some cases they actually encourage people to stay on them.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

What's wrong with estate tax?  We've had in one form or other for ages.

Because a man's ability to pass property from one generation to the next has been a fundamental part of human life for a couple of millenia.

Having said that, if you're going to have an estate tax, it shouldn't apply if property is passed from one spouse to the other. If property is being passed to kids/decendents, then cap the estate tax at 25% and have a rule that the gov't's share can't be any bigger than a share would be if the decedent want to leave equals shares to each living child. So, if I die and have 4 living children, the gov't can only have 20%, which would be the amount that each child could get if I split the rest equally.

I like that idea Fors.  That would basicly make the government your 5 kid.  To make it fair though it should be applied to every income level.  So if I want to leave my kids each $50,000 I would have to put away $125,000 being that I have 2 kids (the third being the government in this case).  I doubt as many people would be in favor of the tax if it had a chance of effecting them.   

Max, my problem with the estate tax is that it is unrewarding to the man who lives his life the right way and wanted to leave something for future generations.  If that is your purpose in life then the government should be able to take it away.  Isnt that what "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" stands for.  It promotes those who say "I cant take it with me".  There isnt anything wrong with that but I dont think the government should be a driving force in its promotion.  Furthermore the assistance that is being handed out now isnt helping.  It is being taken advantage of and misused.  Why dump more money into something that isnt working and punish someone for living a  successful life?  I would like to see tax money being spent to help those in need in a usefull way because all I see is the opposite.  Like with SS my only worry is what happens to the useless and do they become more of a problem for me then they currently are.  One thing I am sure of is that giving them more money or assistance isnt going to motivate them.

Max wrote:

Great! so we are all agreed that social programs need to be fixed, not eliminated, and that estate taxes should continue to be implemented in manner similar to what has been the case in the recent past, but not the present where there are none at all. 

Much of the time we're talking the same thing but with different symbolism in our language that identifies which side of major political divides we come from.  Language counts.  You write, "She's our target" and then put a 'her' in a little cross hair, and some people will take it literally.

Don't go there Max. There's nothing to indicate that this guy in Arizona was anything other than a complete nut job. Hell, based on her voting record, this Congresswoman was almost more Red than Blue.

Or imagine if armed members of the New Black Panther Party patroled polling place intimidating white voters.

I'm sorry, you were saying?