Stone Soup by Jan Eliot for May 07, 2009

  1. Puma
    durtclaw  almost 15 years ago

    That could be a tough job.

     •  Reply
  2. 2011 0615 1745.seamus
    sarge112751  almost 15 years ago

    Ain’t kids great?!?! - Just when ya think you’ll have to put a boot up their butt, they do something to warrant a hug!

     •  Reply
  3. Flash
    pschearer Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    I recognize the warm-hearted, benevolent, good intentions of this sequence, but I reject the underlying moral theory that we have an obligation to help those in need. That is the smiling face of a morality whose grim practical application demands you sacrifice your interests to anyone who comes along with a need, and there is always someone needier than thou.

    Beware of anyone who says it is your duty to sacrifice, whether it is any U.S. President, the Pope, an ayatollah, or every dictator in history. You have a complete right to YOUR life, YOUR liberty, and the pursuit of YOUR happiness, and you should never be made to feel guilty for it.

    (I expect a flood of vehement disagreement, but that is why the world is in such a mess today. For a presentation of the world’s first non-sacrificial ethics, read Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” or her essay collections “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal”, or visit the Ayn Rand Institute’s websites www.aynrand.org and www.aynrandcenter.org .)

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    kermitt  almost 15 years ago

    An evil child who steals from her own

    family.

     •  Reply
  5. 00000
    alondra  almost 15 years ago

    I pretty much agree with you pschearer. It’s one thing if you choose to give to help others, and it is voluntary. When it’s forced upon you it is simply wrong. We have a right to keep what we earn ourselves if we so choose. But I’d like to think if I could I’d help out this lady and her kids. We don’t know how they got into this situation.

     •  Reply
  6. Av 5363
    prasrinivara  almost 15 years ago

    Spot-on pschearer, from one who has suffered due to my (paternal) grandparents pushing such ideas onto my dad (and as corollary, I never noticed my grandparents making any sacrifices).

     •  Reply
  7. Img 1878
    llorraine23  almost 15 years ago

    Oh, pschearer it speaks volumes about your character that you would espouse the gibberish of Ayn Rand. As someone who has to work 3 jobs just to keep her family afloat, this attitude is depressing. I ask for nothing.

    However, methinks you need to live in another person’s shoes and see if your attitude changes. Those who have things handed to them have NO idea how rough it can be when things happen that are beyond your control. Life can be hard, and if all you can count on is yourself then it makes for a very lonely world.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    humormehere  almost 15 years ago

    Alright, let’s be selfish. It is a fact on average (a spurious notion, but a fact nonetheless) that if a person will have the will and drive to give 1/10th of their pretax income to charity they will be better off financially. So you can say what you want. Giving is good. Even selfishly.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    soap123  almost 15 years ago

    Too often the people most willing to help those in need are the ones that have very little themselves, which, in turn, causes them to require assistance from someone else.

     •  Reply
  10. Flash
    pschearer Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    Lorraine: You present yourself as if you understand a lot about me for someone who knows next to nothing about me, my life, and least of all my character.

    I’m sorry your life is not going well, and I could extend you admiration for living up to your responsibilities, but as I think you realize, it is YOUR life and YOUR responsibilities and not claims on anyone else’s life, time, effort, or money.

    Yes, I hope my comments about Ayn Rand DO reflect on my character, and I’m proud of it!

    As for your cheap shot at Ayn Rand, since I don’t know how much you have read of her extensive writings, I will only say this: All of her opponents I have met in my 40+ years as an admirer of Ayn Rand either know virtually nothing of her work or have willfully misinterpreted her extremely clear, logically presented views.

    For the rest of you out there, I’ve already given the sources for anyone interested in learning the truth about Ayn Rand.

    (Durtclaw: Love your avatar. I use it as my wallpaper. Nice kitty.)

     •  Reply
  11. Smiley tongue
    Smiley Rmom  almost 15 years ago

    It is important when giving (voluntarily - without compulsion) to make sure we are not enabling the beneficiary to continue to make bad choices. I think it is important that we share (voluntarily - not forced through taxes, etc.) with those in need through no fault of their own, or have learned the errors of their ways and are trying to live right. But I have a real problem with giving to people so they can waste money on stuff that I cannot afford.

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    morton115  almost 15 years ago

    I recently finished “Atlas Shrugged.” Excellent (prescient?) book. Giving to charity is a great thing, as long as it’s voluntary. Government “charity” has done more harm than good, IMHO.

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    kermitt  almost 15 years ago

    Giving good;taking someone else’s stuff to give:bad

     •  Reply
  14. Chw82caz11g91ca55h709cawjthlocay2dk85camu64fqcal7s34pcaxyf5n8cakvj1lkcahoq0imca5qa1hbca6k2m2tcaogqf60caob9irfcasvef94ca8ab2alcasx22etcaol4fmjcazjz28x
    ldyhwkd  almost 15 years ago

    pschearer - don’t know if you read sci-fi or not, but check out the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Especially “The Naked Empire”. I was surprised and pleased as I was reading it just how much it follows with Ayn Rand’s ideals. I also very much enjoyed Atlas Shrugged.

     •  Reply
  15. Kitty at sunset
    wicky  almost 15 years ago

    Dock Alix’ allowance for such largesse.

     •  Reply
  16. Eyes
    aerwalt  almost 15 years ago

    My family comes first, then me. Since I have more time than money, that’s what I share. Governments always give to those you don’t agree with.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    RedSteph  almost 15 years ago

    So it appears here that most of us are quite willing to give where we, using our best judgment, perceive a true need, if we have the means to give. However, most of us here also seem to be in agreement that we disagree with any type of forced redistribution of wealth. This seems to be a logical stance. Any time a government forces the public to sacrifice against their will is inexcusable.

     •  Reply
  18. Love triumphs
    Donna Haag  almost 15 years ago

    Think octo-mom and maybe that will help understand why government dole is not always a good thing..

     •  Reply
  19. Last 9 11 rescue dog birthday party new york bretagne pronounced brittany owner and rescue partner denise corliss texas
    Dry and Dusty Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    RedSteph I would say so!

     •  Reply
  20. Missing large
    laughaday  almost 15 years ago

    pschearer:

    One can tell a lot about you by seeing the avatar you chose to represent you. It reminds me of the “aryan ideal” used in recruiting SS officers. Why am I not surprised?

    You oversimplify the issue in a manner which is a mirror image of that used by proponents of bad government programs. If you have no desire to voluntarily help others, you willfully ignore the extent to which your good fortune depends on the disadvantages that they suffer in our society.

     •  Reply
  21. Missing large
    Howabominable  almost 15 years ago

    I agree with you RedSteph. I give 1/10th of my income to charity, and I love to do so, but that is my choice. People should have the option to do with their money what they want, and if that means spending it on themselves, fine. We definitely need kind people who are willing to give up a little of what they have so that others can have to, but forcing them to does nothing but breed ill will.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    laughaday  almost 15 years ago

    RedSteph said “Any time a government forces the public to sacrifice against their will is inexcusable.”

    So the number of peaceniks should have an influence on the defense budget? Hmmm….

     •  Reply
  23. Puma
    durtclaw  almost 15 years ago

    Charity, Alms, Donations, Assistance, Help, etcetera. Giving should be from the heart and not under compulsion nor with expectation of something in return.

     •  Reply
  24. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    When inherited wealth is abolished, when the best educations are made available to those who can best profit from them rather than those who can best afford them, when social networking and family connections no longer provide the best opportunities for success to those who are already successful, when material wealth is given to those who contribute to society rather than those who’ve learned how to bleed it, when we truly have the “level playing field” that both the Left and the Right claim to want, when the advantages gained by accident of birth are finally corrected for, then perhaps I will take Ayn Rand seriously and consider “greatness” to be an indication of merit and desert. Until that point, “Atlas Shrugged” and the rest of its ilk are self-satisfied, poorly-written, sloganeering claptrap. It is the apologia for the doctrine of “Might Makes Right”. It is class warfare waged from the top down. It is rooting for the New York Yankees against your company softball team.

    Homo sapiens rose to become Masters of the Planet (pardon the expression) through cooperative survival strategies. When it is realized that the individual’s best chance of thriving is to help the community thrive, and stop treating survival as a zero-sum equation, then we are TRULY on the threshold of our next evolutionary stage, not Nietzsche’s Ubermensch who can only perceive “success” through domination of others.

    Pick your cliche, they’re both true:

    “There but for the grace of God go I”; or “We’re all in this together.”

     •  Reply
  25. Missing large
    jmworacle  almost 15 years ago

    Isn’t it interesting that the “evil conservatives” tend to give more to charity than those “caring liberals”. Sadly, there are those people who are very copassionate when it comes to other people’s money. We need more Alix’s in this world.

     •  Reply
  26. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    I agree with RedSteph & Drystyha. Plus, there is too much conflation going on here. It’s a philosophical mistake to try to equate the natural generous impulses of a well-loved, very well-provided-for child with a burgeoning government taking more and more from its citizens - to feed itself. The child needs to learn the rules for practical, just giving (ask mom first, give from your own resources, etc.), and the government needs to be reined in by its employers - us.

     •  Reply
  27. Doodles
    monkeyhead  almost 15 years ago

    I have less then $80 (that I earn working 40 + hrs a week) for my groceries for a month and while I was putting gas in my 8 yr old car the other night I watched a women buy soda and candy with foodstamps and then get in a new Cadillac. I’m willing to give when I can but tell me how much more I’m suppose to give.

     •  Reply
  28. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    For the egalitarians (engineering equality of outcome) among us, I have the following story.

    There was a professor whose class was promoting egalitarianism. So the professor agreed to try out their ideas; instead of each person getting the grade they worked for, everybody would receive the same grade, based on the class average. At the first quarter, everybody got a respectable B+. By the second quarter, enough students were willing to cruise on the work of others that the average slipped to C. In the third quarter, only a few of the most dedicated students were doing the work, and the grades slipped to D. By the last quarter, the hardest working students, sick of not getting anything for their hard work, stopped trying, and everybody got an F.

    This is why every egalitarian system that has ever been attempted has failed miserably, requiring guns and walls to enforce.

    Egalitarianism would be a great thing. All you have to do to make it work is to get rid of all the human beings.

     •  Reply
  29. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    I want to stress that I’ve always tried to make the distinction between those who CANNOT fend for themselves and those who WILL not do so.

    But as long as the economists try to calculate the “optimum” level of unemployment – not too high, but not too low – there are always going to be SOME people who cannot get jobs.

    If voluntary charitable contributions were enough to meet the needs of all recipients, then “involuntary” contributions through the taxes of the employed would be unnecessary. But if you’ve faced with two hungry people and decide you only want to feed the one you like (and many of the needy are, unfortunately, less than fully likeable), the other one is not going to say “Gosh, what a kind person, giving that other guy a sandwich.”

    Also, with regards to the grading scenario posited above, I’ve never suggested that individual initiative should go unrewarded. But there must be some limits; stratification of wealth creates unrest, and the trend for many years has been for greater and greater portions of the country’s wealth to be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. This WILL lead to blood in the streets if not addressed, and it is this that I want to avoid. As I’ve said before, under graduated taxation the only time that increasing your gross income leads to a loss of net income is at the very peripheries of the brackets. But if you make $20,000 a year and want to double your net income, you may do it by doubling your efforts. If you make $200,000 a year, doubling your efforts will yield perhaps only a 25 percent increase in net income. That’s what I’d call a “Fair Tax.”

     •  Reply
  30. Img 0620 1
    tabbylynn  almost 15 years ago

    i think it was good of Alix to do this, out of the kindness of her heart. Yet what Mom is doing, trying to “Live up to her” is not the right thing. you cant be nice and giving to be better then someone else, that dosnet make you better, but worse. I do things all the time for others, only because i love them and i want to make there job easier, i dont do it to be better then other people, or to be regnoized for it. i do it out of the kindness of my heart. that is how it should me.

     •  Reply
  31. Falconchicks1a
    RinaFarina  almost 15 years ago

    pschearer, a long time ago I read all four of Ayn Rand’s novels (I don’t know if there were any others) - “We the Living”, “The Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged”, and one whose name I forget. They put me in a terrible quandary. I agreed with her hypotheses. I agreed with each step of her logic. But when it came to her conclusions - I just couldn’t agree.

    Then, as a feminist (NOT in the sense the word is used today, which seems to be “one who hates men”), I began to notice flaws. Wearing high heels, which damage your feet, and only help to make a woman a sex object. Referring to sex as “he possessed her” - again the woman is property. And that sex scene in “The Fountainhead” where she first has sex with Howard Roark (it’s a long time ago - have I got his name right?), and you see that what is a real turn-on for Ayn Rand is rape. As Dagny says in “Atlas Shrugged” - “Don’t ask me, don’t ask me, just do it!”

    So I saw that she had flaws (she presents herself as one who knows the Absolute, A or Not-A, and she is Always Right - she would have had a heart attack on hearing about a branch of math called fuzzy logic, in which a thing can be both true and not true), and I was cured. But as you can see, she left deep scars.

     •  Reply
  32. 00000
    alondra  almost 15 years ago

    arceedee thanks for that story. It’s exactly the way it would happen and shows why socialism doens’t work. There is no incentive to try to do better because you don’t get the reward for it.

     •  Reply
  33. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    Thanks for your comments Macushlalondra! Stratification of wealth assumes that wealth is a fixed sum which is divvied out by the powerful. In fact it is flexible, where more wealth can be created with a combination of capital and effort. The threat of blood in the streets is extortion. While such scenarios have occurred in starving populations, in the US the poor (with the exception of the mentally ill and addicted) are better nourished and accommodated (cars, A.C.,video games, computers cable TV, etc.) than most of the world’s population. Everyone is not entitled to be wealthy, and failure is also possible as a function of freedom.

     •  Reply
  34. 4917 2138474401487020dbaf02e
    Nimue  almost 15 years ago

    I find it just a little sad that most of the posts here seem like justification for doing nothing when a need is percieved.

    Granted, I’m not saying we should run out and buy every junkie a house, but the general consensus here seems to be ‘I can ignore people who need help because I don’t know if they’ll buy drugs.’

    Considering the state of the economy today, and how many hard working, honest families are two missed mortgage payments from living under a bridge, I find this amazingly depressing.

     •  Reply
  35. Imga0225 2
    hildigunnurr Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    omg, people, I’d a thousand times rather live in what you would probably call socialist Sweden, Norway or Denmark than the USA you seem to like. Yes, there ARE people taking advantage of the system but believe me, nowhere close to becoming nations of slackers. The standard of life’s high and they’re not experiencing as bad problems as are we and you. My own Iceland was fast becoming way too libertarian and look where it got us! (yes, that is why - at least a very great part of it, people thinking first and foremost of themselves and let others slide. A sick mindset).

    Fritzoid, thanks for your words, agree totally.

     •  Reply
  36. Flash
    pschearer Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    Laughaday: My avatar is the actor Larry “Buster” Crabbe in the role of Flash Gordon from the 1930’s-1940’s serials. In my childhood Flash Gordon was a vision of heroic resistance to evil expemplified by the murderous Ming the Merciless, a symbol of the dictatorships threatening the world back then.

    If you choose to read Nazi values into my avatar and then project that onto me, that is your problem, not mine, and you are as wrong as Llorraine23 in thinking you know me. (BTW, in case you don’t know it, the doctine that some get rich my impoverishing others is right out of Karl Marx.)

    To those who mentioned enjoying Ayn Rand’s novels: thanks for the positive comments. I was pleased there were so many. It was not like that 40 years ago.

    To RinaFarina: I appreciate that you have read more Ayn Rand than most people, but you apparently stopped at the novels (you forgot the name “Anthem”) and have missed out on decades of philosophic elaboration that might have answered your concerns. At the risk of going beyond the evidence, if Ayn Rand left you “scarred”, I suggest she could not overcome older, deeper scars in your life. I’m sorry we can’t discuss this in private so I could understand it.

     •  Reply
  37. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    There can be no practical comparison between the result of socially engineered shared wealth in nations with populations of under 10,000,000 (or 1,000,000), and the result of socially engineered shared wealth in a nation of over 300,000,000 with far larger percentages of dependents, and only the naive would think such comparisons could be extrapolated in any valid way.

    Even as those far less populated socialized countries have gained larger numbers of dependent immigrants and their extended families, and their populations have become less homogeneous with fewer people from the home country with shared value systems acclimated to working together for common goals, benefits and entitlements have had to be cut and rationed more extensively with each decade of population rise - do the research.

     •  Reply
  38. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    MatthewJB: Mine is an apocryphal story as I’ve indicated in that post, but so are yours unless you can provide non-anecdotal backup for any of these claims: “Liberals give a much higher percentage of their income than do conservatives. Even more interesting: Non-churchgoers are more altruistic than are churchgoers.”

    “Watch any group project: Those who care about it will do good work, and that lifts up everyone.”

    As for your comment that children will work harder when they’re NOT graded, that is a red herring. The dynamic that I’m concerned about is that people will not work harder when they are assured of receiving the same reward as those who do not put in any effort. One child may teach another addition when he learns it, but I doubt if he would be willing to split up an academic reward, scholarship or money prize he has taken a year - or years - to earn amongst those in the class who have done poor or average work, or who have not completed any assignments.

     •  Reply
  39. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    How’s this for a hypothesis:

    Professor Commongood decides he’s either going to pass the entire class or fail it, based on the average level of achievement. If the average is not high enough, everybody flunks, on the theory that if society collapses, it takes EVERYBODY down with it. If the average achievement is minimally enough to pass, grades will be distributed on a bell curve, from B to D. If the average is high enough, the bell will run from A to C. In addition, the class itself may raise or lower individual members up to a half-grade, based on commitment to raising the average, as opposed to individual accomplishment. So a person who lacks natural ability but nonetheless tries hard will receive a C/B, while someone who slacked off the whole term receives a D/C. In addition, a person who not only achieved individually but assisted others to perform their best would receive an A+, while someone who aced every test but didn’t give a bleeep about anyone else would receive an A/B. Individual achievement is thus rewarded, as well as having a premium placed on raising others. Everyone thrives by encouraging everyone else to achieve.

     •  Reply
  40. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    Fritzoid, hi! That’s interesting, because it’s very nearly how the children in the USSR were conditioned in latency age classrooms. I wrote a college thesis on it, but cannot remember the education theory book a Russian-American participant observer living in the USSR wrote on the process (over 25 years ago). The other book I used when writing the paper was LeGuin’s ‘The Dispossessed’, because the children in that novel were also being socialized as collectivists. The Young Pioneers were given a group leader to make certain assignments were done and grades kept up for the group, and even a link or class row leader who would work with a child who was slacking.

    The concept behind such pedagogy was intended to get the child to learn early to follow his role model/leaders, and sublimate his individual ego to that of the collective/group. I don’t know how that would play in the US or with parents here, and honestly I haven’t followed the research on the outcomes of early childhood education in the former USSR. If I ever recall it, I will pass on to you the book title on the theory if I see you here, in case you are interested in finding it!

     •  Reply
  41. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    arceedee, pass it along if you think of it, but in the absence of personal messages I can’t guarantee I’m going to see it.

    Anyone who doubts the value of collective effort, or whether “benign anarchy” can work on a large scale, should check out how Alcoholics Anonymous works, both on the smallest level and on the largest. Obviously, an individual’s own sobriety (read: survival) is that member’s prime concern, but it’s recognized that helping someone else who’s struggling greatly IMPROVES your own chances of success. And while a member is encouraged to have a “home group” where they feel most comfortable and where they have a personal interest in the other members, any alcoholic can walk into pretty much any meeting anywhere in the world and feel at home, and welcome, and SUPPORTED.

    Organizationally, AA is enforced from the bottom up, not from the top down; the World-Wide Organization is answerable to the groups, rather than the groups being answerable to the organization (there are a small few standards and principles to which groups are expected to adhere to rigorously, but the punishment imposed for running an overly non-traditional group is simply that they’ll leave your group’s meetings off the schedule; and there are PLENTY of APPROPRIATELY non-traditional groups which are welcomed, including those for atheists*). Taking service commitments (setting up chairs, providing coffee and/or cookies, even chairing the meeting) is strictly voluntary, position confers no authority, and rotation is encouraged. But it’s again axiomatic that being of service to the community is one of the best ways to strengthen your own chances for success.

    This may vary from place to place. I’ve openly expressed attitudes concerning the nature of my “Higher Power” (which I do NOT choose to call “God”) which, while accepted as merely odd out here in California, have met with outright hostility when aired in Illinois.
     •  Reply
  42. Imga0225 2
    hildigunnurr Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    rcd, that only means your shared wealth must be administered more locally than nationally. No excuse.

     •  Reply
  43. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    Grades are abstracts and not an infallible indication of potential for achievement, yes, but they are at least symbolic of material success in these scenarios, and may be clearly demarked.

    In the real world, “success” and “achievement” are not so easily distinguished from their opposites. There is “standard of living”, which may not have an upper limit (in my classroom scenario you can’t get a grade better than “A+”) but there is I feel a LOWER limit below which nobody should be allowed to fall. If the sum of the national wealth is increased, the first beneficiaries should be those at the BOTTOM of the pile, rather than further raising (and separating) those already at the top. As long as some people are throwing away feasts and shuttling between multiple mansions, it is inexcusable that there are people who cannot afford groceries or shelter. If you would share your windfall wealth to help your brother if he needed it, why would you not help your friend? If you would ease your friend’s suffering, why not the stranger across town? If you would help your fellow townsman, why not a poor immigrant (even if he’s “illegal”)? If you can love thy neighbor simply because he looks and talks and thinks like you, why does that mean you cannot love thine enemy? Give help where it is needed, BECAUSE it is needed.

     •  Reply
  44. La et cm schroeder concert hall peanuts 20140808
    Don Hulbert Premium Member almost 15 years ago

    I’m weighing in a little late. Better late than never, I suppose.

    Your statistics about the relative generosity of those who identify as “conservative” and those who identify as “liberal” point to something important. Ideology doesn’t matter. In fact, it sucks, and the useless debates over conservatism, liberalism, socialism, etc. are completely irrelevant and counter-productive. It pains me to admit that there are so-called liberals who are of the arm-chair variety, and primarily try to avoid engagement in the actual problems, maintaining that government should solve all social ills. I personally agree that government must intervene far more during this time, but that doesn’t absolve us each from doing as much as we can. That can be as simple as buying a homeless person some food, or giving a little change. I’ve done both.

    In the end, I’m tired of the endless harangue over the “isms” and what it means in terms of purity. As our current president maintains, most of us don’t give a hoot over these labels. We just want a government that works, and the extremes of either side, however well-meaning, have failed. Compromise is necessary, or nothing will change.

     •  Reply
  45. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    MatthewJB: First of all, you base arguments 1, 2, and a footnote in 6 (George Will) using the logical fallacy of the argument ad hominen. A claim may be challenged only by the validity of the conclusion, not because you distrust the author of the argument.

    In point 2, even if the argument ad hominen was not sophistic, you may be interested to know that Wikipedia gives references to many sources that rate his employer Syracuse University and its programs among the top fifty in the country. In cites at Wikipedia, Forbes magazine identified Thomas Edison State College as one of the top 20 colleges and universities in the nation in the use of technology to create learning opportunities for adults and the college was cited as “one of the brighter stars of higher learning” by The New York Times - hardly an accolade that might be given by the Times to “a fifth rate school”.

    Your 3rd point involves yet another claim of your own that is devoid of any specific study design criticism, followed by an anecdotal piece of evidence.

    4th, your own arguments to back up your claims for the charity debate consisted entirely of the suggestion that I acquire and analyze a book of your own choice, that re: Point 5, was written by Alfie Kohn, who in my preliminary research (not having his work at hand) has been described primarily as a left-wing leader in progressive education to support your claims; hardly a ‘clean-handed’ or unbiased source.

    My final point would be this: The reason I posted a cut and paste review from a partisan source was that I despise debate citation wars, as I’ve mentioned above, and to demonstrate to you the folly of that second party technique; i.e., I too would prefer your own writing to a recommendation that I do my own research in Kohn’s book to back up your claims. I have no idea of the validity of the research your man Kohn has done, whether his work was peer reviewed, has used large population samples, were effectively longitudinal, or were free from design flaws.

    Re: the cost of entitlements in the nation and generational spiraling, you can check the rises in costs (which as I’ve noted is my primary concern) in The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements from 1962 till the 2012 estimate. The tables will show you the costs in billions of dollars per annum, in real dollars, by percentage of total outlays, and as percentage of the gross GDP.

    www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdf

    ps; I will check out the Kohn book as I am interested in all pedagogical theory! with best regards, arceedee.

     •  Reply
  46. Raven
    arceedee  almost 15 years ago

    dmhulbert: I appreciate your observations and agree with many of your conclusions. I feel that this debate has gone on far too long for a venue of this type, and expect to close my participation now. I look forward to reading your posts in the future, hopefully we may all meet again discussing ‘the lighter side’, in keeping with the nature of the website.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Stone Soup