I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.

We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealth to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)

Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^darkrowan:

For all the goofieness of this vid it does bring up a good question: Who's replacing them? Could be, like The Who said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?


Seems to be, unlike popular uprisings in some other countries which have resulted in the overthrow of a dictator by the people, this has been paid gangs of thugs backed by NATO airstrikes dealing with Qadhafi and any local resistance. What seems most worrisome is the National Transitional Councils decision to give policy decision making authority out to corporations, for example:
Monetary policy is handled by the Central Bank of Benghazi
http://www.ntclibya.org/english/meeting-on-19-march-2011/

..and oil policy is handled by... The Libyan Oil Company.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

Pretty much the same as if Bank of America were given full authority to handle all policy decisions for America's banking system, or if Exxon Mobil got to make all fossil fuel and environmental policy.

Downvoting because a) no one has ever suggested that we appropriate all of Exxon's money and put it towards paying off the debt and b) he is conflating the issues of debt and vast income disparity. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Not to mention highly dishonest.

>> ^Morganth:

Downvoting this because the facts don't line up with the narrative you want to hear?>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is stupid. OWS and the debt are two separate issues. Shame on for trying to conflate the two, Bill Whittle (whoever you are).

You think that for one second I should believe the lies coming out of this turd's mouth?

"Of the 3.7 trillion budget, more than 2.6 trillion, or about 72%, is covered by existing taxes. It’s understandable that we would run something of a deficit during a recession (when a family member has to take a temporary pay cut, for instance, the family may temporarily shift some spending to credit cards until full income is restored), and you can’t argue that SOME increase in tax on the highest income levels – and cleaning up the loopholes that let GE pay no taxes at all – would destroy the economy."

Plus, his "assumptions" dismiss the reality that redistributive tax funds don't disappear, the poor put literally all of their money back into the economy, because, believe it or not they need to eat and live indoors too.

Plus his initial numbers on net income of Exxon and Walmart are wrong, how many of his other numbers are wrong?

What a character,

He also defends corporations as people! Truly a man of the 1% if ever there was one.

http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-fights-for-exxons-freedom-of-speech

I got curious and googled. Found this.

"Comment by Steven Crabtree on January 12, 2011 at 3:01pm

That's very funny, Kim Fowler. We once saw Johnny Cash pumping gas in his car at the Exxon station on Briley Parkway near the airport. Early 1970s. My father said, "look there's Johnny Cash." Sure enough it was. My Dad wanted me to get out and ask for his autograph but I wouldn't do it. "Dad, he's pumping gas." '

@Fletch "quit sending jobs oversees, be less evil, that kind of thing. Change their ways, pay their fair share in taxes, etc."

Do you see how that's all squishy gibberish? Be less evil how? Change their ways how?

Is it that Apple should stop using abusive labor practices? Is it that Exxon should stop drilling for so much Oil?

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Fletch:
She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!

Right. That's sort of the point. Want to stick it to corporations? Don't do those things.
If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations, well, what does that say?

Who said anything about not wanting corporations? I think the desire is for them to quit sending jobs oversees, be less evil, that kind of thing. Change their ways, pay their fair share in taxes, etc. Anyway, corporations are people now. So says 5 of our esteemed SCJs, so it must be true. Sticking it to corporations would be the same as sticking it to people. And I'm a people person, so that's no good.

I'm all for boycotts and applying economic pressure to corps for bad behavior, but this was a single person in the middle of a very uncoordinated demonstration being challenged by some nitwit reporter who thought she had some juicy angle on the whole thing, all because said person was using a Mac to check her email. Give me a fucking (oops!) break.

So, you tell ME "what does that say?" You pulled your premise ("If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations") out of your own ass and applied it to me, as if you have any clue what I'm about. I bet it sounded logical, and maybe even clever in your head when it... formed... in there somehow. But, now, as I read it over and over and over, I'm having difficulty understanding what sort of mental miasma, ideological dissonance, or logical labefactation could actually allow you to think of the question, type the question, and then send the question into the ether, all without realizing what a STOOPID FUCKING QUESTION it is!

So... YOU tell ME what the fuck it says!

TTFN!

>> ^Fletch:

She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!


Right. That's sort of the point. Want to stick it to corporations? Don't do those things.

If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations, well, what does that say?

She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!

My goal is to never attend one of Art Carden's classes,

A bottle's worth of water is worth a whole lot to someone in the third world dying of thirst,

You can't do shit with a diamond dumbass. The whole reason diamonds are valuable is because they are kept artificially scarce and over the years De Beers successfully marketed them as desirable ("a girl's best friend", song: "diamonds are forever".

The business that earns the most profit by using resources is Exxon Mobil, and is quickly helping to turn the earth into an unsustainable rock.

Restrictions on trade cause poverty? What about the restriction on the trade of human beings, I bet that's really hurting your pocket book eh you fucking neo-con wank. I'm not going to post anything for this one because if you actually believe this you are beyond grasping any reason.
I mean just look at the poverty that unrestricted trade causes in the USA, how can anyone still claim that an unregulated free market is ethical?

This whole video is bullshit. I can't believe this is tagged with philosophy.

Wealth disparity is a red herring. It is one economic indicator out of literally thousands. Neolibs like to harp on it, but when the poorest schlub in the US has 2 cars, 2 flat screens, air conditioning, and more food than they can possibly eat then it holds very little meaning. I'm a statistician, and there is always a curve in wealth with extreme ends. Deal with it.

Again - they're focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is a corrupt and powerful government. Lobbyists push for bad laws, but bad laws can't get passed without corrupt legislators. In the past, the robber-barons just did what they wanted and government was too toothless and feckless to stop abuses. Today the robber-barons are back, but they are aided and abetted by a powerful, corrupt government that creates a maze of loopholes, exemptions, and laws to pick and choose which company gets to be the one to get away with murder.

The first thing that has to happen is that government needs to be reduced in size and power so that they cannot be the kingmakers. Then you pass a set of simple reforms that are clear and basic so everyone knows 'the rules'. Companies get away with crap because government passes laws that allows it (like the repeal of Glass/Steagall). Peel the lobbyists out of such a system, and all you do it create an all-powerful government that crushes (or blesses) specific industries according to its whimsy.

For example - Obama has been literally shovelling cash at the 'green' industry. Solyndra (and others) have shown that it was all a subsidy-scam. There was no possible way these solar companies could possibly turn a profit. Not to mention ethanol subsidies, et al... They all lobbied big time and got a pile of political payola. It is modern day patronage. Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to slap down oil and coal. The government is picking some industries to grow, and others to punish. That is totally bogus. And (just so you neolibs don't get mad) it is bogus when it happens to companies like Exxon or Haliburton too.

The government should not be this power broker that picks and chooses which industries get favoritism, and which ones get the thumbscrews based on the political preference of the legislators in power. That creates an unpredictable, uncertain, arbitrary system where industry is more beholden to politicians than the public. Who cares if a company makes a lousy or unprofitable product when they can just pay a lobbyist, or donate to a candidate, and end up getting piles and piles of taxpayer cash?

THAT is the real problem here. Wall Street, Solydra, Enron - all these companies are just symptoms. The disease is the government.