What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Melissa Harris-Perry(MSNBC)-Star Wars is racist! (1 Viewer)

tom22406

Footballguy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

Here is the text for those that can't watch it.

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.

So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.”
Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm in favor of this notion if it means I can smack a random kid upside his head for talking loudly on his phone in line at the CVS.

 
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

My inbox began filling with hateful, personal attacks on Monday, apparently as a result of conservative reactions to a recent “Lean Forward” advertisement now airing on MSNBC, which you can view above. What I thought was an uncontroversial comment on my desire for Americans to see children as everyone’s responsibility has created a bit of a tempest in the right’s teapot. Allow me to double down.

One thing is for sure: I have no intention of apologizing for saying that our children, all of our children, are part of more than our households, they are part of our communities and deserve to have the care, attention, resources, respect and opportunities of those communities.

When the flood of vitriolic responses to the ad began, my first reaction was relief. I had spent the entire day grading papers and was relieved that since these children were not my responsibility, I could simply mail the students’ papers to their moms and dads to grade! But of course, that is a ridiculous notion. As a teacher, I have unique responsibilities to the students in my classroom at Tulane University, and I embrace those responsibilities. It is why I love my job.

Then I started asking myself where did I learn this lesson about our collective responsibility to children. So many answers quickly became evident.

I learned it from my mother who, long after her own kids were teens, volunteered on the non profit boards of day care centers that served under-resourced children. I learned it from my father who, despite a demanding career and a large family of his own, always coached boys’ basketball teams in our town. I learned it from my third-grade public school teacher, who gave me creative extra work and opened up her classroom to me after school so that I wouldn’t get bored and get in trouble. I learned it from the men who volunteered as crossing guards in my neighborhood even if they don’t have kids in the schools. I learned it from the conservative, Republican moms at my daughter’s elementary school, who gave her a ride home every day while I was recovering from surgery. I learned it watching the parents of Newtown and Chicago as they call for gun control legislation to protect all the children of our communities. I learn it from my elderly neighbors who never complain about paying property taxes that support our schools, even if they have no children in the schools today.

And I have learned it from other, more surprising sources as well. I find very little common ground with former President George W. Bush, but I certainly agree that no child should be left behind. And while I disagree with the policies he implemented under that banner, I wholeheartedly support his belief that we have a collective national interest in all children doing well.

I’ll even admit that despite being an unwavering advocate for women’s reproductive rights, I have learned this lesson from some of my most sincere, ethically motivated, pro-life colleagues. Those people who truly believe that the potential life inherent in a fetus is equivalent to the actualized life of an infant have argued that the community has a distinct interest in children no matter what the mother’s and father’s interests or needs. So while we come down on different sides of the choice issue, we agree that kids are not the property of their parents. Their lives matter to all of us.

I believe wholeheartedly, and without apology, that we have a collective responsibility to the children of our communities even if we did not conceive and bear them. Of course, parents can and should raise their children with their own values. But they should be able to do so in a community that provides safe places to play, quality food to eat, terrific schools to attend, and economic opportunities to support them. No individual household can do that alone. We have to build that world together. So those of you who were alarmed by the ad can relax. I have no designs on taking your children. Please keep your kids! But I understand the fear.

We do live in a nation where slaveholders took the infants from the arms of my foremothers and sold them for their own profit. We do live in a nation where the government snatched American Indian children from their families and “re-educated” them by forbidding them to speak their language and practice their traditions.

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
 
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

...

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
I can see what she is saying above is probably what she meant, but looking at the original quote she worded it really poorly and that is what caused the problem. She probably should have just said "I worded my comment poorly, this is what I meant" instead of getting an attitude about it.

You would think as a college professor she would know better.

 
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

...

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
I can see what she is saying above is probably what she meant, but looking at the original quote she worded it really poorly and that is what caused the problem. She probably should have just said "I worded my comment poorly, this is what I meant" instead of getting an attitude about it.

You would think as a college professor she would know better.
I don't think it would matter one bit. Anyone who saw the original ad without an axe to grind would be hard pressed to point out what was so controversial. The professionals who need to gin up outrage to get ratings don't care.

 
The FFA is WAY behind the rest of the internet. Since when did this happen? This has been a huge story, mostly by whacko conservative nutjobs, over the last few days. A tactic that really annoys me, is when one person says something, and then immediately it gets extrapolated to a huge group.

While we are at it, there apparently is a powerpoint presentation used in some sort of military training that referred to the christian right as an extremist group. That's causing angst out there as well, and probably deserves it's own thread.

 
"But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it."

She's wrong. She made her point very poorly and the fact that she "doubled down" rather than explained herself betrays her arrogance in the matter.

And the notion that we've never spent as much on education as we should have is preposterous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

...

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
I can see what she is saying above is probably what she meant, but looking at the original quote she worded it really poorly and that is what caused the problem. She probably should have just said "I worded my comment poorly, this is what I meant" instead of getting an attitude about it.

You would think as a college professor she would know better.
I don't think it would matter one bit. Anyone who saw the original ad without an axe to grind would be hard pressed to point out what was so controversial. The professionals who need to gin up outrage to get ratings don't care.
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.

So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.”

I bolded that part that would be controversial. I disagree with the sentence as stated. If she would have said "are the responsibilty" instead of belong it that sentence I don't really think it would have caused very much angst among anyone but the bigtime social conservative folks. I think people may have still disagreed with the whole it takes a village mentality, but that is a different discussiont to me.

But my kids do belong to me until they are old enough to make their own decisions. I am liable for anything they do and am responsible for clothes, food, making sure they go to school, etc. If someone else wants the responsiblity, I have the car insurance bill for 2 teenage boys to send them.

 
"But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it."

She's wrong. She made her point very poorly and the fact that she "doubled down" rather than explained herself betrays her arrogance in the matter.

And the notion that we've never spent as much on education as we should have is preposterous.
Again I think you had to be looking to be outraged to be outraged by this statement. All some people saw was the word collective and their brains shut off while their mouths took over. And I think she explained it very clearly here. And yes our schools are woefully underfunded in many areas of this country.,

 
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

...

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
I can see what she is saying above is probably what she meant, but looking at the original quote she worded it really poorly and that is what caused the problem. She probably should have just said "I worded my comment poorly, this is what I meant" instead of getting an attitude about it.

You would think as a college professor she would know better.
I don't think it would matter one bit. Anyone who saw the original ad without an axe to grind would be hard pressed to point out what was so controversial. The professionals who need to gin up outrage to get ratings don't care.
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.

So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.”

I bolded that part that would be controversial. I disagree with the sentence as stated. If she would have said "are the responsibilty" instead of belong it that sentence I don't really think it would have caused very much angst among anyone but the bigtime social conservative folks. I think people may have still disagreed with the whole it takes a village mentality, but that is a different discussiont to me.

But my kids do belong to me until they are old enough to make their own decisions. I am liable for anything they do and am responsible for clothes, food, making sure they go to school, etc. If someone else wants the responsiblity, I have the car insurance bill for 2 teenage boys to send them.
Yeah pretty sure anyone with an ounce of sense would have realized no one was calling for the UN and the Chinese Army to come take their kids.

 
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

...

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
I can see what she is saying above is probably what she meant, but looking at the original quote she worded it really poorly and that is what caused the problem. She probably should have just said "I worded my comment poorly, this is what I meant" instead of getting an attitude about it.

You would think as a college professor she would know better.
I don't think it would matter one bit. Anyone who saw the original ad without an axe to grind would be hard pressed to point out what was so controversial. The professionals who need to gin up outrage to get ratings don't care.
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.

So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.”

I bolded that part that would be controversial. I disagree with the sentence as stated. If she would have said "are the responsibilty" instead of belong it that sentence I don't really think it would have caused very much angst among anyone but the bigtime social conservative folks. I think people may have still disagreed with the whole it takes a village mentality, but that is a different discussiont to me.

But my kids do belong to me until they are old enough to make their own decisions. I am liable for anything they do and am responsible for clothes, food, making sure they go to school, etc. If someone else wants the responsiblity, I have the car insurance bill for 2 teenage boys to send them.
Yeah pretty sure anyone with an ounce of sense would have realized no one was calling for the UN and the Chinese Army to come take their kids.
And you are showing the same arrogance as she did in her response since it seems like you are saying anyone that actually took her words at face value don't have an ounce of sense. Sorry, don't read minds and don't know this person enough to know if she is actually that nuts or not.

 
"But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it."

She's wrong. She made her point very poorly and the fact that she "doubled down" rather than explained herself betrays her arrogance in the matter.

And the notion that we've never spent as much on education as we should have is preposterous.
Again I think you had to be looking to be outraged to be outraged by this statement. All some people saw was the word collective and their brains shut off while their mouths took over. And I think she explained it very clearly here. And yes our schools are woefully underfunded in many areas of this country.,
But she's either saying something we all know, which is "Hey, it's not just up to parents to teach children" or she's saying what people are interpreting as "All your children are belong to us, not you".

If it's the first, then she's just a blowhard looking for more money. If it's the second then neither you nor her should be surprised that some people would recoil at that thought.

 
And you are showing the same arrogance as she did in her response since it seems like you are saying anyone that actually took her words at face value don't have an ounce of sense. Sorry, don't read minds and don't know this person enough to know if she is actually that nuts or not.
Exactly. He is viewing the "other side" through his prejudices just as he's accusing them of looking at her through theirs.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.

 
"We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

Look, that's not really insidious. It's just kind of dumb.

Seems like the idea that she's really attacking is home schooling. Which is really not that surprising.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb.

"Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
As long as you support her I won't worry about her winning...I am considering the track record of your Presidential support during election times. :lol:

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
As long as you support her I won't worry about her winning...I am considering the track record of your Presidential support during election times. :lol:
I won't support her. Doesn't mean she won't win though. I didn't support Obama, but believed all along he would win rather easily.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb.

"Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb.

"Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
Again, I think that's a "well duh" and she's arguing a strawman

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb. "Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know." Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
Again, I think that's a "well duh" and she's arguing a strawman
If its a "well,duh", then why aren't we doing it?
 
timschochet, on 10 Apr 2013 - 07:17, said:In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
And the far right was having fits over that title too, when the book was released.And I can remember Sarah Palin criticizing Hillary's book when she was running for VP, her quote was something like "It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a mom and a dad."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb. "Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
Again, I think that's a "well duh" and she's arguing a strawman
If its a "well,duh", then why aren't we doing it?
We aren't collectively paying for our children's educations?

Between Federal, State, and Local spending, we collectively spend $820.6 billion on education in America.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb. "Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know." Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
Again, I think that's a "well duh" and she's arguing a strawman
If its a "well,duh", then why aren't we doing it?
You're unreal.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb.

"Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
The problem is, that's not what she is saying.

What she's saying is "We have a collective responsibility to educate children in the manner that I think is most appropriate." The problem is that "we" disagree on the manner that is most appropriate.

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb.

"Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
The problem is, that's not what she is saying.

What she's saying is "We have a collective responsibility to educate children in the manner that I think is most appropriate." The problem is that "we" disagree on the manner that is most appropriate.
Well then say that instead of saying she wants to steal our children

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb. "Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
Again, I think that's a "well duh" and she's arguing a strawman
If its a "well,duh", then why aren't we doing it?
We aren't collectively paying for our children's educations?

Between Federal, State, and Local spending, we collectively spend $820.6 billion on education in America.
I wrote "quality" education. What we're paying for now is not enough. And it's not a priority for us. We spend way more on defense spending and on corporate subsidies than we do on education. It needs to be a priority. And that's what she's saying.

 
I wrote "quality" education. What we're paying for now is not enough. And it's not a priority for us. We spend way more on defense spending and on corporate subsidies than we do on education. It needs to be a priority. And that's what she's saying.
Then it's about quality and not the amount of money.

And we don't spend "way" more on defense and corporate subsidies than we do on education.

Did you look at the link?

How much is enough? Double? Triple what we're spending?

 
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb.

"Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
The problem is, that's not what she is saying.

What she's saying is "We have a collective responsibility to educate children in the manner that I think is most appropriate." The problem is that "we" disagree on the manner that is most appropriate.
Well then say that instead of saying she wants to steal our children
:shrug:

I didn't say anything about stealing anything.

 
I wrote "quality" education. What we're paying for now is not enough. And it's not a priority for us. We spend way more on defense spending and on corporate subsidies than we do on education. It needs to be a priority. And that's what she's saying.
Maybe she should have been more direct and said something like "Our country needs to spend more on education and make it a higher priority than we do." instead of babbling on about villages and collectives?

 
I wrote "quality" education. What we're paying for now is not enough. And it's not a priority for us. We spend way more on defense spending and on corporate subsidies than we do on education. It needs to be a priority. And that's what she's saying.
Then it's about quality and not the amount of money.

And we don't spend "way" more on defense and corporate subsidies than we do on education.

Did you look at the link?

How much is enough? Double? Triple what we're spending?
The chart you linked combined state, local, and federal. In terms of federal we only spend 71 billion. And Republicans would like us to spend even less than that.

I don't know how much more would be satisfactory. Personally I would like to see teachers earn around the same as doctors: between 100,000 and 200,000 a year. I would like to see our brightest college students want to enter the teaching profession.

 
"We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." Look, that's not really insidious. It's just kind of dumb. Seems like the idea that she's really attacking is home schooling. Which is really not that surprising.
How the hell do you get from that quote, that she is attacking home schooling?
 
I wrote "quality" education. What we're paying for now is not enough. And it's not a priority for us. We spend way more on defense spending and on corporate subsidies than we do on education. It needs to be a priority. And that's what she's saying.
Then it's about quality and not the amount of money.

And we don't spend "way" more on defense and corporate subsidies than we do on education.

Did you look at the link?

How much is enough? Double? Triple what we're spending?
The chart you linked combined state, local, and federal. In terms of federal we only spend 71 billion. And Republicans would like us to spend even less than that.

I don't know how much more would be satisfactory. Personally I would like to see teachers earn around the same as doctors: between 100,000 and 200,000 a year. I would like to see our brightest college students want to enter the teaching profession.
So?

The argument is that we're not spending enough, period. Not that we're not spending enough at the federal level.

How does that hold water when it's pointed out that we spend very nearly (in terms of our enormous total spending in America) the same on education in total as we do on defense?

 
"We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." Look, that's not really insidious. It's just kind of dumb. Seems like the idea that she's really attacking is home schooling. Which is really not that surprising.
How the hell do you get from that quote, that she is attacking home schooling?
Because she's saying that it's up to the community to educate the children, not those in the home.

Really, I was just throwing it out there. There's so much dumbness in her statement that it temporarily confused me.

What she should have said was that "It's the community's responsibility to enable kids to succeed, not just those at home." But again, that's a "well duh" statement.

But I'm really giving her the benefit of the doubt there as I don't think that's her worldview at all. I truly believe she thinks that kids belong to her as much as they do their family. "Belong" is the term that's causing the fuss here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Andy Dufresne said:
timschochet said:
Andy Dufresne said:
timschochet said:
Andy Dufresne said:
timschochet said:
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
No. It's just dumb. "Hey, not everything you or your kids need is inside your house, you know."

Well no ####, Sherlock.
It's not dumb at all. What they're saying is that you and I have a collective responsibility to see that all of America's children, including the children in Detroit and other inner cities, including the children of illegal immigrants, receive quality education. And this needs to be a priority and we all need to pay for it, even though they're not OUR children or living in our immediate community. And I agree with that.
Again, I think that's a "well duh" and she's arguing a strawman
If its a "well,duh", then why aren't we doing it?
We aren't collectively paying for our children's educations?

Between Federal, State, and Local spending, we collectively spend $820.6 billion on education in America.
I wrote "quality" education. What we're paying for now is not enough. And it's not a priority for us. We spend way more on defense spending and on corporate subsidies than we do on education. It needs to be a priority. And that's what she's saying.
Since when is the quality of something determined by how much money is thrown at it?

Maybe if really care about education we should, you know, try and do it better instead of just writing blank checks all the time...

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

Here is the text for those that can't watch it.

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.

So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.”
Thoughts?
BTW, I'd never heard of this woman before, but I correctly predicted that she was black. Why? Because this movement stems from the African revival BS about communal living that a lot of black activists subscribe to. That casts a lot of doubt on how well thought out such a plan would be for US schools (not even accounting for region of the US) right at the outset.

 
timschochet said:
I don't know how much more would be satisfactory. Personally I would like to see teachers earn around the same as doctors: between 100,000 and 200,000 a year. I would like to see our brightest college students want to enter the teaching profession.
Hate to break it to you, but the teachers in Wisconsin were making close to that and they almost bankrupted our state.

You have to remember that when you talk about teaching, it can't be about money it needs to be about being a public servant. It needs to be about helping kids. Because those 30 kids can't possibly "pool" enough money to pay that teacher as much as they could make in other professions. It just isn't possible.

If anything, throwing more money at teaching will get us worse teachers (people in it only for the money), not better teachers. Teachers should make good, livable wages that encourage people who feel called to it to become teachers and make it possible for them to achieve that dream of teaching.

 
Tim, is there a figure which if we agree to spend it, will be "enough" to ensure "quality education" to your standards? You don't have to give a specific number, just tell me if such a figure exists and could be quantified? Some cities (DC, New York, Chicago or Detroit, for example) spend far more than the national average per pupil and have some of the worst public school systems. If they spent 2x more per pupil, or 5x more, would that ensure quality education and we'd never again have to hear you or anyone else demand/ask for "more money for education"?

 
NCCommish said:
Bogeys said:
NCCommish said:
Her response to the ridiculous vitriol:

...

But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it.

I venture to say that anyone and everyone should know full well that my message in that ad was a call to see ourselves as connected to a larger whole. I don’t want your kids, but I want them to live in safe neighborhoods. I want them to learn in enriching and dynamic classrooms. I want them to be healthy and well and free from fear. I want them to grow up to agree or disagree with me or with you and to have all the freedom and tools they need to express what they believe. And no hateful thing that you say to me or about me will ever change that I want those things for your children.

Article
I can see what she is saying above is probably what she meant, but looking at the original quote she worded it really poorly and that is what caused the problem. She probably should have just said "I worded my comment poorly, this is what I meant" instead of getting an attitude about it.

You would think as a college professor she would know better.
I don't think it would matter one bit. Anyone who saw the original ad without an axe to grind would be hard pressed to point out what was so controversial. The professionals who need to gin up outrage to get ratings don't care.
I disagree. For a college professor she sucks at expressing herself. The use of the word "belong" is controversial. I can see how someone could hear what she said as being your kids don't belong to you they belong to us. But I don't believe for one second that there would be any controversy had she just said communities have responsibilities to kids.

 
Andy Dufresne said:
I truly believe she thinks that kids belong to her as much as they do their family. "Belong" is the term that's causing the fuss here.
You are being ridiculous
 
Andy Dufresne said:
I truly believe she thinks that kids belong to her as much as they do their family. "Belong" is the term that's causing the fuss here.
You are being ridiculous
I'm telling you what the fuss is about. Words have meaning and different meanings to different people.

And like has been pointed out, the fact that she's a black female definitely changes the viewpoint of the argument.

 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/there-is-nothing-controversial-about-melissa-harris-perrys-msnbc-promo/

There Is Nothing Controversial About Melissa Harris-Perry’s MSNBC Promoby Matt Wilstein | 8:26 pm, April 9th, 2013

Everything that Melissa Harris-Perry says in her latest “Lean Forward” promo for MSNBC is completely reasonable. And no, that last sentence was not sarcastic.

Since the “controversial” promo first appeared this past weekend, conservatives have been apoplectic over its content. Glenn Beck called the ad “almost a parody.” Fox News’ Eric Bolling said she “declared war on the American fabric.” And, Sarah Palin was so angry she had to invent a completely new word: “unflippingbelievable.”

Those three and others across the internet and on TV are utterly outraged that Harris-Perry would suggest that America should take a more “collective” approach to child-rearing. They can’t believe she dared to tell them that their children, don’t just “belong” to them, but also are part of a larger community. It’s those two words–”collective” and “belong”–that are at the root of conservatives’ outrage, and also their major misunderstanding.

Starting with “collective,” Harris-Perry says “We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.” As Bob Beckel pointed out on The Five today, that word is often associated with socialism. As in, everyone works together for the collective good and shares the wealth. That’s fundamentally not what Harris-Perry is talking about here. As Beckel said, it may not have been the best choice of words for her to use, but she is simply using the word “collective” to describe the way members of a community help each other, while clearly maintaining their own, capitalistic identities.

The issue with the second word, “belong,” I believe hinges on two distinct definitions that often get conflated and confused. Someone or something can “belong” to another person in terms of being their property. Or they can “belong” to an organization in terms of being a member. This issue arose during the Democratic National Convention last September when another promotional video featured the phrase “the government is the only thing we all belong to.”

Mitt Romney‘s campaign attempted to turn that innocuous line into the second coming of “you didn’t build that” by proudly declaring in response “We don’t belong to government, the government belongs to us.” Just as Romney seemed to miss the fact that the word “belong” can have two meanings, critics of Harris-Perry do not realize that while a child can be the “property” of their parents, they are a “member” of the community. These are two very different notions that Harris-Perry to tying together using the word “belong” for rhetorical effect.

Obviously, there is something about Harris-Perry and the words that came out of her mouth that have conservatives enraged. But when you break it down, all she was saying is that by attending school every day, and living in the world, children are members of a larger community than just their nuclear families. In no way is she suggesting that the government owns your children and should have the right to take them away or make any other major decisions about how they are raised.
 
And isn't it typically female, when she has failed to articulate her position, to say, "But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it."

 
Andy Dufresne said:
I truly believe she thinks that kids belong to her as much as they do their family. "Belong" is the term that's causing the fuss here.
You are being ridiculous
I'm telling you what the fuss is about. Words have meaning and different meanings to different people.

And like has been pointed out, the fact that she's a black female definitely changes the viewpoint of the argument.
You weren't telling me what the fuss was about, you were telling me that you think that she honestly believes that kids belong not to their families, but to the collective community. That is a ridiculous notion

 
Andy Dufresne said:
I truly believe she thinks that kids belong to her as much as they do their family. "Belong" is the term that's causing the fuss here.
You are being ridiculous
I'm telling you what the fuss is about. Words have meaning and different meanings to different people.

And like has been pointed out, the fact that she's a black female definitely changes the viewpoint of the argument.
You weren't telling me what the fuss was about, you were telling me that you think that she honestly believes that kids belong not to their families, but to the collective community. That is a ridiculous notion
Let's go with it....

Why is it ridiculous to think that she means just that? There are no collectivists in America?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And isn't it typically female, when she has failed to articulate her position, to say, "But that is not what I was talking about, and you know it."
:goodposting: You know what Andy, I disagree with just about your whole stance in this thread but in this particular instance you are sooo right!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top