Bucky wrote:Wait, everybody back up and re-read MB's post, which is the most salient piece of the puzzle that gets glossed over.

Werthless, you can and should make sure you do your best to raise your kids with these values. But let's say the former part of nature/nurture wins out, and one of your kids only ever gets a job bussing tables or digging ditches or gathering carts at the supermarket. The inequality can happen even longer before someone gets to high school- it may happen at birth (and I'm even forsaking the external factors like skin color here). Does society just say "oh well, too bad, you're only worth enough to continue to live in your ma's basement and never be able to afford to have a family"? Or do we recognize that some people, although they may not exhibit traits that equate to 'success' by capitalist's definitions, deserve to have a wholesome and fulfilling life among the rest of us??

And more directly to MB's point, if we did get to a point where 100% of folks got advanced college degrees, society always will need people to fulfill the more menial of tasks. So we'll have MBA "winners" who get good jobs, and MBA "losers" who are pumping your gas in NJ. I don't think out-and-out socialism is the right way to go, but some sort of income compression between the investment bankers and the grocery store clerks is a real good thing for a functional society.

Bucky wrote:Bernie hath endorsed the Shillary.


BernieBros meltdown in 3...2...1....

Youseff wrote:

Bucky wrote:Bernie hath endorsed the Shillary.


BernieBros meltdown in 3...2...1....

they are very mad

Four off-duty Minneapolis police officers working the Minnesota Lynx game at Target Center on Saturday night walked off the job after the players held a news conference denouncing racial profiling, then wore Black Lives Matter pregame warm-up jerseys.

Lynx players did not wear T-shirts supporting the Black Lives Matter movement ahead of Tuesday's game in San Antonio.

Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the Minneapolis Police Federation, the union that represents rank-and-file officers, praised the officers for quitting Saturday. “I commend them for it,” he said.

Kroll said the four officers also removed themselves from a list of officers working future games. He did not know who the officers were. “Others said they heard about it and they were not going to work Lynx games,” he said.

Asked if other officers will fill in for those who quit, Kroll said, “If [the players] are going to keep their stance, all officers may refuse to work there.”

The three-time WNBA champions wore black T-shirts that read “Change starts with us, justice and accountability” and on the back had Philando Castile’s and Alton Sterling’s names along with “Black Lives Matter” and a Dallas Police Department emblem.

At a pregame news conference, Lynx forward Rebekkah Brunson said the players were “wearing shirts to honor and mourn the loss of precious American citizens and to plead change for all of us.”

“We are highlighting a longtime problem of racial profiling,” said forward Maya Moore, the 2014 WNBA MVP.

Players also denounced the “senseless ambush” of Dallas police.

Asked about a report that seven or eight officers had walked off the job, Kroll said, “They only have four officers working the event because the Lynx have such a pathetic draw.”

Saturday’s Lynx game against the Dallas Wings drew 7,613 fans.

Brian Stelter ‏@brianstelter
"Fox News Channel has mutually agreed to suspend its contributor agreement" with Newt Gingrich "effective immediately." Story TK.

Youseff wrote:

Bucky wrote:Bernie hath endorsed the Shillary.


BernieBros meltdown in 3...2...1....

they are very mad

jerseyhoya wrote:

Brian Stelter ‏@brianstelter
"Fox News Channel has mutually agreed to suspend its contributor agreement" with Newt Gingrich "effective immediately." Story TK.

I mean

Squire wrote:As an R who thinks that the entire country has become over-obsessed with the military, I am troubled but not the slightest bit surprised that apparently both parties are considering (or at least leaking that they are considering) military guys as VP choices.

Bucky wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Werthless wrote:
Now that I have 3 kids, I spend more time thinking about early childhood development, values, and how to raise kids with the morality, grit, independence, and intellect to thrive in the world today. To piggy back on your post, the inequality and breakdown of the society values is happening long before someone gets a job. By the time kids get to high school, there are clear differences that will carry through for the rest of their lives. It's not a new challenge, how to produce successful children, but it's an exciting one if we can figure out how to raise kids that enables them to succeed.
.

I agree with this, but I think the thing it misses is the fact that not everyone will be successful. In fact for most cases, for every winner, there are multiple losers. So how do we treat the unsuccessful? Many of these people are where they are due to nothing more than bad luck. How do those people deserve to be treated? I certainly hope your children will be successful, but if they're not, I'll be there to lend them a hand. I hope you'll be there for my kids, too.

I agree with JFLNYC. Even placing aside the economic argument, this is a matter of decency and the common good.

Wait, everybody back up and re-read MB's post, which is the most salient piece of the puzzle that gets glossed over.

Werthless, you can and should make sure you do your best to raise your kids with these values. But let's say the former part of nature/nurture wins out, and one of your kids only ever gets a job bussing tables or digging ditches or gathering carts at the supermarket. The inequality can happen even longer before someone gets to high school- it may happen at birth (and I'm even forsaking the external factors like skin color here). Does society just say "oh well, too bad, you're only worth enough to continue to live in your ma's basement and never be able to afford to have a family"? Or do we recognize that some people, although they may not exhibit traits that equate to 'success' by capitalist's definitions, deserve to have a wholesome and fulfilling life among the rest of us??

And more directly to MB's point, if we did get to a point where 100% of folks got advanced college degrees, society always will need people to fulfill the more menial of tasks. So we'll have MBA "winners" who get good jobs, and MBA "losers" who are pumping your gas in NJ. I don't think out-and-out socialism is the right way to go, but some sort of income compression between the investment bankers and the grocery store clerks is a real good thing for a functional society.

jerseyhoya wrote:Today in headlines I never expected to see... Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

NYT Editorial!

I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.