Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 01, 2015, 08:47:46 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 604
12201  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should school bullies be barred from getting a driver's license? on: November 20, 2005, 07:46:30 pm
Often standing up to the bully and beating his arse will often get said bully to leave you alone. Just a comment from experience.

That's great if you're capable of doing that, not all of us were.

Anyone is capable of kicking someones arse if provoked to a certain point.

I find movie directors to be especially egregious in that regard, there are some directors who I just can't stand.
12202  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 52% of respondents believe all U.S. soldiers should withdraw from Iraq on: November 20, 2005, 07:42:45 pm
The establishment turns their noses up at the American people because they think they're better than us.
12203  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which Party Does Murtha Saga Hurt Most? on: November 20, 2005, 07:41:51 pm
It doesn't look good that they waste the House's time playing politics with sham votes and that they insult a war veteran calling him a coward and such.
12204  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: clean, renewable energy on: November 20, 2005, 07:40:28 pm
The White House doesn't give two sh*ts about energy independence.
12205  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: This is Bull**** on: November 20, 2005, 07:31:40 pm
The only political correctness going on here is the correctness of assaulting what is so-called correct, politically speaking.

Which reminds me of the inverse proportions rule of media bias: If most people think the media is liberal, it is probably conservative, and vice versa.
12206  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rice Says She Wasn't Woodward's Leak Source on: November 20, 2005, 05:53:56 pm
This gradual but unmistakable shift in the ethos of Washington journalism marked a hard-fought victory for conservatives who invested billions of dollars over the past three decades in building a media/political machine for gaining as much control as possible of the information flowing through the nation’s capital to the American people.

Journalists who bucked the trend confronted ugly attacks from right-wing media “watchdogs,” almost inevitable betrayal by news executives, and dashed careers. Journalists who played along were rewarded with fame, money and access.

Today, no journalist personifies this transformation more than Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who made his name unraveling Richard Nixon’s Watergate cover-up but now has been caught misleading the public while protecting the Bush administration’s cover-up of a scheme to smear an Iraq War critic.

As the leak investigation grew into a major story in summer and fall of 2005, Woodward not only concealed his early receipt of the Plame information but went on television to disparage the investigation and mislead the public about what he knew.

On CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Oct. 27, Woodward denied rumors then swirling around Washington that he had “bombshell” information about the outing of Plame.

“I wish I did have a bombshell,” Woodward said. “I don’t even have a firecracker. I’m sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. … This went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the Washington Post, called me and said, ‘I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry to disappoint you but I don’t.’”

A day later, on Oct. 28, Woodward confessed to Downie that his earlier denial wasn’t exactly truthful. As Nixon’s press secretary Ron Ziegler once said about a retreat on the Watergate cover-up, the old denial was “inoperative.”

According to a Post chronology, Woodward revised his story sometime before special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the Oct. 28 indictment of Libby on charges of lying to FBI investigators, committing perjury before the grand jury and obstructing justice. Libby has pleaded not guilty.

But back on Oct. 27, while still denying the “bombshell,” Woodward dismissed Fitzgerald’s investigation as much ado about nothing.

“All this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign,” Woodward said about the leaking of Plame's identity. “When the story comes out, I’m quite confident we’re going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson’s wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal. And there’s a lot of innocent actions in all of this.”

It’s unclear why Woodward saw only “innocent actions in all of this.” Two years earlier, a senior White House official told another Washington Post writer that at least six reporters had been informed about Plame before Novak’s column appeared. The White House official said the disclosures about Plame were “purely and simply out of revenge.”

The outing of Plame, a covert officer working under what’s called “non-official cover,” destroyed her career as a counter-proliferation specialist, while also exposing her cover company – Brewster Jennings & Associates – and possibly agents whom she recruited.

Yet, on the eve of Libby’s indictment, Woodward was offering advice to Fitzgerald via CNN, that it would be best if the prosecutor left well enough alone.

“I don’t see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with,” Woodward said.

Three decades after Woodward helped expose Richard Nixon’s corruption, the former Watergate hero sounded like a flack tossing out Republican spin points.

Though Woodward’s hostility to Fitzgerald’s investigation raised some eyebrows at the time, Woodward’s behavior looks far more self-interested now after his admission that he indeed did have “blockbuster” information about the Plame case.

In elaborating on the chronology later, Woodward said he contacted his source in late October for an article on the leak case and they discussed Woodward's notes showing the source mentioning Plame in June 2003. That prompted the source to go to Fitzgerald, which in turn forced Woodward’s hand.

Woodward said he received a waiver from the source to testify before Fitzgerald but not to identify the source publicly, ground rules that Woodward and the Post accepted.

On Nov. 14, Woodward gave a two-hour deposition to Fitzgerald and then issued a statement about his testimony that was carried in the Nov. 16 issue of the Washington Post. Woodward and the Post withheld the name of the source from the public.

Based on clues in Woodward’s statement and subsequent denials by various administration officials, the mystery source was not Libby or deputy White House staff director Karl Rove, who had joined Libby in spreading the word about Plame to journalists.

That meant a third official was involved, which, in turn, suggests a broader conspiracy to leak Plame's identity.

Woodward justified his misleading behavior as necessary “to protect my sources.” After apologizing to Downie, though not to the broader public, Woodward said, “I hunkered down. I’m in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn’t want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed.” [Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2005]

But the larger significance of Woodward’s predicament is twofold:

First, the fact that three officials were peddling the identity of Plame to journalists makes it harder to believe that some White House principal – either Vice President Cheney or President Bush or both – wasn’t involved at least in encouraging a counterattack against Wilson that ultimately led to the exposure of his CIA wife.

Second, the coziness of Woodward – and Miller – with White House officials shows how the Washington news media lost its way in recent years. From its earlier role as the public’s eyes and ears, the press often became this administration’s mouthpiece.

Miller’s gullibility in accepting the administration’s WMD allegations and putting those charges on the front page of the New York Times helped pave the way for the Iraq War. She, at least, has paid for her costly misjudgments with her job.

Woodward is a somewhat different story. He has written two largely flattering books on the Bush presidency, Bush at War and Plan of Attack, which benefited immensely from Bush’s personal cooperation and his edict to staff that they also speak to Woodward.

In effect, Woodward became a kind of authorized biographer of George W. Bush, making the full transformation from scrappy outsider of Watergate fame to co-opted insider of the Iraq War.

Yet if that only were true of Woodward, the damage to the nation would have been much less. Instead, Woodward and Miller epitomized what it took for journalists to excel during Bush’s hyper-patriotic administration.

Like many of their colleagues, Woodward and Miller traded skepticism for access. The end result has been a national news media that largely failed to do its job in vetting the administration’s case for war.
12207  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Could the bursting of the housing bubble bring Bush's approval to the 20s? on: November 20, 2005, 05:44:48 pm
The funny thing, the NAR affordability index has not been at historic lows until at least very recently. Also, just because prices skyrocket it doesn't mean there is a bubble. The DJIA went from 3000 in 1992 to 10500 in 2000, and is still at 10500. So anyone waiting circa 1998 for the "bubble" to pop so prices to come down would still be waiting today.
12208  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism on: November 20, 2005, 02:00:59 pm
I never claimed "trickle down" economics would reduce the gaps in school quality among communities.  Frankly, that is not an economic issue except in result.  Good schools require good parents who are interested in their children's educations and an overall strong family structure in the community.  Without those factors, there won't be schools, and the poor economic condition of the surrounding community will generally be the result, not the cause, of those factors.

The only thing I can say to this is that in upper middle class communities there is a different peer atmosphere, one that is more highly emphasizes success. Perhaps this is because parents who have been successful themselves are more likely to highly regard professional success for their children. This by no means implies that working class parents cannot take their children's education seriously or that all upper middle class parents do, however the working class parents have much more of a struggle and must be more into their school community in order to achieve the same results. They must rely more on the family and less on the community. In wealthier communities, everyone tends to have higher expectations and the educators and students are more motivated.

You are the one who brought up the economic argument, not me. But I do think that economic reasons contribute to community and school inequality. People know that schools in "good" neighborhoods will have better funding and thus attract more ambitious and competent teachers and administrators than schools in other neighborhoods. Thus, the parents who are more serious will put a higher premium on getting into a "good" neighborhood. The only problem, due to income inequality and class segregation, there are not enough "good" neighborhoods around for all the parents who want them.

Quote
As far as me impugning the motives of others, I am perfectly justified in impugning the motives of certain feminists.  I don't believe they have good motives, and I don't see anything wrong with saying so.  Those people have been very successful in blunting opposition to their special-interest oriented ideas because they have bamboozled many people into thinking they stand for motherhood and apple pie.  That is not the case, and I am not going to pretend that I'm fooled by them when I am not.  Notice I have never impugned your motives, because I think you have good motives, though I think you don't fully understand the deleterious economic impact of feminism on the lower middle class.   As I said, I don't claim it's the only problem, but it surely hasn't helped, and has hurt badly.

Dazzleman, the only economic argument I've seen you make goes to the effect of women in the working force leading to income inequality. And the only objection I've seen you make to income inequality revolves around poor school quality in working class neighborhoods, which could only come about when the upper middle class segregates itself out of those neighborhoods. What I'm suggesting is that there are many more practicable and less objectionable ways to reduce income inequality than opposing feminism, and the Democratic party's economic positions would do a much better job at doing that.

As for "certain feminists" of whom you speak... I don't see why they are relevant at all. Frankly I don't see them as having much influence on policy.
12209  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism on: November 20, 2005, 12:45:36 pm

Dazzle, to be honest, the Democrat party will do a better job ameliorating the effects of wealth inequality and class separation, feminism aside. There are lots of ways to look at the causes and possible solutions to the problems you speak, and feminism is only that which you choose to look at and blame first, as fits with your approach to many issues. When looking through the glass of the general welfare that I follow you down, there are many more indefensible causes of wealth inequality in comparison with the womens' movement.

I know much of your opposition stands because of your long-standing association with feminism as a special interest approach. You should ask yourself more closely what constitutes a special interest, even if it doesn't change your opinion. A special interest puts one segment of society's interests ahead of those of others. The special interest in our discussion dates back to what Jared Diamond calls "the rise and spread of food production", what others might call the agricultural revolution, and the development of cultures that placed the mens' interest ahead of the womens'. Such interest is not always one-sided. Today's so-called fathers' rights movement, for example, would have perhaps benefitted more than any others from the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. On the other hand, if feminism were merely a mirror image of the object of its criticism, I would not be a feminist, nor could feminism claim descendence from one of the main scourages of special interests, Hobbesian liberalism, as it can.

The Democratic party would ameliorate the effects of wealth and class separation by making everybody poorer.  No thanks.  I'd rather try to pull people up from the bottom than push them down from the top.

That's a matter of opinion and a whole other debate. Personally I don't believe trickle down economics truly works to reduce poverty or narrow the gap in school quality in different communities, especially the way it is being financed now. And recently it hasn't been doing a very good job of creating jobs either.

Quote
As far as the father's rights movement goes, I don't think anything would have been much different had the ERA been passed, frankly.  Feminists would have fought against anything perceived to benefit men in any way, ERA or not.  Who's kidding whom here?  When it comes to fathers, feminists are interested in money, and nothing more.  Fathers are simply walking wallets to the feminist movement.

And as to whether feminism is a mirror image of what it objects to, that is a matter of opinion.  I believe that that is what it has become, and that you are deluding yourself if you think it hasn't.

Again, you impugn motives on others. All I can say is, I can't defend other people's positions, I will only defend my own positions.
12210  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who was the better president...? on: November 20, 2005, 07:48:02 am
George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? -- Jefferson
James Madison or Andrew Jackson? -- Madison
John Tyler or James Polk? -- Polk
Zachary Taylor or Millard Fillmore? -- Fillmore
Abraham Lincoln or Andrew Johnson? -- Lincoln
Grover Cleveland or William McKinley? -- Cleveland
Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson? -- Wilson
Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover? -- Coolidge
Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman? -- Roosevelt
Dwight Eisenhower or John Kennedy? -- Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? -- Johnson
Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter? -- Carter
12211  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which posters would you select for your Cabinet? on: November 20, 2005, 07:29:51 am
Vice President: Frodo
Department of Agriculture: Texasgurl
Department of Commerce: nickshepDEM
Department of Defense: John Ford
Department of Education: J-Mann
Department of Energy: Jfern
Department of Health and Human Services: Ebowed
Department of Homeland Security: angus
Department of Housing and Urban Development: JJ
Department of the Interior: PBrunsel
Department of Justice: Emsworth
Department of Labor: Al
Department of State: John F. Kennedy
Department of Transportation: Nym90
Department of the Treasury: skybridge
Department of Vetrans' Affairs: Jake

SCOTUS
Alcon
Joe Republic
Gabu
Dazzleman
Sam Spade
A18
WMS
nclib
supersoulty

Hopefully I didn't double count anyone.
12212  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: what is the funniest post ever? on: November 20, 2005, 06:23:50 am
A perfectly normal post can become funny when posted here.
12213  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Who the hell is Earl Parsnip? on: November 20, 2005, 06:07:28 am
How did they get ur IM then??? Shocked
12214  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: What would you rather be? on: November 20, 2005, 05:53:14 am
Well, if I can be gauranteed the 20 years, senator - I wouldn't have to be a whore if I was given the gaurantee, and could work on principle.

True but you wouldn't be able to get as much done.
12215  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Am I politically correct? on: November 20, 2005, 05:52:11 am
There's nothing wrong with being politically correct.
12216  General Politics / Individual Politics / What would you rather be? on: November 19, 2005, 12:07:14 pm
Which is it? And why?
12217  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Isolationism Experiencing Revival in the US on: November 18, 2005, 04:43:30 am
I predicted this about a year ago.

Regarding the overused "damned if you do damned if you dont" slogan that is simply not factually accurate if what one is referring to is global attitudes towards the U.S.. Nobody here was "damned" before the chimp came into office.

My only mistake was that I thought it could take as long as 20 years, things seem to be moving faster than that:

Many agree that without the war in Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush might have won in a landslide. Of those that listed the war in Iraq as a primary concern in exit polls in 2004, most went for Kerry. Hence, a nascent rejection of a neoconservative policy is already brewing. This direct rejection, of course, is more important from the point of the neocons than the rejection of George Bush as a person and candidate, which did not happen.

My prediction is that there is a high chance that neoconservatism in Iraq will dramatically fail sometime within the next 20 years. Neoconservatism and the clash between imperialist Western-state-building and the forces of civilizationalism is a faulty paradigm. But the more interesting question is, what will replace it? I feel that it would be unwise the underestimate the backlash from a failure in neoconservatism. After all, in some sense, neoconservatism is the knee-jerk, assertive version of the liberalism of the 1990s. If it fails, as it probably will, it is highly unlikely that another form of liberalism, which is both more proactive than the 1990s version, and less blind to civilizational realities than the Bush administration version, will emerge.

What is most likely, is that the vindication that Huntington received in 2001 will be reinforced by the failure of the disciplines of Fukuyama in running George W. Bush's foreign policy. Hence I predict the likely probability of the rise of civilizationalism, or an embrace of the thesis of Huntington's latest work, in the United States, matching its rise elsewhere in the world.
12218  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: Reading "Where The Right Went Wrong" by Pat Buchanan. Ask me anything. on: November 17, 2005, 01:50:12 am
I have a question?  Why are you reading Buchanan?  Just because he hates Neocons?

I work in a library.  I stumbled over his book today while cleaning up.  Read the cover, flipped though a couple pages, and thought to myself... Why the hell not?

On top of that, Ive always had a certain degree of respect for Buchanan.  He is consistent with his ideology and doesn't change his philosophy to suit changing political trends.

He doesn't have any incentive to change his ideology, unlike elected officials who have to deal with the changing winds of the electorate, his support is based on his reputation and changing himself could only hurt himself.
12219  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism on: November 17, 2005, 01:42:44 am
thefactor, I don't think you are understanding my economic point, and I think your reasoning is flawed.  I don't get the sense you have a real grip on economics or how housing prices actually come about.  I'm not going to spend more time on it, because it's a dead end.  But keep in mind that it is a person or family's RELATIVE place in the economic spectrum that decides basic standard of living, and in my example, the RELATIVE place of the working class family was lowered.  I have not only the theory, but years of observation and personal experience to back me up on this.  You are simply not following the economic link all the way through to its full conclusion.

Of course, everybody is for better schools in more neighborhoods.  That's motherhood and apple pie.  But the real question is how to bring this about.  It cannot be brought about without parental involvement and a strong family structure, and that is what is missing from poor and marginal areas.  Part of the reason it is missing is the devaluation of the traditional family role and the denigration of male roles within families that feminism has engendered.

I don't hold feminism responsible fully for all these ills, but I believe it has contributed to them.  I don't say feminism has done nothing good, but it has come at a price, and as I said earlier, that price has more often than not been paid by those who have not reaped the benefits of feminism.  Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.

Dazzle, I think I understand your point perfectly, though the way you originally explained it I think was not very accurate. Instead, it seems the main problem at the root of your symptoms is actually wealth inequality and class segregation. This is significant because then all of the economic factors that have led to increased stratificaton and class segregation become significant, whereas you have tried to skirt around them, implicitly blaming it all on feminism. It's trying to take this shortcut straight from feminism to worse schools while ignoring the 800 pound gorillas of economic restructuring and the educational funding system that has led to your muddled explanation of what you saw happened. As in many cases here again you try to impute to this principle far more than its due. And even your economic-based argument only works if funding is the main variable of educational performance, which can be remedied as I suggested.

As for "denigration of the male role" in the family and all the implications of that I consider that an entirely separate issue not at all inherent to feminism.

Feminism has increased wealth inequality and class separation, in my opinion.  I stand by that point.  They would both exist no matter what, but feminism makes them worse.  Feminism has been an integral part of the economic restructuring that you speak of.

Though I am not a fan of feminism, that is not my main point here.  I think that when examine these issues, we should take a "whole society" approach rather than the special interest approach inherent in feminism and other similar philosophies.

Dazzle, to be honest, the Democrat party will do a better job ameliorating the effects of wealth inequality and class separation, feminism aside. There are lots of ways to look at the causes and possible solutions to the problems you speak, and feminism is only that which you choose to look at and blame first, as fits with your approach to many issues. When looking through the glass of the general welfare that I follow you down, there are many more indefensible causes of wealth inequality in comparison with the womens' movement.

I know much of your opposition stands because of your long-standing association with feminism as a special interest approach. You should ask yourself more closely what constitutes a special interest, even if it doesn't change your opinion. A special interest puts one segment of society's interests ahead of those of others. The special interest in our discussion dates back to what Jared Diamond calls "the rise and spread of food production", what others might call the agricultural revolution, and the development of cultures that placed the mens' interest ahead of the womens'. Such interest is not always one-sided. Today's so-called fathers' rights movement, for example, would have perhaps benefitted more than any others from the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. On the other hand, if feminism were merely a mirror image of the object of its criticism, I would not be a feminist, nor could feminism claim descendence from one of the main scourages of special interests, Hobbesian liberalism, as it can.
12220  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism on: November 15, 2005, 10:15:55 pm
thefactor, I don't think you are understanding my economic point, and I think your reasoning is flawed.  I don't get the sense you have a real grip on economics or how housing prices actually come about.  I'm not going to spend more time on it, because it's a dead end.  But keep in mind that it is a person or family's RELATIVE place in the economic spectrum that decides basic standard of living, and in my example, the RELATIVE place of the working class family was lowered.  I have not only the theory, but years of observation and personal experience to back me up on this.  You are simply not following the economic link all the way through to its full conclusion.

Of course, everybody is for better schools in more neighborhoods.  That's motherhood and apple pie.  But the real question is how to bring this about.  It cannot be brought about without parental involvement and a strong family structure, and that is what is missing from poor and marginal areas.  Part of the reason it is missing is the devaluation of the traditional family role and the denigration of male roles within families that feminism has engendered.

I don't hold feminism responsible fully for all these ills, but I believe it has contributed to them.  I don't say feminism has done nothing good, but it has come at a price, and as I said earlier, that price has more often than not been paid by those who have not reaped the benefits of feminism.  Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.

Dazzle, I think I understand your point perfectly, though the way you originally explained it I think was not very accurate. Instead, it seems the main problem at the root of your symptoms is actually wealth inequality and class segregation. This is significant because then all of the economic factors that have led to increased stratificaton and class segregation become significant, whereas you have tried to skirt around them, implicitly blaming it all on feminism. It's trying to take this shortcut straight from feminism to worse schools while ignoring the 800 pound gorillas of economic restructuring and the educational funding system that has led to your muddled explanation of what you saw happened. As in many cases here again you try to impute to this principle far more than its due. And even your economic-based argument only works if funding is the main variable of educational performance, which can be remedied as I suggested.

As for "denigration of the male role" in the family and all the implications of that I consider that an entirely separate issue not at all inherent to feminism.
12221  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which house committees would you want to be on if elected Representative? on: November 15, 2005, 03:46:22 pm
Rules, Ways and Means, and Appropriations.
12222  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: World government? on: November 15, 2005, 03:44:40 pm
So basically the world gets taken over by one single government operating a federalist democratic society. All rights and freedoms that exist in the US Constitution exist in this Earth Constitution.

Wow, Phillip's wrong about what he said.  Supersoulty is waaaaaay smarter than you.  Although it's not saying much.

I don't get it, Cereal.

Oh damn... he left.
Complaining about what a bitter place this is.
12223  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: In 2100, what will be the world's #1 superpower? on: November 15, 2005, 03:41:15 pm
I don't think there will be a #1 superpower. It will either be world federalism, or a multipolar system. There's also a chance the US actually retains its spot.
12224  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism on: November 15, 2005, 08:10:03 am
thefactor, I don't think you're really understand my point about the economic disadvantage to lower middle class families caused or aggravated by feminism.

Like many liberals, you use a static model theory to reason the issue out, and you come to the wrong conclusion.

...

While the upper middle class family has sufficient income to have in-house babysitters, housekeepers, gardeners, etc. to ease the burden of both parents working, the lower middle class family must do all this work themselves, with both parents working full time.

Right, but this is only because wife has gone from working part time to full time. They may be making less than the income of an another family that has improved itself even more, but they are still making more than they used to be. Plus, you seem to assume that the wife was forced into working full time, which is only true if the family wants to increase their standard of living above what it was before, relative to prices. The family could simply remain in the status quo and have nothing change.

Quote
And because their place in the economic hierarchy has fallen, they cannot afford the same level of housing they could have pre-feminism.  They are now unable to buy in the better school districts, and are often marginalized to sketchy neighborhoods with bad or mediocre schools.

Wrong. Their real income has gone up, so they are able to afford more than they could in the past. How you ascribe all of these other things as a factor pure of someone else's real income going up more is impossible to explain.

Quote
Even using your static model thinking, increases in total income will lead to increased housing prices, not stable prices as you seem to suggest.  The type of housing a family will be able to afford will depend upon where that family's income falls within the population as a whole.

This is where your reasoning falls all over itself. You seem to distinguish between wealthier and less well-off families in your income analysis but not in your price analysis. I mean, consider an auction. Does the bidder for good A really care how much good B is sold for? No, it doesn't affect his price at all. From another angle, look at it this way. A family can't be shunted into worse housing unless another family is doing the shunting. The problem in your neighborhood it seems is not enough housing in good neighborhoods. As a inevitable consequence of this, some people are going to be forced into worse neighborhoods. Whether it is family A or family B in the end is not the true problem. Your right in that what you've said is "not just a theory"... in fact it's not a theory at all. Nowhere do you explain how this supposedly massive drop in affordability of housing due to women in the workforce might occur. You have never attempted to explain how the demand for housing is now greater than supply, which is ultimately the crux of the affordability issue. In order to make any possible rational chain of reasoning, you must have some connection with demand and supply. Right now I see none.

The real problem here is not womens' workforce participation but the fact that there aren't enough neighborhoods with good schools. It has nothing to do with womens' workforce participation. The reason there aren't enough neighborhoods with good schools comes from two related factors. The first factor being that some schools have declined in quality, particularly during the 70s and 80s. This creates a cycle of underperformance whereby it is difficult to attract dedicated administrators, teachers, and students with attentive parents. The second factor is increased segregation, not by race but by class. The wealthy are increasingly choosing to isolate themselves in exurban or gated communities rather than living with the working class as in the past. Part of this is a function of rising wealth inequality, but there are many reasons for this rising wealth inequality, including shifts in the tax code, a less stable, more service-oriented, skills-oriented labor market, increased reliance on capital gains among the rich, the decline of organized labor, and yes, a new conservative-driven ideology that is more hostile to poverty. Rather ignoring all of these factors you attempt to narrowly pin it on womens' workforce participation. The real root of the problems you describe, however, are glaringly clear: as a complex combination of factors has led to greater class segregation and stratification, our education funding system which was designed for an earlier, more egalitarian era has proven insufficient.

This is probably much more of an issue in economically struggling areas than it is in the fast-growing south and west (though in the west property tax initiatives have completely distorted the picture).

What is needed for poorer areas and families today who cannot possibly win in a rat race where there are only "places" for a minority of families in neighborhoods with good schools, no matter how these places are distributed, are reforms that make funding for educational systems more egalitarian than ones based on local property taxes. This might come in the form of vouchers for private or parochial schools, or it might come in the form of certain local property taxes being redistributed by the state. In the end, even this won't address the non-economic problems in poor neighborhoods, but it is an important step.
12225  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: U.S Demographic Maps on: November 13, 2005, 11:53:48 pm


Thanks Al

It's interesting to see NYC much lighter than the others.
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 604


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines