PDA

View Full Version : eminem video-blames Bush



DANINJA
28th October 04, 05:20 PM
You can download the new eminem video:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/GNN_Mosh_bb2.mov

some more info about it:

Eminem has released a new video of the cut "Mosh," from his upcoming album Encore. The largely animated video , produced in association with Guerilla News Network, opens with Eminem reading to schoolchildren in the shadow of the World Trade Center on 9/11, not unlike Bush did in Florida.

It then cuts to Eminem standing before a wall collaged with newspaper clippings and photos featuring headlines about Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11 (including the famous BUSH KNEW New York Post headline); the civil rights abuses of the PATRIOT Act; maltreatment of soldiers; war profiteering and even the Illuminati's all-seeing eye.

Eminem then rallies a crowd of youngsters to action, crying "F*** Bush!" as black helicopters buzz over. This is intercut with a scene of a soldier coming home only to immediately receive an order sending him back to Iraq. As Eminem calls Bush "this monster, this coward we empowered," one of the infamous "bin Laden videos" plays on a television set -- only to have OBL's backdrop collapse to reveal a giggling Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld on a Hollywood set.

The lyrics slam the government's "psychological warfare" as the animated Eminem leads a crowd of youth to a voting booth. But perhaps Eminem isn't cyncial enough here, as a word about the electronic voting scam machines would be worthwhile as well. At least Eminem hasn't fallen into the trap of endorsing Bush's sworn Bones blood brother Kerry, though he came a little too close for this writer's tastes in his new Rolling Stone interview.

The last video Eminem produced in association with GNN, "White America," was banned from MTV Networks.

Chupacabra
29th October 04, 11:39 AM
Eminem is a stupid piece of shit. He's talented, but he is still a stupid piece of shit. Celebrities need to stop being politicians and start entertaining us dammit. That is what they get paid for.

They need to stop telling uninformed people to vote, stop bashing someone just for the sake of bashing them and start making better music and movies.

Oh, and Puff Daddy is a stupid piece of shit too, Vote or Die.... No, how about you just die. Along with Jadakis, Oprah, and any other retarded ass liberal fucktard who is trying to get people to vote because it's cool. ITS NOT COOL TO VOTE MOTHER FUCKER.

They don't like Bush...... WHY MOTHERFUCKER and I want substance not the same old bullshit celebrities try to feed us! I want an something that's not the same distorted bullshit that pours out of their mouths like vomit down the side of a toilet at a frat party. All celebrities need to stop trying to act like they are informed when they are not.

If you like Kerry that's fine. If you like Bush that's fine too, but if your going to make a piece of media that has the potential to effect the decision making process of another human being GET INFORMED and don't try to distort reality. Facts are facts, Lies are not.

Eminem is just trying to get free publicity with all his bullshit.

LOVED2BLOVED
29th October 04, 11:39 AM
i think this video is excellent, moby agrees
http://www.nme.com/news/110352.htm

Beatdown Richie
29th October 04, 11:55 AM
> Celebrities need to stop being politicians and start entertaining
> us dammit. That is what they get paid for.
Actually, they get paid mostly when they sell records and concert tickets. If no one wants to hear them talking about politics, they won't sell anything.

But feel free to support politically neutral artists.

> All celebrities need to stop trying to act like they are informed when they are not.
It's called "raising awareness". If you dispute Eminem's opinion, feel free to publish a rap record and convince everyone that Bush is indeed a great guy.

And who says Eminem is not informed?

> ITS NOT COOL TO VOTE MOTHER FUCKER.
[sarcasm]
you're right, it's not. Let's just trust that the administration does the right thing, and not listen to anyone who raises a critical voice, 'cause they're obviously uninformed and have no clue. Probably it's best to not talk about politics anyway, because it's a democracy, and that's the best form of govermnent, and therefore everything will be alright even if no one goes to vote.
[\sarcasm]

> Facts are facts, Lies are not.
Apparently the current administration disagrees vehemently.

The Wastrel
29th October 04, 12:13 PM
Eminem is a stupid piece of shit. He's talented, but he is still a stupid piece of shit. Celebrities need to stop being politicians and start entertaining us dammit. That is what they get paid for.

They need to stop telling uninformed people to vote, stop bashing someone just for the sake of bashing them and start making better music and movies.




Oh really?

http://www.kenyada.com/canadalee.htm


Lee began to use his celebrity status in the political arena, activities that would later return to haunt his career. In March of 1944, he joined a delegation from the entertainment industry that visited Washington urging Congress to adopt the federal ballot for soldiers. That June he appeared at a Negro Freedom rally in Madison Square Garden. By September he had joined the National Citizens Political Action Committee as well as the Independent Voters Committee of the Arts and Sciences for Roosevelt, campaigning and registering people to vote for the incumbent president.


Lee continued his political activism by lobbying for the passage of federal legislation to make permanent the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), a wartime agency that sought to ban discrimination in hiring. When the bill was held up in the U.S. Senate by a Southern-led filibuster, Lee appeared on the Senate floor bearing a petition signed by 25,000 New Yorkers demanding the expulsion of Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo "for conduct unbecoming a member of Congress." He told the assembled reporters that "the citizens of New York call upon the Senate to meet this challenge, to enforce the will of the Senate majority, and enact the FEPC."


The following year Lee returned to the stage in Set My People Free and then to the screen in Lost Boundaries, released in 1949, based on a true-life black family that had passed for white in a New England town. But by this time his career was being crippled by charges of communism. Lee and several other actors were named as "outstanding fellow travelers" in the FBI file of Judith Coplon, a Justice Department employee who had passed classified documents to her Russian lover. In addition, Lee's outspokenness on racial matters had earned him the undying enmity of American political conservatives who would give him no forgiveness. They exerted enough pressure on the entertainment industry to deny him and many others accused or simply rumored "reds" work in their chosen field. This blacklist was extremely effective.

With contracts canceled and no new roles in sight, Lee called a press conference in July of 1949, at the Apollo Theatre in New York. "I am not a communist," he proclaimed in a speech recounted by Stefan Kanfer. "I believe this constant screech of 'communism' is only a smoke screen designed to hide very unpleasant facts.... I freely admit that my work, my art, my livelihood is very much affected by the irresponsible, nebulous, false insinuations directed at my name." Still, he maintained that he would continue to appear anywhere to denounce racial and religious discrimination as well as join any group working toward this cause. "I shall continue to speak my mind," he said. "I shall continue to help my people gain their rightful place in this America." Lee's valiant speech helped little. Instead, he found himself banned from 40 radio and television shows. "How long, how long can a man take this kind of unfair treatment?" he pleaded to the editors of Variety, according to Kanfer.


The American premiere of Cry, the Beloved Country in January of 1952 brought him back across the Atlantic. But he found himself still blacklisted and unemployable despite excellent reviews for the film and his acting. Depressed, tense, and financially desperate, he went to his friend Walter White, executive secretary of the NAACP. "I can't take it any more," Kanfer quoted him as saying. "I'm going to get a shoeshine box and sit outside the Astor Theatre. My picture is playing to capacity audiences and, my God, I can't get one day's work." White counseled patience and Lee obeyed.

Instead of in the theater or on the screen or radio, his final act was played out at a meeting in White Plains, New York, called to protest the shooting of two blacks in a tavern by an ex-policeman. "I try not to be emotional," Kanfer recounts him saying before quoting Othello, "Haply, for I am black and have not those soft parts of conversation." Then he told the grieving audience: "I am a black man, and black men have been killed, and I must be emotional.... When I think that America, this great and tremendous country, has been built on the backs and sweat of my people; when I think that in every war my people have died for this country; and when I know that my people cannot walk the streets here in safety, I feel bad." A few weeks later, on May 9, 1952, he died of a heart attack, "the Othello of the blacklist, at once its most afflicted and ignored victim," according to Kanfer.

Peter H.
29th October 04, 01:19 PM
Unfortunately, for every Canada Lee there are probably a dozen Cameron Diaz's:

http://myspinzone.randomdrivel.com/displayarticle818.html


if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote.

While I appreciate the sentiment, you should vote, but damn.

Boyd
29th October 04, 04:53 PM
At what point in our nation's history did we decide that celebrities weren't allowed to have opinions?

Jolly_Roger
29th October 04, 06:25 PM
Probably just about when Britney was born.

Jsun102
30th October 04, 01:28 PM
If you like Kerry that's fine. If you like Bush that's fine too, but if your going to make a piece of media that has the potential to effect the decision making process of another human being GET INFORMED and don't try to distort reality. Facts are facts, Lies are not.

Swiftboat? Veterans? For '"Truth?"



Eminem is just trying to get free publicity with all his bullshit.

While I have never really liked Eminem, his music, or his poser fans, I can safely say that this guy does not need any free publicity. He is immensely popular, and a household name as I understand it. So you're wrong. Secondly, "all his bullshit" is not, in fact, bullshit. Basically everything he displayed in his video was a valid representation of at least half of the country's viewpoint. He is perfectly able and allowed to voice his opinion any way he can, and since he is able to do it through music, he does.

In conclusion: I do not like Eminem, but what he did with the video is fine. Chupacabra, stop stressing over this video and go buy another confederate beer-cozy.

SRK85
30th October 04, 09:38 PM
Eminem's new video is really inspiring espcially to poor people who are being favored over the Iraqi's first we must end poverty in our country before we go around the world( like iraq) to free people.

Osiris
31st October 04, 10:28 AM
Oh please. That shit is weak. Listen to some REAL political rap and you can tell Em sucks at it.

Phrost
31st October 04, 12:07 PM
Eminem's new video is really inspiring espcially to poor people who are being favored over the Iraqi's first we must end poverty in our country before we go around the world( like iraq) to free people.


Sure, let's just throw money at them... that'll cure poverty forever. :XXhippylo

Bullshit.

Most poor people are poor because they're either:

a.) not smart enough to rise out of their situation through their own effort
b.) not talented enough to perform a service worthy of being properly compensated
c.) lazy.

Yes, there are exceptions wherein someone makes a few wrong turns in their life by not having as many opportunities being put in front of them. But in this country, there is no excuse to be poor. You have so many goddamn opportunities to make a life for yourself that unless you're mentally handicapped or ill, you should just shut the fuck up and do it, and stop looking for a government handout at my expense.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 12:10 PM
Sure, let's just throw money at them... that'll cure poverty forever. :XXhippylo

Bullshit.

Most poor people are poor because they're either:

a.) not smart enough to rise out of their situation through their own effort
b.) not talented enough to perform a service worthy of being properly compensated
c.) lazy.

Yes, there are exceptions wherein someone makes a few wrong turns in their life by not having as many opportunities being put in front of them. But in this country, there is no excuse to be poor. You have so many goddamn opportunities to make a life for yourself that unless you're mentally handicapped or ill, you should just shut the fuck up and do it, and stop looking for a government handout at my expense.

I believe this is mostly true. The problem is that poverty rides shotgun with unequal access to quality education from elementary through high school. Which is further exacerbated through districting. Born poor, educated poor.

Phrost
31st October 04, 12:24 PM
Public Schools in bad urban areas spend MORE money on educating those kids than the average public school.

For example:

DC: $15,122 per Student: 89% living below poverty level.

Lee's Summit, MO: $7,874 per student, 12% living below poverty level.

Figures according to 2000 census, and the National Center for Education Statistics.

So essentially, they're spending TWICE as much on education for the poor, while getting negiligeable results.

Why is this?

Perhaps throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it... hmm?

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 12:27 PM
Public Schools in bad urban areas spend MORE money on educating those kids than the average public school.

For example:

DC: $15,122 per Student: 89% living below poverty level.

Lee's Summit, MO: $7,874 per student, 12% living below poverty level.

Figures according to 2000 census, and the National Center for Education Statistics.

So essentially, they're spending TWICE as much on education for the poor, while getting negiligeable results.

Why is this?

Perhaps throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it... hmm?

No shit. How about you don't assume what I propose would help public education, and try to refrain from substituting some stupid liberal punching bag for my personal opinions?

Phrost
31st October 04, 12:33 PM
None of that was directed at you W. I was just following up on your comments in my response to SRK85.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 12:39 PM
The problem with primary and secondary public education in the United States is that it doesn't incorporate even the slightest notion of competition. NCLB does not do this to any satisfactory extent. Those countries who routinely kick our asses in this regard, especially South Korea and Japan, actually have kids competing to get into certain highly regarded public schools....As early as the first grade.

School districting guarantees students to schools, no matter how bad they are. And since attendance is one of the factors determining funding, they are never threatened with less funding because of poor performance. Standardized tests and "teacher accountability" are barely half-measures.

Look at the public education systems in the US that work. We have the greatest public university system in the world. And not only do they educate, they do an enormous amount of basic research that has contributed greatly to American innovation and technological dominance.

Why is this? They compete for students. They compete for research funding. Professors compete with each other. And they don't just build universities to shove students in, as they do with elementary, middle and high schools.

Of course, the response of a laissez-faire capitalist is that the whole system should be privatized. But education is not a good that is provided by a market, partly because the consumers are often, by definition in this case, underinformed about what they should choose. The old private prep schools and boarding schools were not marketized. They were elite clubs, dedicated to the production of "class" and "culture".

As a loose model, I propose a wholesale gutting of public primary and secondary education, the elimination of districting, and a system in which students compete for admission and parents can choose where they go. This encourages institutions to compete in terms of their success at getting their graduates into universities and gainful employment. As it is, it's the absolute definition of a diseased, disfuntional system.

Phrost
31st October 04, 12:50 PM
I can agree with that.

But I'm more impressed with the fact that you can spell "laissez-faire". I usually just opt for "free market" (whether or not it's directly applicable) simply because I can't remember how to spell that fucking term.

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 12:56 PM
I strongly disagree, at least before highschool. Even if, theoretically, that was the most efficient educational system. It's hard to explain exactly why, but there is a world-view issue ...

I meet these people at Brown who have been in elite privite schols for all of their lives. It's not that they area ll fucked up, it's that they're really sheltered. And that's coming from someone from suberbia who is no doubt shletered himself.

For science and technology, that very well may create more and "smarter" graduates, but honestly, we already have enough scientists. It's not like their are grants begging to be picked up, like graduates schools are desperate for candidates. Without some sort of extra demand, the increased numbers would be useless.

And even if this was not the case, do you really wnat a situation lik ein Great Brition where a standardized test you take at age 11 decides what you can and can't do for the rest of your life? I mean, if you think we have kids on anti-depresants now ...

Compition is important. Without it our school system has become stagnents. But compition shoudl take place on the teacher level, not the school level. I think compitition on the school level will have social implications that far outweigh the educational benfits it brings.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 12:59 PM
And even if this was not the case, do you really wnat a situation lik ein Great Brition where a standardized test you take at age 11 decides what you can and can't do for the rest of your life? I mean, if you think we have kids on anti-depresants now ...

Instead we have a system in which it's determined by the school you went to....and no one who went to those schools realizes it. I have it pretty good, but if I went to Cate, things would be quite a bit better.


Compition is important. Without it our school system has become stagnents. But compition shoudl take place on the teacher level, not the school level. I think compitition on the school level will have social implications that far outweigh the educational benfits it brings.

The United States is on the cusp of an undereducation crisis.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 01:02 PM
For science and technology, that very well may create more and "smarter" graduates, but honestly, we already have enough scientists. It's not like their are grants begging to be picked up, like graduates schools are desperate for candidates.


Ever taken a look at a list of grad students in any top engineering program in the US? Anyway, I'm not talking about creating an army of super-children in hermetically sealed environments. I'm talking about the fact that if you're poor your school is determined by your address. You're never going to have access to the education, connections and resources available in a richer zip code. You are prevented from competing.

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 01:04 PM
ever heard of magnet schools? IF you are not happy with your education you can apply.

(not trying to be snippy, acutally not sure if it's a MD thing)

edit: oh, and I'm math/physics now with only a bit of engin for fun. Decided I like understanding stuff as well as knowing how to make it.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 01:08 PM
ever heard of magnet schools? IF you are not happy with your education you can apply.

(not trying to be snippy, acutally not sure if it's a MD thing)

Magnet schools are basically the model I'm talking about. But on a greater scale. They are quite rare, and they don't really compete. And out here the magnet programs are quite anemic.

There are so many other problems though....Lack of public transportation infrastructure, for example, that consign people to zip code hell. In South Korea a kid could go to middle school in Seoul and live in Incheon; he'd just ride the subway.

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 01:12 PM
You are prevented from competing.

actually, i think that the current system allows for more compitition. Entrance would depend on standerdized testing, let's not kid oursleves. And have you seen teh figures lately for the amount people spend on tutouring their kids for stnaderdized testing?

A little of what youre talkign about is healthy and allows venting from teh really shitty public schools. But too much will create a heirarchical system at a very young age.

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 01:15 PM
Magnet schools are basically the model I'm talking about. But on a greater scale. They are quite rare, and they don't really compete. And out here the magnet programs are quite anemic.

There are so many other problems though....Lack of public transportation infrastructure, for example, that consign people to zip code hell. In South Korea a kid could go to middle school in Seoul and live in Incheon; he'd just ride the subway.

here teh magnetis are alive and kicking. And a bus WILL pick you up if you live in the county that the school is in. Hell, there was some accelerated program I got into in 4rth grade that I hadda take an hour and a half bus ride to get to.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 01:19 PM
actually, i think that the current system allows for more compitition. Entrance would depend on standerdized testing, let's not kid oursleves. And have you seen teh figures lately for the amount people spend on tutouring their kids for stnaderdized testing?

A little of what youre talkign about is healthy and allows venting from teh really shitty public schools. But too much will create a heirarchical system at a very young age.

The problem is that this is simply not the case in the US. Standardized tests determined admission to universities, yet they have been the great equalizers.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 01:19 PM
here teh magnetis are alive and kicking. And a bus WILL pick you up if you live in the county that the school is in. Hell, there was some accelerated program I got into in 4rth grade that I hadda take an hour and a half bus ride to get to.

Dude....wherever you are from is hardly representative. You go to Brown. Where did your parents go to school?

SRK85
31st October 04, 01:20 PM
Yea well if we pump moe money into education then poverty will start to decline. And yes most poor people are poor because they are to damn lazy. But some of them are poor because they dont have money to go to college or lost their job.

Osiris
31st October 04, 01:26 PM
The problem isn't that the poor don't have enough money and opportunities, but that the rich and middle class have too much. This isn't a meritocracy and people who know people and have money, like myself, can get by WAY too easily. If I were to run down my resume and then what I'm up to today, you'd wonder what the fuck happened.

Osiris
31st October 04, 01:28 PM
Oh, and Em's video isn't inspirational for shit. If you think voting or bitching solves problems, then yeh, its inspirational. Me, I like Immortal Technique. Thats how you inspire people.

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 01:33 PM
"Dude....wherever you are from is hardly representative. You go to Brown. Where did your parents go to school?"

Lehigh and U CIncinatti. And where I'm from, the schools are becoming incredibly boring and homogonous because so much credence is being given to standerdized testing. The principle get's more money the more people take AP tests, and as such pushed more people into the classes, and as such the classes are horrible.

And how is standerdized testing the great equalizer? Youv'e seen teh breakdown by race, right?

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 01:35 PM
The problem isn't that the poor don't have enough money and opportunities, but that the rich and middle class have too much. This isn't a meritocracy and people who know people and have money, like myself, can get by WAY too easily. If I were to run down my resume and then what I'm up to today, you'd wonder what the fuck happened.

is this one of those "why'd i survive the holocoust when so many ohters died" thing except for with black poverty?

Osiris
31st October 04, 01:45 PM
No. Im using myself to illustrate the advantages of belonging to certain groups. In this case, the upper middle class.

Phrost
31st October 04, 01:57 PM
The problem isn't that the poor don't have enough money and opportunities, but that the rich and middle class have too much. This isn't a meritocracy and people who know people and have money, like myself, can get by WAY too easily. If I were to run down my resume and then what I'm up to today, you'd wonder what the fuck happened.

Hey Os, who are you to tell me how much money I should be able to earn through my own effort?

Osiris
31st October 04, 02:00 PM
I wasn't talking about people who earn money through their own effort.

Phrost
31st October 04, 02:05 PM
So how do you define effort?

I know for a fact the CEOs of many companies have much more stressful jobs than the average person. These are people who have dedicated their lives to working hard, using their skills and talent to create businesses which employ thousands of people.

Would a CEO making several million dollars a year be considered too much?

Osiris
31st October 04, 02:20 PM
Not at all. However, people in the middle an upper classes tend to put in less effort to greater results which is what Im referring tool.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 02:38 PM
"Dude....wherever you are from is hardly representative. You go to Brown. Where did your parents go to school?"

Lehigh and U CIncinatti. And where I'm from, the schools are becoming incredibly boring and homogonous because so much credence is being given to standerdized testing. The principle get's more money the more people take AP tests, and as such pushed more people into the classes, and as such the classes are horrible.

And how is standerdized testing the great equalizer? Youv'e seen teh breakdown by race, right?

In my first post on this I clearly did not endorse standardized testing as a substantive solution. And I didn't mean standardized tests were the great equalizer, I meant public universities.

Shuma-Gorath
31st October 04, 03:02 PM
Yea well if we pump moe money into education then poverty will start to decline. And yes most poor people are poor because they are to damn lazy. But some of them are poor because they dont have money to go to college or lost their job.

Throwing money at a structural problem never makes it go away. Ever. For a pop-culture example, take a look at the episode of Chappellle's Show where all the black people receive slavery restitution money.

Phrost
31st October 04, 03:36 PM
The only thing that'll make poverty decline is self-respect, individual responsibility (and accountability) and a strong sense of encouragement/shame within the community for people who do well/become hoodlums.

The fact that inner-city/urban culture (not specific to any particular ethnicity) glorifies hooliganism and considers self-improvement to be "selling out" is the most likely cause of perpetual cycles of poverty.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 03:40 PM
The only thing that'll make poverty decline is self-respect, individual responsibility (and accountability) and a strong sense of encouragement/shame within the community for people who do well/become hoodlums.

And opportunity.

Raven
31st October 04, 03:44 PM
The only thing that'll make poverty decline is self-respect, individual responsibility (and accountability) and a strong sense of encouragement/shame within the community for people who do well/become hoodlums.




And opportunity.

and luck.

Lets face it, luck/fate/god/whatever is ALWAYS a factor, whether you believe in such things or not. You can make all the right moves, take all the precautions, and still fail and wind up in worse spot then you were before. Atleast, that's my take on things. Or you culd wind up in the right place at the right time, to begin your upwards ascent.

Phrost
31st October 04, 03:53 PM
Luck is a cop-out on the same level of "It's the will of God".

Opportunity is created by those capable of doing so, and longed for by those who are not.

If you're smart and talented enough, you'll succeed despite the challenges in front of you.

Osiris
31st October 04, 03:54 PM
The fact that inner-city/urban culture (not specific to any particular ethnicity) glorifies hooliganism and considers self-improvement to be "selling out" is the most likely cause of perpetual cycles of poverty.

Its not. Have you ever been in the hood? I recall you saying you were poor, but not whether you were in the city or elsewhere. I was doing some work in west baltimore this summer. Man, those guys are NOT gonna go anywhere just because they change their attitude on selling out. Let's be serious, who's gonna hire a nappy headed, badly dressed, badly speaking, undereducated black man or woman with a hood accent? No one, and only the level of speaking is on him. Even if he speaks properly though, he still has the hood accent. Yeh, people can make it, but they have to work crazy hard and be a bit lucky. Someone like me can sleep all day, bullshit, not work, barely graduate highschool and end up at the #1 black school in the country, with a job waiting at home for the breaks. A job that I didn't even have to apply for at that. Kinda like my school.

Phrost
31st October 04, 04:10 PM
Its not. Have you ever been in the hood? I recall you saying you were poor, but not whether you were in the city or elsewhere. I was doing some work in west baltimore this summer. Man, those guys are NOT gonna go anywhere just because they change their attitude on selling out. Let's be serious, who's gonna hire a nappy headed, badly dressed, badly speaking, undereducated black man or woman with a hood accent? No one, and only the level of speaking is on him. Even if he speaks properly though, he still has the hood accent. Yeh, people can make it, but they have to work crazy hard and be a bit lucky. Someone like me can sleep all day, bullshit, not work, barely graduate highschool and end up at the #1 black school in the country, with a job waiting at home for the breaks. A job that I didn't even have to apply for at that. Kinda like my school.

The problem is that nobody is telling them that being "nappy-headed, badly dressed, badly speaking, and undereducated" is DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR SUCCESS IN LIFE, while the media portrays the exact opposite.

Let's try this experiement Os, (and I wish I was independently wealthy at this point in my life to actually do it):

Go to "the hood" and give a random 18 year old kid $1000 on the condition he only spends it on clothing.

Which is more likely to happen:

He goes to the Men's Wearhouse and picks up a few sets of business attire

or

He goes to Foot Locker, gets the latest Air Jordan's (what are they at, 20 now?) and spends the rest on Sean John or Phat Farm.


Why is this?

Because if he comes home dressed like he's actually going to try to better himself, he's going to get clowned, at the very least, for being a "sellout" or "wanting to be white".

Raven
31st October 04, 04:11 PM
Luck is a cop-out on the same level of "It's the will of God".

Opportunity is created by those capable of doing so, and longed for by those who are not.

If you're smart and talented enough, you'll succeed despite the challenges in front of you.


I agree, to a certain degree.

I'll use myself as an example.

I was born with learning disablities, and my parents were told, that they should not expect me to be able to graduate highschool while I was in public school. My parents said "Fuck that!" and use the resources they had avaiable to get me the tutors, and special ed that I needed to succeed. They could AFFORD to give me what I needed to succeed. Not had me everything mind you, but if I needed a tutor they got it, if there was a book or program recommend to them, they used it. I was lucky enough to be born with parents who had the resources to provide me with the means. Yeah hard word on MY PART was probably the BIGGEST factor, but I had luck on my side. I was also lucky, my parents didn't accept what the experts had said, and decided I/they would go down fighting, not accepting the expert opinion. The experts were CLEARLY wrong.

When it came time for college and university, my parents could afford to give me the financial aid necessary so working during the school year was not required for my survival. It was for spending money and fun stuff. Again, luck played a factor, cause my dad, who worked hard and took advanage of oppurtunites (my dad was dirt poor when he was growing up, only 1 other brother has had the same success my dad has) he was able to secure this for me. It was luck that I'm his son, and not someone else's. When I needed an eductional assessment for the university to recognize my disabilities, they were able to afford it. When I need a teaching aid, they can afford it if I can't.

Yeah I'm lucky, and I acknoledge that I don't have the disadvantages other do, and I realize I'm better off then some. That's why I don't take it for granted, it could change at anytime. The company could move his plant to mexico, and he could be out of work in the next year or so. I'm lucky my family hasn't experienced what OTHER autoworkers have. When he was laided off or on strike, he was lucky he met some friends of ours, who built our house and subdivision, and he befriended them far enough in advance, they were willing to help him out, and let him work for them, till work started up again. We didn't go hungry, or not have to get loans to survive.

Now your going to tell me that luck DIDN'T have anything to do with my life?

I'm not a strong believer in luck, but I do acknowledge it.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 04:12 PM
Give $1000 to any random 18 year old kid to spend on clothes and he will spend it on looking cool. But if his parents know the right people it won't matter. I know this, and not because I am a resentful failure.

Phrost
31st October 04, 04:15 PM
Taking opportunities provided by chance != Luck.

It's the product of being prepared for said chances through effort.

I'll lay even money that there is no one in life who's never been given an opportunity to better themselves. It's just that most of them either don't see it, aren't looking for it, or are incapable of siezing it when it comes through their own failings.

And on a related note, if my great-great-grandparents hadn't sold their land to pay taxes, I'd be the land baron of the most affluent area of Kansas City.

How's that for "Bad Luck"? :mad:

Osiris
31st October 04, 04:16 PM
Oh, I agree, most of them don't capitalize on the opportunity they have. However, mch of the middle and upperclass doesn't even have to consider those things. All I have to do to get a suit is ask. If my parents say "No" I have the money to buy one myself. The guy in the hood can't do that. He has to hustle hard for his shit while I just ask. When I hustle, its to gain advantage in this system. When he does, its to even be considered a part of it. When we compete, theres no way Im gonna lose.

Osiris
31st October 04, 04:19 PM
Give $1000 to any random 18 year old kid to spend on clothes and he will spend it on looking cool. But if his parents know the right people it won't matter. I know this, and not because I am a resentful failure.

Exactly. I can spend a g today on whatever I want. My parents would kill me, but it really wouldn't change my position besides pissing them off. A guy in the hood blows a g... Well, he doesn't even have that and if he did, he sure as hell needed it.

Phrost
31st October 04, 04:19 PM
If what you're getting at is a need for more educational opportunities or training, then I agree with you.

I support the use of a Job Corps, structured much like the military as far as awarding jobs to those with appropriate aptitude, which both serves the public good while providing skill training to those who don't have the same opportunities as others.

That's how I got where I am... through the Military version of this. My mom sure as hell couldnt pay for me to go to college on her grocery cashier salary.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 04:20 PM
Look, don't even get me started on admissions to elite unversities....

Phrost
31st October 04, 04:22 PM
Go for it. I have to recuse myself to take care of some ACTUAL work.

Until the day I get paid for my social commentary...

Raven
31st October 04, 05:40 PM
Taking opportunities provided by chance != Luck.

It's the product of being prepared for said chances through effort.

I'll lay even money that there is no one in life who's never been given an opportunity to better themselves. It's just that most of them either don't see it, aren't looking for it, or are incapable of siezing it when it comes through their own failings.

And on a related note, if my great-great-grandparents hadn't sold their land to pay taxes, I'd be the land baron of the most affluent area of Kansas City.

How's that for "Bad Luck"? :mad:


While I can't agree witha generalization like that, I will concede you are right to a certain degree.

That does suck.

Raven
31st October 04, 05:42 PM
Oh, I agree, most of them don't capitalize on the opportunity they have. However, mch of the middle and upperclass doesn't even have to consider those things. All I have to do to get a suit is ask. If my parents say "No" I have the money to buy one myself. The guy in the hood can't do that. He has to hustle hard for his shit while I just ask. When I hustle, its to gain advantage in this system. When he does, its to even be considered a part of it. When we compete, theres no way Im gonna lose.


Exactly, I probably wouldn't realize the oppurtunites I have, had I not known and befriended people worse off then me. I'll admit that. The middle and upper class DO have oppurtunites that they take for granted.

Raven
31st October 04, 05:44 PM
Look, don't even get me started on admissions to elite unversities....


Are you talking about the fact most people can't afford them, unless they have access to scolorships, buseraries*, or charities, and that's provided that those can actually COVER THE COST?

OR that their admissions are dominated by the upper and middle classes?

Or the rich can BUY their way into them?

Or that those who actually go, are the ones who can afford it, not those who have the best acedemic ability?




*=I have no clue how to spell those words.

Shug
31st October 04, 06:04 PM
Sure, let's just throw money at them... that'll cure poverty forever. :XXhippylo

Bullshit.

Most poor people are poor because they're either:

a.) not smart enough to rise out of their situation through their own effort
b.) not talented enough to perform a service worthy of being properly compensated
c.) lazy.

Yes, there are exceptions wherein someone makes a few wrong turns in their life by not having as many opportunities being put in front of them. But in this country, there is no excuse to be poor. You have so many goddamn opportunities to make a life for yourself that unless you're mentally handicapped or ill, you should just shut the fuck up and do it, and stop looking for a government handout at my expense.

ummmmm, didn't you JUST imply that? Or is it the logic that they still took a few wrong turns, still putting at least partial blame on said individual. Nah, it couldn't at all be that the resources are missing in specific areas because we're too busy buying materials for cruise missiles instead of books for schools and higher pay for teachers who need to actually start caring.

Wounded Ronin
31st October 04, 06:27 PM
Public Schools in bad urban areas spend MORE money on educating those kids than the average public school.

For example:

DC: $15,122 per Student: 89% living below poverty level.

Lee's Summit, MO: $7,874 per student, 12% living below poverty level.

Figures according to 2000 census, and the National Center for Education Statistics.

So essentially, they're spending TWICE as much on education for the poor, while getting negiligeable results.

Why is this?

Perhaps throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it... hmm?



The public schools are often so broken that fixing them is much more complicated than throwing money. I actually think public education in this country is broken beyond repair.

In this case, I *don't* think that it's fair to throw the blame on the kids. The problem is that there is so much politics involved with the public education system that it is always addressing politics first, education second.

My mom has been a teacher in the public school system in different states for years. I learned all about how broken the schools are.

Just as it's overly simplistic to throw money at the problem, though, it's also overly simplistic to just toss the blame on a person or group of persons.

Phrost
31st October 04, 06:36 PM
Public Schools are broken because they, as has been said (either here, or in some other discussion I've had recently, but since I'm overworked give me a fucking Mulligan on this) a lack of competition is what keeps public schools, or Socialized anything (medicine, for example) from being effecient.

When there's a lack of competition, as there is with the monopoly on education in America in the public school system, there is no incentive to innovate or achieve.

Raven
31st October 04, 06:42 PM
Public Schools are broken because they, as has been said (either here, or in some other discussion I've had recently, but since I'm overworked give me a fucking Mulligan on this) a lack of competition is what keeps public schools, or Socialized anything (medicine, for example) from being effecient.

When there's a lack of competition, as there is with the monopoly on education in America in the public school system, there is no incentive to innovate or achieve.


I dunno if I agree with that. If you make public schools like university, then Ghetto schools are going to be worse off then they are now, without government subsity. They are poor now, which means the will not attact affluent people to send their kids there, and poor people will probably not be able to afford eductaion, which means, we have generations of homeschooled kids, without any regulation.

Wounded Ronin
31st October 04, 09:59 PM
Public Schools are broken because they, as has been said (either here, or in some other discussion I've had recently, but since I'm overworked give me a fucking Mulligan on this) a lack of competition is what keeps public schools, or Socialized anything (medicine, for example) from being effecient.

When there's a lack of competition, as there is with the monopoly on education in America in the public school system, there is no incentive to innovate or achieve.

I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on this one. I really think that it's the politics...both big political issues that affect the entire education system, and the local politics concerning the individual educators within a given school.

Like I said, my mom was a teacher for years, and I would hear about the things that happened during her day very frequently. And based on this, as well as discussions that I've had with my mom, I think that lack of competition is the *least* of the problems facing the public education system. It's not a question of being "efficient"; it's a question of being *broken*.




Therefore, socialized medicine being efficient or inefficient is actually a different set of issues. I'll just say this about that: you could do a lot worse than live in France, Italy, England, or Japan. Socialized medicine is far from being a disaster.


Put another way: competition is *not* going magically fix all of our difficult social problems.

The Wastrel
31st October 04, 10:47 PM
Public Schools are broken because they, as has been said (either here, or in some other discussion I've had recently, but since I'm overworked give me a fucking Mulligan on this) a lack of competition is what keeps public schools, or Socialized anything (medicine, for example) from being effecient.

When there's a lack of competition, as there is with the monopoly on education in America in the public school system, there is no incentive to innovate or achieve.


Anyone who's worked in a medical field would know why market-style competition fails to deliver quality medical care.

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 11:26 PM
"Are you talking about the fact most people can't afford them, unless they have access to scolorships, buseraries*, or charities, and that's provided that those can actually COVER THE COST?

OR that their admissions are dominated by the upper and middle classes?

Or the rich can BUY their way into them?

Or that those who actually go, are the ones who can afford it, not those who have the best acedemic ability?"

this is actually getting better. If I'm not mistaken, all the Ivy's now have a need-blind admission and gaurentee to meet you financial need. If your good at testing, your set.

The rich can still but their way in, though. And athlets still get in for athletic reason, even though theoretically the Ivy League was drawn up to prevent this. We have entire classes full of them.

PeedeeShaolin
31st October 04, 11:34 PM
I was visiting a friend at NYU recently and some girls were selling tshirts with the Olsen twins on the front. Written under them was "Which one bought your seat?".

DJeter1234
31st October 04, 11:35 PM
oh, and Wastrel, in a magnet school style enviorment, we already have compition to get into the better schools. What, besides standerdized testing, would you propose as an effective and plausible means to decide who get's in? Give me a good answer and you might jsut win me over.

The Wastrel
1st November 04, 12:08 AM
First, the magnet schools don't have the presence to change the systemic pathologies of public education. Second, I think standardized testing before the high school entry-level is inadvisable. But what really is the problem with identifying children for specific goals rather than forcing all children onto a college-prep track when the great majority will never go, and will have no skills after finishing high school? Talk about determinism...

DJeter1234
1st November 04, 12:13 AM
i know quite a few intelligent peopel who dicked around untill around the 10th grade. Their faliure to achieve earlier was, in my opinion, more an issue of maturity/lack of familial support than anything else.

If a system could sucesfully "sort" people into university and non-university, fine. But either the parents, the children, or standerdized testing has to choose the path. All three will skew towards the rich, but the only one i see as fair is the child choosing and I do not think they have the presence of mind to choose before later in HS.

The Wastrel
1st November 04, 12:15 AM
i know quite a few intelligent peopel who dicked around untill around the 10th grade. Their faliure to achieve earlier was, in my opinion, more an issue of maturity/lack of familial support than anything else.

If a system could sucesfully "sort" people into university and non-university, fine. But either the parents, the children, or standerdized testing has to choose the path. All three will skew towards the rich, but the only one i see as fair is the child choosing and I do not think they have the presence of mind to choose before later in HS.


I humbly submit that this is American romanticism that contributes to the decline in educational achievement.

DJeter1234
1st November 04, 12:41 AM
it's personal experiance, and barring any concete evidence to the contrary ...

Personally, i would have enjoyed a more competitive enviorment in HS. If I'm jsut over-romantisizing I'd love to cure myself of the delusion.

The Wastrel
1st November 04, 12:43 AM
Personally, i would have enjoyed a more competitive enviorment in HS.

So would I have. What I called romanticism was the notion of high school age people being allowed to find themselves. Teenagers are stupid; even the smart ones need strict directional cues.

DJeter1234
1st November 04, 12:58 AM
the ideas are not mutually exclusive. teenagers can "find themselves" by being guided in the right direction and suddenly realizing that the direction is right.

Stick
1st November 04, 08:18 AM
:: gloesses over entire debate over education ::

I think his rhymes is phat, yo.

:: fondles self ::

Alright, can't gloss completely.

Phrost, in that figure you first quotes, something like twice the money being spent on inner citty students, how much of that do you figure goes for security? Granted it can't be enough to make up for all of that differance, but there are certain considerations that must be taken into account for the two different environments. Also, maybe that recent surge in spending is a an entirely new phenomenon; a response to the sheer neglect such schools have been shown in the past, and money like that is needed to repair, rebuilid, and replace utterly dilapidated facilities...

Just a thought.

:: continues to fondle self ::.

Raven
1st November 04, 08:44 AM
So would I have. What I called romanticism was the notion of high school age people being allowed to find themselves. Teenagers are stupid; even the smart ones need strict directional cues.


I think it's just that age. We really DO do a number on teens, we tell them they are adults, yet still treat them as children. We also expect them at least in Canada, to know what they want to do with the rest of their lives, by taking the proper courses. FUck I'm 26 and I'm still not sure if I want to be a teacher.

Beatdown Richie
1st November 04, 10:32 AM
Wastrel:


Anyone who's worked in a medical field would know why market-style competition fails to deliver quality medical care.

Care to elaborate?

DJeter1234
1st November 04, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=Dai-TenshiPhrost, in that figure you first quotes, something like twice the money being spent on inner citty students, how much of that do you figure goes for security? Granted it can't be enough to make up for all of that differance, but there are certain considerations that must be taken into account for the two different environments. Also, maybe that recent surge in spending is a an entirely new phenomenon; a response to the sheer neglect such schools have been shown in the past, and money like that is needed to repair, rebuilid, and replace utterly dilapidated facilities...[/QUOTE]

overall, much much much more money is spent on schools in richer area. In many states, the revenue is based on the property tax. But there have been studies where money is thrown at inner city schools over the course of liek 10 years and barely anything happens. Money alone doesn't solve the problem. And I'm sure Wastrel could tell you that abolishing the property tax doesn't either.

The Wastrel
1st November 04, 12:40 PM
Money alone doesn't solve the problem. And I'm sure Wastrel could tell you that abolishing the property tax doesn't either.

You know your Californian politics.

Stick
1st November 04, 01:45 PM
I've never been to California, pitty.

Colorado Springs had pretty good high schools, lucky me. Though I probably would've been better off if my family had just set up shop in Germany when I was 11.

SLJ
2nd November 04, 03:48 AM
How original Eminem *yawn*