what's BAD about democracy(for once)?

[bipper]

Again, Free education should simply be generals. To get the specific training to be a Doctor, Chef, RN, Fast Food worker you should have to pay. I think there should be hurdles on the way to achiving your dream. That and it would hinder people whom are in it for simply money from becomming doctors and such. People whom are doctros for the money, are usually shatty doctrors whom just don't care too much about the patient.

The poverty cycle is fine. I encourage it. As long as poverty is a high class poverty as it is here in the states. A full stomach, a roof, and your health. Its been said, we have the richest poor people, but we do have those with out a prayer as well. Thusly, I belive the system needs a huge revamping.

Bipper

[Teek]

If all education were privatized, we'd see higher quality education at lower prices.

Check Economics 101, please.

[bipper]

I don't believe that for a second Hachifusa. Sides, stateside we have public and private schools. I personnaly rally towards the public schools system myself. I believe it teaches kids more socialistic values, and offers them a whole lot more freedom than most private schools. Though the education may not be as high to standards, parents can take a more active role in thier childs educations and help thier child grow. Again, public school is just a starting block, a place to get your head up and stick your neck out. If that is not good enough for some, there are always privatised schools.

I would say that taking education away from the public would greatly hinder America, and drive it's economy into the dirt. The children of people who could (theroetically) afford education are not necessarily the best people in the world. This would cause America a greater loss in nearly every area I am concerned with.

Schools also provide more than just education. Though, that is thier primary reason for eistance. A public school hosts a lot of public events, and acts as a stage for many different activites. Thusly, making it more of a public place. I am sure many of these functions would be killed off if private schools took over.

Lastley, let me end with a good personal example.

When I started college, I went to a community college. Cheap as hell, but the education was questionable. I dropped out, and went to a private school where I proceeded to get my Associates Degree. I would easily say that the private school taught me so much more than I could have learned at a community college, and others whom went to State Universities then transfered to private schools, say about the same thing. The point is, although Community College and State U's are not entirely free, there is still another level of schooling brought into play by the privat sector.

While the Government has its price advantage, the private schools have other advantages as well. I think it gives those willing to spend the dough to go to a private school, a heads up personally. I have met some very intellegent types from Universites (most of em going for masters or docrtrates) and I am not ripping on them in anyway. It is just my own experience that leads me to belive this way. On that note, there have been some very crappy privatised schools as well. Schools that seem to be in it for the quick buck. This is where some product research comes into play.

Bottom line; options > all

Bipper

[Teek]

The problem with having public education (besides that we are taxing people - even if they don't use the school system - to keep it running poorly) is that with public education that makes the market much smaller for private universities, which jacks the price up. I believe in better education, and if all education was privatized, prices would drop (rather necessarily) or else the "business" (in this case, education) would fail. The reason why you are against all private education is because you are still seeing private education as it is now: high-end, usually specialized (for example, Catholic) institutions for the wealthy.

Private institutions teach social value as well; in fact, that's a moot argument (I'm talking now as if there was no public schools).

Public education is another brand of socialism that unfortunately comes about; the moment we question just how secure freedom is (and I answer: as secure as you make it) we begin to put safety nets in place. The problem with safety nets is that we begin to lose the productivity from before (and likewise, our freedoms).

Make all education private, and we'd have a whole range of schools. Our taxes would drop, as would the prices of schools (don't believe that it will be thousands of dollars to go to school; hardly) and the education quality would shoot up, and with less bureaucracy, the money being poured into an individual school - from the students - would more directly benefit the students.

There are very few things that a government can do better than an individual concern can.

People who like to scare others into socialism (usually with quotes like, "That'd make school only for the rich! The poor have a right to learn!") are working under the failed premise of being unable to see past the present. They see the way it is now (another failed attempt; another socialized mistake) and make the mistake of thinking that if all schools were privatized, then all schools would be expensive and breed stuck-up brats who have no respect for knowledge.

(To go off-topic for a minute: this is a common problem. When I suggested that welfare systems be abolished to help the poor, a rather innocent, yet grossly uninformed individual of the stereotypical liberal
school of thought responded, "But the welfare system is barely working now as it is, and you wish to take it away?" The idea that the system itself is flawed never struck her - nor most people who believe in it. Rather, they think that we aren't sacrificing enough to keep them running. It is the same with public education; if the system is losing a lot of money and the education quality isn't the greatest, most people assume that it's the people that are flawed, not the system. To make that error is one of the costliest - and most dangerous - errors one can make in this field. It never can occur to a lot of these people that there is a possible world where the current "private" option would be reformed, too. )

The only way to live in a free society with liberty and justice for all is to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, avoid involuntary taxation for services one wouldn't want, and increase productivity by putting the power back in the people's hands. The only way, therefore, education can exist in a free society is through privatization.

[bipper]

The problem with having public education (besides that we are taxing people - even if they don't use the school system - to keep it running poorly)

well, I don't want to ignore the parenthasies, as it raises a great point. I do think that the school system needs to be revamped. Revamped to run more efficiantly that is. The school is really synominous to our government, a hundred hands in it, all getting what they want. The government can run anything better than a private institution simply because they are not in it for the money... well, shouldn't be. I know hands dip in the pots, but like I said, they need to be revamped. Much like 90% of our government.

is that with public education that makes the market much smaller for private universities, which jacks the price up. I believe in better education, and if all education was privatized, prices would drop (rather necessarily) or else the "business" (in this case, education) would fail. The reason why you are against all private education is because you are still seeing private education as it is now: high-end, usually specialized (for example, Catholic) institutions for the wealthy.

I agree with this theory, but you would basically get different schools. A Wal-mart type school, a Sears type school, etc. All with verying views on educational standards. Sears might like to provide quality education, but the price would be high. Allowing only the kids with money to attend. The wal-mart school would offer the cheapest prices, but the worst education. This would widen the education gap via economic standards. If a kid is born poor, he deserves a chance.

Private institutions teach social value as well; in fact, that's a moot argument (I'm talking now as if there was no public schools).

Yes, I am mainly pointing towards learning centers, and very privitized studies here.

Public education is another brand of socialism that unfortunately comes about; the moment we question just how secure freedom is (and I answer: as secure as you make it) we begin to put safety nets in place. The problem with safety nets is that we begin to lose the productivity from before (and likewise, our freedoms).

I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it. This is what I was getting at, where people would complain about paying for schools, even whent the schools often provide a stage for many other public events. I know there are mass restrictions on this kind of activity, but they should definatley be lightened, and allow the public to utilze what they pay for even more efficiantly.

Make all education private, and we'd have a whole range of schools. Our taxes would drop, as would the prices of schools (don't believe that it will be thousands of dollars to go to school; hardly) and the education quality would shoot up, and with less bureaucracy, the money being poured into an individual school - from the students - would more directly benefit the students.

Buraccuracy, you raised a good point here. Schools need less of this, but I think when people are working for money, there will be more buraccuracy than ever. More letters to sign, more school 'plans' etc etc.

On this point also, a school is most certainly NOT cheap to run. A school needs to be kept up, heated (expensive here in Wisconsin), secure, roomy, and obey so many strict government issued codes, that I don't see a school being able to be paid for (cheaply) by 500 students. Bottom line is profit with priviatization. To make profit, schools have to run very clear of the red. There are a lot of expences in running a school, more than the parents of a handfull of kids could prolly afford. (I am talking the middle low class under $40K a year.

There are very few things that a government can do better than an individual concern can.

There are also a lot of things a government can do better. The best way to work things is having individual concern work hand in hand with the gov't.

People who like to scare others into socialism (usually with quotes like, "That'd make school only for the rich! The poor have a right to learn!") are working under the failed premise of being unable to see past the present. They see the way it is now (another failed attempt; another socialized mistake) and make the mistake of thinking that if all schools were privatized, then all schools would be expensive and breed stuck-up brats who have no respect for knowledge.

While I can tend to agree with you here, I must say that privatized students would care more for thier educations, simply because the parents want to see thier money well spent. If only parents got so involved in their children's affairs in a public school. The cause may be the privitization here, but the direct (motor) cause, is the parents involvemnet (even if it is simply in the form of pressure).

(To go off-topic for a minute: this is a common problem. When I suggested that welfare systems be abolished to help the poor, a rather innocent, yet grossly uninformed individual of the stereotypical liberal
school of thought responded, "But the welfare system is barely working now as it is, and you wish to take it away?" The idea that the system itself is flawed never struck her - nor most people who believe in it. Rather, they think that we aren't sacrificing enough to keep them running. It is the same with public education; if the system is losing a lot of money and the education quality isn't the greatest, most people assume that it's the people that are flawed, not the system. To make that error is one of the costliest - and most dangerous - errors one can make in this field. It never can occur to a lot of these people that there is a possible world where the current "private" option would be reformed, too. )

The strangest part of that story is that people are the ones making all the generalizations and false assumptions. The same individuals you would pin the aspirations of thier children on. The same individual whom could make any mistake, and die for it, at least in a unsocialsitic (Minimal) world. This is why I would have faith in the balance of Individuals vs Society. In your example, the individual make some crudley uninformed assumtuptions. You claim to kill the beast, I claim we should train it.

The only way to live in a free society with liberty and justice for all is to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, avoid involuntary taxation for services one wouldn't want, and increase productivity by putting the power back in the people's hands. The only way, therefore, education can exist in a free society is through privatization.

Or to exorsize these libierties, and get involved deeper. People here can live like sheep, or can be like yourself ()and I included) and jump into the mess. I merely watch, disect, and talk about it here and there. That small spark though can cause a fire well enough to challenge others to get involved.

I think involvment ins key. We are to watch the government, and remember that we are thier bosses. We need LESS counter-pruductive media involved in polotics, and more prodcutive, fact-based, non-biased overviews of canidates and job possitions available. What better stage than the internet?

I think we both agree, Hachi, that they government has become a thorn in our sides in one way or another. I agree that welfare, education, and even health systems, can be prone to so much abuse. Like I said earlier, instead of killing the beast, we should tame it. The government offers a huge platfrom in wich we can creat a society that allows better equality, while allowing people to arise above the mediocrasy that is offered, and become greater due to thier fiscal situations. Therefore, we are not as socialistic as it would seem, but we are more than we should be. My step back is simply less drastic.

On these same premise, I am sure if we quit paying taxes, and had money to spend on education, other needs would arise, and basic prices would go up as greed came into play. $10 dollar gas? 5 dollar bread. Wouldn't suprise me. You see, companies look at the available funds of an area through market reasearch. Incredibly effective, and an honorable tool indeed. It becomes unballanced, when they propose an amount for food that takes in account those without children, or with out a care in the world, and inflates thier prices based on these numbers. The resulting view of this would be that children are now a Luxury Item. Don't have children, unless your willing to cut (possibly like mad) to pay for thier schooling, healthcare, and every other need they have. This is where this idea looses me. Fiscally loosening up taxes will break the chains of greed and allow people whom live for themselves, to hinder others greatly. Simply put, the government supported education and other socialistic systems, allow us to easily set aside money through taxes (in which we must pay). This money is no longer market applicable, and therefore will keep other prices lower, as the effect that we actually have less money to spend hits.

As for a label, I am currious as to where I would fall. I don't claim to be a socialist, but I belive that society needs to care minimally for those whom need it. The lowest standard of living should be the effect of socialism.

Anyways, I am very tired right now, gotta hit the sack.

Bipper

[Teek]

The government can run anything better than a private institution simply because they are not in it for the money...

But what makes that wrong? When people are in it "for the money" then they realize that they have to offer a valuable service. I'm not talking about you here, but a lot of people, I think, don't have a firm knowledge of running a business. I mean, clearly, if a school is out for profit at the expense of students, that's bad. But that simply doesn't happen (or, if it does, it cannot last). You're seeing people as sheep, here, who'll pay whatever people demand. I'm telling you; good customer service is key. If a school wants to stay alive, it has to either improve the quality or lower its prices.

I agree with this theory, but you would basically get different schools. A Wal-mart type school, a Sears type school, etc. All with verying views on educational standards. Sears might like to provide quality education, but the price would be high. Allowing only the kids with money to attend. The wal-mart school would offer the cheapest prices, but the worst education. This would widen the education gap via economic standards. If a kid is born poor, he deserves a chance.

I don't see how this is any different than how it is now (private schooling being the "Sears" and public schooling being the "Wal-Mart).

I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it.

They pay for it by pursuing their interests. Such as a school aiming for money. If they want more money, they'll offer better education, which is a benefit for society.

Schools need less of this, but I think when people are working for money, there will be more buraccuracy than ever. More letters to sign, more school 'plans' etc etc.

I don't see individually-run schools having more bureaucracy. I go to a private university because the public universities has benchmarks and guidelines that I simply couldn't meet. After meeting with an official from the current private university, I was in. A hell of a lot less bureaucracy.

On this point also, a school is most certainly NOT cheap to run. A school needs to be kept up, heated (expensive here in Wisconsin), secure, roomy, and obey so many strict government issued codes, that I don't see a school being able to be paid for (cheaply) by 500 students. Bottom line is profit with priviatization. To make profit, schools have to run very clear of the red. There are a lot of expences in running a school, more than the parents of a handfull of kids could prolly afford. (I am talking the middle low class under $40K a year.)

Impossible if we are going to run a school fit for three thousand, but if you make a proportionately-sized school, it works.

Trust me, it's not the only industry that accounts for this. Running an airline isn't cheap, as well, but they manage to give affordable prices considering the costs.

There are also a lot of things a government can do better.

Other than the protection of individual rights, I can't think of anything.

The strangest part of that story is that people are the ones making all the generalizations and false assumptions. The same individuals you would pin the aspirations of thier children on. The same individual whom could make any mistake, and die for it, at least in a unsocialsitic (Minimal) world. This is why I would have faith in the balance of Individuals vs Society. In your example, the individual make some crudley uninformed assumtuptions. You claim to kill the beast, I claim we should train it.

I don't care what mistake people could die for, as long as society stays the hell out of my way and allows me to live. That's where the government steps in - any action taken by an individual that hinders him would only take down those who voluntarily joined him.

Fiscally loosening up taxes will break the chains of greed and allow people whom live for themselves, to hinder others greatly.

I won't repeat what I have been repeating, but I will repeat that this is virtually impossible.

[Light Mage]

American democracy? It's not real democracy when you only have a choice between two people.

[bipper]

Yeah, so what, I am still awake and lurking

Several good points, the best being that I am tired and needed to stay on focus and support my ideals better! lol

But what makes that wrong? When people are in it "for the money" then they realize that they have to offer a valuable service. I'm not talking about you here, but a lot of people, I think, don't have a firm knowledge of running a business. I mean, clearly, if a school is out for profit at the expense of students, that's bad. But that simply doesn't happen (or, if it does, it cannot last). You're seeing people as sheep, here, who'll pay whatever people demand. I'm telling you; good customer service is key. If a school wants to stay alive, it has to either improve the quality or lower its prices.

It is about customer satisfaction, granted. Prices can only go so low, is my main point. When you have a man on top collecting whatever percentage he can, that simply inflates the price a bit. The buisness model you propse is a great model in its virginity, but so many things happen to screw it up. So many different industries just change overnight. Look at the department store rumble. While different song and dances are being done to get people to enroll, the quality of education would suffer for advirtisement, expansion, and other questionable expendetures. Sure, a kid would just have to change schools when the company downsizes, or goes under all toghether.

I think growing up in such termoil would make it harder on kids to get what they need out of education.


I went to a private university, much like yourself. While there was less beruacacy to a point, there was even more when they would kick kids around to make thier numbers 'look' better. A huge mistake I see here is in the job placement areas. A lot of people graduate, and are forced to sign a peice of paper saying that they are "privatly employed" thus not a liability of the college. The college then boasts larger numbers, and creates a falsified positive statistic to hand out.

I trust the government more in these aspects . Damn Awkward I know. At least the political figures are in it for the vote, somthing they can loose, where as private school owners are in it for the money. In that, you have no insurrance when you leave. I agree that carful consuming would help alleviate this problem, but I think those energies and resources would be better spent on working on somthing that we already have.

I don't see how this is any different than how it is now (private schooling being the "Sears" and public schooling being the "Wal-Mart).

Exactly. I am saying that our government should offer a good stable form of education. If someone does not want "wal-mart education" they can enroll at SEARS. The only trick is, the have to pay to keep wal-mart running. This is for a damn good reason in my book, as if only public students would pay the public schools taxes, it would degrade (duh!) but this would give the private sector a chance to make a bloated income, reap the benefits of stocks, loans, and etc to cause the government schools to go under ( or loose out significantly), on the false premesis that they are (that much) better than public schools.

I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it.

They pay for it by pursuing their interests. Such as a school aiming for money. If they want more money, they'll offer better education, which is a benefit for society.[/quote]

Fair enough, but there are other ways to make money than simply raising customer satisfaction levels. I just don't have enough faith in buisness running schools. Period.

I don't see individually-run schools having more bureaucracy. I go to a private university because the public universities has benchmarks and guidelines that I simply couldn't meet. After meeting with an official from the current private university, I was in. A hell of a lot less bureaucracy.

I do not nessesarily mean student -> school bureaucracy, but mainly such bureaucracy pertaining to the schools from inter school standards, and transfering (Which there would HAVE to be transfers in the event of schools going bankrupt, closing... I would hate to see the effect of a senior having to jump into a new school system with no bearing.)

Like I said earlier, I was in a private U, and I like it a hell of a lot better than government subsidized schools too! I really liked the fact that I had the choice. Take a freedom here, to give a freedom there. /shrug
I seen a lot of beruacracy, as I am sure you may, post graduation. Remember, to these schools, people are paying customers, once your contract with them is done, you are crap. There are a few smart exceptions out there of course, but a lot of the cheaper routes act this way as I have found out from persoanl experience, and from many, many stories.

In this aspect, yes people are sheep

Impossible if we are going to run a school fit for three thousand, but if you make a proportionately-sized school, it works.

Trust me, it's not the only industry that accounts for this. Running an airline isn't cheap, as well, but they manage to give affordable prices considering the costs.

Funny you should bring this highly unstable example into this debate! I don't mean any disrespect to that, but lets go with this and look at the airlines. Like airlines, schools would be subject to a lot of standardisation. Some schools will fail to comply, some schools will be stuck in the ruts, and not have the commercial pressence to pull themselves out. These schools would close, and students would prolly be lost.

We have many, many airlines with so many problems. Northwest used a bloated campain to make them look very lavish, but now they are filing bankrupsies left and right. What would happen to the students in this school?

I mean this, when I say that several self serving types will look at these childre, and build a get rich and retire young empire off of them. They will live in the short term, and then leave as so many other buisnesses have done. If they really all worried about making a company that would last, this idea would hold more merit.

I don't care what mistake people could die for, as long as society stays the hell out of my way and allows me to live. That's where the government steps in - any action taken by an individual that hinders him would only take down those who voluntarily joined him. [/quote]

I see your point, I guess. It seems very cold, but it is a point none the less. If you want to live, you can. That is the very point of my beliefs. If you were born into a low income family whom lived in a one bedroom apartment, and could not afford health care. education, or anything else to get your foot up; how would that be fair?

I think turning your back to people's stupidity is one thing, but turning your back to the helpless whom find themselves in that boat because of another's stupidity, what exactly makes thier individual rights less important than your own?

I won't repeat what I have been repeating, but I will repeat that this is virtually impossible.

You should, I don't think I have seen a sufficiant argument go against this. I got into it more in depth in my last post. I have written several papers on this through out my economy classes in college, I don't speak out my ass when I say these things. Its pure logic that I am sure you can respect. If there is more money instantainiously in one area, marketing and good buisness will suck up every dime they can.

American democracy? It's not real democracy when you only have a choice between two people.

You ccould have written in nader, or mickey mouse if you wanted too -_- and we are... a democradic republic.
Bipper

[Cloud No.9]

"To get the specific training to be a Doctor, Chef, RN, Fast Food worker you should have to pay. I think there should be hurdles on the way to achiving your dream."

that makes no sense. it just means the poor remain in the poorest jobs and so will their children be and thir children's children. no matter what their ability if they can't get an education to use it then they are screwed and so are their children.

no private university's exist in scotland. and you still get good and bad ones. glasgow (the one i am at) is one of the finest university's in britain. comes consistantly on top for science and especially computing. it is one of the finest universities in europe and attracts a huge amount of foreign students for that reason. and how is this great institution paid for? taxes. not a private organisation. in 5 years time i hope to leave here with a Msci in computing science from the best university from which i could have gained it. and when i leave society will reap the benefits of my education. i will pay more taxes because i will have a better job, paying back the money required for me to do this, and more. i will provide services beyond what i could have acheived before.

and this without being judged from my monetary wealth. but from purely my ability and intelligence. as education and jobs should be.

and hachifuse is it not wierd that you ask about freedom when your government tortures foreign nationals in guantanamo?

[bipper]

It is the mere though of testing someone with life to get them to fufill thier dream cloud. If everything was just merly handed to you, there would be less specualtion and searching for that perfect career you want.

I don't belive in simply giveing people everything, just a heads up. A doctor would require a hell of a lot more training than most other professions out there. Should the people pay for this? no. That would be a poor and unwise investment, as the person who is willing to sacrifice what is needed to obtain the job, will outshine others. People who want everything given to them, do not deserve everything, but they do deserve life.

In otherwords, give moderatley, and the ones who want to shine, will.
Bipper

[Cloud No.9]

it's a test which the poor cannot pass. there is no way a poor person can pay to go to medical school even if he does have the ability.

it is a test limited purely to the poor. and why is that? the rich will not have a problem passing the test.

poor doctors cannot exist if you do not put them on equal grounds of education of the rich. i know myself that i could not have got to univeristy with my fees being paid for. and even then for my first year i need to spend £300 on books and £2500 on accomadation, £1000 on a laptop and ocr scanner needed because of my disability. for this i am given a £830 loan. my parents are not rich and they have sacrificed alot to get me here.

if my parents were less rich i would have not gotten here. even with my grades. so bipper can you tell me why i am less deserving than the rich for my education?

[bipper]

No, read my post again. It says in black and white that I would idealy provide the same platform for the rich and poor to start on. All the money in the world does not buy heart, which gauges people better than raw education anyways. Granted you need both.

A rich person can pay a private institution to teach thier children, I don't care about that. Its life, I don't say that we should hand out the same resources to everyone, and make sure everyone is 100% equal. I just say that we should give everyone a bottom line, which they can fall back on. I do support paid education up to high school standards. In America, you can become whatever you want, Doctor, preiset, ninja, whatever. It may be hard to get into the best schools and such, but perseverance will get you into a school that will teach you what you need.

Half of what you said is covered in my earlier posts. Please read them, before you rephraise what I say to pick a fight, or troll or whatever.

People ARE NOT EQUAL Cloud, I merley stand for the better treatment of the poor, so that they can get and education, and yes, work toward becomming a doctor, or captain of the freaking uss enterprise if they really wanted to. That is why I support the mix of public and private educational sectors!
Bipper

[Cloud No.9]

all people are equal and are entitled to the same chances. to grant these chances based on wealth is the problem with american society and private education.

[Teek]

and hachifuse is it not weird that you ask about freedom when your government tortures foreign nationals in guantanamo?

lol no

Considering I'm not America, no.

all people are equal and are entitled to the same chances. to grant these chances based on wealth is the problem with american society and private education.

First off:

All people are "created" equal, that is, people have equal chance. That does not make them equal. There are heroes, and there are drug addicts; there are doctors, and there are fast food workers; there are libertarians, and there are the rest (heh).

Chances are based on wealth, actually - that is very true. Do you know what that entails? Do you still work on the false premise that welath is something to be stolen, taken by force, plowed, inherited? American society - no, rational society, which includes any free nation - is based off of some invaluable economic premise: to make money. Making money means to offer valuable services to society. Is American society perfect? Not by a long shot - we need to make people have equal chances. We do that through money - while it doesn't work everywhere, we do not do it by enslaving people.

Money is the root of all good, when it is used correctly.

[bipper]

Yes cloud, people are not created equal
Black != white
Desiease != Healthy
Retarded != Fully Compitent

These things all suck, but we can't poor resources into supplying perfect life to all these people I am a severe asthmatic. I never could do much in the form of sports, I could, but it would require a lot more work on my part. Which I feel is just fine.

I know a man named Davis. He grew up dirt poor, living off patatos and gravy for nearly every meal. He worked hard, holding down a full time job through High School, while still playing three sports. The man really worked hard, and when it came to college, he put his all into it. He seemed to have a lot more respect for the fact he was in college, and always kept his hard working ways. He now has a great job, and a great family. In hindsight, he stongly belives that if he did not grow up in such a harsh enviroment, he would of never gotten the motivation to work so hard. He did, and that demeanor stuck with him to this day.

Thats the great thing about people, they can adjust, and play the cards they have if they really want to. Nothing really is impossible, if you would buckle down and just do it.

The bottom line is simply that saying we are all equal, and deserve equal chances is very counter prodcutive. If we were all given the same treatment, the same chances, and everything we needed, we would become synominous to machines. Life is defined by how a man does things, and why he perseveres through hardships. Giving a person all the tools they need is a noble thing, but the smaller (more importnat) lessons would remain unlearned.

Bipper