Remember When - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 1, 2006

RE: Remember When

Date: Apr 1, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

Right, Unconfused. My point was that the original poster on the issue was acting as if only "unmarried girls" were at fault and was not saying anything about the men. (Reminds me of that place in the gospel of John where some religious leaders dragged a woman who had been "caught in the very act of adultery" in front of Jesus, trying to get him to condemn her to stoning and thus lose popular support. That's where Jesus makes the famous comment that the one without sin should cast the first stone, etc. But it's always interesting to note that those same religious leaders never mention or produce the MAN caught in the very act.) JL

Very good point, Jameela. The story in your post reminds me of the culture we are facing in the Middle East. It may be why men are fighting so hard to perserve that "man on top" world.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

It is just as wrong for society to require working people to finance multiple,repeated births of women as it is to make people go to different schools because of the color of their skin. This is not a health care issue. Pregnancy is an elective choice. When the liberals start protesting this,I will join the protest against AKL 's actions of 25 years ago. I see on a daily basis the irresponsibiltyof many Medicaid recipients and I see my fellow workers who play by the rules and save and scrimp to have and to support children. Many of us have delayed having families in order to save enough money. This is an ongoing tragedy that many in the university community know little about

Date: Apr 1, 2006

The greatest crime is against the children. There is no parenting when the children are born to young children without any sort of parenting skills. At the very least the father should be held responsible (with DNA that is fairly easy to determine) or the father's family. After the birth of the first child there should be a law on the books that anyone under 18 years of age, who is unmarried and pregnant should have to be educated in parenting skills and birth control.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

What is unbelievable is that we can spend billions to support war when we cannot even afford basic medicine for 100% of our citizens. Instead of turning on the weak, why not ask our government for equal rights to healthcare? Come on. We are just one step away from the nanny state. What is stopping us? Greed?

Date: Apr 1, 2006

Man the Barricades wrote:

It is just as wrong for society to require working people to finance multiple,repeated births of women as it is to make people go to different schools because of the color of their skin. This is not a health care issue. Pregnancy is an elective choice. When the liberals start protesting this,I will join the protest against AKL 's actions of 25 years ago. I see on a daily basis the irresponsibiltyof many Medicaid recipients and I see my fellow workers who play by the rules and save and scrimp to have and to support children. Many of us have delayed having families in order to save enough money. This is an ongoing tragedy that many in the university community know little about

Man the Barricades, I too do not like people having children they can't afford. I addressed the situation, as I saw it, in a previous post. I asked what would you have society do, force the mother to have the baby on the street? You mentioned birth control in a previous post. I questioned how that would work, but you never responded to the question I posed. So I will wait for your reply if you wish to have a discussion.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. I know of many conservatives who would be embarrassed if our very rich society (one of the richest on the planet) forced women to give birth on the street. As Professor Lares pointed out the problem involves a man, a women and the child. The actions you complain about are for the child, so in that sense it is a health care issue.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

I'm not happy that there are people who do seem to abuse the kindness of the state (meaning us taxpayers) by knowingly continuing to have children they can't afford to keep. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with the state setting standards about what level of resources an individual has to have in order to be considered eligible to have a child.

Maybe it would be best if the state were as little involved as possible; in other words, maybe it would be best if the state were as small as possible. As Cossack has persuasively argued, a prime reason we are seeing so much anti-social and self-destructive behavior today is that people are protected (by the state) from the consequences of such behavior. People have children they can't afford because the state will help support the children; if such people had to rely on themselves, or on help from private charities, there would probably be much less irresponsible behavior. By the way, if there were much less irresponsible behavior (and fewer irresponsible people), more resources would be available to support responsible behavior and responsible people (such as academic study and serious students). One of the reasons that funding for American higher education is threatened is that for the last several generations, there have been few reasons for people to avoid irresponsible behavior. Thus the number of illegitimate pregnancies has swelled (sorry about that verb!), the number of people on welfare has increased, the number of people addicted to drugs has grown, and the number of people in prisons has skyrocketed. Meanwhile, various kinds of entitlements make up a huge portion of state and federal budgets. And then we wonder why there are so few funds left over for higher education, and we wonder why (in desperation) the leaders of higher education are scrambling to find other ways (and other models) to fund their enterprises. The folks who have supported policies that encourage irresponsible behavior have only themselves to blame if they see funds for higher education disappearing.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

What is unbelievable is that we can spend billions to support war when we cannot even afford basic medicine for 100% of our citizens. Instead of turning on the weak, why not ask our government for equal rights to healthcare? Come on. We are just one step away from the nanny state. What is stopping us? Greed?

I hope that all of those who feel that medicine is to be provided by government would reduce what they spend on themselves and give that money to the government. If you have an income tax refund, tear up the check and let the Treasury keep the money to spend on health care. When you use the word we, you are implying that you wish to force me to pay more money to the government to spend as you see fit, i.e., on more health care. Right now, I would prefer to spend it on war. I have no wish to be on the next plane that flies into a building. We are wasting billions on welfare that we could be spending on war.

By the way, I also think that government should be supplying the funds for us beer drinkers to drink beer.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

John Galt and Cossack must be two of those "liberal" faculty we hear so much about.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

Joker wrote:

John Galt and Cossack must be two of those "liberal" faculty we hear so much about.

Good point, Joker! There ARE faculty members who question many elements of the leftist consensus (although, to be fair, they tend to be greatly outnumbered). It would be much healthier for academe if there was more debate of all sorts about all issues, as well as more honest questioning by everyone of one's own assumptions.

Date: Apr 1, 2006

If we cant do anything to the women who have mor echildren than they can afford, but we need to go after the men who were partners in the pregnancy then maybe the men should have some choice in the pregnancy itself.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

John Galt wrote:

... As Cossack has persuasively argued, a prime reason we are seeing so much anti-social and self-destructive behavior today is that people are protected (by the state) from the consequences of such behavior. People have children they can't afford because the state will help support the children; if such people had to rely on themselves, or on help from private charities, there would probably be much less irresponsible behavior. By the way, if there were much less irresponsible behavior (and fewer irresponsible people), more resources would be available to support responsible behavior and responsible people (such as academic study and serious students). ... And then we wonder why there are so few funds left over for higher education, and we wonder why (in desperation) the leaders of higher education are scrambling to find other ways (and other models) to fund their enterprises. ...

John, when I first read your post it seemed reasonable, but then I thought about it more closely. We have had unwed mothers since time began. Society tried to reduce it by having a stigma attached to it. The word "bastard" used to mean something. It appears those methods have failed lately and so another means is necessary.

I don't believe it is true that, "People have children they can't afford because the state will help support the children..." is the real motivation we have so many teen pregnancies. There is very little thinking about support involved during sex and a lot of it is peer pressure. A TV show recently had a discussion with teens who had babies or wanted to get pregnant. Some of them were motivated by "low self esteem". Being a "Mommy" and being loved and needed by a baby made these girls feel like they were somebody. They never even considered the daily trouble of raising a baby, much less the support. I just don't think these kids have babies because they know the state will help support the baby for 60 months, if and only if, the father doesn't.

Here is how it works. An unwed mother doesn't automatically receive state assistance. If the child isn't being supported by the father, she can apply for "Child Support". This means the state goes after the father to get payments. She doesn't receive money form the state. Now if the father can't support the child (in prison, no job or on drugs etc.) the mother can apply for welfare. If her income is low enough, she will receive TANF (welfare check) for 60 months or until the income (including what the father supplies) reaches a certain level. The system is designed to get both the father paying support and the mother off of assistance ASAP before the 60 months expires.

I have a hard time believing that people who object to our rich society assisting children born in this situation will be willing to be taxed to support higher education.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

Right, Unconfused. My point was that the original poster on the issue was acting as if only "unmarried girls" were at fault and was not saying anything about the men. (Reminds me of that place in the gospel of John where some religious leaders dragged a woman who had been "caught in the very act of adultery" in front of Jesus, trying to get him to condemn her to stoning and thus lose popular support. That's where Jesus makes the famous comment that the one without sin should cast the first stone, etc. But it's always interesting to note that those same religious leaders never mention or produce the MAN caught in the very act.) JL

Jesus surely would be happy with the USM faculty.Since they spend a large part of their time casting stones at Shelby Thames,one can fairly deduce they are without sin. Or maybe just hypocrites.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

Rolling Stone wrote:

Jesus surely would be happy with the USM faculty.Since they spend a large part of their time casting stones at Shelby Thames,one can fairly deduce they are without sin. Or maybe just hypocrites.

But, Rolling Stone, what Shelby is doing to USM isn't a sin. It is a crime.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

Unconfused,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my comments. I don't have the time right now to respond at length; I'll simply say that the percentage of unwed mothers has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the rates of people imprisoned has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the rates of people addicted to drugs has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the percentage of the budget devoted to various entitlement programs has skyrocketed since the 1960s; and the percentage of state support for colleges and universities has steadily declined in the aftermath of all these other changes. I do think there are cause-and-effect relationships here. (By the way, many of these developments were foreseen by people as long ago as the 1960s.)

Date: Apr 2, 2006

John Galt wrote:

Unconfused, Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my comments. I don't have the time right now to respond at length; I'll simply say that the percentage of unwed mothers has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the rates of people imprisoned has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the rates of people addicted to drugs has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the percentage of the budget devoted to various entitlement programs has skyrocketed since the 1960s; and the percentage of state support for colleges and universities has steadily declined in the aftermath of all these other changes. I do think there are cause-and-effect relationships here. (By the way, many of these developments were foreseen by people as long ago as the 1960s.)

John, I appreciate your comments. I also had a hard time finding time to respond. I may start another thread on this topic because of a letter to the editor in todays paper. We can let this thread get back on topic.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

Rolling Stone writes,

Jesus surely would be happy with the USM faculty.Since they spend a large part of their time casting stones at Shelby Thames,one can fairly deduce they are without sin. Or maybe just hypocrites.

First, even Jesus would be unhappy working for SFT. Second, faculty are ordinary human beings who have the same faults as our fellow man. While faculty often are critical, we have not held meeting to discuss how professionals, those who work in the various crafts, or business owners should go about dong their job. Silly us, we believe that physicians know best how to practice medicine, that plumbers know more than us about plumbing, and that lawyers know more about working with the law. That is why we are surprised when someone who has expertise in another field expresses nonsense about what faculty do and how they work. Faculty hire a physician, lawyer or craftsman based on recommendations from others or their own experience. That is, we comparison shop, However, in the case of your man SFT some quick comparison shopping by looking at competing universities will quickly show that he is a failure across the Board. He is a failure compared to past presidents at USM and compared to presidents at Ole Miss and even State. When you include presidents from universities in bordering states, he looks even worse. SFT backers should heed Randy Travis’s line about a “better class of losers”.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

Cossack wrote:

First, even Jesus would be unhappy working for SFT. Second, faculty are ordinary human beings who have the same faults as our fellow man. While faculty often are critical, we have not held meeting to discuss how professionals, those who work in the various crafts, or business owners should go about dong their job. Silly us, we believe that physicians know best how to practice medicine, that plumbers know more than us about plumbing, and that lawyers know more about working with the law. That is why we are surprised when someone who has expertise in another field expresses nonsense about what faculty do and how they work. Faculty hire a physician, lawyer or craftsman based on recommendations from others or their own experience. That is, we comparison shop, However, in the case of your man SFT some quick comparison shopping by looking at competing universities will quickly show that he is a failure across the Board. He is a failure compared to past presidents at USM and compared to presidents at Ole Miss and even State. When you include presidents from universities in bordering states, he looks even worse. SFT backers should heed Randy Travis’s line about a “better class of losers”.

Amen!

Date: Apr 2, 2006

John Galt wrote:

Unconfused, Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my comments. I don't have the time right now to respond at length; I'll simply say that the percentage of unwed mothers has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the rates of people imprisoned has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the rates of people addicted to drugs has skyrocketed since the 1960s; the percentage of the budget devoted to various entitlement programs has skyrocketed since the 1960s; and the percentage of state support for colleges and universities has steadily declined in the aftermath of all these other changes. I do think there are cause-and-effect relationships here. (By the way, many of these developments were foreseen by people as long ago as the 1960s.)

I do not believe there is a cause and effect relationship. Are we not spending more per capita in inflation adjusted dollars on higher education than we were in the 1960s? Do you honestly believe if higher education had say 50% more funds that drugs,unwed mothers,etc.would go greatly down? The implication is that in these days of student loans,Pell grants,etc. (which were much less available in the 1960's ) there are large numbers of qualified students who are missing college because of financial reasons. Many of these pathologies were foreseen by people long ago when society started rewarding bad behavior.I believe we should require the same responsibility from members of society as we do from members of our family. Anything less is a disservice.

Date: Apr 2, 2006

Responsible oversight wrote:

Do you honestly believe if higher education had say 50% more funds that drugs,unwed mothers,etc.would go greatly down?

No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that if there were fewer drug addicts, unwed mothers, prisoners, illegal immigrants, etc., society might be willing to spend more on higher education. In most states, the percentage of state university budgets that are actually contributed by the states has been steadily shrinking, which is why many former "state universities" are now merely "state-related." In many states, the percentage of funds devoted to higher education has been steadily shrinking as states have devoted more and more of their funds to other programs, including rapid prison expansion.