stevenkesslar

Dying patient: "I just want to live long enough to see my grandson graduate from college."
Doctor (thinking it might be possible since it is June) "When does he graduate?"
Patient: "Well, he starts kindergarten next year."

I'm not saying you're a whore...
 
I just think it's odd that whenever you eat a hot dog, you put your hand behind your head.
 
Kevin Slater

Kevin Slater

God'll get me for this.
 
http://emotionalfitnesstraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/offensive-jokes.png

Ummmm...
 
http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/90/94/9469330c7a25c1384e57ba1eb1c507a4-stayfree-pads-suggested-as-fathers-day-gift.jpg
 
Kevin Slater

Jesus Christ. He should have been shot dead.
 
Kevin Slater

Yes, BVB, her lack of integrity bothers me, but not so much that I'll ignore the good things she's done.
 
Honestly, when it gets right down to it, I'm a little sad that racial identity is as big an issue as it is. It would be nice if one day those lines were a little more blurred than they are today and folks could have a bit more flexibility in their self-identity.
 
A pipe dream, I know.
 

http://cdn.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/alice-in-wonderland-caterpillar-smoking.gif

http://news.yahoo.com/rachel-dolezal-resigns-as-leader-from-naacp-spokane-chapter--160937684.html
 

 
Like I said, can I just go for "all of the above" when it comes to having sex?

A pathological liar, who sues Black people for racism when she feels White, and sues White people for racism when she feels Black, is also a thief. Who wudda thunk.

 
 
Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP leader who resigned on Monday after it was revealed that she had pretended to be black, has now been outed as a plagiarist.
 
According to her art blog, Dolezal is 'an award-winning Mixed Media Artist,' but she has had accusations of plagiarism levelled against her in relation to at least one of her pieces.
 
The similarities between Dolezal's acrylic paintings The Shape of Our Kind and J.M.W. Turner's 1840 work The Slave Ship are astounding.
 
 
 
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3125889/Now-race-faker-Rachel-Dolezal-faces-claims-ART-WORK-plagiarized.html#ixzz3dKdzgZFJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I dunno, Mr. Hart. She seems to want to be everything you can be, one at a time. If she goes for Fag Hag next, I think she'd be fabulous.

Or just "hag."

I dunno, Mr. Hart. She seems to want to be everything you can be, one at a time. If she goes for Fag Hag next, I think she'd be fabulous.

...but please, no sex with Ms. Dolezal, that would be just too confusing on so many levels! (DISCLAIMER: My post is not meant to be discrimination against women, African Americans or any persons posing as same! )
 
TruHart1

http://news.yahoo.com/rachel-dolezal-resigns-as-leader-from-naacp-spokane-chapter--160937684.html
 

 
Like I said, can I just go for "all of the above" when it comes to having sex?

As I see it Ivy League Schools are not the major problem. Many, if not most, of those school have huge endowments, some even into the billions of dollars, and thus many of their students have some form of student aid. Ivy League Schools aren't dependent of state and federal dollars even though some of their programs receive federal research grants. The real problem is the state universities and colleges. Schools in the California State University system and the University of California system are collapsing under the weight of administrators. The number of non-teaching deans at these school is overwhelming. I taught high for over thirty years and my teaching load required me to teach five classes a day five days a week for a total of twenty five hours. My nephew just took a tenure tack position at one of the California State University Schools. His starting salary will be $65,000.00, he will received a subsidized, on campus, one bedroom apartment. He will be required to teach nine hours a week, spend three hours a week sitting in his office supposedly available to students and six hours a week doing research for a total of eighteen hours total. He is unhappy with the amount of time he will be required to teach because, to his way of thinking, it takes time away from his research time. He is a member of a science department so research is an important part of his job but what amount of research is required for professors in the social sciences -- not a lot and they have the same teaching load and the same starting salary.

One of the big problems with such a discussion is the definition of "college," which covers as multifarious a range of possibilities as "dog" does. A community college in the rural South, a large state university in the Midwest, and a prestigious private college in the Northeast can be as different as a Rottweiler, a Whippet and a Pekinese. Different colleges are good and bad for different purposes. If you want to work for Bain Capital, a major DC law firm, or become a research physicist, you go to an Ivy or Stanford, MIT or maybe a top state university like Michigan, you don't go to Cal State Fullerton or Oklahoma Baptist U; it also helps if your parents are doctors or corporate executives. If you want a decent middle class job, you have many more choices, but there are still numerous routes to get there, from a solid state university or second tier private college, to starting in a community college and eventually transferring to a four year school. There are also good jobs to be had with a two year technical degree. If you are a really bright and creative type, and can accept insecurity, you may not need to graduate from any kind of college.
 
Most of the criticism of "college" or "university" education these days is based on examination of a very small slice of higher education, generally the most prestigious schools, the same kinds that the authors of those books and articles went to themselves. Yes, the faculty at the top schools--both private and public--lean strongly to the left, and are paid a lot of money, and often do little actual teaching of undergraduates; that job is left to TAs. But the majority of private colleges and state schools--even the flagship state universities--still have ideologically middle-of-the-road faculty who make less money than they could in private industry or even government bureaucracies, and a high percentage of the undergraduate teaching at the public colleges is done by part-time faculty who eke out a living by teaching several courses at a time at different schools. I have known plenty of these "adjunct instructors," who are lucky to make $30,000/year. The large increases in the cost of a college education are often driven by the proliferation of administrative non-teaching employees, and the obscene salaries and benefits paid to the top officers at many schools and education systems, like the three tiers of the state higher education apparatus in California. The excuse used for paying so much for the presidents, deans, CFOs, etc., is that it is necessary to attract "qualified" people to run things, as though their main qualification is the desire to make as much money as possible.
 
I could go on and on about this subject, but I don't want to sit here typing all night and raising my blood pressure.

Maybe, maybe not.
 
My original reason for being for Hillary in 2008 was that I thought Barack should run once he learned how to get bills passed. I actually think that given his lack of administrative experience, he has done a really good job. If he had learned what LBJ learned before being elected, I think he could have done better. Or maybe his problem is he is too nice a guy, and LBJ was better at getting laws passed because he was a total prick. Life is strange, and politics is not always a sport in which nice guys win.
 
I am glad Elizabeth Warren is not running. Regardless of who wins in 2016, I hope she plays a huge role in the Senate. Like Paul Wellstone, the danger is she will only be viewed as a ranter and raver. Wellstone figured that out, and we'll never known what he might have done had he lived. With luck, we'll learn what Elizabeth Warren is capable of. I actually hope I will get to vote for her for President some day, when she is an older and wiser whore. Oh, forgive me. I mean leader.

Speaking of having a debate about our investment priorities:
 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/11/elizabeth-warren-outlines-debt-free-college-plan-calls-more-funding-higher-ed
 
When it comes to this issue, Elizabeth Warren is my gal! I love her.
 
What do you folks think of these ideas?
 
To quote her, on a political level, this is what it boils down to to me:
 
Making college more affordable, she said, would require a boost in federal spending but also greater accountability for how colleges and states use that money -- a “one-two punch” that she said should have bipartisan appeal.
 
“We can do it if Republicans admit that we will never have affordable college without investing more resources in education,” she said. “And if Democrats admit that we will never have affordable college without demanding real accountability in exchange for those investments.”

You make excellent points:
 
- Some people are better off in a 2 year program
 
- The track record is that if you just throw money at colleges, they will figure out how to spend it.
 
- New online apps that allow students to make wise and affordable choices are becoming increasingly available, and are awesome. An example:
 
https://www.collegeraptor.com/
 
The only thing I'd dispute is the wording of what you say about government spending.
 
I think the Tea Party strategy has been to defund colleges in hopes that eventually they will be able to force colleges to cut professor pay, make professors work harder, or whatever else it is they think they want to do.
 
Ask my brother and his wife, who are both university professors in schools that have been Ground Zero for the Tea Partyers, and they will tell you that very little has changed in terms of professor pay. He has been nicked, not cut. The bottom line formula goes like this:
 
less federal and state funding for education = more student debt
 
The idea that if we just spend less money, good things will happen is just wrong, and we should admit it. It is fucking up the economy by crippling even successful, bright students with too much debt. I would argue it undercuts the very ideal of an educated, meritocratic democracy built on capitalism.
 
That does not mean we should spend more money. I would love to see proposals that accomplish some form of funding freeze, on a per student basis, and simply reverse the process of transferring costs from taxpayers to students. I don't think it's about giving colleges more money, it's about who foots the bill. The idea used to be that taxpayers footed the bill, students studied and graduated and got jobs, and then paid it forward for the next generation in taxes. We need to get back to that.

If only we had more people in both the House and Senate that were truth tellers and willing to send sacred cows to slaughter; I find her pragmatism refreshing.
 
If anything it gives me hope that eventually our partisan elder-statesmen (and women) will stop choking each other long enough to notice America's meteoric disintegration soon enough to change course and prevent an extinction level event.
 
Idealistic of me perhaps, but I truly long for an age of willing compromise and progress. As it stands the vitriol the opposing Party has for any sitting President coupled with a fear that he or she might possibly be viewed in the slightest positive light, prevents compromise on any issue. We've arrived at a time where the needs of the Party supersede those of the Nation; a dangerous place.
 
Perhaps this is why I love that old campy Sci Fi movie "Mars Attacks"; when the Martians wipe out all of Congress and most of the Senate; finally we overcome a lack of term limitations!
 
"I'd like the American people to know that they've still got 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them and that ain't bad!" ~~ Jack Nicholson.

Maybe, maybe not.
 
My original reason for being for Hillary in 2008 was that I thought Barack should run once he learned how to get bills passed. I actually think that given his lack of administrative experience, he has done a really good job. If he had learned what LBJ learned before being elected, I think he could have done better. Or maybe his problem is he is too nice a guy, and LBJ was better at getting laws passed because he was a total prick. Life is strange, and politics is not always a sport in which nice guys win.
 
I am glad Elizabeth Warren is not running. Regardless of who wins in 2016, I hope she plays a huge role in the Senate. Like Paul Wellstone, the danger is she will only be viewed as a ranter and raver. Wellstone figured that out, and we'll never known what he might have done had he lived. With luck, we'll learn what Elizabeth Warren is capable of. I actually hope I will get to vote for her for President some day, when she is an older and wiser whore. Oh, forgive me. I mean leader.

I've said this before: I think Elizabeth Warren is superbright and her ideas, especially about the financial crisis and economic issues, are on the money. Her background is in law and economic analysis. She works from facts and studies, not assumptions, and she's willing to slay sacred cows.
 
But ... she has never in her life run anything or been an administrator. She is a truthteller, not (as far as I can tell) a natural at legislative negotiation and compromise. She's not enough of a whore, to use Steven Kesslar's term.
 
She is far more useful as a Senatorial gadfly and conscience than she would be running for preside, and her virtues are too intellectual and left-wing for her to win. Much the same can be said of Bernie Sanders.
 
She'd also make a fine Supreme Court justice.

I absolutely LOVE her. She's completely unafraid to take both sides of the aisle to task. Her scathing speech about the necessity to bust Citibank apart and the subtle yet painful links of its alumni to bipartisan campaign contributions and "fox guarding henhouse" mentality at the Federal Reserve were blisteringly passionate. If she ever runs for President she has my vote.

One other comment on the role of big business.
 
As a liberal Democrat, I don't view the US Chamber of Commerce as my natural ally. But I like the fact that in the 2014 midterms, they had the effect of taking Tea Partyish wingnuts out of the political process. Whether this means we really get a more moderate and bipartisan Conress that gets things done remains to be seen. Maybe it just got us a Republican Congress that will give us more gridlock. But I think the Chamber and I are mostly of one voice: we need to work toward bipartisan and pragmatic solutions.
 
I think the same thing applies to the growing chorus of businesses that are saying there are serious skills gaps for good paying jobs. As I've said on other posts, this is a great problem to have, compared to the idea during the Great Recession that all the good jobs are gone, or at least gone to China. All my political experience suggests that the Chamber will feel that big business is, in effect, being victimized, and that the problem is that all the taxes they already pay are being misspent by the government, and they should be spent differently so that the government somehow produces more skilled workers using the tax dollars they already have. To me, this is an opportunity for compromise, because it means they are going to be willing to come to the table and figure out something that will help create a better educated and better skilled work force. They clearly are starting to speak about the need for it.
 
Final point: Pew surveys have documented that the Millenials are both the most liberal generation alive today, and the most pro-corporate generation. This makes perfect sense to me. All my nieces and nephews that are financially successful work for multi-national corporations: hospitality, drugs, accounting. They get the picture that their fate is tied to the fate of global capitalism. To me the political emphasis is obvious, and I wish the Millenials would wake up and drive it: we need the best education system that feeds workers into the global capitalistist work force but still tries to balance that goal with traditional liberal arts, and we need to figure out 1000 creative ways to demand that, as part of the deal, businesses at every level help these young people keep learning and developing skills after they graduate and get jobs. Starbucks is one interesting model of how business can do that. Easy to say, hard to do, but I think survey says it is what the young people most effected want.