We must not look at our social issues as breaking them one at a time
and then solving them in isolation. Our social world is complicated
and interconnected, and to use the Bush administration social
policies of "with US or against US" or metaphorically "black or
white" will only compound our problems.
The American economic model is a scam designed by Corporate
America and their privileged fortunate sons for dividing the society
as "rich or poor" under the veil of democracy. And you know what is
the definition of a democratic country for the American politicians?
A democratic country is a government elected by the people, and I
wonder which people.
Democracy is civil participation, democracy is equal opportunity,
democracy is not the casting of a vote for electing politicians,
governments or presidents. Whenever the United States has a
'democratic' social infrastructure to represent the vested interests
of the corporations and their privileged fortunate sons, then
certainly the related public policies are all skewed to support the
vested interests of the corporations and their privileged fortunate
sons.
In the field of public policies, these policies are supported by
'rational' statistical correlation studies. Think about the recent
Bush's public policy to provide money to single mothers to marry and
get off welfare since married couples are shown to be better off
economically than single mothers. This kind of mentality is called
linear thinking, or "black or white' mentality as shown by president
Bush when he tells the world to be "with US or against US."
This linear thinking mentality is carried on by Corporate America
and their privileged fortunate sons as they are trying to take the
world with their new form of colonization: the Free Market. And I am
going to tell the story of the Free Market in education in the
United States. We all know that the Free Market in health care has
been rationed as some 40 million Americans don't have health
insurance, and the Free Market in education is taking the same
rationing approach, that is education only for our privileged
fortunate sons.
Yesterday afternoon, I watched TV as CNN journalist Judy Woodruff
was interviewing some college graduates from Emery University in
Atalanta. Woodruff asked some students how they would cope in paying
back their student loans, and these are some of the answers:
Student Rebecca Grayson owes $130,000 and plans to
take a Master degree in law and take another $30,000 loan:
Well, I'm definitely scared about what the economy is
going to bring and whether or not I'm going to be able to find a
job. And that's one of the reasons why I'm staying in school
indefinitely until I can find a job that would enable me to pay
off my debt quickly. And, right now, it doesn't seem like I'll
be able to find a job that is going to give me $160,000 that
quick... It [the debt] definitely has affected my
choice of career. I used to think that I would like to maybe
work for the government in the foreign service or something
along those lines. But jobs like that pay only like $40,000 a
year. And it would take me a lifetime to pay off my debt.
Student Shundrikka Banks owes $25,000 and she was
asked if taxpayers should subsidize education:
Definitely. I think it contributes to our overall
competitiveness as a nation. I think that, when we have to make
choices on jobs based on how much money we're going to make to
pay back loans, I think it affects how diverse we are as a
community in terms of what jobs we take. So, if you have to say,
"I'm not going to be a teacher because I need to pay back my
loans," and you get a high finance job or become a corporate
lawyer, I think that affects us as an overall community. So, I
think that it behooves us all to our contribute to our education
so we can pursue whatever we want to do in life.
Pat Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, has recently stated that education is not
affordable for the lowest income groups and that "For the
poorest, the percentage of family income that it takes to finance a
year of college has gone from 13 percent to almost 26 percent."
Equal opportunity for education is a basic premise for a
democratic society, yet the paying back of student loans are
determining the future lives of our youth; while at the same time,
education is becoming more and more the inner sanctum for our
priestly and compassionate fortunate sons.
References
Wed Lock: Dissecting the Bush administration marriage agenda. By
Robert Kuttner, Web Exclusive: 4.1.02 The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/04/kuttner-r-04-01.html
CNN INSIDE POLITICS. What are Politicians Doing about the High
Cost of College?; Bush Administration, Democrats Get New Lessons in
Politics of Higher Education; Good News About Who is Going to
College, Aired May 1, 2002 - 16:00 ET http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/01/ip.00.html
College costs outpace family income, inflation From Kathy
Slobogin and Dawn Tamir CNN, May 2, 2002 http://www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/02/college.costs/index.html
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/losing_ground/ar.shtml |