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   |