http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/02/matt-damon-activist-star-elysium Thoughts? Very disturbing.
I was going to say...What exactly is not progressive? Are we still teaching students the world is flat?
Yeah the word does change a lot. Nowdays it seems to just mean "very left-wing" which is obviously problematic or at best worthless. Rothbard on the word Progressive. I highlighted the important part, but it might not make since unless you read the whole thing. Will need to click the link to see other links about topics he mentions. Spoiler
I love that the author says that "Whig theory" falls apart around 1986, which I agree is an inflection point in this country's economic well being. You see, that is the point at which the "tax cuts increase revenue" crowd actually got enough traction to try their experiment, which has had the direct effect of exploding deficits and caused the largest debt the world has ever known, TWICE. In other words, "Whig theory" held constant right up until the point that the "reactionaries" got hold of the reins of power and began regressing this country with regard to tax policy. This theory is absolutely false. The State is not "always trying to repress social power," though it is definitely always trying to AFFECT it. There are some "voluntary interactions" which are harmful to society and others which are productive. The State should endeavor to repress the former and encourage the latter. Anyone who can't see this simple fact is blinded by their ideology.
Ok. Plenty of people go private because public school isn't religious enough, or conservative enough. If 'progressives' want to do the same, more power to them. Public school can't be all things to all people.
It is the very ATTEMPTING to be all things to all people that is failing them They are overregulated and then held to higher standards Until Private schools have the same shackles put on them the comparison between Private and Public is apples and Oranges Rocket River
He referenced 1986 because that's when the talk was given, not because it was a major turning point. He was just saying that by 1986 it was harder to have that view, though many still did. The State is "always trying to repress social power." State power and social power exist in a zero-sum relation. If the state is given more power, it by definition can only come at the expense of social power. To quote a wise man: "Anyone who can't see this simple fact is blinded by their ideology."
Rich guy using generalizations about the entire school system as justification for his sending his kids to private school, stating that "when I was a youngster, things were great, but now..." yawn.
What you are ignoring is that 1986 WAS a major inflection point. That was the point at which supply siders got the ideological based legislation through, generating data which clearly showed that such policies will dramatically increase deficits and debt. This was Reagan, who spent massively, with the ultimate effect of crushing the cold war as it had existed for decades. More deficits and debt than ever before, with a nice payoff, the end of the USSR. Then, we raised taxes to pay for the wars, balanced the budget at home, only to have yet another round of Republican spending sprees on tax cuts and wars. The ideology of the right, which has been proven wrong repeatedly, simply needs to be overcome before this country can get itself back on the road to a progressive future where we continue to improve the lot of ALL Americans, not just the 1% who are getting all of the economic gains over the last decade or so. That ideology amounts to greed for the people who already have money and are unwilling to consider themselves as signatories to the social contract.
I didn't read past the first couple sentences. But let's just say I did, and that I agree with everything you said whole heartedly. Well done, sir. Now, do you still not notice that the talk I linked to was given in 1986? Therefore, the man giving the talk could not have referenced 1986 as the beginning of the end that you make it to be? That, instead of using the year 1986, he could have just said "nowadays"? For you see, in the year 1986, they were unable to look back on years that had not yet happened. That's all I'm pointing out. Also, FWIW, the guy who gave that talk was always opposed to Reagan.