CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › No child left unrecruited
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No child left unrecruited

post #1 of 57
6/20/07 at 10:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Documentary: Law Gives Military Access to Student Data

By David Goldstein
McClatchy Newspapers

Wednesday 20 June 2007

Washington - It began as a class assignment for Alexia Welch and Sarah Ybarra: Make a five-minute video news story about advertising in public schools.

But the Lawrence, Kan., teenagers' project snowballed into a 25-minute documentary on how the federal No Child Left Behind law to improve education promotes military recruitment, infringes on students' privacy and encourages school officials to look the other way.

The movie's fans include a Democratic California congressman who's been trying to change the law for two years and award-winning liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who viewed some early rushes and offered the pair his lawyer's services, just in case.

Their film, "No Child Left Unrecruited," premiered in April at an arts center in Lawrence, the home of the University of Kansas. A short trailer on YouTube has gotten 630 hits in the past month, and the film made its Washington debut Tuesday.

"We found out this wasn't a school assignment anymore," said 17-year-old Ybarra, who'll be a senior next fall at Lawrence High School. "This was going to go beyond the walls of the district."

So there they were Tuesday, the two teenage auteurs from Jeff Kuhr's broadcast media class, at a screening in the basement of the Capitol, hosted by their congressional patron, Rep. Michael Honda.

"You get an A plus," said Honda, who was a schoolteacher and principal before he came to Washington.

Eighteen-year-old Welch, who just graduated, said she and Ybarra just wanted to answer questions about the rules surrounding military-recruiting policies. They didn't anticipate the fuss.

"All this other stuff blew us away," she said. "I don't think we ever thought about a Washington screening."

The idea came to Welch last summer when a contract Army recruiter wrote and offered her $100 if she'd enlist. She wondered how he'd obtained her name, address and telephone number.

They discovered that a little-known provision of No Child Left Behind, which President Bush signed in 2002, requires schools to give the military personal information about their students. Otherwise, the schools' federal aid could be at risk.

Welch and Ybarra found that their high school published all that information and more — age, gender, date of birth and parents' work phone numbers — in the high school directory, which anyone can buy for $2.

Students could opt out of the directory, they learned, but few knew that they could. And the consequences of that would be not seeing their names listed in the yearbook or school newspaper or on the honor rolls.

The film follows Welch and Ybarra's odyssey "down the rabbit hole" as they question school officials about the ease with which the military can breach student privacy, and the roadblocks that face parents who seek to keep the data out of reach.
Read the rest here.
Reply
post #2 of 57
6/20/07 at 10:07pm
This sounds pretty incredible. It's kind of inspirational to hear about two kids doing something like this.
Reply
post #3 of 57
6/20/07 at 10:37pm
Quote:
They discovered that a little-known provision of No Child Left Behind, which President Bush signed in 2002, requires schools to give the military personal information about their students. Otherwise, the schools' federal aid could be at risk.
Damn, that's pretty Palpatine-ish.
Reply
post #4 of 57
6/21/07 at 2:03am
Wow, good for them. Teenage sleuthing actually does happen.
Reply
post #5 of 57
6/21/07 at 2:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRobotSex
Damn, that's pretty Palpatine-ish.
Reply
post #6 of 57
6/21/07 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRobotSex
Damn, that's pretty Palpatine-ish.
I'd think that by now, anyone who frequents the Chud Politics forum should have a hotkey to instantly produce this phrase.
Reply
post #7 of 57
6/21/07 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton
This should be captioned.....

"Vote for Darth Pedro"
Reply
post #8 of 57
6/21/07 at 5:17pm
I was called by recruiters when I was 17 back in 1990, way before "No Child Left Behind" started. The government got my info somehow, the information requirements in the "No Child Left Behind" sound like just an update of some old data collection method by the government to help staff a voluntary military, nothing new.
Reply
post #9 of 57
6/21/07 at 5:34pm
It may not be new but it's still pretty despicable.
Reply
post #10 of 57
6/21/07 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
I was called by recruiters when I was 17 back in 1990, way before "No Child Left Behind" started. The government got my info somehow, the information requirements in the "No Child Left Behind" sound like just an update of some old data collection method by the government to help staff a voluntary military, nothing new.
Yes, your anecdotal evidence has completely erased any possible underhandedness uncovered by these kids. Thanks for setting us all straight!
Reply
post #11 of 57
6/21/07 at 8:04pm
Are you sure you wheren't 18 and it wasn't for Selective Service, which when you sign up they will call you. I know this as despite the fact I was a foreign national living on a green card (they auto-sign you for Selective Service under the new system) they still got my phone number. and they got it from them.
Reply
post #12 of 57
6/21/07 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
I was called by recruiters when I was 17 back in 1990, way before "No Child Left Behind" started. The government got my info somehow, the information requirements in the "No Child Left Behind" sound like just an update of some old data collection method by the government to help staff a voluntary military, nothing new.
Actually, it's completely different. But thanks for sharing a story no one asked for.
Reply
post #13 of 57
6/21/07 at 11:26pm
Thread Starter 
I was given a form when my son entered I think the third grade, informing me that unless I "opted out," my son's records would go to the feds. Naturally I opted out that time, but I haven't received the form since. I think it's a real violation of privacy. This isn't the 1940s. I don't want my son giving his life as corporate welfare to the oil industry. Ever. And I hope President Gore will reverse this policy when he takes office.
Reply
post #14 of 57
6/22/07 at 12:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
And I hope President Gore will reverse this policy when he takes office.
You mean like in Universe B? How do we get there, though?
Reply
post #15 of 57
6/22/07 at 12:37am
Doesn't the military already know everyone's info from their selective service registration?
Reply
post #16 of 57
6/22/07 at 12:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Wood
Doesn't the military already know everyone's info from their selective service registration?
Uhhh...

Really?
Reply
post #17 of 57
6/22/07 at 12:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
You mean like in Universe B? How do we get there, though?
The power of delusion!
Reply
post #18 of 57
6/22/07 at 8:03pm
I'm conflicted on this one. While the government has a legitimate right to recruit people to join the military, individuals have a legitimate right to privacy. I'm not sure which is the greater good.

Quasi-related anecdote: my older boy has decided to rebel against the old man by choosing West Point over Annapolis. I'm trying to act disappointed.
Reply
post #19 of 57
6/24/07 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Wood
Doesn't the military already know everyone's info from their selective service registration?
You register for that at 18.
Reply
post #20 of 57
6/24/07 at 8:44pm
The military doesn't military doesn't have that info, but the feds do gathered through various channels. This is nothing new, I remember working with recruiters in the 90's and they had all of the information then. No Child Left Behind seems to make the process of how they get the info easier, with a little strong arm tactics thrown in to boot.
Reply
post #21 of 57
6/27/07 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
I'm conflicted on this one. While the government has a legitimate right to recruit people to join the military, individuals have a legitimate right to privacy. I'm not sure which is the greater good.
That's the hardest part, isn't it, finding the right balance?

I want the government to protect me and provide me good roads/infrastructure/K-12 education/etc. but how much do I have to give up in return that is fair?
Reply
post #22 of 57
6/28/07 at 12:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
That's the hardest part, isn't it, finding the right balance?

I want the government to protect me and provide me good roads/infrastructure/K-12 education/etc. but how much do I have to give up in return that is fair?
Well, I volunteered four years of my life. Now, much to Frank Cobretti's chagrin, I get to pretend I understand things from the military angle.

It was worth every moment.
Reply
post #23 of 57
6/28/07 at 4:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey
Are you sure you wheren't 18 and it wasn't for Selective Service, which when you sign up they will call you. I know this as despite the fact I was a foreign national living on a green card (they auto-sign you for Selective Service under the new system) they still got my phone number. and they got it from them.
Very Sure, I didn't fill out the Selective Service card and send it in when I received it in the mail because an Army Recruiter had already called me and signed me up for 6 years in the Army Reserves. I figured they had me already.

The recruiter was pretty slick, I had no plans or interest in joining the military. Damn him! Heh!
Reply
post #24 of 57
6/28/07 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
That's the hardest part, isn't it, finding the right balance?

I want the government to protect me and provide me good roads/infrastructure/K-12 education/etc. but how much do I have to give up in return that is fair?
What we owe them in return is the tax dollars to fund those things and pay their salaries. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.
Reply
post #25 of 57
6/29/07 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
What we owe them in return is the tax dollars to fund those things and pay their salaries. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.
That bothers me. The government isn't "them." It's "us." The government is the manifestation of the formalized structures we put together to make society go, but we -all of us- are still the guardians of and participants in that society.

JFK expressed this perfectly when he orated, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Do I mean to imply that everyone should serve in the military? No. We don't need a military that large. I do mean that, in return for the benefits we accrue from living in a civil society, we should be active participants in the civic life of that society. Part of that is doing things like showing up for jury duty, part of that engaging in the society-wide dialogues about those issues that matter to us all, and part of that is giving up some of our free time in service to causes which help make this a better place to live.

That's what we owe to ourselves.
Reply
post #26 of 57
6/29/07 at 2:13pm
Totally from left field here,
but aren't we all required to have a SS# for any dependent we claim to the IRS?

Just a thought.
Reply
post #27 of 57
6/29/07 at 2:17pm
Thread Starter 
Conversely, the government owes enlistees the obligation to not play dice with their lives, to only go to war if it's absolutely necessary to protect our country, and, if war is unavoidable, to do whatever it can to send them into the field fully equipped and prepared, and to take care of them when they return wounded.
Reply
post #28 of 57
6/29/07 at 3:12pm
This is one area (giving to the government) where the Liberal/Conservative divide is particularly stark. Conservatives don't want to give up their money, Libs don't want to give up their civil rights. You can probably guess which side I sympathize with more.
Reply
post #29 of 57
6/29/07 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
Conversely, the government owes enlistees the obligation to not play dice with their lives, to only go to war if it's absolutely necessary to protect our country, and, if war is unavoidable, to do whatever it can to send them into the field fully equipped and prepared, and to take care of them when they return wounded.
That is why we vote, to elect people who we think will guide the government's policies in the direction that we think is right. We get the government that we as a society voted for.

Change the military's mission (if you disagree with it) by changing the government, not by making the military weak and incapable of carrying out the mission by restricting it's ability to voluntarily recruit it's manpower.
Reply
post #30 of 57
6/29/07 at 4:07pm
Thread Starter 
Take our vote out of the hands of private corporations and I'll agree with you.
Reply
post #31 of 57
6/29/07 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
That bothers me. The government isn't "them." It's "us." The government is the manifestation of the formalized structures we put together to make society go, but we -all of us- are still the guardians of and participants in that society.

JFK expressed this perfectly when he orated, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Do I mean to imply that everyone should serve in the military? No. We don't need a military that large. I do mean that, in return for the benefits we accrue from living in a civil society, we should be active participants in the civic life of that society. Part of that is doing things like showing up for jury duty, part of that engaging in the society-wide dialogues about those issues that matter to us all, and part of that is giving up some of our free time in service to causes which help make this a better place to live.

That's what we owe to ourselves.
That's beautifully said, and I fully agree with it to the extent that that's the way it's supposed to be. But when businessmen take over the government, they subvert it into a moneymaking operation. Their concern for the citizens is only as consumers. Their concern for the military is only as a means for opening up new avenues of income. Their concern for civil rights is only so long as they don't interfere with their ability to maintain control over their assets.

I love the idea of democracy, but in reality, it's been subverted almost completely. The idea that our vote matters seems quaint when pouring millions of dollars into a television campaign can influence what citizens actually think, and when the vote results themselves can be twisted into what those in power want them to be.

We're a long, long way from a government of the people, by the people and for the people, because such a system doesn't fill bank accounts. So that system has been replaced. Those who essentially took over the government in a bloodless, non-military coup have seen to that.

Cynical? Yes. Show me a reason not to be cynical about our government right now, and I'll gladly change my tune.
Reply
post #32 of 57
7/2/07 at 7:38am
Idealism + cynicism = realism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
That's beautifully said, and I fully agree with it to the extent that that's the way it's supposed to be. But when businessmen take over the government, they subvert it into a moneymaking operation. Their concern for the citizens is only as consumers. Their concern for the military is only as a means for opening up new avenues of income. Their concern for civil rights is only so long as they don't interfere with their ability to maintain control over their assets.
Businessmen didn't take over the government - businessmen started the government. One of the core ideas of the American experiment is that business is good, and American power has been used in the defense and expansion of business since the Navy Act of 1794 authorised the purchase of 6 frigates to, in part, protect American business from the depradations of the Barbary Pirates. Since then, the Navy has often been used to open up new avenues of income (see: Admiral Perry and the late Tokugawa Shogunate). It comes as no surprise, then, that private property, which further translates into business property, is critically important in American domestic policy. If private property, or assets, represents the fruits of one's labor, the government must be extraordinarily careful about anything it does that infringes upon one's rights to those fruits - just ask the guys who had to enforce the Stamp Act.

Quote:
I love the idea of democracy, but in reality, it's been subverted almost completely. The idea that our vote matters seems quaint when pouring millions of dollars into a television campaign can influence what citizens actually think, and when the vote results themselves can be twisted into what those in power want them to be.
If our votes didn't matter, people wouldn't pour millions of dollars into efforts to influence them. On the contrary, our votes matter very much, indeed. If they were that easily twisted, who'd bother spending all that money on them?

Idealism is great - most kids are raised on it, and it provides a decent enough foundation for political thought. Cynicism, the natural next step, is also great - it provides a foundation for the kind of critical thinking that leads one to develop into a fully aware member of the polity. Realism comes from a marriage of the two - an understanding of what we are, what we want to be, and each citizen's place in that scheme. We are a country that believes that the business of America is business. We're also a country that has come to understand that American business does sometimes need to be bounded. The tension that arises between those two ideas is healthy and good. However, for this and other sources of tension to play themselves out properly, we members of the polity must stay engaged. Part of that, as I said, requires simply paying attention. Part of that requires staying involved in civic life. If we don't, realistically, we're sticking our heads in the sand.
Reply
post #33 of 57
7/2/07 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Businessmen didn't take over the government - businessmen started the government.
Good point.

Our government hasn't changed since day one. The military has always been used to protect American interests at home and abroad.
Reply
post #34 of 57
7/2/07 at 12:36pm
And I'm sure people would have been less happy about that in the past had they had the ability to know about the extent of it, like we do today. THAT is the main difference: global instantaneous media.
Reply
post #35 of 57
7/2/07 at 1:42pm
Frank, you seem to be equating "It's always been that way" with "It's okay", which I simply can't agree with. When corporate profits are more important to our government than the well-being of its citizens, something is catastrophically wrong. Young people shouldn't be dying so that the Vice President's pet company can get its hands on foreign oil in a no-bid contract. If that's business as usual (which I don't disagree that it is), then something needs to be overhauled.
Reply
post #36 of 57
7/2/07 at 6:28pm
I don't agree with this "America's always been a business", attitude, either. Yes, the free market system, entrepeneurs, and merchantile thinking have always played a large role in American society--but so has the frontier mindset, the idea that you're free to cut yourself loose and go live self-sustainingly on the fringes of the unknown if that's what you choose. America's also been home to a powerful labour movement and stuff like the New Deal.

It's similar to how American history has featured religious fanaticism and essentially atheist materialism in equal portion, too. It's a mishmash of different ideas, and you don't have to submit yourself to one because it's "right" or even "historical". I railed against this when the fundies were crowing about how "we have to get back to the Christian ideals of the founding fathers" (seriously, that's the stupidest fucking statement if you've read even a little American history) and I'm just as opposed to the unchallenged assertion that America has always been about big business.
Reply
post #37 of 57
7/2/07 at 8:28pm
Why did those settlers head out to the frontier? To start businesses. Farming, trapping, gold mining, you name it - it's all business. People get fed and roofs get put over heads because of business. Business is what makes it all go, and this country was designed, in part, to be a safe haven for business. Personally, I think that's great.

Having said that, I agree that it makes sense to put some restraints on business. It should be illegal, for example, to dump asbestos in the wetlands preserve.

That's part of my greater point. Simple cynicism is not a complete answer, because it ignores the principles and precedents that make and have made this country work. Simple idealism doesn't break the code, either, because it can blind us to abuses in both the pubilc and private sectors. Realists understand that we have never been a workers' paradise (or a democracy, for that matter), but they also understand that ours is a system that works and is worth investing in.

PS I have no idea how that silly smiling head got there.
Reply
post #38 of 57
7/2/07 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Why did those settlers head out to the frontier? To start businesses.
Not all of them, as I believe the Pilgrims could explain to you. People in American history have gone west for a wide variety of reasons, and a lot of them have to do with simple freedom and independence.

As I acknowledged, yes, the entrepeneurial spirit is a big part of American history. But it's not the ONLY thing there is, and you're trying to paint it otherwise. America may never have been a "worker's paradise", but so what? There's pretty obviously been a strong push towards the common good and the uplifting of others, which stems naturally from a democratic system. I can't stand it when people talk like America has always been a nation of Ayn Rands.
Reply
post #39 of 57
7/2/07 at 11:21pm
Thread Starter 
There's also the elephant in the room that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our "democracy" is run by business interests with absolute power under the Bush administration and near absolute power in every administration since Carter left office. Bush is lucky that Americans are not as feisty as the French under Louis XVI.
Reply
post #40 of 57
7/3/07 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
Not all of them, as I believe the Pilgrims could explain to you. People in American history have gone west for a wide variety of reasons, and a lot of them have to do with simple freedom and independence.

As I acknowledged, yes, the entrepeneurial spirit is a big part of American history. But it's not the ONLY thing there is, and you're trying to paint it otherwise. America may never have been a "worker's paradise", but so what?
The Pilgrims came to North America prior to the Enlightenment, of which The Wealth of Nations was a huge part. While they were in at the ground floor of the colonization of the continent, their ideas of government and economics were not at the center of American political thought at the time of the founding of the country. Further, the freedom and independence that is certainly part and parcel of the American mindset was part and parcel with business. Want your own ranch? That's a business. Want to trap cute little mammals? That's a business. Want to mine gold? Yep: business. The point I'm trying to make here is that business is not separate from everyday life - business is everyday life. Business is how everything gets done.

On another subject, I haven't read Rand, mostly because the folks I know who like her tend to be dicks. I think her attitude is one of looking out solely for onesself, which is a position I'm arguing against. The greater point I'm trying to make, and which I'm afraid is getting lost, is that it doesn't make sense to bow out of civic life because "business has taken over." Business has always been at the core of government, there's nothing new there, so that position makes as much sense as bowing out because suddenly, spring has started following winter.
Reply
post #41 of 57
7/3/07 at 7:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
There's also the elephant in the room that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our "democracy" is run by business interests with absolute power under the Bush administration and near absolute power in every administration since Carter left office. Bush is lucky that Americans are not as feisty as the French under Louis XVI.
yt, I think you're overstating the case, here. If business interests had absolute power, mergers wouldn't get hung up over antitrust or regulatory issues.

By the way, am I thinking something different when I say "business" than you are? My concept of business runs from the mom 'n pop doughnut shop to Microsoft.
Reply
post #42 of 57
7/3/07 at 11:23am
Thread Starter 
FC, yes, I'm talking about corporate industries so large and powerful that the point of entry is vastly beyond mom n' pop's means. And not to derail this thread too drastically but these collections of huge corporations work together to control their given industry - be it media, oil, manufacturing, agriculture, managed health care, drugs, retail or whatever. Mom and pop can't open a store in a mall and compete with Gap, and mom & pop's store on anonymous street is no competition. That's an analogy for all the big industries under this administration, and when it looks like it and smells like it, you call it what it is: monopolies. Mergers are all but an afterthought. In fact, the only one that anyone seems bent on stopping is Sirius/XM and that's because of terrestrial radio's inferiority but comparative controllability. No one bats an eye that Murdoch wants the Wall Street Journal.

I'm not anti-business at all, but my point is that our system is not unlike communism in that what looks good on paper can often become the opposite of its intent when subjected to the vagaries of man's greed. Do you deny that the big industries I'm talking about here -- Big Oil, for example -- engage in often unethical and non-competitive practices to inflate the bottom line not incrementally but in huge exponential leaps at the expense of American law and the spiritual, social and health welfare of the consumer base? (And, incidentally, financed by huge taxpayer subsidies that, in deficit times, comes in the forms of loans from China?)
Reply
post #43 of 57
7/4/07 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
FC, yes, I'm talking about corporate industries so large and powerful that the point of entry is vastly beyond mom n' pop's means. And not to derail this thread too drastically but these collections of huge corporations work together to control their given industry - be it media, oil, manufacturing, agriculture, managed health care, drugs, retail or whatever.
You'd have make that case. Whole Foods Market took on Giant. Hyundai is kicking GM's ass. Churn exists.

Quote:
I'm not anti-business at all, but my point is that our system is not unlike communism in that what looks good on paper can often become the opposite of its intent when subjected to the vagaries of man's greed.
I'll buy that. As we've agreed in the past, vigorous oversight and prosecution of misdeeds remains critical to the functioning of the system.

Quote:
Do you deny that the big industries I'm talking about here -- Big Oil, for example -- engage in often unethical and non-competitive practices to inflate the bottom line not incrementally but in huge exponential leaps at the expense of American law and the spiritual, social and health welfare of the consumer base?
It's impossible to defend such a large group of individuals against such a broad range of charges.
Reply
post #44 of 57
7/5/07 at 3:25am
Thread Starter 
FC, yes, it's painted with a broad brush, but I do believe that the scales have tipped and the system that seems to have worked so well for us is now working against 99.9 percent of us. There has to be an adjustment, some sanity, brought back to the concept of business in America because it seems like the qualities that once encouraged competition and innovation are languishing because those in power want things to stay that way, regardless of the human toll, and without competent education standards it's like big business has given America a date rape drug.

I'm beyond thinking it's solely a repub vs. democrat thing also, though Cheney is about the most craven, vile, soulless creature to ever hold public office in America. It's distressing that so many congresspeople are so beholden to the megacorporations that they will do nothing to upset the apple cart. I know it seems like I'm the one in the tinfoil hat, but if you look at the big picture of the stranglehold big corporations have over every aspect of our lives, it's pretty alarming.

Also, I don't think you can quantify Whole Foods and Hyundai as "mom and pop" establishments. If a car company raised capital to start manufacturing cars with 100 MPG, or which ran on water or solar power outside of the stranglehold of the oil and auto industries (and the politicians they own), then I'd say our system is working.
Reply
post #45 of 57
7/5/07 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
... the qualities that once encouraged competition and innovation are languishing because those in power want things to stay that way, regardless of the human toll, and without competent education standards it's like big business has given America a date rape drug.
yt, saying "big business" this or that is like saying "white people" this or that. You're talking about such a large group of corporations, and individuals in corporations, that there's no way your description could possibly cover all the people in leadership positions in all these competing companies.

The IT sector, which is dominated by a few big businesses, is all about competition and innovation because that's the coin of the realm. Many people in the defense and aerospace industries are freaked out about education in America because we, as a nation, simply are not turning out enough scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to safeguard the American technical edge in the 21st Century. I could trot out individual examples all day, as you could for your point. There just isn't the critical mass of evil required to state that "Big Business has given America a date rape drug," though I love the turn of phrase.

Quote:
Also, I don't think you can quantify Whole Foods and Hyundai as "mom and pop" establishments. If a car company raised capital to start manufacturing cars with 100 MPG, or which ran on water or solar power outside of the stranglehold of the oil and auto industries (and the politicians they own), then I'd say our system is working.
My point was that when major corporations like Giant and GM can't even rig the system to elbow out competitors that are killing them, then it doesn't make sense to decry said notional rigging [NOTE: I was actually thinking of a British grocery chain that's poised to exploit an as-yet unserved niche of the American grocery market. The name escapes me, at the moment.]. America no longer has the world's lowest barriers to entry for new business (Thanks, protectionism and over-regulation!), but it's still a place where a woman who starts a business making and marketing decorative baubles for people to stick in their Crocs can do over $1M/yr.
Reply
post #46 of 57
7/5/07 at 12:42pm
Thread Starter 
As usual, your points are valid and well-reasoned. I agree that the US is still a place where someone can start a specialty business. And you're right that some sectors aren't as draconian as others.

The grocery chain you're thinking of is Tesco and they're all over the UK. Last year I was in Wales and the locals in the town where I stayed were bemoaning the Tesco. They're like a Walmart with groceries, but they're a big UK corporation.

OK, to narrow down the field, these are the industries that I think are the problem:

Oil - number one on the list. You know why.

Military industrial complex - the waste, outright fraud and abuse are still insidious and accelerating, all kept safe under the cloak of secrecy. This industry's profitability skyrockets during wartime -- I don't want to be in a state of perpetual war. I don't think most Americans do either. And yet...

Media - it's like Third Reich TV, with six mega-corporations having the unbridled ability to frame the national picture inaccurately and race to the bottom in terms of quality coverage. You have more commercial time running during children's programming than during adults'. You have important wire stories -- like the falsities in Bush's run-up to war -- being virtually ignored and unreported by the mainstream media. An utterly corrupt FCC that goes after Howard Stern for saying "penis" but lets Fox New make up stories whole cloth with no consequences. Etc etc ad infinitum.

Agriculture - Do not want pesticides and irradiated foods, and because I'm both informed, have the money to spend a little extra for organic foods and live in a city where such is available, that may be OK for me, but what about the people who can't afford to buy organic, don't know anything about what Big Ag is doing to their food, and don't have access to organic foods anyway? What about the kids who have no choice in the matter? The FDA is so in the pocket of Big Ag they'll stamp anything. All the mystery ailments and diseases that I hear about anecdotally (because the corporate media would never report anything inflammatory when there's money to be made) - what happens down the line when incrontrovertible evidence finally makes people have a "come to Jesus" moment with the hideousness of Big Ag's practices? This doesn't even go into the insane pesticide and chemical dumping that goes on in agricultural areas that is killing and poisoning seas and making rivers into toxic dumps. Or the admittedly confusing issue of things like corn subsidies that leads to the whole "high fructose corn syrup" thing, which is making American kids obese.

Big Pharm - "ask your doctor for this pill." It's out of control. These companies prey on the most vulnerable - children and the elderly. They're vile. And they engage in price fixing in the worst way. SiCKO illustrates this better and more eloquently than I ever could, but one of the most egregious examples was when a 911 first-responder with chronic asthma discovers that her $100 inhaler costs 50 cents in Cuba.

Manufacturing (I guess textiles? I don't know) - we covered this in the other thread. Our trade deficit is ridiculous. I don't think US companies should be permitted to break US laws overseas, you disagree. I have a problem with the toxic environment and labor abuses that occur in third world countries in our name. I also think that taking so much manufacturing out of this country has eliminated countless jobs for a huge amount of people, leaving despair, unemployment and crime in its wake.

Retail - See above. I don't want to buy clothes or goods made by slaves, yet as a confirmed label-reader I can tell you that just about everything is made in a third world country (with a handful of exceptions - American Apparel is one). In the old days, "look for the union label" was a good way to know that the thing you were buying was not made by slaves. I do not see the union label anywhere anymore.

Managed health care - the whole thing is obscene. You know why.

That's all I can think of for now, and I realize it's all over the map in terms of complaint structure, but there it is. What kills me more than anything though is that our elected officials, because of the undue influence of lobbyists and their unlimited resources of cash and future well-paid positions, trump the voice, the needs, the safety and the ethical standards of the people.
Reply
post #47 of 57
7/5/07 at 8:42pm
Tell you what, yt: let's drill down a bit more. Choose any one of these industries (other than health care, a system whose dysfunction defies belief, thanks to a Shelleyan patchwork of regulation, subsidy, and greed), and together we'll look into how their examples support your central thesis, which I think is encapsulated here:

Quote:
I'm talking about corporate industries so large and powerful that the point of entry is vastly beyond mom n' pop's means. And not to derail this thread too drastically but these collections of huge corporations work together to control their given industry - be it media, oil, manufacturing, agriculture, managed health care, drugs, retail or whatever.
Reply
post #48 of 57
7/5/07 at 9:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Tell you what, yt: let's drill down a bit more. Choose any one of these industries (other than health care, a system whose dysfunction defies belief, thanks to a Shelleyan patchwork of regulation, subsidy, and greed), and together we'll look into how their examples support your central thesis, which I think is encapsulated here:
How about oil and energy?
Reply
post #49 of 57
7/5/07 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
How about oil and energy?
Oooh, a tough one. The barriers to entry in the oil industry are so high and the process of finding and exploiting strikes so cost-intensive that it's incredibly hard for new companies to break into the business.

Nevertheless, let's play. Your serve.
Reply
post #50 of 57
7/6/07 at 4:50am
Thread Starter 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › No child left unrecruited