by hilzoy
Jonah Goldberg strikes again:
“There’s a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.
For those who don’t remember, the 13th Amendment says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime … shall exist within the United States.”
I guess in Obama’s mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.
In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would “set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.”
He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don’t make the kids report for duty, he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose. In short, he’ll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.”
Maybe in the schools Jonah Goldberg attended, they didn’t require things like homework, or attendance, or reading, or math. It would explain a lot. (The idea that he wasn’t asked to work his way through all those analogies in preparation for the SATs alone would probably explain most of the “arguments” in Liberal Fascism.)
For the rest of us, though, there have always been lots of compulsory things in schools. If this counts as slavery, children have been enslaved since compulsory schooling began.
I can’t wait for Jonah Goldberg’s sudden discovery that some children are told — told!! — to clean their rooms.
UPDATE: Obama’s actual plan is here. END UPDATE
Maybe in the schools Jonah Goldberg attended, they didn’t require things like homework, or attendance, or reading, or math. It would explain a lot.
Yeee-ouch!
It’d be a shame if he paid you $40 an hour or so for that work, too.
Goldberg apparently also equates 1-2 hours a week as a condition for receiving federal funds as slavery. I suppose charging interest on a student loan is robbery.
An open question to the conservatives who post here.
Are there any conservative political writers who are worth reading? Guys like Goldberg make my head hurt.
I know there are folks like Brooks, but I always feel like he’s trying too hard to be polite. I don’t mind somebody with a little juice, I just can’t stand to read folks who are as boneheadedly, determinedly stupid as Goldberg.
Thanks –
But… but… but… they’re not government handouts if you have to work for them! The very idea of doing community service in return for scholarship money. Why, that’s like doing work in an office for nothing but a paycheck.
The horror. The horror.
Are there any conservative political writers who are worth reading? Guys like Goldberg make my head hurt.
Russell: Ross Douthat, whom Hilzoy links, is a reasonably worth-reading conservative. And Tyler Cowan and Alex Tabarrok of
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/
are, despite being right-leaning libertarians, quite fascinating most of the time. So that’s a starting point. I’m a lefty myself, though, and just as up for suggestions here as you are.
If Goldberg’s report is accurate, this is a troubling — and I’m disappointed that Hilzoy disagrees. According to Goldberg, Obama would mandate that schools — middle schools, high schools, and colleges — impose a community service requirement on their attendees in exchange for federal dollars. However meritorious public service may be, I do not think that another Federal mandate in this area is wise or necessary. Will the Federal government also mandate what is (and is not) adequate community service? Do colleges and schools get a say? How will the monitoring take place? What if a student refuses or fails to do the service — will he or she get expelled? What about students working their way through college (and, nontraditional students, e.g., parents with kids); will they have to take on the added burden of 100 hours of community service a year?
It may be that Obama’s plan has laudable responses to all of these issues — although I’m frankly doubtful that any uniform federal plan is wise given how varied the country is.
I can’t wait for Jonah Goldberg’s sudden discovery that some children are told — told!! — to clean their rooms.
Not really relevant, is it? The greatest burdens are being placed on college students, who aren’t children.
von: If Goldberg’s report is accurate
That’s an awfully big “if”.
von,
You may have some valid points about the wisdom of Obama’s community-service proposal, but you don’t think it runs afoul of the 13th Amendment, do you?
Von, the college-related part of Obama’s speech said this:
In what way does giving someone a $4,000 credit for 100 hours of service resemble slavery? Goldberg is just lying.
Will the Federal government also mandate what is (and is not) adequate community service? Do colleges and schools get a say? How will the monitoring take place? What if a student refuses or fails to do the service — will he or she get expelled? What about students working their way through college (and, nontraditional students, e.g., parents with kids); will they have to take on the added burden of 100 hours of community service a year?
These are all excellent questions. Perhaps you should consider trying something radical and… oh, I don’t know… read the plan?
Re: MSNBC Chris Matthews: “Can Obama now win over the regular folks, white folks…?”
To: hardball@msnbc.com, phil.griffin@nbc.com, steve.capus@nbc.com, letters@msnbc.com
********
Dear Chris Matthews,
I believe you owe your viewers an explanation as exactly what you meant by equating ‘white folks’ with ‘regular folks’.
Would you care to enlighten us? With particular attention to explaining exactly what makes non-white folks so non-regular?
Yours truly,
Name
City
Here is the full quote:
“And I will integrate service into education so that young Americans become active citizens. I will set a goal of having all middle and high school students perform 50 hours of service each year, and reach that goal by using federal support to expand service opportunities. I will set a goal of having college students perform 100 hours of service each year, and reach that goal through an annual tax credit that is tied to service, and federal support for work-study programs that include service jobs.”
An expansion of work study funds to cover community service activities–the horror.
According to Goldberg, Obama would mandate…
did Obama also mandate that Congress gets no say in the matter ?
You left out the compulsory recitation of a loyalty oath.
My list of readable righties:
Volokh
Douthat
Outside The Beltway
Poliblog
Drezner
Andrew Sullivan
Megan McArdle (some of the time)
Marginal Revolution (except on water issues)
(I’ve given up on Q&O and Southern Appeal. Reading Redstate seems about as enjoyable as hitting yourself with a hammer; it only feels good when you stop.)
“For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we’ll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you — that’s how we’re going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.
In what way does giving someone a $4,000 credit for 100 hours of service resemble slavery? Goldberg is just lying.”
My law school provided about $4000 in funding to work a public interest job for ten weeks. Slavery!
It does strike me that few if any college students make enough to pay $4000 in federal income tax–does this mean it’s a refundable thing like the Earned Income Tax Credit? If so, it’s a slightly sneaky way to dramatically boost fin. aid.
In what way does giving someone a $4,000 credit for 100 hours of service resemble slavery?
Well, in actual fact, the two are totally unrelated.
But conservatives don’t waste their time worrying about actual facts.
According to Goldberg, Obama would mandate that schools — middle schools, high schools, and colleges — impose a community service requirement on their attendees in exchange for federal dollars.
According to Obama’s statement, I’m not sure that’s accurate. He says: “we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs.” For college students: “I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we’ll require 100 hours of public service.”
To me, that reads that for middle and high schools, the schools must just provide the opportunity. It’s only for college students taking advantage of the tax credit that it is compulsory. The statement “I will set a goal of having all middle and high school students perform 50 hours of service each year, and reach that goal by using federal support to expand service opportunities” makes it a little less clear, but I’m still not sure it’s proposed to be compulsory for middle and high school students.
My high school had 40 hours of compulsory service during Jr. year. Once I got involved in a volunteer project, the number of hours greatly exceeded the minimum.
We called it “community service” rather than “slavery”.
Of course, students didn’t have to do it. They could always get a GED rather than a high school diploma.
Shorter Johan: “Ask not what you can do for you community, but what you can complain about.”
“..he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose.”
I get such a warm and fuzzy boner knowing Jonah Goldberg identifies with the John and Jane lunch pail. Jonah’s too modest to let on that he came up in the school of hardknocks like Dick Cheney and Richie Rich. A world in which his mommy toiled in the cum-stained garment business to provide Jonah with the wisdom to write pieces that trivialize slavery.
Best reading on right, much of which I agree with, is The American Conservative magazine on-line ( some articles are free) and blog.
Okaaaaayyyyyyy ……
Here’re Obama’s words:
For middle and high schools, this does appear to mandate a new program. Cinco is correct that Obama does not flesh out what will happen to middle and high school students who fail to meet the “goal.”
For college students, Katherine is correct that Obama’s 4th of July speech makes 100 hours of community service a new, additional requirement for his “American Opportunity Tax Credit”. The American Opportunity Tax Credit is the centerpiece of Obama’s higher education plan. Presumably, it’s intended to replace other forms of college funding — although Obama’s website doesn’t specifically say this.
Obama’s website does say the following(http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/):
No mention of the 100 hrs. requirement, of course, but presumably the website is out of date. And no mention anywhere regarding nontrational students or students who are working their way through college.
Finally, although it should go without saying: of course I think that Goldberg’s statements regarding “slavery” are overblown. But his criticisms of Obama’s plan seem quite sound.
Mark, I’m not suggesting that community service is bad or that individuals schools shouldn’t require it. I am questioning the wisdom of mandating a certain amount of community service at the Federal level.
Jonah could perform a community service by volunteering to go fight in the Iraq war for which he called for with such enthusiasm.
But hands up, anyone who thinks he’d actually do that?
Hmmm… I thought not.
Why oh why does the LATimes give a man who makes such silly and offensive arguments a platform to speak from?
By the way, my supposition that Obama may intend the American Opportunity Tax Credit as a replacement for current student aid seems to be supported by the following, further plank on Obama’s website:
Many public school systems require a certain number of hours of community service as a requirement for graduation. Jonah went to college at Goucher, in Towson, Maryland, and many of his classmates would have been from Maryland, where they would have been required to complete 75 hours of “student service-learning” (i.e. community service) in order to graduate. http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/servicelearning/
As Jonah apparently had no friends in college, he wouldn’t have found out about this from talking to them.
As someone who had to work full-time to pay of my way through college, I do find the requirement someone onerous. Even back in the ’80s I couldn’t afford to pay for all my expenses and tuition with the types of work I could get, and frankly, yes, adding even a couple more hours to the schedule of work, classes, studying, and getting around town on the bus seems to me as if it would put students who need economic subsidies the most at even more of a disadvantage than they already are.
As someone who filled out a FAFSA several years ago grumbling: “why don’t they just read my & my parents’ tax returns instead of me re-copying all these numbers”? No, it doesn’t, at all. This game of “let’s pretend Obama’s policies are as indefensible as possible & McCain’s policies are as defensible” is cute, though.
My comment was in response to von’s 1:45 post.
Give Jonah a break. This probably sounded suspiciously like a draft to his Goucher State-trained ears and you know how much that word scares armchair warrior Jonah.
Why on earth this no-mind gets the coverage he does is beyond me. Only in Merka, pity.
Bloix, I hate to defend Goldberg, but Maryland probably didn’t have that requirement when Jonah or his peers were in high school. Jonah’s a few years older than I, and there wasn’t a community service requirement when I was in HS here.
(and I guess “assume” would be fairer than “pretend”, but it’s a pretty transparently unfair & inaccurate way to evaluate the candidates’ positions in either case.)
I think that Goldberg’s statements regarding “slavery” are overblown. But his criticisms of Obama’s plan seem quite sound.
Note the cute conservative attempt to quietly move the goalposts of the entire discussion, by changing the subject away from Jonah Goldberg’s ridiculous, insane statements about slavery which were the whole point of the posting.
Nice try, von.
As someone who had to work full-time to pay of my way through college, I do find the requirement someone onerous.
but you’d get $4000 in return. that would offset some of the full-time work you’d need to do, right ?
If Jonah needs some lessons on what slavery is really about, he should read, “Slavery by Another Name,” by Douglas Blackmon, Doubleday. How blacks were held in peonage and servitude and how they were treated in the period between the Civil War and WW II. A truly ugly look at racism and illegality.
Once you have Jonah…come back and tell us about slavery one more time.
Goldberg is an idiot, but the plan is not really spelled out in great enough detail to evaluate it in the speech, and the education issues of Obama’s website does not shed any more insight on the K-12 portion of this plan.
The problem is that it’s not like requiring math or science, because math and science have no ideological component. Pretty much any “public service” community group I can think of or imagine would, in fact, have an ideological component. Making the choice to work in a soup kitchen, rather than stuff envelopes for a 527 group, carries ideological content along with the decision. So unless the plan is going to automatically approve each and every non-profit in the country as an acceptable way to earn your “community service” credit, the proposed rule would probably violate the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as many state constitutions that guarantee equal access to education.
Then there’s the simple fact that I foresee huge problems implementing this in rural areas, where there won’t exactly be a wide range of community groups available to volunteer to, and those community groups that are available will be heavily clustered around churches. I’m hugely uncomfortable with a public school graduation requirement that says you have to go volunteer for a church group for X hours a semester.
Here’s my stupid question:
Let’s assume the worst case. Obama intends to require high school students to complete 50 hours of public service. It’s not clear that actually is his intent, but let’s pretend it is.
Why is this a problem?
High school students have to do lots of things they’d likely prefer not to do, in order to graduate. High schools are required to make them do those things, in order to get funding.
Is that OK, or not?
If it is, why is introducing a community service requirement an unbearable additional burden?
Thanks –
I thought Republicans were against handouts since they incentivized laziness?
So here, Obama suggests we tie government assistance to contributions, and the GOP cries slavery?
But “workfare” and welfare reform were…good?
von: Do you honestly believe that Obama is talking about decreasing Stafford loans and other forms of financial aid? Because that’s ridiculously silly. He’s talking about an additional credit to make college more affordable – obviously he’s proposing it because the current forms of financial aid aren’t sufficient for many students. Also, this credit would give a way for many students to finance their education without taking on a loan. That’s not crazy at all. His proposal about getting financial aid information from tax forms rather than a separate application actually contradicts your assertion. The credit Obama is proposing is universal (it says so in what you quote), so you don’t have to meet a financial threshold to get it – all you have to do is to meet the service requirements. The fact that you can opt out of a second application by checking a box on your taxes means that other forms of need based aid will still exist.
Also, how are you misreading the statement about middle schoolers and high schoolers? The burden for funds isn’t on the students, it’s on the schools. In order to get the funds, the schools have to construct programs that foster service. Where in his statement does it even hint at federally mandated service work for middle and high schoolers? It proposes a method for encouraging students to take up service work by giving schools a financial incentive to make such work available to their students.
changing the subject away from Jonah Goldberg’s ridiculous, insane statements about slavery which were the whole point of the posting.
Again, Goldberg is an idiot, but the issue isn’t slavery per se, but involuntary servitude.
Frankly, I think the military draft violates the involuntary servitude clause, and the military certainly is nothing like chattel slavery.
A great many things that don’t look exactly like a recreation of the plantation slave experience can be argued to violate the amendment in question.
Many public school systems require a certain number of hours of community service as a requirement for graduation.
Again, not the issue. The issue is whether community service should be a mandate of the Federal Government.
As someone who filled out a FAFSA several years ago grumbling: “why don’t they just read my & my parents’ tax returns instead of me re-copying all these numbers”? No, it doesn’t, at all. This game of “let’s pretend Obama’s policies are as indefensible as possible & McCain’s policies are as defensible” is cute, though.
Not sure how this relates to the issue at hand. (I filled out that same document a few years before you, Katherine, so know of what you speak.)
By the way, as you yourself note, a significant hole in the proposal is whether the credit is available to a student dollar for dollar, as Obama’s speech implies.
Note the cute conservative attempt to quietly move the goalposts of the entire discussion, by changing the subject away from Jonah Goldberg’s ridiculous, insane statements about slavery which were the whole point of the posting.
Nice try, von.
Fine, Jonah is ridiculous and insane. Whoo-hoo. Worst president ever.
Is that all you have? Do you want to talk substance now?
“contributions to the community” that should read
Again, Goldberg is an idiot, but the issue isn’t slavery per se, but involuntary servitude.
But Obama’s plan as currently enunciated doesn’t actually mandate involuntary servitude.
Schools are required to create programs. Students don’t have to take advantage of them.
College students can get additional aid if they do. But this is an option.
Then there’s the simple fact that I foresee huge problems implementing this in rural areas, where there won’t exactly be a wide range of community groups available to volunteer to, and those community groups that are available will be heavily clustered around churches.
Last time I checked, rural areas had non-trivial populations of elderly people, disabled people, and parks. All of those entities benefit from volunteer service and all such service is non-ideological and non-sectarian. Also, not to dis rural areas, but they tend to have low population densities and their population is skewed towards the older set. That suggests that the absolute number of students who would be impacted may not be very large.
von: Do you honestly believe that Obama is talking about decreasing Stafford loans and other forms of financial aid? Because that’s ridiculously silly. He’s talking about an additional credit to make college more affordable – obviously he’s proposing it because the current forms of financial aid aren’t sufficient for many students. Also, this credit would give a way for many students to finance their education without taking on a loan. That’s not crazy at all. His proposal about getting financial aid information from tax forms rather than a separate application actually contradicts your assertion. The credit Obama is proposing is universal (it says so in what you quote), so you don’t have to meet a financial threshold to get it – all you have to do is to meet the service requirements. The fact that you can opt out of a second application by checking a box on your taxes means that other forms of need based aid will still exist.
Although it seems clear that Obama continues to support Pell Grants, it’s not at all clear whether the tax rebate is a replacement or addition for traditional financial aid.
Also, how are you misreading the statement about middle schoolers and high schoolers? The burden for funds isn’t on the students, it’s on the schools. In order to get the funds, the schools have to construct programs that foster service. Where in his statement does it even hint at federally mandated service work for middle and high schoolers? It proposes a method for encouraging students to take up service work by giving schools a financial incentive to make such work available to their students.
I’m having a hard time understanding why you seem to think that your explanation helps your argument.
How is what you describe not a federal mandate?
The FAFSA form largely duplicates tax returns, & could be replaced by just authorizing gov’t fin. aid officers to look at tax forms. Simplifying the application process is just plain not evidence of an intent to eliminate existing forms of aid–since you have no actual evidence of Obama planning to cut existing aid (I guess he’s just going to eliminate Stafford & Perkins Loans, which FAFSA is mainly used for these days? Right), you’re using an unrelated issue to justify a claim you’re basically making up, just as you make up a bunch of stuff to make McCain’s policies seem more defensible. I agree that the tax credit could be clarified though.
von:
I am questioning the wisdom of mandating a certain amount of community service at the Federal level.
What part of Obama’s plan “mandates” community service?
I can understand that your point of view thinks it horrible that the federal government should sponsor a program that creates incentives for public service. But can we at least keep the debate centered on facts rather than Goldberg-like crap in which incentives for public service becomes “slavery”?
As for fear of it being a federal program, I am sure that like so many other federal programs, the actual implementation can be performed by local governments so that they can determine how best to use the community service. More bureaucracy is always a reasonable concern, but it would be nice to hear you speak to what seems to be the actual source of disagreement — that the government should not have any role in promoting public service. It is as if public service is some sort of intrinsically bad thing, which does seem to be a conservative meme.
Schools are required to create programs. Students don’t have to take advantage of them.
If that’s the case, then there’s no problem. Hopefully the details of this plan will be clarified as we move forward.
Schools are required to create programs. Students don’t have to take advantage of them.
Where does Obama state that schools have to create programs but don’t have to require students to participate in them?
Finally, although it should go without saying: of course I think that Goldberg’s statements regarding “slavery” are overblown. But his criticisms of Obama’s plan seem quite sound.
His main criticism (the one that drives the logic of the piece) is entirely true: Obama *is* black.
How is what you describe not a federal mandate?
Because no one has to do it if they do not want to.
von: If it’s a tax CREDIT, then yes, it’s available to all students, dollar for dollar. Terms of interest:
CREDIT – subtracted from your tax burden; if it goes below zero, you get the remaining money
DEDUCTION – subtracted from your taxable income, but it cannot push your tax burden below zero.
True Brian. That is my read based on Obama’s language, but clarification would help.
Where does Obama state that schools have to create programs but don’t have to require students to participate in them?
Where does it state that schools have to require students to participate in them?
As someone who had to work full-time to pay of my way through college, I do find the requirement someone onerous.
Exactly. If you can make more than $40/hr elsewhere you can skip the requirement.
Suppose Obama had said,
“We are going to provide funding to community service organizations and local governments to hire college students at $40/hr for up to 100 hrs/yr.”
Same thing. Yet you can bet Goldberg would be complaining about that just as well. Of course he’d have to find a different way to be stupid, but I bet he could pull it off.
But can we at least keep the debate centered on facts rather than Goldberg-like crap in which incentives for public service becomes “slavery”?
To me there is a problem when the Federal government designs financial incentives for local and state governments and then attempts to use those incentives to contrive a way to get people to volunteer to surrender their Constitutional rights. If US v. Butler had not been gutted by subsequent courts, this would not be an issue, but right now it is.
If we weren’t talking about community service, but instead were talking about a proposal to withdraw all Federal aid from school districts that did not require all students to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of getting a diploma, I think some people here would be more upset. Or if the condition was that to get a diploma you had to attend anti-abortion indoctrination. Et cetera.
In such a circumstance, the argument, “Hey, it’s just an incentive. Don’t take the federal money if you don’t want it,” would not carry much weight with progressives.
Simplifying the application process is just plain not evidence of an intent to eliminate existing forms of aid–since you have no actual evidence of Obama planning to cut existing aid (I guess he’s just going to eliminate Stafford & Perkins Loans, which FAFSA is mainly used for these days? Right), you’re using an unrelated issue to justify a claim you’re basically making up,
I thought that I said it was unclear what Obama intends to do with these other, potentially duplicative programs (although he clearly supports Pell grants).
just as you make up a bunch of stuff to make McCain’s policies seem more defensible
Huh?
As for fear of it being a federal program, I am sure that like so many other federal programs, the actual implementation can be performed by local governments so that they can determine how best to use the community service. More bureaucracy is always a reasonable concern, but it would be nice to hear you speak to what seems to be the actual source of disagreement — that the government should not have any role in promoting public service. It is as if public service is some sort of intrinsically bad thing, which does seem to be a conservative meme.
I can’t speak to the conservative meme — I am not a conservative — but I can speak for myself. Public service is a great thing. It’s something that the federal government should be encouraging, but only where such encouragement is worth the costs. As I’ve said, Obama’s plan does not appear to be particularly wise.
von: From this quote here:
We’ll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we’ll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
He doesn’t say that he will require students to take advantage of them. He’s “setting a goal”. While he doesn’t specifically say, “I will not force students into service,” I don’t think you can take that to mean the opposite. There’s no indication in his speech that his goal is to mandate service. If you wish to read in a nefarious plot, feel free, but that’s not really a fair reading.
Finally, I think we’ve already seen that Obama doesn’t really like mandates from the health care issue. He usually favors incentivizing, and letting the ‘market’ sort it out afterwards.
Volunteerism is good. But why does every good thing need to be orchestrated by government? Most people think that churchgoing is a good thing. Does that mean the government should fund churches? That’s what they do in Europe and — surprise! — most pews sit empty.
I think this is the heart of Goldberg’s argument: government shouldn’t be in the business of making people do things, even if they’re good.
My question is: why not?
Every good thing doesn’t need to be orchestrated by government, and it won’t be. Some good things would be encouraged by government.
Why is that bad?
And, BTW, we do subsidize churchgoing in the form of tax exemptions. In may jurisdictions it amounts to a whole lot of money.
I don’t think Obama is calling for mandatory anything, but I’d like to push back on the conservative bogeyman anyway.
What if he was?
Why is it bad?
What is the problem here?
Thanks –
Florida requires high school students to do a certain number of community service hours in order to receive a Bright Futures scholarship. These scholarships are funded by the state lottery and can cover full tuition at a state university for HS students with reasonably good grades.
“Although it seems clear that Obama continues to support Pell Grants, it’s not at all clear whether the tax rebate is a replacement or addition for traditional financial aid.”
What “traditional financial aid” do you think he intends to cut or eliminate, specifically, & what is your evidence for his plan to do so? Eliminating Stafford Loans is even less plausible than eliminating Pell Grants. Replacing rather than supplementing traditional federal work study is slightly less implausible, but it’s not as if there’s actually any evidence for that either, and if that is the plan–$4000 for 100 hours of service? Is not exactly going to increase the “servitude” burden on fin. aid students; I would have had to work over 500 hours at the school library to make the same amount of money (and I did some community service stuff anyway). But, actually increasing aid to students has been a traditionally Democratic policy for oh, decades, and I think that’s what’s actually going on.
Where does it state that schools have to require students to participate in them?
So schools are going to be required to to create a program that but, once creating the program, don’t need to have anyone participate in it? Isn’t that the worst of all worlds?
But you’re right: as I was getting at, there are some big holes in Obama’s program that need to be filled in. I just don’t know that your inference is the most reasonable one.
I can’t speak to the conservative meme — I am not a conservative
OMG, Von, you’re a liberal? Why did no one ever notice this before? 😉
Sorry. Returning to the more serious business of mocking Jonah or trying to undercut Obama.
The fact that one of America’s most important newspapers provides a prominent platform to someone who’s ridiculous and insane actually is a pretty important, substantive issue.
Public service is a great thing. It’s something that the federal government should be encouraging, but only where such encouragement is worth the costs.
One to two hours a week, by all reasonable appearance an optional commitment, in the lives of young people?
The horror, the horror.
So schools are going to be required to to create a program that but, once creating the program, don’t need to have anyone participate in it? Isn’t that the worst of all worlds?
They could incentivize students taking advantage of such programs in a number of ways. Participation could be tied to scholarships, there could be community/school awards and participation would look good on college applications regardless.
Already, schools establish many extracurricular activities on the assumption that if you build it, students will come.
That’s not such a bad thing to me, let alone the worst of all worlds.
Thanks Hilzoy, it took your nonsense to finally make it so that Jonah seemed correct on the issues.
As others have pointed out, forcing my kids to make their beds, or forcing them to take math is not the same as forcing 100 hours of “service” out of them. It may not be slavery, but I think it’s a first amendment violation. What if “kids” just plain think that free service is wrong? What if they just don’t want to do it? Why should that be linked to their education?
Why don’t we let students do what they need to be doing: studying. Encourage the behaviors you want from them. Mandating them isn’t going to get us anywhere.
Or…. So Hilzoy, since 100 hours of service is so good we should mandate it as as a condition of a scholarship, why not just draft every kid into the Army or America Corp, regardless of whether they go to school or not?
At the moment, I am pretty sure that neither Goldberg nor Hilzoy are reporting on this accurately, or in the right context.
And no mention anywhere regarding nontrational students or students who are working their way through college.
40$/hr is actually pretty good money for people working their way through college. It’s also enough to pay a babysitter, fwiw.
Not saying there won’t be flaws, either in the plan or the implementation, but this seems like a reach, esp when there may well be details that address these situations later.
Finally, although it should go without saying: of course I think that Goldberg’s statements regarding “slavery” are overblown. But his criticisms of Obama’s plan seem quite sound.
What exactly are his criticisms? Reading his column, his slavery thing was just an attention-grabber (he disavows it later)- but his criticism appears to be No, national service isn’t slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition.
He doesn’t do any of the policy critiquing that you’re doing here. Maybe you’re agreeing with his assessment *and* offering additional policy criticisms, Im not sure about that.
[btw- why is it that McCain’s ambiguity was good for him (a few posts ago) on the budget, and we weren’t to criticise his proposals until they stopped changing- but here, Obama announces a new initiative that has yet to be fleshed out and you’re Ok with imaging details and then attacking them?]
von,
By the way, my supposition that Obama may intend the American Opportunity Tax Credit as a replacement for current student aid seems to be supported by the following…
but later
I thought that I said it was unclear what Obama intends to do with these other, potentially duplicative programs…
That’s not what you said at all- you didn’t say that your speculation was definitive, but you certainly suggested that it was supported by evidence. btw, Im still unclear why you think that streamlining the application process suggests anything about what programs are being applied for.
It may not be slavery, but I think it’s a first amendment violation
?!??
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can you explain the 1st amendment violation to me?
What if “kids” just plain think that free service is wrong? What if they just don’t want to do it? Why should that be linked to their education?
What if kids don’t want to say the pledge of allegiance, dissect frogs, or attend sex education do to a religious or ethical scruple?
What if they have difficulty fulfilling their PE requirement because of some physical disability?
These are all issues the rise from things kids are required to do as part of their schooling. They’re all legitimate, and they all come up every day. We, the nominal adults, figure out reasonable ways to deal with it.
Again, what is the substance of the objection to mandatory community service? Did someone say it already, and I’m missing it?
Thanks –
“Does that mean the government should fund churches? That’s what they do in Europe and — surprise! — most pews sit empty.”
First, as mentioned, we do fund them by making them tax-free. But more importantly, what does funding have to do with attendance? Churches in Europe are also, on average, far older than ours. Perhaps that’s the reason the pews are empty. Also, many of them don’t use English in their sermons. That must be the reason. Or maybe it’s because they don’t have talking in tongues and faith healing and raising the dead and all that entertaining stuff.
You really need a course in logic. After you finish your 100 hours of community service, of course.
Jerry,
Where does it say mandate?
The use of “force” here is something I am entirely unfamiliar with.
Brian,
If we weren’t talking about community service, but instead were talking about a proposal to withdraw all Federal aid from school districts that did not require all students to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of getting a diploma, I think some people here would be more upset.
First, I think that public service is not unreasonable as a part of education. My counterexample would be making funding contingent on teaching math and english- is that so unreasonable?
Second, I would object to the loyalty oath on it’s own merits, regardless of the enforcement mechanism. I would object to it as an innovation of my local school board.
You might feel that a volunteer program fails the second criteria (ie you find it objectionable under any circumstances), and you might even find that it fails the first (ie you think it has nothing to do with one’s development). But you cannot pretend that only the second criteria is being applied by liberals- I wouldn’t necessarily be happy with a federal funding/mandate to increase pet ownership, even if I think pet ownership is a good thing.
So we’ve established that if we interpret any ambiguities in Obama’s plan in the worst way possible, we get something that might be a bad idea. Since McCain also favors national service, we’ll now have to have a similar discussion in which any ambiguities in McCain’s plan (which if experience is any guide will be much more numerous) are interpreted in the best way possible.
That’s not what you said at all- you didn’t say that your speculation was definitive, but you certainly suggested that it was supported by evidence.
Supporting evidence = the programs are duplicative (at least in part).
btw, Im still unclear why you think that streamlining the application process suggests anything about what programs are being applied for.
Tying financial aid to a tax return seemed in line with making financial aid primarily based on a tax credit. Katherine, however, has convinced me that this is not the only interpretation of the proposal.
As others have pointed out, forcing my kids to make their beds, or forcing them to take math is not the same as forcing 100 hours of “service” out of them.
This is what is popularly known as a “conclusion”. One likes to see things like “arguments” attached to them- otherwise Im afraid that Im reduced to the age-old “Is Too!”
Eric (in response to your comment to Jerry):
Are you suggesting that Obama’s plan doesn’t involve an (unfunded? unclear.) government mandate for middle and high schools (at least)? Or are you quibbling that the mandate may not extend to actually requiring students to participate in these mandated programs?
“Tying financial aid to a tax return seemed in line with making financial aid primarily based on a tax credit”
I think I’m beating a dead horse at this point, but I’ve seriously never applied for any form of need based fin. aid that didn’t want to see copies of my parents’ & my tax returns to verify the reported income levels. It’s been a while since I filled out a FAFSA, but I vaguely remember it mainly asking info on the tax returns (college aid forms tended to be longer & ask all sorts of additional, annoying questions about expenses).
As someone who had to work full-time to pay of my way through college, I do find the requirement someone onerous.
And as someone who worked, volunteered and carried a full course load, my anecdote trumps your anecdote.
As others have pointed out, forcing my kids to make their beds, or forcing them to take math is not the same as forcing 100 hours of “service” out of them. It may not be slavery, but I think it’s a first amendment violation. What if “kids” just plain think that free service is wrong? What if they just don’t want to do it? Why should that be linked to their education?
What? The 100 hours is for college students to qualify for a tax credit. Forcing them to take math (or a shitty history class) is exactly the same in intent as having them serve (the notion behind public education is to benefit society as a whole — which is why people who don’t have kids still pay property taxes to fund schools)
What if “kids” just plain think that free service is wrong?
I’m sure they think sitting through a Spanish class is wrong too. And they have to do that instead of working, so what’s your point?
Von,
If you read Jerry’s comment, then mine, I think you can deduce from context.
Jerry was talking about students being mandated to serve, I responded.
In your defense, he also makes this logically, er, strained argument:
So Hilzoy, since 100 hours of service is so good we should mandate it as as a condition of a scholarship, why not just draft every kid into the Army or America Corp, regardless of whether they go to school or not?
So he bounces back and forth from mandating service to mandating service…as a condition to obtaining a scholarship!
As if most scholarships are handed out without any criteria at all!
I see no difference between Hilzoy’s “compulsory” and “mandate.”
Regarding the first amendment, forcing service under various circumstances is a free speech violation. The first amendment does need to be balanced by other rights though.
So for instance, forcing a restaurant to serve african americans IS a free speech violation, but one that the Supreme Court believes is okay to violate when balanced out with the rights of others. But the Supreme Court ruled (IIRC) that the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade does not need to allow gays to march as that forced act was forcing speech was a free speech violation.
Similarly, I think that various courts have found that mandatory attendance at “diversity programs” is also a free speech violation. (If courts have not found that, I know that that has been one argument.)
Forcing service, especially if it is somehow restricted as to who the service must be given to, might very well be an unconstitutional first amendment violation.
It’s been awhile since I attained a scholarship, but in general, there were NO strings attached. What conditions are you referring to? Especially service conditions apart from making the team, being in the band, or maintaining a GPA if it is to be renewed?
I can’t speak to the conservative meme — I am not a conservative
I, too, wonder about this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, even if being a duck is no longer in with the Kool Kidz, it’s still a duck.
Again, what is the substance of the objection to mandatory community service?
I think the objection to this, rather than to, e.g., requiring “things like homework, or attendance, or reading, or math”, is that the latter all primarily benefit the child, whereas with the former it’s at a minimum unclear who the primary beneficiary is. Generally speaking, of course.
IOW, community service = working for someone else; getting an education = working for yourself. You usually get paid for the former.
So other than the strings that are attached to most scholarships, what strings?
This is not true for a wide variety of scholarships from government sources.
I, too, wonder about this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, even if being a duck is no longer in with the Kool Kidz, it’s still a duck.
Oh that’s just crap and you *should* know that. People should be able to disagree without fear of some douche such as yourself coming along and trying to somehow smear them, dehumanize them, delegitimize them.
This business of calling anyone who disagrees a troll or concern troll or whatever is just speech and thought policing. If there really was a Godwin’s Law, it would say that attempts at speech and thought policing mean you lose the argument.
It’s been awhile since I attained a scholarship, but in general, there were NO strings attached.
Without getting into cases, I think it’s fair to say that many, many scholarships, both private and publicly funded, come with “strings attached” in the sense of conditions that must be met for the aid to be awarded.
Thanks for the expansion of the 1st amendment objection. I’m not sure I agree but I appreciate your explanation.
Also, thanks to all for the recommendations upthread on good conservative commentators.
Thanks –
So other than the strings that are attached to most scholarships, what strings?
So enlighten us. What strings are attached to most scholarships? And what strings are attached to government grants/scholarships/loan guarantees?
It’s been awhile since I attained a scholarship, but in general, there were NO strings attached.
GI Bill? Military service?
What conditions are you referring to? Especially service conditions apart from making the team, being in the band, or maintaining a GPA if it is to be renewed?
Military service? Currently, there are scholarships for students that do public interest law, students that agree to teach in inner city schools, students that agree to practice medicine in rural areas.
And why wouldn’t continued service in the band or on the basketball team be deemed less onerous than community service?
Especially when the time spent on community service would pale in comparison?
Since Goldberg’s objection, and most of the other objections in this thread (other than yours, apparently), are based on exactly that supposed requirement, that’s hardly a quibble.
Supporting evidence = the programs are duplicative (at least in part).
Yeah, because that’s stopped the government before. 🙂
If service is such a great thing, why force it on those that need scholarships? Why not just have a national service that EVERYONE is required to join. (Miltary and/or Americorp?)
Jerry,
See, also, Google. Which pointed me here:
http://www.charityguide.org/volunteer/fifteen/community-service-scholarships.htm
Scholarships given to college bound kids that…have performed community service!
People should be able to disagree without fear of some douche such as yourself coming along and trying to somehow smear them, dehumanize them, delegitimize them.
I had no idea that suggesting that someone was a conservative was such a heinous act, jerry. And are conservatives now contiguous with trolls?
Or maybe you didn’t follow the thread of the conversation?
If service is such a great thing, why force it on those that need scholarships? Why not just have a national service that EVERYONE is required to join. (Miltary and/or Americorp?)
Is that a serious argument?
Offering scholarships/incentives for meritorious behavior is, um, not the same as simply passing a law requiring people to join the military or americorp.
The difference is…THE DIFFERENCE!
I would suggest a google search of public interest scholarships and, at least, differentiate between the requirements of those programs and what you think is being proposed here.
If service is such a great thing, why force it on those that need scholarships? Why not just have a national service that EVERYONE is required to join. (Miltary and/or Americorp?)
It’s terrible to have a compulsory program (or, so you’ve argued). Yet, it sure would be nice if the libs here were advocating one- so you’d have an argument to make against them!
So you ever-so-subtly *suggest* that it’s so good it ought to be compulsory- who knows, maybe someone will agree with you and you can go back to condemning it.
Do you have an argument against voluntary programs? Other than “they’re so good they ought to be compulsory, but that would make them repugnant so they ought not exist at all”?
Both my children have had “community service” requirements in middle school and high school. The middle school requirement was for 40 hours over three years and the HS requirement was 60 hours over four years. My son graduated without any problem, having volunteered at the zoo for a couple of summers. My daughter is going into her junior year and will have to pick up the pace a bit, but shouldn’t have too much trouble making her 60 hours. The overly broad definition that they give to “community service” is such that nobody I know has a problem with it. It is already common in many public schools and mandating such service at the federal level is probably as good an idea as any of the candidates have had this campaign season.
Jerry,
Let me try it this way:
If offering students a break on tuition through work study programs is such a great thing, why force it on those that need money for school? Why not just have a university work program that EVERYONE is required to join.
It’s been awhile since I attained a scholarship, but in general, there were NO strings attached.
In addition to Eric’s examples, there’s also the precedent of the medical school aid that obligates those who accept it to practice for a certain number of years in underserved areas. I’d have thought Northern Exposure would have made that a fairly well-known case of scholarships with strings.
And why wouldn’t continued service in the band or on the basketball team be deemed less onerous than community service?
Because it’s not compulsory? Because you can quit the team? Because athletic scholarships often come with other perks including special housing, special meals, and other special programs?
Regarding military scholarships, I believe there is a point in time at which the student can drop ROTC, no harm no foul (or there used to be.) Beyond that while military service is compelled, it is at Officer grade, and is considered an elite career.
But in all these cases, if you don’t see that these activities are a) on behalf of the student’s immediate best interest and not just some vague society goal, and b) that these are specialized very restricted scholarships that are not the norm and are not being forced on people due to financial circumstances. Even in the case of ROTC, et. al., the fallback is to obtain a non military, no compulsory service scholarship. Whereas in the Hilzoy plan, the base level for everyone is compulsory service.
If service is such a great thing, why force it on those that need scholarships? Why not just have a national service that EVERYONE is required to join. (Miltary and/or Americorp?)
Put yourself in this position. Imagine making a nonsensical First Amendment argument against service in a thread that’s already dedicated to mocking the notion that a federal service program is in violation of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery — then, after post upon post is put forth arguing that this anodyne proposal is neither an infringement on speech nor forced servitude — coming out and saying “well, what’s wrong with forced servitude?”
Why not just have a university work program that EVERYONE is required to join.
Why not just have a year of national service?
To Nell, there’s a difference between doctoring in your chosen specialty up in the wilds of Alaska and being told you need to find 100 hours of service where you provide your time and energy and resources to groups that have no relationship to you or what you want to be doing.
Look, why 100 hours? What’s wrong with making it 1000 hours? Or 2000 hours? Why force only students who can afford no alternative into this? Why not make this a condition all students must meet? Why not make it a requirement to obtain the vote for any citizen?
Most high schools in my area require community service to graduate. Some libertarian shithead equated it with slavery here:
http://tinyurl.com/5vezdh
And someone refuted it here:
http://tinyurl.com/5b957t
Jonah’s sooooo current. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Because it’s not compulsory? Because you can quit the team?
And still keep your scholarship? Not in many cases.
Regarding military scholarships, I believe there is a point in time at which the student can drop ROTC, no harm no foul (or there used to be.)
There are many other breaks that are attached to military service that do not involve ROTC.
Beyond that while military service is compelled, it is at Officer grade, and is considered an elite career.
And community service is considered very noble work.
on behalf of the student’s immediate best interest and not just some vague society goal
That is a subjective judgment that is far less conclusory that you would suggest. There is definite immediate value in community service. And playing a sport for an NCAA team may actually greatly hurt a student in that it takes a student away from studies, puts pressure on their bodies and can lead to serious debilitating injury.
The benefit to the university, however, is much easier to see.
that these are specialized very restricted scholarships that are not the norm and are not being forced on people due to financial circumstances
No forcing. That’s just not here. Also: what are the very generalized, unrestricted scholarships? And why didn’t I get any of those ;(
Jay_B, while I realize you just stepped down from the Supreme Court and I have not, though you have posted mightily here, I may not agree with your personal conclusion that the first amendment aspects are trivial, and of no concern to progressive liberals. Some of us progressive liberals feel very strongly about our civil rights and have joined organizations dedicated to protecting all of them, not just the ones some group of commenters in a blog agree are good ones to protect.
And a year of national service is not forced servitude any more than 100 hours is. In fact, it’s presumably less, since you are paid for national service and not paid for those 100 hours.
So I don’t know how you can claim that a national service proposal for all is servitude but forcing poor kids to give 100 hours free for their scholarships is not.
Because it’s not compulsory? Because you can quit the team? Because athletic scholarships often come with other perks including special housing, special meals, and other special programs?
Are you saying that special meals would make it Ok?
Beyond that while military service is compelled, it is at Officer grade, and is considered an elite career.
Thus falling under the “elite career” exception to the first amendment.
are not being forced on people due to financial circumstances
Do you think of jobs as being forced on people due to financial circumstances? It’s a pretty weird worldview, but hey- dance with them’s what brang ya.
Look, why 100 hours? What’s wrong with making it 1000 hours? Or 2000 hours? Why force only students who can afford no alternative into this? Why not make this a condition all students must meet? Why not make it a requirement to obtain the vote for any citizen?
Can you, please, present arguments against the actual points in contention? Do you have to invent fantastical scenarios? Why not eternal slavery to public service!
This is like arguing against the death penalty by saying “why not just execute jaywalkers!”
Just to clarify: I know people that got breaks on their tuition by signing a promise to serve in the Reserves post-graduation.
There is no wiggle room or period that they can say, no thanks.
“Whereas in the Hilzoy plan, the base level for everyone is compulsory service.”
No. In the Obama plan, which is what I thought we were talking about, there are: (a) a plan for college students, which you have to take if you want a certain type of financial assistance, but otherwise not; (b) “public-private partnerships” to expand opportunities for service (no hint of compulsory anything); (c) a requirement that middle and high schools “develop service programs”, which might or might not be compulsory, and which there’s no reason to think wouldn’t be flexible enough to deal with students who for one reason or another can’t do it, if they were compulsory.
My point in the post was: even if these programs were mandatory for middle and high school students — which I see no evidence is true, though it might be — it would not be “slavery”, any more than being “forced” to do your homework, or to pass math.
Honestly: you’d think some people were unclear on the difference between a “goal” — as in “I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year” — and a requirement. Also, between asking schools to start a program and asking them to start a mandatory program.
We can all speculate about how the details of Obama’s plan might be filled in. But before I started writing op-eds in the LATimes about how it’s just like slavery, I’d want a bit more evidence than my own fevered imagination.
I may not agree with your personal conclusion that the first amendment aspects are trivial…
It’s also the personal conclusion of the American judicial system, afaict. Got any cites to the contrary?
Um, we do this already, though on a much smaller scale and not for service organizations. It’s called a “work-study award.” I had one in college and I remember hearing that I was free to decline it, but, well, I needed the money.
I think it would be better for college students to work for service organizations than as baristas, waiters, telemarketers, etc., to fund their educations.
If you think about this in a deeper historical context, it bears some resemblance to Depression era works projects. I don’t think anyone made involuntary servitude claims about those programs.
So I don’t know how you can claim that a national service proposal for all is servitude but forcing poor kids to give 100 hours free for their scholarships is not.
This is an argument that reduces the entire economic system to absurdity. Poor kids are not forced to do anything for their scholarship.
Just as poor kids aren’t forced to play sports or join the military.
But are you really arguing that because poor kids might find greater incentive to performs certain tasks to receive the financial benefit, we shouldn’t offer those benefits?
That’s taking the argument awfully far. Which it seems you need to do quite frequently.
Aren’t we talking about an optional way of getting some financial assistance for college?
jerry: Why force only students who can afford no alternative into this?
No one is forcing anyone into anything. If such a program didn’t exist at all, you’d have nothing to object to, and it would be the same situation for “students who can afford no alternative” as simply refusing the option. Giving someone a potentially benefitial option that the don’t now have isn’t forcing anyone into anything.
And your “why not make them do horrible thing X?” argument is just plain silly.
So sadly for myself, I was never given the acquaintance with atheletic scholarships *I* feel I should have been.
Because it’s not compulsory? Because you can quit the team?
And still keep your scholarship? Not in many cases.
I have no idea what happens, but my guess is you don’t get a scholarship next year, but if you quit for a variety of reasons mid-season, what you currently have isn’t taken away. Now that’s my conjecture and no more than that. And I will happily concede I could very well be wrong about that. But a compulsory service is not going to be easy to get out of, regardless of any problem you have in your personal life, from trying to make your grades, to death in a family, to illnesses, to any of these various factors that might lead someone to drop off the team or need to drop out of the service program.
The thing has giant bureaucracy with faceless minions and zero tolerance policies written all over it.
I would prefer my kids, when in school:
a) study
b) relax so that they can a) study
If part of b) is that they voluntarily undertake service work, good on them. But I want their time in school spent on their needs first and time for extracurriculars, whatever they may be, able to be shitcanned for the good of their studies.
Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won’t be paying?
which might or might not be compulsory, and which there’s no reason to think wouldn’t be flexible enough to deal with students who for one reason or another can’t do it, if they were compulsory.
I think there’s plenty of reason in today’s zero tolerance high schools to believe these programs would not be flexible enough.
Carleton, I cited one up above. Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
Indeed, and why 12 years of public school? Why not 50? Or 100?
Why a 25% tax bracket? Why not 75%? Or 150%?
Why a 4-year presidential term? Why not 25? Or 50?
Clearly all laws, regulations, and constitutional provisions that involve numbers should be abolished, except perhaps if those numbers are universal constants.
Commonplace.
I urge you to do some additional research.
“According to Goldberg, Obama would mandate that schools — middle schools, high schools, and colleges — impose a community service requirement on their attendees in exchange for federal dollars.”
Yes, according to Goldberg. Of course, as anyone who can read can see, that’s not true. News. Plan.
Show me the part where it’s mandatory that any students engage in service, Von. What are you talking about? Cite?
His proposal was laid out in basic form in December. Show me the mandatory for students to participate part, please.
“What if a student refuses or fails to do the service — will he or she get expelled?”
No.
“What about students working their way through college (and, nontraditional students, e.g., parents with kids); will they have to take on the added burden of 100 hours of community service a year?”
No. Why are you making this stuff up, and why can’t you be bothered to answer your own questions; this took me two minutes to find and link too. Why can’t you bother to do this, yourself, first, before making up straw men?
There are lots of people, liberal as well as conservative, that do argue for national service programs. You can stamp your feet up and down, but you can’t change teh googlable facts: http://www.google.com/search?q=national+service+program and http://www.google.com/search?q=national+service+program+debate
At least a national service program would be fair and not regressive.
Clearly all laws, regulations, and constitutional provisions that involve numbers should be abolished, except perhaps if those numbers are universal constants.
That’s it! e to the power pi hours of community service! I just hope they don’t try to get anyone to do i hours of community service. You might have to enter another dimension.
Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won’t be paying?
But the poor kids that would have access to this new scholarship will be better off than without.
100 hours of community service isn’t much for $4000. As someone mentioned above, that’s $40 an hour. That’s more than many good professional jobs pay!
I don’t know how well off you were in college, but I would have been dancing in the streets at such an offer. I would have been begging to be whipped with this cruel regressive tax thing that wasn’t really a tax but a scholarship!
And Jerry, if you’re so poor that you will feel compelled to do the 100 hours to get the $4000 scholarship, you were already working a job that was interfering with your ability to:
a) study
b) relax so that they can a) study
For less than $40 an hour.
You act as if the perpetrators this mean scholarship idea came along to punish poor people who were otherwise all set with college tuition and the like.
It was all paid for until these scholarship folks came along and offered, gasp, money for a little community service! Irresistible money that they need but already had or something…
Nooooo1!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!
I think there’s plenty of reason in today’s zero tolerance high schools to believe these programs would not be flexible enough.
Note that many school districts around the country already have mandatory service programs. It is not some radically new idea that no one has ever tried before. If you can point to actual cases of students getting screwed by the inflexibility of these systems, or better yet, enough cases to constitute a pattern, that might mean something. But endlessly speculating on potential problems that might exist while working very hard to ignore the fact that many students have already passed through these programs doesn’t strike me as very useful.
For the record, I took a service learning class in high school. If I hadn’t taken that class, I would have had to have taken another class to provide an equivalent number of credits. If something went wrong in my life and I couldn’t finish the class, I would have been in exactly the same place as if I couldn’t finish my math class or physics class. I would have had to cut a deal and work something out. FWIW, my experience was that the class was very flexible: when my car died and I was unable to get to my normal place of service, the staff helped me find something that was walking distance until I could get transportation issues sorted out.
Of course, real world experience is probably less useful than uninformed speculation.
“Indeed, and why 12 years of public school? Why not 50? Or 100?”
— Maybe a thousand! [/mccain]
I may not agree with your personal conclusion that the first amendment aspects are trivial, and of no concern to progressive liberals.
OK.
Some of us progressive liberals feel very strongly about our civil rights and have joined organizations dedicated to protecting all of them, not just the ones some group of commenters in a blog agree are good ones to protect.
Not OK. You are making a specious argument and, simultaneously, breaking your arm to pat yourself on the back. If you show me any kind of threat to First Amendment for having high school kids volunteer, I’ll listen. But all you keep coming up with are absurd analogies which don’t exactly reflect the courage you think you possess.
And a year of national service is not forced servitude any more than 100 hours is. In fact, it’s presumably less, since you are paid for national service and not paid for those 100 hours.
Um…you are paid in the form of a tax credit — $4,000 in fact. Which is just $800 less than I made as a VISTA volunteer in for the entire year of 1990.
So I don’t know how you can claim that a national service proposal for all is servitude but forcing poor kids to give 100 hours free for their scholarships is not.
What? You are just pulling things out of your heroically Constitutional, utterly brave ass on this. “Force” is a key word here, and one you are ridiculously misuing. A “national program for all” based on the notion of mandated service would probably run afoul of the Constitution, giving everyone a chance to cut college costs via volunteer service is an attractive offer — and DOES NOT constitute “forcing poor kids” to do anything.
I still remember the outrageous infringement of my First Amendment rights I experienced in college when in the work-study program I was forced to report to the library at 8am and help with updating the card catalog. I should have called the ACLU.
Maybe a thousand! [/mccain]
I never said “a thousand” ! [/mccain]
>Are there any conservative political writers who are worth reading?
No. This has been another edition of easy answers to rhetorical questions.
If something went wrong in my life and I couldn’t finish the class, I would have been in exactly the same place as if I couldn’t finish my math class or physics class. I would have had to cut a deal and work something out.
That’s all well and good, but wouldn’t it be better if someone came up with a Perfect World Plan so we wouldn’t have to worry about such things. Short of that, we probably shouldn’t do anything. Too risky.
“Again, not the issue. The issue is whether community service should be a mandate of the Federal Government.”
Von, if you’re not just making this up out of whole cloth, please give a cite to where Obama has called for this. Thanks.
“Is that all you have? Do you want to talk substance now?”
Indeed: please cite a substantive source for your imaginative fantasies and reasons for questions about Obama’s proposals. A cite from, you know, Obama. Thanks!
“Where does Obama state that schools have to create programs but don’t have to require students to participate in them?”
WHERE DOES HE STATE THAT STUDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROGRAMS?
You’re just making this up out of whole cloth.
Can I equally ask where John McCain has stated that he doesn’t want all Democrats to be mandated to dig three tons of coal with their hands every year?; how about if I ask where you’ve stated that you don’t believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Since when is making stuff up and demanding that people give cites to their denials of what you’ve made up a legitimate approach to discussion?
Gary,
As I think Von said and I said, the arguments here are based on the theory that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that this program has compulsory aspects. And I think both of us said that the reporting here is probably wrong. And Hilzoy acknowledges much of the filling in of this plan is speculation.
If you want to rail about Goldberg getting the facts and the plan wrong, that’s a good comment to make, but it is somewhat different than an argument that says “Assuming that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that there are compulsory elements to this, this is why compulsory elements are wrong.”
Your upset over people not finding out what you were able to find out within two minutes should also be directed at Hilzoy.
My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy’s agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,
“Hilzoy’s agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,”
jerry: will you please point out where, exactly, I said that? Or, alternately, stop putting words in my mouth?
First, I think that public service is not unreasonable as a part of education. My counterexample would be making funding contingent on teaching math and english- is that so unreasonable?
Second, I would object to the loyalty oath on it’s own merits, regardless of the enforcement mechanism. I would object to it as an innovation of my local school board.
The difference is that math and English don’t have [or aren’t supposed to have] an ideological component.
If anything and everything a kid decides to offer up as his community service is going to be accepted under the plan, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If kids can put down that they posted on libertarian blogs for 40 hours and that’s their community service, awesome. But if they can’t – if the high school is going to be making distinctions based on what the school administration thinks is and is not “community service”, then it’s absolutely analogous to the loyalty oath, and not to teaching math and science. Any distinction by the school board as to what does, and what does not, constitute “community service” will ultimately be either moral or ideological [and I would hold that to be a distinction without a difference anyway] and withholding a government benefit [a high school diploma] on such a basis would, in my view, violate the students’ First Amendment rights.
Think of it this way: if a school has a social studies class that teaches about citizenship, and requires you to pass a test to prove that you know the material in that class, that would not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights. But if a school didn’t just test about “citizenship”, but required some overtly political act – say, volunteering to work a voter registration table in the town park, or collecting ballot petition signatures – and if you refused to do any of the choices you were failed in the class, that to me would violate the First Amendment, because it would be compelling a political statement in order to obtain a government benefit.
And ultimately if any bounds whatsoever are set on the definition of community service, we have a situation analogous to that.
As people note above, programs of this kind already exist and apparently no one has been sued yet. But I think we will see lawsuits in due time. If there can be lawsuits over whether kids can hand out candy to other kids in school, there will be lawsuits over this eventually.
Compulsory elements? Like oxygen, nitrogen and carbon?
Well, my lunch hour is over…. So enjoy.
Eric, in college, I earned $15 an hour at an internship as an engineer. While I was called an intern, my basic job requirements were the same as an entry level engineer. Upon graduating, I joined that company, and based on my internship, they gave me one of the higher starting salaries of my class.
Yes, working that job (or any job) caused my grades to suffer, but I was working a job that I felt directly contributed to my degree and career through the technical skills and the various networks formed.
Is $20 < $40 per hour? Yes, but there were other benefits. As well as opportunity costs. The scholarship seems to top out at $4,000 but working as an intern throughout the school year earned me about double or triple that as I recall, and yes, taking the 100 hours out of the internship may have made the internship a no go with the company. But again, if this is a voluntary thing with lots of flexibility, that's one thing and good on anyone that takes advantage of it, or makes it possible. If this turns into the compulsory plan that Hilzoy seems to believe is justified that's entirely different. I am not as sanguine as Hilzoy that "goals" do not become "requirements", especially amongst the zero tolerance middle school/high school bureaucrats. Back to the mineshaft.
Okay, first I’ll close my italic. Sorry.
Whoa, sorry about the tag failure, folks.
My bad.
deitaliacto!
If there really was a Godwin’s Law, it would say that attempts at speech and thought policing mean you lose the argument.
But there really is a Godwin’s Law, and that’s not what it says.
?????
Am I the only person who can make neither heads nor tails of this?
Usually us liberal progressives are not fond of regressive taxes, but what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won’t be paying?
If there’s one thing I know about rich people, it’s that they get and stay rich in part by not spending their own money. If rich kids can save themselves $4,000 in college costs by volunteering for 100 hours of community service, not only will they jump at the chance, their families will very nearly insist on it.
“So schools are going to be required to to create a program that but, once creating the program, don’t need to have anyone participate in it?”
Yes.
“Isn’t that the worst of all worlds?”
No.
This differs from the Bush-run Americorps, or the Peace Corps, or allowing military recruiters in schools, or the Girl Scouts, or Boy Scouts, or a million other volunteer programs, in what significant way? The only difference is that it mandates that schools make such programs available to kids to voluntarily join or not join, if the schools want certain tax credits/funds.
What’s the problem here? No actual student is forced to do anything, contrary to the repeated non-fact-based, non-fact-checked, statements made in this thread.
This is ginned-up hysteria based on straight lies. Nice technique to, at best, fall for.
Maybe in the schools Jonah Goldberg attended, they didn’t require things like homework, or attendance, or reading, or math. It would explain a lot. (The idea that he wasn’t asked to work his way through all those analogies in preparation for the SATs alone would probably explain most of the “arguments” in Liberal Fascism.)
For the rest of us, though, there have always been lots of compulsory things in schools. If this counts as slavery, children have been enslaved since compulsory schooling began.
You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with.
(And at this point, I apologize, I seem to have no idea how to fix the tags.)
My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy’s agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,
WTF ?
the college student part isn’t compulsory, so that can’t be what you’re worried about.
so it must be the high school and middle school part…? but high school and middle school are already compulsory, with many compulsory components within (you must take phys ed, so many credits of math, English, foreign language, etc.). all of those have administrators (we call them teachers), who have bosses (principals), who report to other people (school systems, school board).
how would a community service requirement different from any other school requirement?
The difference is that math and English don’t have [or aren’t supposed to have] an ideological component.
Um, clearly you haven’t been paying attention to high school English classes for the last 60 years or so.
But, but, but
ISLAMO-FASCISM!!!
ISLAMO-FASCISM!!!
Well, I’ve read teh 120 plus comments on this thread and I’ll I’ve gained from it was a better understanding of the meaning of Steely Dans album title Pretzel Logic.
My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy’s agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing
?????
I give up.
1. Education is compulsory
2. Compulsory public education isn’t JUST to educate the individual, it also serves to benefit society as a whole
3. The State already sets curriculum guidelines and mandates for public education
4. High schools across the country already have compulsory community service plans as part of their curriculum
5. Community service benefits society as a whole
6. Community service can be a learning tool just as much as “history” or “art” or “calculus” can be
7. The collegiate portion of this plan is incentive-driven and not part of already-compulsory high school
We had to do 40 hours of service to graduate high school. I hadn’t realized that this constituted slavery. Also: are people completely insane? Unless you want to attack the constitutionality of selective service, which I assume no Republicans want to do, it is very difficult to explain how mandatory service would be any more unconstitutional than the draft.
You know what I hate:
I hate being forced by society to have a job so that I can buy groceries, gas, and medical care.
I love though how it’s framed as my choice.
“Hey, no one’s forcing you to work. No one’s forcing you to pick cotton. No one’s forcing you to stay on the plantation. Go ahead, run. No one’s forcing you to force us to hunt you down with dogs and hang your slave butt.”
I’m put-upon, and a slave to boot.
Thing is, I can’t even identify what level of society this mandate originates from.
It comes from all directions. The bottom, local part of society seems just as convinced of it as the top, Federal part.
Americans hate being a slave by Federal mandate. They love being slaves via private mandate.
A slave is a slave.
Now get back to work!
what else is a compulsory service attached to a scholarship but a highly regressive tax that the rich kids won’t be paying
Except for the part where, instead of taking money away, the government will be handing money (or credits) out.
Ice cream trucks are like tanks, except they hand out ice cream instead of bullets. An important and tasty distinction.
Carleton, I cited one up above. Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
And I pointed out that allowing one group to exclude another has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with compulsory service. In no way, shape, or form.
Forcing a group to allow a openly homosexual minority- carrying signs about that homosexuality- to join another group obviously implicates the first amendment.
But it doesn’t have anything to do with your argument.
“Assuming that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that there are compulsory elements to this, this is why compulsory elements are wrong.”
That was all well and good until von decided to use the lack of a clarification by Obama about these assumptions to suggest that the middle school programs would be mandatory.
Other than that, it’s not a bizarre argument to make, just speculative.
You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with.
You seem to believe, jerry, that there should be no compulsory aspects to education. Which is a fine libertarian position to take (fwiw, Id like to get rid of public schools but that’s a whole nother discussion). But certainly not a mainstream one.
And one final comment to Von et all.
Do you favor repealing the Solomon amendment? (no federal funding for universities that don’t allow ROTC programs)
“As I think Von said and I said, the arguments here are based on the theory that both Goldberg and Hilzoy are correct that this program has compulsory aspects.”
And yet “compulsory aspects” is a glossing phrase with no meaningfully clear content, and, further, Hilzoy wrote no such thing.
“My particular argument here is that progressive liberals who claim to defend the first amendment and want education for all should not be too happy with Hilzoy’s agreement that a compulsory service plan is a good thing,”
Insofar as I can parse this into English, I’ll note again that Hilzoy has said no such thing, and that if there’s some “first amendment aspect” to Obama’s proposals, you’ve yet to point out what that might be.
“But again, if this is a voluntary thing with lots of flexibility, that’s one thing and good on anyone that takes advantage of it, or makes it possible.”
Yeah, that’s where the facts started. Lotta wasted time on everyone’s part, either telling lies, falling for lies, not fact-checking lies, and others having to spend time refuting lies, in the meantime, to get back to where the facts started.
And in five minutes, someone will probably come along, and write “I haven’t had time to read all the comments, but this mandating students do compulsory service is just terrible!”
Hilzoy, might you possibly consider adding a link in your post to Obama’s actual words and proposal, to try to forestall this discussion repeating? If so, thanks!
I’m not a conservative, but I appreciate P.J. O’Rourke immensely. Not only is he a brilliant writer, he is also not obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs (like, say, Christopher Hitchens, another “intellectual” conservative). I am a total 180 degrees around from him on views such as taxation and the Iraq mess, but I appreciate that O’Rourke can be self-effacing and self-critical of the conservative movement, and even have a sense of humor about some of its foibles. That’s a refreshing contrast to the self-important blowhards who are so excruciatingly sensitive when held to criticism that you just wanna call the waaaahmmbulance on them.
“You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with.”
No: I believe that compulsory things in high school, whether good or bad, are not slavery.
There is a difference.
Do you think of jobs as being forced on people due to financial circumstances?
Good Lord, yes.
There’s an important difference encouraging, and requiring. If Obama’s plan is encouraging this goal with rewards rather than requiring this goals with compulsion, then of course there’s absolutely no problem with it.
And it’s absurd to imagine that Obama is actually suggesting some sort of civilian draft going down to middle-school kids.
My daughter’s Catholic High School requires 25 service hours per year in order to graduate. Most Catholic schools have some sort of service requirement. I find it interesting most conservatives (see the Rush Limbaugh profile in the NYT Magazine) support vouchers for religious schools that often have these requirements.
I guess the short version of this post should be “Rush Limbaugh supports slavery.”
“You seem to believe Hilzoy, that a little compulsory forcing is a good thing that people should not be upset with.”
I’d suggest that quoting people’s words is a good technique for presenting what people “seem to believe,” and that making up your own version and attributing it to them is not at all as good a technique.
I suggest that you wouldn’t enjoy other people applying that technique to what you “seem to believe.”
“(And at this point, I apologize, I seem to have no idea how to fix the tags.)”
By closing the tag. In HTML. Try here if you’re unaware of how to close a simple tag.
“Unless you want to attack the constitutionality of selective service, which I assume no Republicans want to do, it is very difficult to explain how mandatory service would be any more unconstitutional than the draft.”
WTF does “mandatory service” have to do with Obama’s proposal?
I got a kid going to private college this fall. She qualifies for Federal work-study, which pays like, 8.10 an hour. Before taxes. She can only work 300 hours a year. So, 4000/100 looks like a better deal, even if you have to wait to use the credits. I assume they don’t expire for 10 years or so.
Give me some of that slavery.
So, to sum up, Obama’s proposal violates the Thirteenth Amendment rights of middle schools.
There’s an important difference encouraging, and requiring.
I think that’s the central point here: whether there is such a difference. It’s a standard line of, shall we say, anti-liberal* argument that goals = quotas = mandates, so that any time the federal government expresses a positive desire and offers incentives for, say, more public service, we’re on the slippery cliff that leads straight to the gulag.
* since “conservative” seems to have become a dehumanizing, delegitimizing smear.
Brian, since the plan says the credit is “fully refundable”, presumably you don’t wait to use it. You get a refund on your income tax if you don’t owe $4,000 (which most college students won’t).
“Not only is he a brilliant writer, he is also not obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs (like, say, Christopher Hitchens, another ‘intellectual’ conservative).”
1) I can’t tell if your intent is to assert that Hitchen is “like” O’Rourke in “not [being] obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs,” or if your intent is to assert that Hitchens is, as an alternative to O’Rourke, “not obnoxiously married to his ideology at all costs.”
2) Hitchens is a conservative? Do you have a cite to either a metric by which we can establish this, or to a self-declaration by him? Because this is news to me, at least. Since when?
I don’t think that the idea that the “goal” will somehow morph into a “mandate” is too far fetched. If he’s conditioning federal funds on schools “developing service programs”, presumably there has to be some sort of mechanism to ensure that the school have, in fact, developed such programs. It’s not too much of a stretch to think that one of the ways of testing that is to ask “how many hours of community service did the average student at your school perform last year?”
How do schools get that number up? By making service mandatory.
Gary, I was a little surprised to see Hitchens described as a conservative as well, but plenty of people, mainly on the right, have been using position on the Iraq war (or sometimes support for Bush) as the only metric for determining who’s conservative or liberal for some years now.
Dear Chris Matthews,
I believe you owe your viewers an explanation as exactly what you meant by equating ‘white folks’ with ‘regular folks’.
Would you care to enlighten us? With particular attention to explaining exactly what makes non-white folks so non-regular?
No long-standing cultural tradition of eating bran? Reduced economic access to prunes?
I don’t think that the idea that the “goal” will somehow morph into a “mandate” is too far fetched.
Sure. What I’m questioning is the jump from “not too far fetched” to “inevitable.”
It’s a good idea to use the “worst possible implementation” scenario as part of assessing any policy proposal, but only a part.
“…but plenty of people, mainly on the right, have been using position on the Iraq war (or sometimes support for Bush) as the only metric for determining who’s conservative or liberal for some years now.”
Yes, people make all sorts of unjustified and false assumptions about all sorts of things.
I tend to question that sort of thing.
The idea that Hitchens is a conservative, of any sort, couldn’t possibly be held by anyone with more than the faintest bit of knowledge of him.
On service programs: “It’s not too much of a stretch to think that one of the ways of testing that is to ask” do you have such a program?
Problem solved!
It seems like the word “service” is confusing for some folks. Perhaps it would be clearer if we used another term which is just as accurate: job.
Obama is proposing that college students be offered a part time job lasting 100 hours and paying $40/hour. Of course, students wouldn’t have to accept such a job, but it sounds like a much better deal than the work-study job I had during college.
Now, I have on rare occasions encountered folks who expressed the opinion that having to work at a job for a paycheck is equivalent to slavery, but they usually aren’t claiming to represent a conservative viewpoint. (Usually they aren’t talking about $40/hour jobs either.)
“Obama is proposing that college students be offered a part time job lasting 100 hours and paying $40/hour.”
Wow. I’d like that kind of job. Do you have a cite on this proposal?
Update: “UPDATE: Obama’s actual plan is here.”
No, that’s his speech. His plan, as I wrote, is here.
Presumably any final plan will be written by Congress.
Fine, Jonah is ridiculous and insane. Whoo-hoo. Worst president ever.
Is that all you have? Do you want to talk substance now?
Yes, von, and the substance I want to talk about is this:
Nobody, conservative or liberal, should “argue” by ramping up idiotic namecallingso as to make actual policy discussion impossible.
Remember when conservatives were proclaiming that those of us who had the good judgement to oppose the Iraq invasion before it even started were traitors, or appeasers, or Islamofascists, or naive liberals, or naive pacifists, or dirtyfuckinghippies, etc.?
This is a perfect example of what I’m objecting to.
Now conservatives and liberals, may have different opinions of Obama’s proposal, or the war in Iraq, etc. etc.
That’s fair ball.
But ridiculous, over-the-top allegations— of the kind that Goldberg and his ideological brethren are fond of making— do nothing to promote honest discussion of the issues.
In fact, they make honest discussion of issues impossible.
THAT is my point.
You find it to be trivial? Tough shit.
I don’t get too worked up over the idea of requiring community service in exchange for money, although I do have concerns about it coming from the federal level. Mostly in who is administering it-and who approves what is or isn’t community service. Also, will it require another layer of government people looking at paperwork.
But I don’t see a huge issue in providing a tax credit for community service-especially if what qualifies is fairly lenient in the sense of what counts. My husband worked 40-50 hours a week as a full time college student while supporting his wife and four pre school aged kids. He actively volunteered as a teacher and nusery worker at our church-if those hours count as community service he would have easily made the 100 hours. But if he had to work for some government approved agency on their schedule-getting the hours would have been next to impossible. And while the tax credit is a nice thing, it only comes in April. When you have to put food on the table in October the check coming in April isn’t going to do much for you.
That said-every high school around here has some community service requirement. My daughter will have to do 50 hours in her junior and senior years (hours in freshmen and sophomore years don’t count). The middle school required 30 hours during 8th grade year only.
But the school is pretty open about what can count. My daughter met her required hours by tutoring 5th graders in math one afternoon a week during school hours. They will take church work. Some kids volunteered to work concession stands for baseball/softball leagues or umpiring. Shoot one of my coworkers daughters got her hours by coloring and cutting lamination work for games and other things for several teachers at the elementary school.
But like I said-my big questions are who administers these programs and who determines what does or doesn’t count as community service (especially the college one since it isn’t actually a college program but something you attach to your tax form).
Gary – ““Obama is proposing that college students be offered a part time job lasting 100 hours and paying $40/hour.”
Wow. I’d like that kind of job. Do you have a cite on this proposal?
”
From his speech – “For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we’ll require 100 hours of public service.”
$4000/100 hours = $40/hour. To be sure, the payment comes in terms of a tax credit rather than a paycheck, but the result is pretty much the same.
Since I know you read the comments upthread, I’m pretty sure you could figure out where I was getting that figure from. Did you have some specific nitpick with how I phrased my comment?
Did anybody read Obama carefully? What’s mandated is that schools develop service programs. There’s no mention of mandatory participation.
“At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities.”
Well, you can call me conservative if you like, but people who do call themselves conservatives disagree. Classic liberal is a better label, if labels are needed.
But ridiculous, over-the-top allegations— of the kind that Goldberg and his ideological brethren are fond of making— do nothing to promote honest discussion of the issues.
In fact, they make honest discussion of issues impossible.
I disagree. Goldberg has an argument that doesn’t involve Nazis or fascists or the 13th amendment. You don’t have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don’t even have to mention Goldberg.
The way to have honest discussion, in my view, is to have it and try to ignore the exaggerations and stupidity. I do it all the time when dealing with folks to the left of me. 😉
Okay, thanks.
“Did anybody read Obama carefully?”
Yes.
“What’s mandated is that schools develop service programs. There’s no mention of mandatory participation.”
Yes.
“The way to have honest discussion, in my view, is to have it and try to ignore the exaggerations and stupidity.”
That would be useful. Also, not making stuff up, and asking where it’s been denied.
“I disagree. Goldberg has an argument that doesn’t involve Nazis or fascists or the 13th amendment. You don’t have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don’t even have to mention Goldberg.”
What’s the argument? One that doesn’t involve making up stuff, or repeating made up stuff, preferably.
$4000/100 hours = $40/hour.
FTR, this calculation is not supported. It’s a $4000 tax credit, which does not necessarily mean a $4000 in-pocket payment. Usually, it simply means that if your tax bill is reduced by $4000. I’ve see no indication that Obama is proposing a credit that results in a payout where a tax bill is <4000 ('tho it may be the case).
c) a requirement that middle and high schools “develop service programs”, which might or might not be compulsory, and which there’s no reason to think wouldn’t be flexible enough to deal with students who for one reason or another can’t do it, if they were compulsory.
The simple question, Hilzoy is whether we think it’s wise for the Federal government to be doing any of these things.
What’s the argument? One that doesn’t involve making up stuff, or repeating made up stuff, preferably.
Such an argument has been going on, abeit intermittently, throughout dozens of comments on this thread alone.
I think what some people are missing is this:
I don’t have any kids. I pay taxes that help my neighbor’s kids go to school. This really isn’t any different than if I paid the neighbor directly to help him send his kids to school.
If the parents send the kids to a private school where they’re spending their own money, fine. They don’t have to have a community service requirement. They can do whatever they want.
But if my neighbor is spending MY money to send HIS kids to school, I think I oughta get something out of it other than keeping them off the damn lawn for a few hours. You wanna talk about slavery? I work my butt off, have to give some of my money to my neighbor, and I get nothing for it. That’s slavery. (That’s also hyperbole)
If I give money to my neighbor, and in return the neighbor’s kids mow my lawn, that’s called work. If I give money to the government to educate the little punks, and in return they’re made to help my town, it’s the same thing. They don’t have to do the community service. They just have to do it if they want me to pay for their education. Otherwise, they can go to a private school. Or be home-schooled. I don’t care.
About time I actually got something for those taxes.
I, too, wonder about this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, even if being a duck is no longer in with the Kool Kidz, it’s still a duck.
Bear in mind, you’re talking about someone who iirc said he’d likely vote for Obama over any of the GOP primary candidates other than McCain…
One wonders if Goldberg’s serial idiocies in the LA Times might not have something to do with this:
The most troubled big newspaper in U.S. is cutting off 250 jobs, including an unprecedented 150 positions in editorial, to bring its expenses down in line with declining revenues.
Forbes, July 2
OK,OK — I know the real problem is Sam Zell and his botched takeover of Tribune Corp. But still . . .
You don’t have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don’t even have to mention Goldberg.
Sadly, no.
See the title of this thread? “Slavery”
This thread is all about Jonah Goldberg’s use of idiotic, dishonest rhetoric.
It matters not whether or not you agree in principle with Jonah Goldberg about the subject under discussion.
Jonah Goldberg’s use of idiotic, dishonest rhetoric is the point of the whole thread.
“It’s a $4000 tax credit, which does not necessarily mean a $4000 in-pocket payment. Usually, it simply means that if your tax bill is reduced by $4000. I’ve see no indication that Obama is proposing a credit that results in a payout where a tax bill is <4000 ('tho it may be the case).”
I looked through Obama’s proposal and found this:
Barack Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by
creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000
of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the
average public college or university. Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public
service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months
I’m no expert on taxes, but “fully refundable” sounds to me like you get a refund for the balance if your tax bill is less than $4000. Can anyone confirm that one way or another?
I’m no expert on taxes, but “fully refundable” sounds to me like you get a refund for the balance if your tax bill is less than $4000. Can anyone confirm that one way or another?
Wikipedia says:
Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.
So I think your analysis is correct.
Are there any leftist writers out there who aren’t self-serving, narcissistic, Orwellian governmental votaries; and that are worth reading (especially the ones able to differentiate between verity and versimilitude)?
………….(crickets sounding)………….
Community service can be a learning tool just as much as “history” or “art” or “calculus” can be.
Exactly right. Actually, considering the use I got out of calculus or art after high school, a lot more of a learning tool.
Work builds character, I hear. At least, that used to be the conservative position. Oh, and wasn’t there also something about how we should do good deeds for the poor ourselves instead of handing it over to faceless bureaucracies?
Seriously, haven’t we all wondered why we wasted so much time in public school on abstract knowledge with no real world application and never learned, e.g., how to balance a checkbook, evaluate mortgage terms, or navigate the workplace? A few hours a month of community service is a step in the right direction of putting kids in touch with the real world.
MtnConservative, if I were Hilzoy, I believe I’d be offended.
Except if I were her, I’d be way too well-balanced to care.
Tony: you are right.
That is what a “tax credit” means. A tax credit reduces your tax burden, and if that burden is zero, you get what ever is left in the form of a refund. Anything called a “tax credit” works this way. “Tax deductions” work to reduce your tax burden, but they can only bring it to zero.
These are technical terms which are explained at length in the documentation of the 1040 that you receive every year. I’m assuming that Obama is aware that “tax credit” has a technical meaning when he used. I think that the “fully refundable” line that Tony found supports that assumption.
MntConservative,
Get rid of the crickets and learn how to use a semicolon, then we’ll talk.
Carleton Wu: Bear in mind, you’re talking about someone who iirc said he’d likely vote for Obama over any of the GOP primary candidates other than McCain…
And so? How does this not make Von conservative? If he’s supporting McCain over Obama, that’s a conservative decision: he wants 8 more years of a President as much like George W. Bush as possible, given term limits.
I’m willing to accept that Von has changed his self-identification and is now a liberal, or a socialist, or a Guardian-reading leftie commie pinko, even. But I’ve never seen any sign of this other than Von’s recent declarations in threads about embarrassing conservative behavior that he’s not conservative.
Carleton Wu,
Phobic towards Euscyrtus concinnus, perhaps?
And you don’t think that was a conjunctive adverb? Perhaps a transitional phrase?
Or do you simply hate semicolons?
Do you have any lists for me?
Which is why it’s hopefully a good thing you don’t do your own taxes (or anyone’s for that matter) because you can’t seem to grasp the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction despite the fact that it was explained up thread.
Perhaps those 300 economists who signed off of McCain’s economic plan could explain it for you.
chirp chirp chirp
But seriously, I don’t mean to belittle you. As a non Republican making excuses for the GOP nominees idiotic statements on economic policy has got to be a drag.
Does military conscription count as involuntary servitude?
Great post!
Determining if it is wise is not something done in a vacuum. If there are numerous programs out there, perhaps even a majority out there, then I think the drawbacks are quite minor. If there are relatively few out there, but the additional interaction in the community is a net plus, then I think it’s wise. If the costs outweight the benefits, then it is not wise.
GIven the increasing number of service programs out there, I’m not so sure the costs would be that great.
Sorry, Carleton Wu,
I meant to add this for your enjoyment.
“Whatever is left in the hands of chance must be subject to vicissitude; and when any establishment is found to be useful, it ought to be the next care to make it permanent. –Samuel Johnson ”
And so? How does this not make Von conservative?
Well, not all that conservative if he’d vote Obama over Romney. Not arguing whether he is or is not, just that the self-labeling doesn’t appear ludicrous in the face of that information.
I don’t think a “tax credit” is necessarily refunded to you if you don’t owe or pay any taxes–I think in general, it reduces the taxes you owe rather than a deduction which reduces taxable income–but a “fully refundable tax credit” is. So. Pretty good deal.
Carleton Wu: I think being willing to vote for Obama over Romney just makes Von smarter.
Phobic towards Euscyrtus concinnus, perhaps?
If you’re going to use google to appear more intelligent or knowledgeable than you actually are, you must tone it down a notch. It’s obvious and kinda desperate when you go this far with it.
Do you have any lists for me?
Since hilzoy would’ve been close to the top of that list (and you implicitly insulted her in making your post) there doesn’t appear to be much purpose. “Pearls before swine” doncha know.
Jes,
Touche
Hang on a sec- when did “and” become an adverb? And it’s not a transitional phrase bc those aren’t independent clauses.
Normally, I shun grammar nazi-ism, but if you get caught you ought to google “semicolon” and then pretend you were correct.
Your best bet was to say that it was distinguishing the list from the dependant-clause comma. I dont think that’s actually correct (Gary?) but it’d be close enough for government work.
sorry- “ought not”
I may be a little late to the party, having not read the last third of the comments due to an actual party I need to go to, but I’d like to see a scholarship without requirements. It’s been a while, but every single scholarship I received had requirements.
One was simply given to me by the school for my grades, another by my prospective college because I was second in my class. Obviously the requirements for those, and all of the others really, were grades, and how good my grades were relative to those of my peers. I received one that I qualified for because my dad was in Vietnam, and I had to write a fairly long essay for it as well. I was later required to read the essay at the ceremony at which the scholarship was awarded. And I received one for service as well.
I have never seen a scholarship that doesn’t have a requirement. That’s why my counselor had a book in his office with a list of many of the scholarships offered nationally, and after going through it, I found only a few I was eligible to receive. As requirements go, 100 hours is a bit high – but so is $4000, so that seems to even out.
At the very least, this program could give students a little more time to study, since the $4000 could easily mean the ability to avoid taking a second job.
As for the argument that there are no direct benefits to the student – uh, $4000? To a college kid trying to find a way to pay for tuition, that’s one hell of a benefit. Service also looks great on college applications, certain types of service may help on future job applications, and there is a very good opportunity to do some networking.
I know that if this opportunity had been available to me, I’d have taken it.
I’d like to see the details for the middle and high school portion (well, for all of it, really), but I have no problem with creating incentives for kids to get out there and do some service. I’m a little iffy on requiring it, but probably not opposed to it. At the moment, that looks like the decision of the individual schools, but I could be wrong.
Carleton Wu Hoo,
There. Does that tone it down to the level you prefer it?
And since this is apparently the way the ‘locals’ treat the ‘newbies’, it’s not surprising that any sort of marginal sarcasm based on previous posts (of the sort that spawned the ‘hilarious’ retorts that there were few, if any, readable conservatives), would be completely lost on you. Plus, one should know one’s grammar before venturing out of one’s minimal comfort zone to criticize another’s use of semicolons, doncha think? Swine swallowing pearls?
And an implicit insult can only be proferred when one knows the landscape of the arena in which one is doing the insulting. Obviously, as a newbie, I trod upon some form of sacred ground. Thanks for making me feel so tolerated, and so welcome.
And, if words pose a problem for you, I would direct you to the local Barnes and Noble. Dictionaries are fairly cheap.
SO….. beyond Hilzoy (does she write under a real name as well? or is that some form of an implicit insult as well? this is tiring), are there any non-condemnatory liberals out there that I might actually be able to enjoy reading for some objective, stimulating contrast to the pap that serves as commentary on most websites?
BTW,
It’s nice to see you doing your Google searches. Grammar is the funnest, isn’t it?
MtnConservative: the posting rules require civility. (Not talking about any implicit insult to me.)
I’m sure that with a bit of effort, you could answer your many questions for yourself. Certainly the one about liberals worth reading: you’d be more likely to find someone to your tastes by looking around yourself, rather than trusting people on a site you seem to dislike.
hilzoy,
Thanks for the guidance on protocol. I don’t dislike this site. This is the first time I’ve visited in my life.
My initial post was a response. I was appalled by the cavalier fashion that ‘conservative’ writers were dismissed as unreadable or nonexistent.
My visceral reaction to Carleton Wu’s unwarranted, and trivial, attack on a grammatical device about which reasonable people have disagreed for a very long time, may not have been proper, in degree, but again I am a newbie.
Am I a pariah here because of my tag?
Davebo, your blog-fu is weak.
A tax deduction is something you deduct from your gross income.
A tax credit is something that reduces the taxes that you pay.
Obama is proposing a tax credit. That much is clear, and is reflected in my post. (You seem not to have understood.)
My point is that it is not clear whether Obama’s tax credit is refundable or nonrefundable. (You seem not to have understood this concept either.)
Now, on a similar topic, I’m off to give my two-year-old a bath.
Last I looked, telling a child to clean their room is not slavery; although some liberals for child rights no matter what seem to think so. I assumed most of you brave male slaves have refused to register for the draft too? After all, the girls don’t have to. It sure looks like reverse sexism to me. After doing a teat tally total of the killed in action, Paris Hilton and the girls have missed out on another good war, but the real middle class and Harvard lawyers always do. Doubtless this only reflects the progressive’s favored relativity of reality where slavery is really in the eye of the beholder.
“My point is that it is not clear whether Obama’s tax credit is refundable or nonrefundable. (You seem not to have understood this concept either.)”
Except the part where his website states that it is “fully refundable”, naturally, on the general rule that Obama’s proposals are full of secret clauses making them BAAAAD and McCain’s proposals are full of secret clauses making them GOOOD.
MtnConservative, it’s nothing to do with your handle. It’s that your initial comment was insulting and certainly didn’t appear to be an honest request for information, and the same holds for most of what you’ve written here since. Does this sort of interaction generally result in good treatment for newbies on the blogs you read regularly? If so, I’d be curious to know which ones they are.
MtnConservative: “Am I a pariah here because of my tag?”
No, not at all. We’re friendly, and we have conservative regulars. For that matter, we try for conservative posters, but we’ve had trouble replacing our last one. (Check the top right corner.)
Offhand, I’d say it’s a first-time visit misunderstanding. Russell is a regular, and has been here for a while. We know him, and know that he’s not generally dismissive of all conservatives, but (I assume) exasperated by Jonah Goldberg’s (imho) singularly idiotic argument. (Which probably wouldn’t have provoked the same response had it come from some random person; it’s the fact that Goldberg is for some reason taken seriously enough to be writing for the LATimes, NRO, etc.)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, this thread was overwhelmed by new people (OT: it is a total mystery to me why some posts get linked and other don’t. I would not have pegged this as the post worth getting linked off Atrios and dKos, but there we are.) Since new people are, well, new, they don’t know the norms, which are heavy on civility and backing up your opinions. The fact that there were a lot of them, and that at least one of them was rather annoying, made people somewhat less patient than usual.
With this as background, you appeared, and seemed a bit gratuitously insulting to, say, Carleton. And that, I think, explains the response. Personally, I’d be delighted if it’s just misunderstandings based on unfamiliarity.
Except the part where his website states that it is “fully refundable”, naturally, on the general rule that Obama’s proposals are full of secret clauses making them BAAAAD and McCain’s proposals are full of secret clauses making them GOOOD.
Well, if the website says that (I didn’t see it), then of course there has to be a secret clause.
I was enslaved in Tanzania by the Peace Corps for a couple years. Are reparations forthcoming?
Dan: that’s wonderful. Even better than von’s donut whole, which was pretty wonderful, even if inadvertent.
Thanks 🙂
I think Matthew H had an important point here. As a childless person living in a neighborhood with very few if any school age children (none that I know of), it confuses me why people such as von seem to think it unremarkable that I be forced to pay taxes at all levels of government to provide public education, but finds it offensive that something be required in return from the beneficiaries of this welfare.
Let the little miscreants earn their welfare rather than just getting a handout. What part of that don’t conservatives understand?
Now if you were to argue that compulsory education itself was slavery, I think charges of hyperbole would be much less defensible. I think it should be abolished.
I think that this is essentially a religious argument. And I don’t use “religious” lightly.
Consider the situation of parents who are sincerely convinced that the earth was made a few thousand years ago, without the means for evolution, in accordance with the direct will of God. The rest of us take note of their right to hold this conviction but we properly do not let their creed stop the rest of us from teaching the observable facts of science and the conclusions drawn from those observations, nor the methods at work.
It is a tenant of most flavors of conservative and libertarian thought that the government cannot play a positive role in society and must not be allowed to try. Depending on the particular conviction, there may be exceptions, as with national-greatness conservatism, which allows for the constructive use of the state to inculcate martial virtues and expertise. Or it may be a blanket denial of the innate capacity of the state to do any lasting good, as in David Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism. Or something in between. But in any event, the state cannot, in the end, usefully promote social harmony, cooperation, and the like; it’ll always go bad.
Now, I take note of this as a conviction. I would not, for instance, wish to shut down the institutions that promulgate it. But it is factually incorrect. Far too much history, both in the US and the rest of the world, weighs against it. It can no more be sustained as a consistent interpretation of real-world data than creationism can. So while I respect the right of people to believe in it, I don’t respect it, and I don’t think that educational policy should be held hostage to it.
And if the children of anti-statists learn from their own experience that they can cooperate with other young people and suitable mentors to accomplish things that make their communities better to live in, that’s no more an infringement of their parents’ religion than is teaching science to the children of creationists.
Goldberg has an argument that doesn’t involve Nazis or fascists or the 13th amendment. You don’t have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don’t even have to mention Goldberg.
No. Goldberg doesn’t. Even if you read past his introductory BS about slavery, (thus taking a second bite of an apple already known to be rotten) he doesn’t.
All he says is that the US has high rates of volunteerism, and that mandatory national service will be harmful. That’s it. To prove this he points out that state-funded churches in Europe are poorly attended. Well, that’s convincing. He also throws in an objection to expanding the Peace Corps or, as he puts it “pushing another 250,000 into AmeriCorps.” I didn’t know AmeriCorps was staffed by conscription, but apparently Jonah thinks so.
This is not to say that there are no reasonable arguments against federally mandated community service programs, (though it’s not clear that Obama is proposing that) just that Goldberg doesn’t actually make any.
Well, if the website says that (I didn’t see it), then of course there has to be a secret clause.
Dude, not only did you see it, you copied and pasted it from Obama’s website in your own 1:41pm comment. If you aren’t going to read any of the other nine instances of “fully refundable” on the thread, at least try to read your own comments.
Bah – I would have cleaned toilets my first year of college for that kind of money. (Hey wait a minute – I did clean toilets, and for a heck of a lot less than that…)
I have no issue with this other than the cost. With 12 million full time college students, where does the $48B annual come from? Previously he promised $18B in new education spending. Obviously this program isn’t covered by that $18B (plus that was for K-12 and early Ed). So is this another $48B on top of his already extensive list of promises?
Speaking of the LAT, don’t get your hopes up kids :
“I don’t think it all adds up,” Isabel Sawhill, an official in President Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget, said of Obama’s spending plans.
“There will definitely need to be a recalibration of these proposals once someone is in office,” said Sawhill, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The fiscal situation just isn’t going to permit doing what Sen. Obama or anyone else would like.”
If you look at the chart and the “How he would pay for it column”, a lot of it seems to come down to ending the war. I thought we were borrowing all that money from the Chinese? Even if he can/will end it, that doesn’t mean there are suddenly gobs of money to spend on other things. It just means we’re borrowing less.
Too hard to resist:
Is it the case that progressives who support this plan should no longer have any issues with the Solomon Amendment? That is, in return for federal funds an institution of learning can be required to provide a service opportunity…
What part of Obama’s plan “mandates” community service?
Well, his wife did say, “Barack Obama will require you to work.” (Joke folks. Easy.)
MtnConservative: Am I a pariah here because of my tag?
As one of the token conservatives here about I can assure you – absolutely not. However, I’ve found that a bit of civility goes a long way, especially in a new place. Hilzoy is one of the best writers on the left – period. So while you may not have known it at the time, your opening volley was a bit insulting to those of us who luvs us our hilzoy, even if she is too nice to take offense.
Stick around – the water is fine. And if you like debate, well, you’ll never be without that here.
MtnConservative: There were also actual responses to russell’s request for conservative writers worth reading. (No one has mentioned Jim Henley, as far as I recall, so let me say for the record: Jim Henley.)
Also for the record: stick around. I’m not a regular, but I’ve seen things happen here that, if I weren’t a stinking materialist, I would call miracles involving liberals and conservatives managing to have extended conversations about difficult and contentious subjects. (I’ve also found that, when I don’t know quite what to think about complicated questions, “what hilzoy said” is as good a guide as any; but that may just be me.)
I’m sorry, Goldberg is such a fucking moron that trying to justify anything he says – anything at all – is like polishing a turd. It will still be a turd and you will have shit on your hands.
Inasmuch as that’s an ad hominem attack, it gives him too much credit, as it allows that he might be an actual person instead of just a poorly designed robot.
I concur with adding Jim Henley (better known as Unqualified Offerings) to the list of readable righties and add probably the most significant blogger around:
The Agitator
I was going to suggest Henley as well, except that I wasn’t sure that libertarians should count as conservatives (though I’m sure there are those who will say that all true conservatives are libertarians, just as there are those who say all true liberals are libertarians).
Jumping the Shark, there’s little love for Goldberg here, obviously, but please check the posting rules if you’re going to stick around.
JtS: What KCinDC said. The posting rules prohibit profanity.
The simple question, Hilzoy is whether we think it’s wise for the Federal government to be doing any of these things.
Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that you would say it is not.
Why?
I will make some guesses, please forgive me if they are wildly off the mark:
1. “Community service” gets into issues where private or personal values come into play, and we don’t want any government interfering there.
2. The feds are too far removed from the details of what service is needed, and so are not a good sponsor for the effort.
3. It will create yet another inefficient and redundant bureaucracy.
Are these along the right lines?
I’m actually sympathetic to all of these arguments, although I’m not sure that, IMO, they would rule out a proposal like Obama’s.
What I’m trying to get to the bottom of here is WHAT THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see claims of slavery, 1st and/or 13th amendment violations, or the like particularly convincing. I’m hoping something more realistic is at the bottom of it.
MntConservative, my request for worthwhile conservatives to read was simply that, a request for worthwhile conservatives to read. Nothing more to it than that.
I did basically call Goldberg a dope, but unfortunately I fear he is one. Not unintelligent, just a lazy hack. Just MVHO.
There are a fair number of conservatives here, of various stripes, and although I’m sure they often feel embattled, they’re welcome. If you’re here in good faith, you no doubt will be also.
Thanks –
Truly amazing that anyone could read an entire column Jonah Goldberg column without falling asleep. Goldberg is even more boring than he is clueless.
Von: “Goldberg has an argument that doesn’t involve Nazis or fascists or the 13th amendment. You don’t have to agree with Goldberg to agree with the argument; you don’t even have to mention Goldberg.”
Me: what argument?
Von: “Such an argument has been going on, abeit intermittently, throughout dozens of comments on this thread alone.”
The only argument I’ve seen so far, from you, or anyone, involves making up stuff about Obama’s non-existent compulsory service proposal. What’s Goldberg’s non-made-up argument, Von?
“Such an argument has been going on”
Can you quote it, please?
And why have you gone on throughout this thread about an obvious lie — the lie about Obama’s nonexistent compulsory service proposal — without paying any attention to the fact that it is a lie? What kind of “honest discussion” is that?
“Get rid of the crickets and learn how to use a semicolon, then we’ll talk.”
Also, learn how to use an ellipsis.
“There were also actual responses to russell’s request for conservative writers worth reading. (No one has mentioned Jim Henley, as far as I recall, so let me say for the record: Jim Henley.)”
Jim Henley isn’t a conservative of any sort. He’s a libertarian.
If people don’t have a program, they might want to go with self-declarations, or with actual familiarity with a writer.
“except that I wasn’t sure that libertarians should count as conservatives”
I’m extremely sure they shouldn’t, just as, say, communists shouldn’t be counted as liberals, or vice versa, Trotskyites shouldn’t be counted as Stalinists, Maoists shouldn’t be counted as Bakunists, anarcho-capitalists shouldn’t be counted as geoanarchists, paleoconservates shouldn’t be counted as neoconservatives, libertarian socialists shouldn’t be counted as social democrats, and so on and so on.
“Truly amazing that anyone could read an entire column Jonah Goldberg column without falling asleep. Goldberg is even more boring than he is clueless.”
This type of comment is, you know, entirely content free. It’s simply pure insult. Abuse is down the hall. Being interesting, and having something more to say than simple abuse is encouraged here. You can do better, I bet, than the average fourth-grader, if you try.
What Gary said about Henley. If anything, on foreign policy Henley is far left, by American standards. Anti-imperialist, in other words. Though again, maybe some of the paleocons are in the same place–I’m not sure. There are funny alliances out here on the fringes.
Though again, maybe some of the paleocons are in the same place–I’m not sure.
Pat Buchanan has written a few articles about the war over at antiwar.com that read like something written at daily kos. Strange bedfellows indeed.
We’ve been through this the better part of a year ago; and I think it is important to keep our terms straight. The enthusiastic volunteers with specialty training will be declared the ‘Obama Youth’ and will be granted uniforms to wear on Tuesdays and during the performance of their duties.
The less patriotic ones will be called the ‘Obama Scouts’, and will not be granted uniforms.
The enthusiastic volunteers with specialty training will be declared the ‘Obama Youth’ and will be granted uniforms to wear on Tuesdays and during the performance of their duties.
That’s Obama Jugend to you, you potato eater!
Thanks –
Mtn,
Ok, I was all set to come back & continue to act the @sshole, but all of the nicey-nice talk from hilzoy and OC have shamed me.
Yes, your initial post was offensive, similarly to going to a party at a hardworking restaurant owner’s home and loudly complaining that there isn’t a decent restaurant in the whole town. That hilzoy is too nice to step on your toes just makes it that much uglier, really; even now she’s being reasonable, when I think even a polite person could’ve comfortably gone with “well, if you don’t like the liberal writing here, go elsewhere buddy.”
We get a lot of trolls (ok, the internets get a lot of trolls). But the regulars are- if not nice- generally polite and open to discussion. If a regular flies off of the handle there’s some latitude, but when someone’s first comment- on a post from a prominent liberal blogger- implies that all liberal writers are dog crap… well, honestly my intent is to be unpleasant in responding.
Id do well to take a page from hilzoy or OC & explain things rather than jumping in with both feet. So I apologise to you and to the board (not for the first time).
Am I a pariah here because of my tag?
It’s a dog’s life, ask OC or von. You’ll get constantly badgered, with ten comebacks to each comment. Sadly, lefty troll-like behavior is tolerated much more than righty troll-like behavior, so you’ll get responses that are effectively “FU!” without seeing the sort of treatment you’ve received in return.
But I think you’ll get a fair hearing if you settle in- *if* you can do the give and take with the reasonable people and not let the trollishness get your goat. You really can’t make it here as a conservative poster if you don’t get beyond slogans and dirt (not saying anything about you either way, just saying). You’ll get a lot less benefit of the doubt. etc.
As for the thing that sparked you- russell’s request seems pretty reasonable to me, and he got some good responses (incl one I dont read & will be checking out). If that set you off, then this probably isn’t the place for you. There’s going to be a lot of “McCain is an idiot” stuff, particularly in the next 4 months. You can come back with arguments about Obama’s positions- but they will look quite a bit like von on this thread: regardless of whether you find his arguments compelling, he’s pretty clearly got the short end of the numbers. He’ll be simultaneously responding to several people who question his intelligence &/or parentage and several others who are arguing different side points.
I do you hope you stick around, and bring a few friends- if all that works for you.
Goldberg and his family have made a cottage industry out of peddling conservative nostrums. There’s nothing complicated about it. They in common with Murdoch, Limbaugh, Coulter et al have identified there is a demographic which I estimate at 12-15 million people who are rabidly conservative. They have a set of opinions and prejudices which are totally irrational and impervious to facts or reason. They are the folks who think Bush is doing a heckuve job. Goldberg is speaking to this crowd and he can say anything he wants however bizarre and they will lap it up. There’s no point in railing against it because it’s the source of Goldberg’s paychecks. I don’t think Goldberg is an idiot just a rather nasty little exploiter of nativist and not very bright Americans. Caveat Emptor.
Even better than von’s donut whole, which was pretty wonderful, even if inadvertent.
Phil, until I receive the whole donut, I will refuse to read my own cut-and-paste jobs.
I simply didn’t see the word “refundable” before tax credit. Perhaps I need to get a new perscription.
I’m going to withhold further judgment on Obama’s plan as applied to college students until I see more details.
I continue to think that Obama’s plan as applied to middle and high schools (and, by implication, middle and high school students) to be wrongheaded. These sorts of decisions should be made at the local level, where there is a greater ability for individuals (rather than a government agency) to make decisions that are right for the local community. I also don’t see much wisdom in imposing yet another federal mandate on schools — some of which are struggling — to create yet another program.
“perscription.”
Also, a new prescription. To go with my donut whole.
I’d like a whole doughnut. With or without sprinkles?
These sorts of decisions should be made at the local level, where there is a greater ability for individuals (rather than a government agency) to make decisions that are right for the local community.
I think this is actually the point of conflict and I’d like to pick at it a bit.
It seems to me that more and more, programs like these require a larger base than just the local community. Try to imagine Sergey Brin and Larry Page saying ‘let’s make a local Google, we have to keep our decisions at a local level’. Or imagine a GI Bill that was just set up in a group of 5 midwestern states? If there has been any pattern to the advancement of capitalism, it has been the fact that the local level is too confining to really do it up right. That same dynamic works with health care, insurance, a whole host of other things. The things that it doesn’t work as well for, such as perishable commodities and such, are becoming smaller and smaller. This is not to say that I think it is an unalloyed good, and it is often liberal progressives who complain the largest about the way local values are lost. But for an idea like what Obama has proposed to work, it seems necessary to open up the widest range of work opportunities, rather than confine them to the locality one finds oneself at school.
The devil is in the details, and there are many ways a program like this can go wrong. But the general direction that all things governmental are taking is towards notions that make use of economies of scale, because those economies of scale bring unpredicted dividends. We can argue that those dividends are not worth what we get from them, but I don’t think you have done that, you’ve just stated that things should be done at the local level because everyone knows that is best. Especially when every other OECD country looks at education as a national task rather than a local one. Of course, this gets us into a debate about the relative merits of various countries education systems, which is a sticky debate at best, but it is only thru a fluke that the US went with local control of education, and it seems, at least to me, it is an idea whose time has come and gone.
“Also, learn how to use an ellipsis.”
I had to do a minute, or so, of research on this one, and I thank you for your opinion, Gary, but…
“Though an ellipsis is technically complete with three periods (…), its rise in popularity as a “trailing-off” or “silence” indicator, particularly in mid-20th century comic strip and comic book prose writing, has led to expanded uses online. Today, extended ellipses of seven, ten, or even dozens of periods (……………) have become common constructions in internet chat rooms and text messages.”
Maness, Jack M., “The Power of Dots: Using Nonverbal Compensators in Chat Reference,” University Libraries – University of Colorado at Boulder, 2007.
As for hilzoy, gary, carleton wu, russell, hogan, ocsteve, kcindc, et al, I appreciate your willingness to help smooth over the rather bumpy landing in the jungle. I’ll probably lurk for a couple of days to “see if these things be true” and then jump in, or move on.
How long has this blog been extant, and what was the impetus for it’s creation?
MtnC: I think it’s been in existence since sometime in 2003, though none of the originals are still posting. It was a spinoff from Tacitus, and I believe its goal was to provide a place where liberals and conservatives could debate things civilly.
As I said, we’ve had trouble getting conservative posters recently: the commentariat skews left, I think because even when we had an even mix of liberals and conservatives on the front page, we were linked by liberal blogs much, much, much more often. (Even our conservative writers were.) So of course the people who came here tended to be people who were reading liberal blogs. That made it harder to keep conservative posters — even if everyone who comments makes only one nice respectful point, when the lib/conservative ration is like 99-1, it feels like a pile-on. So we seem to be in a bit of a vicious circle here, from which we are trying, unsuccessfully so far, to emerge.
ratio, not ration. Sigh.
us liberal progressives
jerry:”us liberal progressives”::von:”not a conservative”
===============
Are there any leftist writers out there who aren’t self-serving, narcissistic, Orwellian governmental votaries
hilzoy and publius here, and Fred Clark on Slacktivist. And that’s just the ones I read every day. There’s also digby and Avedon Carol and…
Hilzoy:
99 to 1, eh?
Well, I guess I’ve never been one to shy away from negative odds (though often beaten, never defeated), so maybe this is the right place.
Thanks.
Are there any leftist writers out there who aren’t self-serving, narcissistic, Orwellian governmental votaries
Writers are by definition self-serving and narcissistic. I should know, I’m one myself. 😉 George Orwell was a great leftist writer. Diss him at your own risk.
You don’t read very many right-wing blogs if you think that leftists are at risk of becoming “government votaries”.
Jesurgislac:
I’m curious as to the right-wing blogs you frequent.
I have recently begun to tap in to Kos. The volume level there is close to unbearable. What, iyho, would be analagous on the right?
I’d like a whole doughnut. With or without sprinkles?
I tend to forego sprinkles myself, but you’re more than welcome to have some.
But now that I think about it,
I think I’ll have an apple fritter instead. Apple fritters are grade-A awesome. (I have a terrible diet, but make up for it by ensuring that some simulacrum of fruit is part of every desert).
How long has this blog been extant, and what was the impetus for it’s creation?
ObWi was originally Moe Lane‘s baby. Moe posted from the right, Katherine from the left, and me from the far reaches of vonlandia. Moe’s now at RedState.com. Katherine has gone on to other things, but still sometimes posts here. I’ve also gone inactive, but still comment on occasion.
Moe, Katherine and I were regulars (and sometime) guest-posters when Josh Trevnio ran Tacitus.org. (Tacitus.org has sinced become theforvum.org, sans Trevino.)
Sebastian is the only current right-leaning poster who regularly contributes to the front page. (Charles Bird, also of Redstate, has gone mostly silent.)
I think it’s fair to say that ObWi broke from the vast averagesto mid-upper tier blog on the strength of Hilzoy’s blogging, which attracted favorable notices around the left-o-sphere. Because Hilzoy leans left, she naturally attacted a readership and community that leans left. But she’s done a great job (IMHO) keeping the comments as open as possible to right-wing commentators.
@the Internet at large
Jim Henley isn’t a conservative of any sort. He’s a libertarian.
This is of course totally accurate. The problem is that most folk on the Internet have little interest in complete accuracy and prefer simplistic one-dimensional political orientation, so a libertarian’s position on the spectrum changes from topic to topic. Not that I’m suggesting you’re at all unaware of this, Gary; file this as exasperated ranting at the imprecision of the masses.
@MtnC
Today, extended ellipses of seven, ten, or even dozens of periods (……………) have become common constructions in internet chat rooms and text messages.”
If I may be so bold to speak for (or perhaps rather “of”) Gary, this isn’t going to hold much traction. You’re invoking descriptive grammar; i.e., discussion of how a grammatical construction is used “in the wild”. Gary goes in more for prescriptive grammar; i.e., discussion of how grammar “in the wild” should conform to commonly accepted standards. As my sleep-deprived brain is telling me that Gary has experience as an editor (um, I am right, aren’t I?), this is wholly understandable and forgivable, as the role of the editor is to quash new-fangled or erratic usages in the name of wider comprehensibility. My academic background leads me to cleave towards descriptive grammar, but I’ll confess a strong sympathy for the prescriptive in theory. In practice, my inner radical leftist tends to start haughtily quoting Carrol’s Humpty Dumpty at me and dismissing such thoughts as naive and/or classist. But I wildly digress.
Nombrilisme Vide:
I appreciate your thoughts about what holds traction around here.
Perhaps I missed it, but did the posting rules at one time define some Manual of Style de rigeur?
If not, and progressive grammatical styles are viewed askance within certain circles here, I suppose it would be unremarkable to say that you’re supporting a paleoconservative position (grammatically)?
MtnConservative: I’m curious as to the right-wing blogs you frequent.
My comment was directed at your “governmental votaries” sneer: if you haven’t noticed that right-wing bloggers have been all but uniformly supporting their government over the past 8 years, no matter what vile or criminal things Bush & Co do, while left-wing bloggers have plunged into the critical fray, well: you either define “votaries” differently from the dictionary, or you haven’t been hanging out on many blogs at all recently.
except that I wasn’t sure that libertarians should count as conservatives (though I’m sure there are those who will say that all true conservatives are libertarians, just as there are those who say all true liberals are libertarians)
IME, a libertarian usually turns out to be a conservative who thinks they shouldn’t have to pay taxes.
Mtn: just to anticipate, and hopefully avoid, some future issues you might run into:
We love Gary. We totally do. (I do, at least.) But one thing about him is that he is, I think, constitutionally incapable of letting certain grammatical things go unnoted. Likewise, certain failures to provide evidence for one’s views. He’s also not too big on people not knowing how to use html tags, and will often helpfully provide links to “How to use html” guides, along with polite suggestions that people go read them.
If you stick around here, you will of course form your own opinions, but fwiw, when you have a choice between reading Gary as writing something with a completely straight face and writing it in a sneering condescending way, the first option is generally the right one. (So, e.g., if he writes something like: “You might find it useful to consult a basic spelling manual”, he is generally not being ironic, imho. When he thinks you’re being an idiot, he generally says so explicitly.)
He will no doubt be around in a bit to deliver his own views on ten-dot ellipses. Enjoy! 😉
“when you have a choice between reading Gary as writing something with a completely straight face and writing it in a sneering condescending way, the first option is generally the right one.”
— I meant to add some qualification like: it seems to me, in my opinion, etc. I am not claiming mind-reading powers or infallibility. 😉
[i]IME, a libertarian usually turns out to be a conservative who thinks they shouldn’t have to pay taxes.[/i]
Well, I suppose this is at least less of a cliché than “Republican who likes to smoke pot,” if not any less trite. Oh, and also incorrect.
Phil: Oh, and also incorrect.
Quite literally any time a self-identified libertarian has tried to justify their views, they invariably boil down to being in favor of not having to pay taxes. Libertarians are the Mr Pink* of politics.
*NSFW. Lots of swearing.
Hilzoy:
Thanks for the constant updates about the personalities, and eccentricities, of the folks in the blog. It certainly gives me a better lay of the land, and it helps me to hopscotch over some of the things I would have to learn through the cruel exercises of trial and error.
Yesterday, being the curious sort that I am, I visited Gary’s site and was very impressed with the passion that he carries with him in life. The personal trials and hopes that he expressed in his blog were moving.
I also noted that his writing style there is distinctly non-classical, with a robust usage of lengthy sentence fragments. It indicates a wonderful inventiveness, and an abundant exposure to a wide variety of writers.
Here’s hoping that I should ever be so prolific.
“..he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose.”
So, at the heart of all this, Jonah the Conservative is complaining that the Liberal Democrat would impose an undue burden on those in line to receive a federal entitlement. Shouldn’t he be urging the candidates to abolish such programs? Whatever happened to the cherished virtues of hard work and bootstraps, hey?
Jes: false for Andy. He was fine with taxes. It was what I believe he saw as the potential that we would be enslaved by the government that got him.
Jesurgislac:
You wrote”…right-wing bloggers have been all but uniformly supporting their government over the past 8 years…”
This concept of monolithic conservative support for Bush and his acolytes is humorous. The conservative blogs are chock-full of folks who would pay YOU or ANYONE else for the opportunity to heap opprobrium on the White House and Congressional Republicans. I gleefully count myself as one.
To which conservative blogs are you referring? The most damaging criticism to the President is coming from his base, not from the left. It’s for that reason that many alienated conservatives may let Monsieur Obama slide into the presidency by simply standing aside.
Quite literally any time a self-identified libertarian has tried to justify their views, they invariably boil down to being in favor of not having to pay taxes. Libertarians are the Mr Pink* of politics.
Well, no. Me, for instance. (Yes, I still consider myself one.) And, like, everyone at Unqualified Offerings.* And about half the regular writers at Reason.com.
I mean, you realize what you’re committing to here with “literally any time,” right?
(*I’ve met the person who posts there as “thoreau,” as well as the frequent commenter “Jennifer,” and I can tell you that tax policy is pretty low on their bugaboo lists to the extent it appears at all.)
I should also note that, of all the people I personally know that call themselves libertarians, to a person nearly all of them became one because of the excesses of the War on Drugs or the War on Terror. Which is, you know, exactly the same thing as not wanting to pay taxes.
To the extent that I ever hear them complain about taxes, it’s about things like the tax grabs used to build things for private entities, like baseball stadiums and the like, when those entities can well afford to build them on their own. Taxes for public schools and libraries? Fine! Taxes to build a shopping mall? Eh, not so much.
IIRC, thoreau’s pet topic is, in fact, the excesses of the growing US police state in the service of the various “Wars On” this and that. The expansion of the surveillance state, the shredding of the Fourth and Fifth amendments, the militarization of the police, the use of force as a first rather than a last resort, the absurdity of the increased criminalization of drug use, etc. At the Reason blog, I saw him just about the most passionate I’ve ever seen him when the London Metropolitan Police shot an unarmed, innocent man in the head seven times for the crime of Wearing A Coat While Being Brazilian.
I’m sure you’ve got a handy explanation as to how that all boils down to “not wanting to pay taxes.” I can’t wait to hear it.
Phil, I think there is some notion within the phrase ‘self-identified’ that rules out you and others though I don’t think it is a particularly good phrase. There are any number of people who flash phrases like ‘I am a libertarian’ basically as intellectual covering fire. As I’ve noted here a few times, both Reynolds and Malkin originally claimed the mantle of libertarian early in their careers. It sucks that libertarian is saddled down with that, but just like conservatives/liberals don’t get to say ‘I’m conservative/liberal, but not that kind of conservative/liberal!’ without inviting some ridicule, the same obtains with libertarians.
This is a little late, but on the subject of conservative political bloggers who are at least occasionally worth reading, I would add Stephen Bainbridge to the list.
LJ, I hadn’t heard that Reynolds had ceased to call himself a libertarian. I remember a brouhaha about it a while back, but it turned out that he’d only said he wasn’t a Libertarian (with a big “L”), which I don’t believe he’d ever claimed to be.