shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
> >>So, a guy who doesn't like neo-liberalism is an ardent defender
> >>of... Liberalism. Ain't he special. does he really think that high
> >>quality child care for everyone is going to fix the problem of
> >>inequality? That schools will level the playing field, thereby
> >>creating equal opportunity and that this is an advance over neo- liberalism?
Damn it! This is absolutely correct in its substance, but why in the hell does the burden of the rhetoric fall on "the guy"? There's no fucking judge and jury here, and attacks on the charactrer of the man might as well be whispered into a diving helmet for all the effec they have on the world.
Developing my earlier query re class: "The poor" of course is not a reference to class, it is a reference to status. It isn't really even that, because poverty as such is an abstraction, and it will cover extremely diverse groups of people.
shag quotes: "The entire U.S. school system, from
pre-K up, is structured from
>>the very start to enable the rich to
outcompete the poor,"
Aside from shag's critique of this, it doesn't happen to be factually correct. The passive hides who is doing the structuring, but the whole implies a conscious planning of the "school system" -- and that very nearly adds up to a conspircay theory of capitalism.
But this thread points in so many directions, and has been so muddled by quite unnecessarily hauling in questins of this or that person's moral status, that any argument on any point raised has ceased to be vry relevant -- because there is no core for it to be relevant to.
Carrol
P.S. Adolph Reed has a tin ear; "rant" is a poor choice for Alan's post, even if one were to accept Reed's critique, "rant" would still be totally wrong. And why in the hell did Alan's name get put in the subject line. That is chintzy.