fewer educated kids end up Dahmers?  Don't you think that a bunch of little Dahmers running around might affect 'Sam?' 

I dunno about you but I'd rather consider that underprivileged kids get a square meal every weekday than that they might want to eat my kid.

To answer one of your questions: They're having kids so you'll have a job. And if taxpayers subsidize your continuing education, we can help little kids out, IMHO.

I can understand and sympathize with your points. Have you ever thought about the fact that Americans are working longer hours, for less pay just to break even in this "wonderful" economy? The days of middle-class families getting by with one full-time working parent are over. Unfortunately the biggest victim of this is the family, which is spilling over into our schools.

I can only speak from my perspective, which is that it's very difficult to be a perfect parent and valuable employee. Getting home in time to pick up kids from after-school programs (not school-based ;) ), getting homework done, dinner, evening activities then wrapped up for bed is daunting.

If there's a better way, please advise. By the way, are you a parent?

-The cut of profits now going towards salaries is presently Depression Era like.

-Half of all Americans make a stack of hundred dollar bills 1.6 inches tall per year.

-Some in the top 1% make a stack 30 miles high!

------------------------------------------------------

All of the above is due to ONLY two things:

1) Conservative Men have lost their balls. Conservative Woman have lost their ovaries. They no longer demand more for their labor as their bosses do.

2) The bottom 90%, who are woefully underpaid, bicker amongst themselves over CRUMBS while allowing the laziest amongst us to live in decadence.

-------------------------------------------------------

So here we bicker:

-You fret over some sub 1 inch wage earner not getting more free time to labor at their sub 1 inch job(s).

-I'm sure however that YOU are not OVERpaid. That everything that comes with YOUR job is reasonable if not downright too LITTLE. And you know what? I would AGREE.

-But now since we are bickering another poster DOES call you on it.

And so here we bicker.

While our puppeteers laugh all the way to the bank.

---------------------------------------------------------

For Christ's sake (literally) this planet just underwent a MASSIVE computer revolution and a MASSIVE profit was made but not distributed in wages!

Here is what I say:

-Double the troops salaries as they are being paid below market wages. (Retaining the Estate Tax allows for this).

-Zero Income Tax on necessary income: the first $65,000 made by all Americans. (35% tax on additional dollars.)

This increases the income of 90% of all Americans. Since wars are fought to defend National Treasure, those who own it, should pay to have it defended -otherwise they are Welfare Whores.

-In addition, since those who do NOT own it, still have to die defending it, THEY should get to vote on what their, and their children's lives, are worth: perhaps in the form of programs.

BOTTOM LINE: Let's not bicker over crumbs.

------------------------------------------------------

This is not to suggest that yall can't battle over other reasons for or against various programs ;)

Jim

P.S. My wife was an elementary school teacher, and now the school counselor. She's been in schools for decades. I've taught at Universities. I'm also the parent of 3. I hope that qualifies me to make a peep ;)

You write:

"I'd really like to introduce "Sam" to his mother and father. I'd like for "Sam's" mother and father to sit down and spend time with him, teaching him his ABC's, singing songs with him, teaching him how to tie his shoes, talking to him about what's right and what's wrong and why (I guess that's assuming mom & dad know the difference), and heaven forbid...reading with him everyday!!"

Sheesh.

Re-reading your piece, this paragraph really struck me as showing to what extent you think OTHERS are lacking.

What about you? Can you match my wife? Seriously.

Should you fail to live up to her standards can we smugly dismiss your life or might there be a broader perspective to all this. Something about your life in particular that explains why you can't live up to her/our standards?

--------------------------------------------------------

Putting forth your argument about whether this program is wise or not, is your right. I understand your concern: there must be balance. Fair enough.

However, your lack of an embracing argument for why we should not lump your overworked soul in the same category as other overworked folks, in addition to your condescension towards them, does not speak well of your ability to pontificate about morals.

Or maybe you were just too p.o. about this topic for everything to come out just right??? That happens.

As a matter of fact, I am a parent.  One typical child.  One with moderate special needs.  That's why I chose a career that pays nothing...because my special needs kid fell through the cracks for years at school and I taught him at home at night.  I saw the other special needs kids in his class getting far less than they deserved academically, so I decided I'd go into the classroom to offer what I could because they deserve more.  BTW, my education wasn't taxpayer funded...or parent funded...or scholarship funded...I earned it all by myself.  Maybe public education in your state is better than what we're seeing in Arizona, I surely hope so.

Are there additional standards I need to meet for my pontificating to be valid?

The other points above, as best I can make them out, such as taxes, wages, hours worked are systemic issues related to labor in the US, not education - if we're talking academics and not babysitting.  This pre-K program and before and after school programs are in response to those labor issues and the desire for free childcare.

Your point about children receiving their only good daily meal at school has nothing to do with pre-K either.  Is it sad that the only place they can expect a good meal is at school...absolutely.  But whose responsibility is it to provide children with food?  This is a personal responsibility issue related to human beings and the choices they're making.  Neither our government nor our schools force parents to be parents or not to be parents...I don't think we're in China yet...though we might be if they ever call in our debt.

Jim, I know well to what extent others are lacking.  Take, for example, just what I learned today from my students.  One's dad can't find time to come pick up her and her brother when it's his day to do so because he's "washing the car" or "buying clothes for his girlfriend" or "taking the dog for a walk" or...whatever.  Another can't get her mom to take her to the library because she spends the weekends "at the bar with friends"...their words, not mine.  I can't put into words that you'd understand here the hurt on both these children's faces as they told these stories.  And kids in my classroom come up with stories like this everyday.  Note to parents here: your kids know the score.

And to the person who related non-pre-K educated students to Jeffrey Dahmer...oh good grief.  Do you really think teachers and pre-K programs will be miracle workers?  I'm also wondering if you realize that there's a teacher shortage out here?  At the beginning of the school year in our area, parents were dropping kids off to classrooms that had a 1:125 ratio.

So now we're going to ask the taxpayers to fund pre-K programs.  So schools can be responsible for raising even younger children.  And what's next?  Will we expand our educational institutions to include babies as young as 6 weeks...when its time for parents to go back to work?

There are institutions that are in the business of doing that...they're called boarding schools.

I'd be interested to know what you think the relationship is between training/retaining good teachers and the issues of salary and how much more slack schools are going to be expected to pick up in the future?  Or how much more education you're going to require us to have compared to the relative increase in salary?  Do you expect us to become "highly qualified"...get a Master's Degree that could cost $10K or more and pay us an additional $2K a year for that prestigious accomplishment?  That's what NCLB is basically requiring.  Holy cow, we mght break the $35K ceiling.  Teachers with the best of intentions often only make it a few years before they just give up and find something else to do.

Knowing you probably think I'm a conservative troll, I'll just say I've been registered democrat for 30 years.  But, frankly, there's very little difference between the parties today and no way for the average American to have his voice heard...Diebold has made sure of that.  So if I sound 'conservative' it's because I don't want to give DC anymore of my paycheck than I have to, I'm guilty!!  I'm willing to take responsibility for myself and my own family.  I wish others would "get it" and realize that the fewer tax dollars we send to DC, the fewer tax dollars are available to line the pockest of politicians and their friends...take Dick Cheney, for instance...

Let's suppose that you are correct, and that it's all Sam's parents' fault. How does that change anything for Sam?

If Sam's parents are able to spend time with him, and don't -- is that child neglect? If Sam's parents are able to feed him three meals a day, and don't -- is that child neglect? Whether, or not, Sam is a victim of child neglect and he is still falling through the cracks, who then becomes responsible for/to Sam?

On the other hand, if Sam IS a victim of child neglect, what recourse does Sam have? Who will advocate for him? Who will provide Sam with at least the basic necessities for the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness until he attains his majority? Is Sam a disenfranchised sub-citizen?

The question really boils down to: Does society owe Sam a level playing field in this democracy of ours? Democrats tend to say yes, we do. Republicans tend to believe that they have done their duty to Sam by blaming Sam's parents.

I think that all of the Sams in this country are entitled to all of the advantages that our system of government can give them, and I will gladly pay my share of taxes to see that happen. Dealing with Sam's parents is an entirely different matter, but the outcome is beyond Sam's reach, capability, or responsibility.

1) We have to stop bemoaning folks a better life, who work just as hard as us, if we expect them to come to our defense when we demand a raise. Also we can NEVER get an adequate raise without each other.

2) Bill and Lootie nicely focus us on the child themselves. Atzsmom rightly worries about jerks taking advantage of what would be effectively, an increase in income for them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some computer art my 4 year old did. Don't look past it if you are sensitive (graphic detail to follow about other children):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill asks: "Does society owe Sam a level playing field..." Lootie makes an allusion to Dahmer. Well I wanted to stop living three days ago when my wife told me that consolers were being informed by dentists that they were seeing kids with trauma to the upper pallet due to men ramming their penises against it. I'm so sorry to have to relate this to other ears, but this conversation did not seem real without real world events interjected.

Teachers and other 1 inchers will have to battle over who should earn what. Fine, but we can only advance as ONE, against more powerful monopolies.

Regardless, to me, what Bill, Lootie, and my wife just said, trumps all arguments: Should the kid have to suffer for what the parents are doing?

Jim

I just received an email from democrats.com asking me to introduce "Sam" to Barak, Hillary, John & Mike. Sam is a pre-k who doesn't have government subsidized pre-k.

I'm an elementary educator. Add to that prestigious title, babysitter, part-time mother, social worker, tutor, disciplinarian and food provider. These are just some of the hats I'm asked to wear both by my administration and parents who leave their kids at school from 7am - 6pm.

It's bad enough to see a 1st grader at school that many hours a day, but now, you're asking me to support a government subsidized pre-k program to allow parents to leave the little ones at school from 7am - 6pm? Good grief, why are people having children? Is it OK to abdicate almost all of your parental duties and require that the schools take over for you? What other "responsibilities" are lurking in the shadows, soon to show up on the plates of educators nationwide? And, no, I don't care if you have to go to work. If your situation is such that you can't manage children, then make informed decisions about when and whether to have them, period.

Ok I understand that you are angry and frustrated and probably with good reason, but isn't subsidized pre-k the answer to many of the problems that you mention? It would mean that all kids could get a good start on the structure of school and the skills that they will need to start first grade. Instead of being crammed into someones back yard, basement or living room with a care giver who has probably had no training and is just trying to keep order they will be in a solid environment with other same age children learning to write their names, name colors, put toys back and the social graces of not hitting and pushing, taking turns and sharing. With good teachers a lot of the stress for both mom and child (and dad if there is one in the picture) should be relieved. Mom knows that the child is being well looked-after and the child can get into a very healthy routine of "I go to school and mommie goes to work and we spent the evening together".

Sure a lot of parents are terrible at nurturing. Many are selfish to an extreme and some are even monsters and abusers, we can only hope that society discovers them and does all that can be done to stop this abuse and protect the children. But many of the parents that you are railing against could very well be the children of neglectful parents themselves and could very well benefit from good solid parenting classes, which I think every community should also offer.

In the long run I think that many of your concerns could be alleviated by good pre-k classes and that it would benefit us all to have them in every community paid for by the tax payers who will in the long run benefit the most. No, pre-k is not the answer to all the countries problems, but seeing that all children get the best start we can offer them sure is a big step toward a better more educated society.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis

"I'm just pissed off that not enough other people are pissed off."~Bill Maher