Ben Carson thinks committees should guide opinion

Ben says colleges should lose “funding” if they show signs of political bias. Ha! Who in the world doesn’t have political bias? His issue should be with ANY funding of education by taxpayers. Of course he won’t bring that up because he wants to be elected and only those of us who are disconnected from the bosom box can think in such a way that sees education as being exclusively the responsibility of the individual so removal of public funding for education equates to being anti-education. Ben knows this. I’m sure he would claim that education is not a “right” in order to distance himself from the admitted leftists. He will never, publically, make the connection and that makes him a leftist himself.

7 responses to “Ben Carson thinks committees should guide opinion

  1. I have plenty of arguments about the quality of our educational system (which is somewhat why I homeschool, but not entirely), but I do admit that I’m on the side of public education being a net good. We need smart people. We need educated people. And we’re not going to get that by letting folks do it on their own, sadly enough.

    • Not to be snide, but you should get out more. Who wins most of the various bees and gets recruited to elite colleges and companies. Just think if average people weren’t already forced to fund what is called education. They would have $2,000 to $10,000 to put into a customized program without having to be held back or pushed through to stay with the mob.

      But then I’m always at odds with the “now what?” problem. Junkies and convicts have a difficult time adjusting to freedom and responsibility.

      On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:52 PM, alternativebyfritz wrote:


      • It’s an interesting question: Would grade school become like college is now? Funded as people saw fit? Some getting educated well according to their means, and the poor not going at all? Etc., etc.

        Three simple reflections on that, I guess: 1) I don’t have faith in a good portion of the population to have foresight and wisdom to educate their children if they instead can get $10,000 in their pocket now (you know how terrible people are at long-term planning, investment, etc.) and 2) I wonder how much the welfare state would take a hit from all the people, based on (1) who were uneducated and unable to get meaningful jobs, who then become wards of the state, and 3) I wonder how large society would stratify as the haves/have-nots separate by even larger margins of not only income but education.

        I generally like paying for public education because I prefer living in a world where the general populace is educated vice one where it isn’t. It’s not perfect or ideal by ANY means, don’t get me wrong. But I fear the alternative being even more unimpressive.

      • I remember hearing Hillary say we need to lose our idealism and get practical. Maybe, at this point she’s right. The welfare state and public education are all part of the same monster, relieving people of the responsibility to take care of themselves (and others).

        the reason you doubt people would take the initiative to educate their children is not because they inherently are dim-witted dopes. It is because politicians have succumbed to the cries for help with ever expanding globs of that help, leading to dependency. I chuckled when I read your idea that an uneducated population would burden the welfare system. and Dawn said, so what is your answer? All I could come up with is that we have come too far and we are doomed. 99% of people today feel entitled to the treasures of their fellow man. (Crop insurance, food stamps, education) And a society that decrepit will never come back through their own decisions. It will lead to civil unrest and widespread poverty then small, heavily guarded enclaves.

        On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM, alternativebyfritz wrote:


      • That’s often where I come down, Fritz; in order to implement many Libertarian ideals, it requires a fundamental shift of the entire structure of the society we’ve built, not small, incremental changes in how we do things. One major change relies upon another which relies upon another, etc., else you get, as you state, “civil unrest” and so forth. That’s not to say there isn’t probably value in pressuring to cease to do MORE of the same bad ideas and certainly we can make baby steps, but Hillary’s probably more correct in her speech (maybe not her actual meaning) than she realizes. Far too often every party out there hangs on its ideals but, in the end, the things that get done are those things that are easiest to accomplish and have the most traction.

        Mind, sometimes, “traction”, is best translated as, “has the most monetary lubrication”, but…you know what I mean.

        I don’t know. I like to imagine ideals, I like to think of fundamental ways to shift and adjust society and politics in general for the greater good, but the older I get, the less room I see for such things without a revolutionary change, and let’s face it, when the revolution comes, most of us are probably screwed. So that’s not ideal either. :/

      • Yep. When it boils down to “where we go from here,” we are screwed. It is a scary thought (interesting you picked up on Hillary’s reference to practicality over ileals). We finally planted soft maples in the windbreak, thinking the oaks would still be babies when we are gone but the maples would do some good while we are alive. Hillary wants to keep everyone alive at the expense of a truly luxurious future that cannot be achieved because of democracy.

        Why I keep writing is a mystery.

        On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:30 AM, alternativebyfritz wrote:


      • Oaks vs. Maples: Yes, there’s a particular myopic viewpoint of the future these days, sometimes to our benefit (hey, live for the moment) and sometimes to our detriment (debt is the gift that strikes back in exponential pain). One small glimmer of hope I had through the financial crash and recession was that a record number of people started paying down debt and beefing up savings. While I don’t think we ever want to become a Chinese culture where they save to their detriment, it’s heartening to think for a moment we got a bit smarter about our future(s) for once.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s