The Value Of Education

[Amillia]

Originally posted by sgallan@Aug 31 2004, 06:41 AM

" WRONG! "

You are what? Ten perhaps?

Or is that when you stopped your education?

Just curious.....

Let thy speach be: Yeah and nay! Nasty sarcasm seems to be what you call educated.

[Guest jackvance88]

Originally posted by Faerie+Aug 30 2004, 02:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faerie @ Aug 30 2004, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jackvance88@Aug 30 2004, 02:49 PM

of the friends i grew up with i am the only one who went on a mission and then went to college and grad school.  in those 10 years in which i was not earning anything they have worked, earned enough to raise families, saved money, and bought homes. i on the other hand am single, no home equity, $$$ in student debt, and earning way less than them, even though i work as a professional. i just don't see the logic in having an education.

I'm sorry jack, but your statement holds no water with me. You are equating serving 2 years on a mission and 8 years of schooling with your lack of income...

Sorry, I don't buy it and in fact I think you are looking for an excuse to blame something for why you are not where you thought you would be...

case in point: my brother served his 2 years, earned his bachelor's and master's...he married and had a child while finishing school..he owns a home in W. Jordan and has a successful career working in the Church Finance Department and recently his wife gave birth to their third child...he also teaches at the LDS business college for extra cash in addition to his newfound career as an author...so why is HE doing well, but you aren't? It has nothing to do with schooling or luck, it has everything to do with ambition, motivation, and desire...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you live in Utah. Utah is one of THE worst places to be looking for a job these days. It is also one of THE worst places to date if you're over the age of 25-27...You want to make more money, you want to find a spouse, you want to pay off your bills? Stop settling for a less-than-average job and move to where the money is. Unless you degree'd in Basket Weaving, I can almost guarantee there is a market out there for your skills. And because you ARE single, you can easily up and move w/o worrying about how it affects others. Please don't claim you can't "afford" to move. Anyone w/ a car can pack their life up and make a change. People do it every day.

You don't see the logic in having an education, yet knowledge is the one thing we take with us when we die. How about some statistics? Go read the link Snow posted. Educated people do better. There are no "ifs, ands, or buts" about it. YOU don't see the logic because YOU are in a funk. Get out of the funk and you will see your hard work pay off. Your schooling has nothing to do with your marital status either, that's a cop-out.

Sorry that I'm not sugary sweet in telling you that of course it's all your education's fault...but that's just lame! What did you get your degrees in? What is your current position? Who did you take out on a date last weekend? lol!! Stop blaming the SMART choices you've made in achieving your education and start doing something about your life....

i heard that salt lake was one of the fastest growing regions in the country. i would also like to marry someone who is lds. i'm only 28, and i am a guy too, so the age thing isn't an issue considering the girls i date are usually in the 20-25 range.

i totally see the value of an education for the sake of knowledge and personal growth. i read a lot of history and geography. i just don't think there's a great correlation between traditional education and one's career. i could have done just as effectively what i'm doing now with two years on-the-job training out of high school rather than waste seven years and lots of money.

[Faerie]

funny...i've heard from MANY people that if you're looking for a job, utah is NOT the place to go..in fact MANY friends who have tried to stay put in salt lake have been forced to move out of state to keep their careers and their lives afloat...

and wow, are there ONLY lds girls in utah? i didn't know that!!

you don't see the correlation because you aren't willing to make the changes in your life...you didn't answer my question: what did you get your degrees in?

[Guest jackvance88]

Originally posted by Faerie@Aug 31 2004, 11:40 AM

funny...i've heard from MANY people that if you're looking for a job, utah is NOT the place to go..in fact MANY friends who have tried to stay put in salt lake have been forced to move out of state to keep their careers and their lives afloat...

and wow, are there ONLY lds girls in utah? i didn't know that!!

you don't see the correlation because you aren't willing to make the changes in your life...you didn't answer my question: what did you get your degrees in?

econ undergrad and law grad. i know there are lds girls outside of utah, but in my experience it's easier to date them here just because there are so many more of them. i have and continue to apply for jobs in new york, california etc, but those states have their own licensing requirements which would take until next june to process and cost over $3000. the bank wouldn't lend me that money considering i borrowed from them to take the utah license. the firms in these places won't hire you before you get the license. they are also very picky about hiring people from utah and other non-happening states. i'm just voicing my concerns here. doesn't mean i don't "act" to better my situation just because i posted my woes here.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Jack,

Where's your law degree from, and what was your class ranking? I don't know much about the legal market in Utah, but it can be pretty tight here in Cal.

[Nina]

"i could have done just as effectively what i'm doing now with two years on-the-job training out of high school rather than waste seven years and lots of money."

Maybe your looking in the wrong places ... I find it hard to believe that with a law degree you can't find a job that requires more of you.

As for people not believeing that a College or University education is helpful in pursueing a job, well, that just seems silly to me and not very well thought out. Certainly there are people who succeed beautifully without a college education ... some are even millionaires ... but to suppose that that is the norm is a bit niave. Likewise I believe that some people WITH degrees fail miserably despite themselves ...( maybe a few of those doctors previously mentioned )

Look at the population in this land that are in poverty and I bet you that most of them do not have college degrees. I am not saying that their lack of education is the sole cause of their indigence or that their lack of education is entirely their own fault (often more of circumstance) but certainly you have a much better shot at a good job if you have an education.

I am a case in point. I am a Director. I Direct and produce musicals.I write music and musicals. I have an asociates degree... I can find very few people who will even consider hiring me because I lack the (4 year) credentials ... even though you would think that the arts is one area where, if you excell (which I do ) you would not be required to have a degree. However, people/employers like to see that piece of paper and I think it means something. It (that piece of paper)is representative of your knowledge and commitment. I am not saying that people who have life experience and on the job experience (as myself) don't have the same knowldege and commitment but it is not always immediately evident when applying for a job.

Further I would say that a window cleaner of a high rise makes oodles more money than, let's say, an accountant ... likewise people who work in the subway tunnels of N.Y. and MA make a fabulous hourly wage however I am not sure I would encourage my child to forgo college in the hopes of landing such a glamorous and no doubt fullfilling job.

Anyway, good luck Jackvance finding a better job than the one you apparently have ... I know quite a few lawyers in SLC and they seem to think the job market is not as bleak as you fear ... keep looking !!!

And IMHO your mission is one of the best thing you have ever done even though college had to wait two years ... your friends who did not get that experience may have more money but I bet in the long run you will have far more peace and joy knowing you fulfilled one of God's commandments. :)

[Guest jackvance88]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Aug 31 2004, 01:26 PM

Jack,

Where's your law degree from, and what was your class ranking? I don't know much about the legal market in Utah, but it can be pretty tight here in Cal.

byu - middle of the class.

[Guest jackvance88]

Originally posted by Nina@Aug 31 2004, 02:58 PM

"i could have done just as effectively what i'm doing now with two years on-the-job training out of high school rather than waste seven years and lots of money."

Maybe your looking in the wrong places ... I find it hard to believe that with a law degree you can't find a job that requires more of you.

As for people not believeing that a College or University education is helpful in pursueing a job, well, that just seems silly to me and not very well thought out. Certainly there are people who succeed beautifully without a college education ... some are even millionaires ... but to suppose that that is the norm is a bit niave. Likewise I believe that some people WITH degrees fail miserably despite themselves ...( maybe a few of those doctors previously mentioned )

Look at the population in this land that are in poverty and I bet you that most of them do not have college degrees. I am not saying that their lack of education is the sole cause of their indigence or that their lack of education is entirely their own fault (often more of circumstance) but certainly you have a much better shot at a good job if you have an education.

I am a case in point. I am a Director. I Direct and produce musicals.I write music and musicals. I have an asociates degree... I can find very few people who will even consider hiring me because I lack the (4 year) credentials ... even though you would think that the arts is one area where, if you excell (which I do ) you would not be required to have a degree. However, people/employers like to see that piece of paper and I think it means something. It (that piece of paper)is representative of your knowledge and commitment. I am not saying that people who have life experience and on the job experience (as myself) don't have the same knowldege and commitment but it is not always immediately evident when applying for a job.

Further I would say that a window cleaner of a high rise makes oodles more money than, let's say, an accountant ... likewise people who work in the subway tunnels of N.Y. and MA make a fabulous hourly wage however I am not sure I would encourage my child to forgo college in the hopes of landing such a glamorous and no doubt fullfilling job.

Anyway, good luck Jackvance finding a better job than the one you apparently have ... I know quite a few lawyers in SLC and they seem to think the job market is not as bleak as you fear ... keep looking !!!

And IMHO your mission is one of the best thing you have ever done even though college had to wait two years ... your friends who did not get that experience may have more money but I bet in the long run you will have far more peace and joy knowing you fulfilled one of God's commandments. :)

oh, i wouldn't have given up the mission for anything. in retrospect, i could have done an extra year or two.

[Snow]

Originally posted by jackvance88+Aug 31 2004, 03:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jackvance88 @ Aug 31 2004, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Aug 31 2004, 01:26 PM

Jack,

Where's your law degree from, and what was your class ranking?  I don't know much about the legal market in Utah, but it can be pretty tight here in Cal.

byu - middle of the class.

Jack,

Now I think I see the problem. No doubt if you apply your undergrad skills you will see the problem to. It is not a matter of worthless education. It is a matter of economics. The demand for lawyers, at least in some parts, is exceeded by the supply for lawyers.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by jackvance88+Aug 31 2004, 03:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jackvance88 @ Aug 31 2004, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Aug 31 2004, 01:26 PM

Jack,

Where's your law degree from, and what was your class ranking?  I don't know much about the legal market in Utah, but it can be pretty tight here in Cal.

byu - middle of the class.

Jack,

As a fellow middle-of-the-class graduate, let me just quote Willie and say I feel your pain. It took me a panic-inducing long time to get my first legal job, and three more years to get the good one I was always looking for.

What kind of a marketing campaign have you done? I assume you didn't get anything out of on-campus interviews. Neither did I. Are you connected with the J. Reuben Clark Law Society (BYU Law's alumni association)? I ultimately got my first job based on a contact from a JRCLS meeting. You can usually get the chairman to introduce you as a new lawyer the first time you go to a meeting.

What kind of law are you looking to practice? Utah, believe it or not, is ranked third in the nation (!!!) for average attorney compensation, behind California and New York, so I would think the demand for us briefcase-toting reptiles must be pretty high. (Not to mention that said compensation gets you a LOT more in Utah than in California.) Have you basically blanketed the state with resumes? You can do a firm search on martindale.com and just pound the pavement, contacting pretty much everyone. By all means, don't overlook the smaller firms.

Look into potential jobs with districts attorneys, city attorneys, and (if you're desperate) public defenders' offices. You may or may not ultimately want to practice criminal law, but it's a great way to get trial experience early on -- probably more in your first year than I've gotten in four. (Civil stuff nearly always settles, which takes half the fun out of things.)

Consider looking at potential jobs in Nevada. Since it's growing like crazy, I might pay particular attention to firms practicing construction law. Based on what I've seen, pretty much every large-scale development generates hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation costs for construction defects. I bet the local bar can't keep up, and may be looking for some more hands.

Depending on how long you've been finished with school, you might check with BYU's career services office to see if they can conduct an evaluation of your interview style. You want to bring your A game, and if you come across as a slack-jawed yokel in interviews and don't know it, you probably ought to find out now rather than later.

Bottom line -- don't give up. You've got a respectable class ranking from a respectable and rising school. Look long enough, and you'll land somewhere.

[Guest jackvance88]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Aug 31 2004, 06:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Aug 31 2004, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -jackvance88@Aug 31 2004, 03:50 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Aug 31 2004, 01:26 PM

Jack,

Where's your law degree from, and what was your class ranking?  I don't know much about the legal market in Utah, but it can be pretty tight here in Cal.

byu - middle of the class.

Jack,

As a fellow middle-of-the-class graduate, let me just quote Willie and say I feel your pain. It took me a panic-inducing long time to get my first legal job, and three more years to get the good one I was always looking for.

What kind of a marketing campaign have you done? I assume you didn't get anything out of on-campus interviews. Neither did I. Are you connected with the J. Reuben Clark Law Society (BYU Law's alumni association)? I ultimately got my first job based on a contact from a JRCLS meeting. You can usually get the chairman to introduce you as a new lawyer the first time you go to a meeting.

What kind of law are you looking to practice? Utah, believe it or not, is ranked third in the nation (!!!) for average attorney compensation, behind California and New York, so I would think the demand for us briefcase-toting reptiles must be pretty high. (Not to mention that said compensation gets you a LOT more in Utah than in California.) Have you basically blanketed the state with resumes? You can do a firm search on martindale.com and just pound the pavement, contacting pretty much everyone. By all means, don't overlook the smaller firms.

Look into potential jobs with districts attorneys, city attorneys, and (if you're desperate) public defenders' offices. You may or may not ultimately want to practice criminal law, but it's a great way to get trial experience early on -- probably more in your first year than I've gotten in four. (Civil stuff nearly always settles, which takes half the fun out of things.)

Consider looking at potential jobs in Nevada. Since it's growing like crazy, I might pay particular attention to firms practicing construction law. Based on what I've seen, pretty much every large-scale development generates hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation costs for construction defects. I bet the local bar can't keep up, and may be looking for some more hands.

Depending on how long you've been finished with school, you might check with BYU's career services office to see if they can conduct an evaluation of your interview style. You want to bring your A game, and if you come across as a slack-jawed yokel in interviews and don't know it, you probably ought to find out now rather than later.

Bottom line -- don't give up. You've got a respectable class ranking from a respectable and rising school. Look long enough, and you'll land somewhere.

thanks. i'm actually in the process of carrying out my very own blitzkreig.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Aug 31 2004, 09:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Aug 31 2004, 09:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Aug 31 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Aug 30 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Aug 30 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Aug 30 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Aug 29 2004, 03:44 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Aug 29 2004, 02:25 PM

There are teachers who can't teach, engineers who can figure out how to build a road correctly and doctors who don't know the first thing about taking care of the body.

Huh? I disagree completely - and by the way, I'm right.

Show me a doctor, licensed and practicing, mentally healthy and sober, that does not know the first thing about taking care of the body, and I join a convent.

Show me a random group of doctors and compare their knowledge of keeping the body healthy to a random group on non-doctors and see what you get.

Let's not hyperbolize to make a dubious point.

Have you any idea how many law suites for mal-practice there are?

No, and unless you go google it now, you don't either but what on earth does that have to do with you point that some doctors don't know the first thing about taking care of the body?

Nothing.

After 12 years of school, 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, 3 years of residency, and then practicing medicine, no other group of people know more about taking care of the body.

They should. But don't!

Well, guess we all know Amillia's personal bias.

But that's OK. When Amillia's dying and is taken to the hospital I am sure that the doctors will overlook her distrust of them and save her life anyway. That's the way they are. (Well, most of them, anyway.) Their dedication to their calling usually takes higher priority than their personal feelings.

We love you anyway, Amillia! B)

Is sarcasm really all you have?

Unfortunately, it wasn't sarcasm at all. When you are ill or dying, the doctors that you will be taken to will put away any personal feelings they might have from all the negative things you've said about them, and will give you their best.

Because that's how they are.

[sgallan]

"As a fellow middle-of-the-class graduate, let me just quote Willie and say I feel your pain."

Sigh, such the partisan, and getting meaner by the year. Got the buzz words going now. The ad-hominems are soon to follow. You forgot the word slick though. Need to get you up to speed.

Remember, five years. From 2004. I will be the enemy. By the year 2009 anybody not an Orange County, or conservative Republican, will be toast in your world view.

I hope I am wrong. But if I am, I think I'll only be wrong in the timing of my prediction...... it may be sooner.

[Faerie]

did this post make any sense to anyone else? or am i up too late again?

[Lindy]

Originally posted by sgallan@Aug 31 2004, 09:26 PM

"As a fellow middle-of-the-class graduate, let me just quote Willie and say I feel your pain."

Sigh, such the partisan, and getting meaner by the year. Got the buzz words going now. The ad-hominems are soon to follow. You forgot the word slick though. Need to get you up to speed.

Remember, five years. From 2004. I will be the enemy. By the year 2009 anybody not an Orange County, or conservative Republican, will be toast in your world view.

I hope I am wrong. But if I am, I think I'll only be wrong in the timing of my prediction...... it may be sooner.

Gee Scott....you got the good drugs...and your'e not sharing?

What kind of post was THAT?

[sgallan]

Proud Duck should get it right off.

It is a continuation of some conversations we've had in the past where I've stated he is morphing into one of those hard and mean right wing (or rabid Right) Orange County California conservatives, who don't like any, save their own kind. Their own kind being other hard right conservatives. Preferbly the religious kind. He is in essense becoming a product of his upbringing (most of us are)..... probably just a little slower in coming around than the rest of his family.

"Willie" is a moniker the hard right often uses for William Jefferson Clinton. Though they ussually put the word "slick" in front of "Willie". The quote, "I feel your pain" is one those quotes Clinton used, that the rabid right picked up on in a derisive way.

FWIW, this breed of Republican is the group who more or less lost California to Democrats about 10 years ago. They kept sending up idealogues for candidates, who would be way to conservative for California. California is basically a left leaning moderate electorate. The conservatives there even tried to defeat Arnold, a candidate who was very electable, because he was a "moderate", and not "pure" enough, in that he didn't support all of the conservative causes.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Aug 31 2004, 09:26 PM

"As a fellow middle-of-the-class graduate, let me just quote Willie and say I feel your pain."

Sigh, such the partisan, and getting meaner by the year. Got the buzz words going now. The ad-hominems are soon to follow. You forgot the word slick though. Need to get you up to speed.

Remember, five years. From 2004. I will be the enemy. By the year 2009 anybody not an Orange County, or conservative Republican, will be toast in your world view.

I hope I am wrong. But if I am, I think I'll only be wrong in the timing of my prediction...... it may be sooner.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Scott, calm down, would you? I only added the phrase "let me just quote Willie" as a throwaway line after I wrote "I feel your pain" (sincerely meaning it, having been in Jack's unhappy position myself) and decided that that particular trademarked phrase needed attribution. If calling President William Jefferson Clinton "Willie" makes me "such the partisan, and getting meaner by the year," wouldn't that make it equally mean to call President Bush "Dubya" or "G-Dub" or some other nickname? (I use "G-Dub" myself from time to time, and I'm definitely not a Democrat partisan.)

One of the essential themes of conservatism is that not everything is political. Leftism preaches the opposite -- "the personal is political." It's hard for me to believe that you've gotten so uptight that you see a less-than-reverential nickname for a former Democrat president, in the context of some friendly and utterly apolitical advice, as a mean partisan attack. I mean, heck, as you pointed out, I even omitted the "Slick" in a gesture of bipartisan goodwill.

I frankly see a lot more partisan meanness coming from the other side right now. G-Dub is being called a Nazi and worse by some pretty mainstream figures on the Left. The nastiest thing that's being said about John Kerry from the other side is that he seems to have engaged in some Paul Dunn-style embellishment of his war record (which he has made the centerpiece of his campaign, and has thus opened it up for legitimate scrutiny.) Whatever hostility to the Left has crept into my worldview is only a response to the absolute thundering hatred and contempt hard-core Leftists have long shown people like me. To engage in a mildly sacrilegious paraphrase, I despise them, because they first despised us.

[sgallan]

"I frankly see a lot more partisan meanness coming from the other side right now."

LOL.... you would. You should play on a wrestling board I play on. Trust me, there is enough partisan meaness to go around on both sides. Vicious stuff. You would swear Kerry is the devil incarnate and Bush is a god. Does this make any of it right? The two wrongs is right argument perhaps?

It was funny that both sides got mad at me for calling them on it. Leave it to me to post as a real person, and get into verbal scraps on one of the few boards where I would actually lose the majority of the scraps, if they were to ever get physical!

[Guest curvette]

I guess I should have posted in this topic while it was still about college. Anyway Jack, I'll share my thoughts on education if you are still interested in reading them:

Some occupations require higher education. I wouldn't discourage kids from college if it's necessary for their dream. In my case though, I graduated from BYU, my husband did one year at Weber State. He now makes 6 figures, I make a whopping 0. Even if I were to again enter my (unfortunate) chosen field, he'd be way ahead of me. I still think some kind of degree is useful--even a two year degree. My philosophy with my kids is: Do what you like, and what you are GOOD at, and find a way to make money at it. I can't stand the thought of them in some dead end, unfulfilling job for the rest of their lives.

I'll tell you what I don't get--people who take out student loans to get degrees in philosophy or to major in some exotic musical instrument or such. Why spend all that money and saddle yourself with debt when there's no reasonable expectation of a payoff?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Sep 1 2004, 12:24 PM

"I frankly see a lot more partisan meanness coming from the other side right now."

LOL.... you would. You should play on a wrestling board I play on. Trust me, there is enough partisan meaness to go around on both sides. Vicious stuff. You would swear Kerry is the devil incarnate and Bush is a god. Does this make any of it right? The two wrongs is right argument perhaps?

It was funny that both sides got mad at me for calling them on it. Leave it to me to post as a real person, and get into verbal scraps on one of the few boards where I would actually lose the majority of the scraps, if they were to ever get physical! 

Maybe it's just the people I hang around with -- i.e. lawyers, NPR listeners, and fairly well-educated conservatives. Wrestling conservatives sound to be a more energetic lot.

Far from thinking that Kerry is a devil incarnate and Bush a god, the consensus among the conservatives I know seems to be that Kerry's a bit of a phony, whose biggest flaw is an unseemly willingness to believe the worst about his country and countrymen, and to be reluctant to assert its interests vigorously. It's the curse of his faction within the Democratic party, which became dominant in 1972. Of course you don't want to have a "my country, right or wrong" attitude -- that makes you overlook real faults that will hurt you if they're not fixed. But neither do you want a "blame America first" approach. Kerry's much-criticized 1971 testimony before Congress actually made some thoughtful points about misguided American policies in Southeast Asia -- but he didn't know when to stop. He endorsed and passed on grievous charges of routine atrocities without giving them the scrutiny they deserved -- and the vast majority of them have either been proven false or have never been substantiated. He rushed with unseemly haste to believe the worst of his country, and the fellow soldiers with whom he tries to set himself up as a kind of naval John Wayne. Harry Truman, Sam Nunn, and Scoop Jackson reincarnate -- probably even Robert Kennedy -- would take one look at Kerry's McGovernite worldview and want to smack him but good.

Bush, on the other hand, knows which side he's on. In litigation, a lawyer is supposed to be a "zealous advocate" for his client. A smart lawyer will try to make sure he's well aware of unhelpful conduct by his client, and try to correct him -- but neither will he allow his own criticism of the client to be used in such a way as to benefit the other side. He certainly won't let the other side have too much influence. I'm afraid that Kerry just doesn't have the chops to be a zealous advocate on behalf of the United States, in a time where zealous advocacy is all that's keeping us from getting killed. He is way too conscious of, and dependent on, the regard of polite, conventional-wisdom, New York Times/NPR/European liberals. He claims that he won't let our "allies" (really, France and Germany; everybody else of note is on our side already) dictate our policy -- but knowing what I do about the way he thinks, I don't think I can believe him.

I work in a sufficiently tall office building that the question of which candidate is more likely to get me killed by a truck bomb is a major consideration for me. I make just enough money that (even though I can't afford a house or build up any appreciable savings), I suspect that when Kerry's talking about raising taxes on "the rich," he's talking about me. And I know that he'll appoint judges whose judicial philosophy is that people like me shouldn't even get to vote on issues in which I have a serious interest. Bush doesn't have to be a "god" (I really wish he'd rethink his stance on immigration policy, for example) -- he just has to be better than the other side. And that side doesn't have to be malevolent to do harm; as Sophocles wrote, of all the ills that man is heir to, the worst is lack of judgment.

[sgallan]

See I am at a loss as to who to vote for. I think Bush would appoint people who would have judges allow some of the laws Republicans want to pass which I consider far more controlling than I would like. What to do in my bedroom. Or what people I care about do in their bedrooms. And anyone of a gazillion "social control" type laws. Less government by hiny. Anyhow the list is long. Yet your concerns about the Democrats are legitimate as well. The judges they would appoint for example. See my take - on the Supreme's for example - is if Rehnquist goes, I want another conservative. If one of the Liberals goes, then replace with another one. I think Bush is better for national security. I think the Democrats are better for the environment. To illustrate; when I was a youngster we used to drive through Flagstaff to get to the Grand Canyon. It was just a beautiful forest. 12 years of Republican administration type forest policies later, we drive through there, and it is clear cut hell.

Bottom line: After 35 years following this stuff I do not trust either the conservatives or the liberals. You vote your values which is fine. But your values would be a world I would not want to live in. It does not address my values. It is not inclusive of people like me, or my family, or many of my peers. I do not think it protects the future of our environment. At the moment it also seems to have chucked the concept of fiscal responsibility (which I find highly ironic). I also think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have long since been prostituted into just a variation of what kind of control either side wants. But conservative = less government is dead. Liberal does tend to drift to socialism but they are not trying to shove some quasi Christian theocracy down my throat.

Until your Party can somehow convince me that they are not out to control my behavior's, to some sort of Xian standard, and the liberals can convince me they are not all about socialism and pacifism, I'll continue to split my vote.

As for President...... right now it is a toss-up.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott -- See, I'm at a loss to think of more than one or two "social control" laws Republicans want to enact, let alone a gazillion.

Maybe my problem comes from dealing mostly with "purple" conservatives (get it -- red state politics, blue state taste), especially in California. The only two issues where I really hear liberals griping about social controls are abortion and gay rights, and I just don't see the mainstream Republican thinking on those issues as being terribly radical, let alone anything like a Christian theocracy.

Start with abortion. First, that's not a "bedroom" issue, it's a bioethics issue, like cloning or forced sterilization. Abortions don't take place in bedrooms. Abortion is bound to be controversial, because the gray area between what's universally recognized as evil (killing a live baby) and what's universally accepted (disposing of unfertilized eggs) is nine months wide. It seems unnatural to hold that it's acceptable to do something to a baby in utero that which would be considered the height of evil to do to that baby a day later and twelve inches downstream, so to speak. Likewise, I can see the logic in wondering why, when nobody mourns lost sperm and egg cells, it's a great moral crime once two such expendable cells have met up with each other. Between those two extremes, a line has to be drawn, and where it's drawn will inevitably involve some arbitrary judgments.

The majority's consensus in this country is well to the right of the legal framework allowed by the Roe and Casey decisions. The general consensus is that we don't want abortion banned generally, but we do think that the farther along a fetus goes in development, the better reason there must be to countenance destroying it. (That's actually pretty close to Sweden's abortion laws.)

The radical feminist standard (and, in fact, the Democratic Party's standard) is no restrictions on abortion, period. An abortion for convenience at 8 months' gestation is fine and dandy, just like an abortion for health reasons at five weeks. For practical purposes, the radical feminists win: According to the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence, abortion is essentially legal up to the moment of birth, so long as a doctor -- any doctor -- can be found to cite a "health" concern, including "emotional" health.

The disconnect between the popular consensus on abortion (which strikes me as perfectly reasonable) and the state of the law is what keeps abortion a controversial issue. There is virtually no abortion controversy in Sweden -- because Sweden's laws on the subject were enacted democratically, and reflect the popular consensus, so there's nothing to argue about. In the United States, a small, radical minority, with the support of a like-minded legal profession, has succeeded in imposing its will on the country. The dissonance guarantees perpetual conflict.

Next, to gay rights. The national Republican party isn't looking to criminalize sodomy. Among Republicans I know, the consensus seems to be, do what you want in the bedroom as long as no one's underage, has more than two legs, or is your sister.

Conservatives may oppose efforts to add homosexuality to the list of classes protected against discrimination -- but that resistance isn't the same as agitating for "social control." It is, in fact, the libertarian position: Each antidiscrimination law, no matter how worthy, imposes government control on people's behavior. If someone doesn't want to rent the other half of his duplex to a gay couple, it's not "social control," but the opposite, if the government declines to intervene.

It's the same with the gay marriage issue. Here again, government isn't putting any restraint on private sexual conduct. People are free to sleep with whoever they want. Nobody's talking about laws to ban gay couples from having ceremonies and considering themselves married. Again, it's not that government is forbidding something; it's that government is declining to favor it -- not quite the same thing.

The only other instance of conservative "social control" is drug policy, and that's not exactly a major issue of conflict between the two political parties. Everybody's pretty much accepted the general consensus on drugs -- i.e. two social drugs (booze and tobacco) are enough. The only differences are about how strongly the government should penalize drug violations, and nobody really seems to be talking much even about that. And the conservative/liberal divide doesn't quite hold up here, either; National Review generally favors legalization.

I wrote elsewhere about a sixteen-year-old Iranian girl who just got hanged from a crane in the town square for having sex. THAT's a theocracy. Wanting to keep little vestiges of "ceremonial deism" like the Pledge of Allegiance, high school choirs' Christmas programs, or City Council invocations isn't theocracy.

[sgallan]

PD -

All you say is only because you do not have the power to do those things I suggest. I;ve seen too many of the bills, heard too many of the speaches, been following the process way to long, to believe to think these things I fear wouldn't at least be attempted. From the re-enactment of sodomy laws, to the enactment of draconian forfeiture and drug laws, to the harsh welfare reforms they wanted (until Clinton toned them down a bit as I agreed with the reform). To all abortions be outlawed "no matter what". I full well remember the "contract with America". I also full well remember the later hypocrisy of the supposed term limits. You expect me to trust this group because you say so? It isn't going to happen. They are politicians. They will take care of their constituencies. A good portion of those folk want what I sugest.

You see one of the perspectives of being raised in an interesting family, is I have a perspective you have only read about in a course of some sort. I am married to an alcoholic/addict. I am hardly naive. I have doled out tougher love than you can imagine. And I recently had to play the game again. But I also happen to realize that the general Republican view of locking them up, taking the stuff, and throwing away the key, is a terrible waste of human potential. Responsible is one thing, throwing them away is another.

It always amazes me that Republicans can be so concerned about the unborn, and then not give a crap about what happens to those kids after they are often born in horrible circumstances. Save to lock them up 18 or so years later when those kids - having never been taught right from wrong - get into trouble. Even to the point of sociatally killing them. This disconnect astonishes me.

FWIW, I can go off on liberalism in every bit the same way. From the naive foreign policy, to the coddling of people who need to be responsible for their situations, and even addictions. It annoys me to no end that the sides are so f'n partisan, and split, that nothing gets accomplished.

You can find exceptions to every situation I mention. I do not doubt that. Like the National Review. I look more at the reactions, and commentary, to issues, like when the sodomy laws were stuck down. They were chilling from your side of the aisle. Even to me as a heterosexual. No, I am afraid there are too many hard rightests, who pretty much control that party, for me to ever support it. The moderating influence of the middle, or moderate is leaving that party much as it did in California - and why you are stuck in such a state. Heck, they don't even have the fiscal discipline, balanced budget, and smaller government arguements anymore. Those actually had some resonance. But they were only sound bites. They want the power which comes with big Government. Their spent money, and the resultant power, just comes from different sources.

So what is a left leaning moderate to do? I vote on my values. If there is a moderate out there they will get my vote. If I still resided in California (I can almost hit it with a thrown rock), I would have voted for Arnold in a heartbeat. If it is a race between a hard left and a hard right, I'll go left, they scare me less. If it is for President..... well the presidency is an entire different issue which (should) transcend just a partisan view. I vote for President, more than any other office, on a bunch of issues. I voted for Reagan and the first Bush. Clinton twice. And even - on the drive to the polling place - changed my mind and voted for Bush II. This race is two things for me; one it is a vote on Bush' performance. Which is decidedly mixed and still an open issue on Iraq and the economy. And the other is what I think about Kerry all the way through the race. It will be a close choice.

[sgallan]

delete

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Good summary of the heart of conservatism by Boris Johnson in the Daily Telegraph:

"Sometimes it is hard to remember what conservatism is supposed to consist in, given our varying approaches to abortion, marriage, tariffs, you name it.

But there is one thing that conservatives all have in common, or ought to have in common, and that is a basic Aristotelian belief in the will, and that the individual is the principal agent of his destiny, for good or ill."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../ixopinion.html