Apparently you don't know WHO Chanticleer is either...Ibanez wrote:I bet he wasn't a Coastal Carolina Univ. Grad.JMU DJ wrote:
I had to tell an English major what a Chanticleer was today. You humanities types aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
Btw, I corrected your grammar. No need to thank me, just pay it forward.
So people who don't go to college aren't human beings?Go to tech school if you want a high speed avenue to a career... focus and be done with it
University is about becoming a human being
Do you REALLY believe it would make a big difference if, say, engineers just took courses necessary to function as an engineer? So it makes a big difference that some guy who designs oilfield drilling equipment for a company in Texas took foreign language courses in college vs. not taking them? Or it makes a big difference that this engineer took English Literature vs. not taking it? Come ON!Society DOES need them to take humanities John. I don't want a world full of engineers, nuclear physicists, chemical engineers who don't have well developed social and cultural perspectives and ethical and critical thinking skills that come from the humanities or social and liberal studies.
JohnStOnge wrote:Do you REALLY believe it would make a big difference if, say, engineers just took courses necessary to function as an engineer? So it makes a big difference that some guy who designs oilfield drilling equipment for a company in Texas took foreign language courses in college vs. not taking them? Or it makes a big difference that this engineer took English Literature vs. not taking it? Come ON!Society DOES need them to take humanities John. I don't want a world full of engineers, nuclear physicists, chemical engineers who don't have well developed social and cultural perspectives and ethical and critical thinking skills that come from the humanities or social and liberal studies.
I doubt that there's any evidence that somebody who would come out of a "slimmed down" engineering curriculum such as I'm talking about would be likely to be at any disadvantage in terms of "critical thinking" skills as opposed to somebody who took French and English Literature. And, based on my experience, taking philosophy would only develop your critical thinking skills in that if you have any sense you're going to think about how ridiculous it is. But the critical thinking skills prompting you to do that were already there.
You are a scary motherfucker. 
I don't either as I start to type this. And I'm pretty sure that has absolutely no impact on how well I do my job and/or function in society. I could go the rest of my life without knowing who Chanticleer was and it would make zero difference to anything. If I decided that it is important to know who Chanticleer was, I can do a Google search to find out.Apparently you don't know WHO Chanticleer is either...
Take Student-Loan Companies Off Welfare
When the government hands money to poor people, that's welfare, Republicans say. That's taking money from productive taxpayers and encouraging dependency, they assert.
But when corporations get taxpayer handouts, that's not welfare in the GOP book of rhetoric. Take away a company's subsidy, and you have a "government takeover." Such is the Republican stance on Democratic plans to remove the corporate middleman from the federal student-loan program, included in the recently passed House health care reform bill.
Since when did ending taxpayer subsidies become expropriation? Since Republicans stopped being principled conservatives and became corporate socialists. If the Republicans' mission is to enrich their corporate donors by burdening taxpayers, they're going about it the right way.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, complained on Fox News that if the Democrats' student-loan plan passes, "what the federal government has done is dealt out the private sector."
Darn straight, senator. And may one ask why the private sector was "dealt" into a government program to begin with? The answer is easy: That's what passes for conservatism these days. (For further reference, check out the 2003 Medicare drug benefit legislation, which Republicans made wildly expensive by cutting in the private insurers.)
There are currently two kinds of student loans. In one, the government lends directly to students. Democrats want the whole program to be like this. In the other, the government gives guarantees against bad loans and rising interest rates to private financial companies, who then lend the money to the students. Either way, taxpayers are on the hook.
Which means either way, it's a government program. When Graham charges that Democrats are "giving the student-loan program completely to the federal government," he is making zero sense — unless he believes that the banks have some entitlement that we weren't told about.
Republicans (and a few Democratic accomplices) are defending a real sweet deal for Wall Street.
The companies make fortunes off the student borrowers while the taxpayers protect them against their bad luck. This is another of those "privatized profits and socialized losses" schemes that enriches the financiers no matter what happens to the rest of us.
Do you know who would lose billions should they be "dealt out" of this government program? For starters, our bailout buddies at Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. And, of course, there's Sallie Mae, the student-loan giant.
Ah-h-h, Sallie Mae. This private company made so much dough off the program that in 2002 its then-CEO, Al Lord, ranked first in corporate compensation in the Washington, D.C., area and another Sallie executive came in second. Having made a quarter-billion in 10 years, Lord bought 244 acres in suburban Washington to build his own personal 18-hole golf course. Not bad payback for working a government program.
But oh dear, by chopping subsidies to private lenders are we taking away consumer choice? It's true that students would find it harder to obtain predatory loans. As reported in Fortune magazine, one Sallie customer's $38,000 student loan had magically ballooned to $100,000 after the borrower lost a job. And some still in school found themselves paying Sallie interest at an astounding rate of 28 percent — on top of the exorbitant fees slipped into their loan agreement's fine print.
Under the Democrats' proposal, students would obtain loans directly from their college financial aid office. The students would pay a lower rate of interest and over a longer period. The taxpayers, meanwhile, would save $67 billion.
There's little in this picture that a real conservative who believes in a student-loan program wouldn't like. Odd how Democrats have to be both the liberals and the conservatives these days.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at http://www.creators.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Pwns wrote:Sorry guys, I'm still not buying it. If a person is smart enough to be a doctor or scientist or engineer they are not going to let themselves be ignorant about the world and humanistic topics.
I'm a STEM major and I'd be willing to bet that I have more book knowledge and a better knowledge of history and current events and such than even most college-educated folks of my generation. A bunch of courses where I had to be able to regurgitate textbook definitions had nothing to do with that.
JohnStOnge wrote:Do you REALLY believe it would make a big difference if, say, engineers just took courses necessary to function as an engineer? So it makes a big difference that some guy who designs oilfield drilling equipment for a company in Texas took foreign language courses in college vs. not taking them? Or it makes a big difference that this engineer took English Literature vs. not taking it? Come ON!Society DOES need them to take humanities John. I don't want a world full of engineers, nuclear physicists, chemical engineers who don't have well developed social and cultural perspectives and ethical and critical thinking skills that come from the humanities or social and liberal studies.
I doubt that there's any evidence that somebody who would come out of a "slimmed down" engineering curriculum such as I'm talking about would be likely to be at any disadvantage in terms of "critical thinking" skills as opposed to somebody who took French and English Literature. And, based on my experience, taking philosophy would only develop your critical thinking skills in that if you have any sense you're going to think about how ridiculous it is. But the critical thinking skills prompting you to do that were already there.
Point was, there are many non-science, math, engineering majors out there who don't know dick about the field they are in so why should I take their opinion on the matter of a liberal arts education. You, I assume, are not in the English, History, Philosophy, etc field, so I wouldn't expect you to give a crap about it, which is why you are railing against the thought of expanding your education. However, me being a scientist, I should not have to explain to English majors who Chanticleer is, especially when they bring it up in a story. You are a dense man JSO.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't either as I start to type this.Apparently you don't know WHO Chanticleer is either...
Do you really think an engineer would have to have taken college art, philosophy, literature, etc. courses in order to understand the "ethics" of that situation? Do you really, honestly think that having taken those courses would make the difference between that particular person going ahead and specifying substandard materials and opting not to do so? Honestly now.I think it would, John. I'd like to think that engineers that design the bridges I drive on and the machinery I use were broadly as well as deeply educated and have ethics which wouldn't let them do things like, say..... specify substandard materials for use, or accept such as a substitute due to time constraints of a contract....that sort of thing, stuff that could become a public safety issue.
And this isn't a conk/donk issue...D1B wrote:Pwns wrote:Sorry guys, I'm still not buying it. If a person is smart enough to be a doctor or scientist or engineer they are not going to let themselves be ignorant about the world and humanistic topics.
I'm a STEM major and I'd be willing to bet that I have more book knowledge and a better knowledge of history and current events and such than even most college-educated folks of my generation. A bunch of courses where I had to be able to regurgitate textbook definitions had nothing to do with that.
Don't buy it then. No one gives a **** what you think. You, St. Wronge, Alpo Jizz are all militant conk whackjobs.
Are we supposed to be impressed, inspired, horrified, pissed off, all of the above, or none of the above, DJ?JMU DJ wrote: ...
Apparently you don't know WHO Chanticleer is either...
[youtube][/youtube]
It is, dumbass. Notice almost all the militant conks share the same opinion and world outlook?Col Hogan wrote:And this isn't a conk/donk issue...D1B wrote:
Don't buy it then. No one gives a **** what you think. You, St. Wronge, Alpo Jizz are all militant conk whackjobs.
SMFH.....
JohnStOnge wrote:Do you really think an engineer would have to have taken college art, philosophy, literature, etc. courses in order to understand the "ethics" of that situation? Do you really, honestly think that having taken those courses would make the difference between that particular person going ahead and specifying substandard materials and opting not to do so? Honestly now.I think it would, John. I'd like to think that engineers that design the bridges I drive on and the machinery I use were broadly as well as deeply educated and have ethics which wouldn't let them do things like, say..... specify substandard materials for use, or accept such as a substitute due to time constraints of a contract....that sort of thing, stuff that could become a public safety issue.
When ever somebody keeps saying "honestly" or "I'll be honest with you" or something like that, my first thought is "WTF, you mean you're not usually honest?". houndawg wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Do you really think an engineer would have to have taken college art, philosophy, literature, etc. courses in order to understand the "ethics" of that situation? Do you really, honestly think that having taken those courses would make the difference between that particular person going ahead and specifying substandard materials and opting not to do so? Honestly now.
Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
One more time, Johnny, there is a lot more than physics to involved in engineering.
houndawg wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Do you really think an engineer would have to have taken college art, philosophy, literature, etc. courses in order to understand the "ethics" of that situation? Do you really, honestly think that having taken those courses would make the difference between that particular person going ahead and specifying substandard materials and opting not to do so? Honestly now.
Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
One more time, Johnny, there is a lot more than physics to involved in engineering.
Chizzang wrote:houndawg wrote:
Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
One more time, Johnny, there is a lot more than physics to involved in engineering.
John and I completely disagree on most ethics issues - mostly as I see them being related - he sees them as being completely isolated situations... Now to be fair there is HUGE value in the ability to see situations "as they are" with no correlation to other events
There is also value in seeing the connectedness of what - by all appearance - is unrelated...
Like drinking and driving = I happen to see a correlation there and so do most doctors and nurses who work in the emergency room
I did not say there aren't ethical issued involved in engineering. I asked whether or not you honestly think that an engineer needs to have taken things like philosophy, foreign language, and literature courses in college in order to be able to grapple with them. Again: Does any one REALLY need to have taken college course in such things in order to understand ethical questions associated with using substandard materials on a project.Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
Also consider that there are some Universities (maybe most Universities) that want each graduate to be a proper representative of their program...JohnStOnge wrote:I did not say there aren't ethical issued involved in engineering. I asked whether or not you honestly think that an engineer needs to have taken things like philosophy, foreign language, and literature courses in college in order to be able to grapple with them. Again: Does any one REALLY need to have taken college course in such things in order to understand ethical questions associated with using substandard materials on a project.Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
PLEASE!
.... I guess nobody really needs anything from college to do most anything. The Engineers (always capitalize Engineer) that built the pyramids didn't need no sissy college courses....JohnStOnge wrote:I did not say there aren't ethical issued involved in engineering. I asked whether or not you honestly think that an engineer needs to have taken things like philosophy, foreign language, and literature courses in college in order to be able to grapple with them. Again: Does any one REALLY need to have taken college course in such things in order to understand ethical questions associated with using substandard materials on a project.Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
PLEASE!
I am perfectly happy for most engineers to remain hopelessly incompetent in communicating with other humans. It creates lots of jobs for those who can communicate.JohnStOnge wrote:I did not say there aren't ethical issued involved in engineering. I asked whether or not you honestly think that an engineer needs to have taken things like philosophy, foreign language, and literature courses in college in order to be able to grapple with them. Again: Does any one REALLY need to have taken college course in such things in order to understand ethical questions associated with using substandard materials on a project.Somebody with as narrow an education as you appear to be in favor of, might "honestly" not even be aware that there are ethical issues involved in engineering. Very big ones.
PLEASE!
The Chanticleer is a fictional bird, a type of tree, the weekly newsletter of Jacksonville State University and a choir group.JMU DJ wrote:Apparently you don't know WHO Chanticleer is either...Ibanez wrote:
I bet he wasn't a Coastal Carolina Univ. Grad.
Btw, I corrected your grammar. No need to thank me, just pay it forward.
[youtube][/youtube]
