HI Bob,   
      
   On Thu 2012-Aug-09 16:26, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:   
      
      
      
    RW> "As a result, behavior gaps are opening up.  In 1972 kids   
    RW> from the bottom quartile of earners participated in roughly   
    RW> the same number of activities as the kids from the top   
    RW> quartile.    Today, it's a chasm."   
      
   BK>  Wonder how much Pay to Play has to do with that. OTOH, when I  went   
   BK> to school I never had a school that wasn't within walking  distance.   
   BK> Now days they ship them all over. It's hard to do  after school   
   BK> groups if you have to take a bus home.   
      
      
   Probably quite a bit, for just the reasons you noted.   
   Extracurricular activities are part of raising a well   
   rounded kid.  OFten the things that reinforce what one   
   learns in the classroom, and gets one excited about learning are those things   
   encountered during extra curricular   
   activities.   
      
    RW> YOu can probably find this piece on the web, but it's his   
    RW> statements toward the end that I wholeheartedly endorse.   
    RW> HE says:   
      
    RW> "IF America really wants to take advantage of all its human   
    RW> capital rather than just the most privileged two-thirds of   
    RW> it, then people are going to have to make some   
    RW> uncomfortable decisions.   
      
   BK>  Decisions that will cost money.   
      
   OF course they will, but I don't see any problem with that.   
   I don't see any reason that the rest of us should see our   
   standard of living erode while the plutocrats get richer.   
      
      
    RW> "LIberals are going to have to be willing to champion norms   
    RW> that say marriage should come before child rearing and be   
    RW> morally tough about it.   
      
   BK>  That one is both ignorant and arrogant. Just what does "morally    
   BK> tought" mean?   
      
   MOrally tough, I have no problem with that.  That means that whether that   
   family be a gay couple or whatever, two people   
   acting as parents are better than one.  I don't know if   
   that's the way Brooks meant it, but imho that's just another reason that   
   partners should have full benefit that accrues   
   to married couples.  I've read more than one place that kids in single parent   
   households don't do as well academically   
   and other ways.  Kids raised by two caring adults, whether   
   it be two men, two women, brother and sister, two sisters,   
   etc. do much better.   
      
    RW> "Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept   
    RW> tax increases or benefit cuts so that more can be spent on   
    RW> the earned- income tax credit and other programs that   
    RW> benefit the working class."   
      
   BK>  A truly stupid thing for him to say. Conservatives don't have to    
   BK> be willing to accept benefit cuts, conservatives salivate at the    
   BK> thought of benefit cuts. Conservatives will have to accept that    
   BK> benefits must be supported, and even increased.   
      
   Eh?  You don't think that the rich get benefits?  Much more   
   than msot of us get.  Ever heard of corporate welfare?  The   
   conservatives are going to have to accept less of this is   
   what I believe he's saying here.   
      
    RW> "Political candidates will have to spend less time trying   
    RW> to exploit class divisions and more time trying to remedy   
    RW> them--less time calling their opponents out of touch   
    RW> elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that   
    RW> comprehensively address the problem."   
      
   BK>  That is the purest of empty rhetoric. Calling on politicians to    
   BK> remedy problems is like calling on the spirits to bring you the    
   BK> truth. Chose a side and support it. Decide what must be done and    
   BK> support politicians who will do that.   
      
   Indeed, but true nonetheless.   
      
   BK>  Look at every issue from the view point of how does it hurt or    
   BK> help the most vunerable.   
      
   Indeed, which is waht I try to do.  How does it benefit the   
   most of us is my yardstick with a lot of issues.   
   IF not how much does it benefit the most, how much harm does it do.   
      
    RW> IF you're a politician and you really want my vote, what I   
    RW> want to hear from you is about how you're going to provide   
    RW> a future for our young people, and your plan to bolster our   
    RW> aging infrastructure, otherwise, except the one finger   
    RW> salute as I vote libertarian.  iF you're not going to fix   
    RW> it, then every man for himself is the best we can hope to   
    RW> get.   
      
   BK>  All solutions that improve the infrastructure and reduce   
   BK>  unemployment and provide a future for our young people cost the    
   BK> rich, and especially the financial sector, a lot of their wealth    
   BK> and income. Sorry, that's just how it works.   
      
   INdeed they do, bu sign me extremely tired of the financial   
   sector.  I don't see those folks ptuting anything back into   
   oru economy.  i see a bunch of people playing casino with   
   our money, our pensions, our taxes, and anything else they   
   can get.  Check out matt Taibbi's recent rolling stone   
   article about the guys who were tried for rigging municipal   
   bond markets.  Some sobering stuff to think about.   
      
    RW> A United states governed by wing nuts and/or whiners   
    RW> doesn't deserve to survive, it's that simple!  We've had   
    RW> enough hand wringing and finger pointing, it's time to get   
    RW> America back to work!   
      
   BK>  Yes, and that is the key to solving all our major problems, get    
   BK> people back to work.   
      
   iNdeed it is.   
      
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)