We haven't had a very collective notion of, 'These are our children'. So part of it is we have to break through our, kind of, private idea that, 'Kids belong to their parents,' or 'Kids belong to their families,' and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Whole communities would raise your kids and tell you what to do. In her line of thinking, that would be unelected officials, appointed by someone.
No, in her line of thinking, communities should look out for the kids of their community. They should invest and have pride in their community. They should recognize that by improving parks, schools etc. within their community, it will benefit the children of that community, instead of say, a couple with no children thinking meh, I don't give a shit about the kids in my neighborhood, because they aren't my kids. Why should I vote for school initiatives on ballots and such.
Oh, sorry. I can't infer from what she said, but you can. So assume she meant she has the rights to raise your kids. That's definitely what she was saying. She wants to take kids out of their homes and raise them as she sees fit. Because that fits what you want it to mean. LOL. It's kind of sad, really.
It is crucial to interpret the figurative as literal. Did you catch where she infers that she will eat your children? Listen again. It's in there.
I "infer" that she literally said that our children should belong to the community and we should break through the notion that the children belong to families. Who runs the community?
I actually like this interpretation, but in terms of health care, welfare and unemployment. Let the community take care of the community. Improve schools, clinics, jobs programs, charities, etc. instead of thinking "meh, I don't give a shit about my community, I'll just pay my share of the taxes (which for 47% of income-earners happen to be 0...woo hoo!) and let the government sort it out."
Unfortunately, she didn't say anything like it. She could have said that our public institutions are failing our children and that we need to invest in improved schools, parks, libraries, etc. Instead she attacked families. They're failing so the community needs to take over.
I'm going to repost from PtldPlatypus She didn't attack families and say they are failing, so communities need to take over. Please reread it, because your reading comprehension on this is atrocious, and you seem to be hearing what you want to hear, just to complain about something. She says "We have never invested as much in public education as we should have". So it's actually the exact opposite of your last post. She does say something like it, and says NOTHING at all like families are failing, so communities need to take over. Unbelievable as a headline is correct, but it's your interpretation of the video that is so unbelievable.
You put a period on what she said. There's a comma and an attack on the family immediately following. Why haven't we invested enough in public education as we should have? She continues "because..." When you mistake a period for a comma, I think it's you that has the comprehension problem. We've invested more in public education than all but 3 nations in the world. Per pupil, outright total amount, or by any other measure. There may be resistance to spending even more, but none of it has to do with parental rights as she suggests. It might have to do with spending big money and getting poor results. Or people are smart enough to realize they'd be throwing good money after bad. Or that "the system" is higher priority than the children and the results of them attending the schools.
And by came very close you mean... Sounded to me like a plug for school funding, subtly implying that a bunch of uneducated gang members might cause a bigger hit to their pocketbook (by causing falling property values) than a tax levy. Who's wearing the tin foil hat now?
Some of what Denny is talking about. [video=youtube;ac4IDhjIS7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4IDhjIS7Y[/video] I just don't think that's what this woman is saying.
I'll waste one more post in the futile effort to bring sanity to this thread. She doesn't attack families. She doesn't attack the notion that people want to raise their own children. She doesn't say people have had a notion of "My kid is mine, and totally my responsibility", suggesting that people are wrong by taking individual responsibility for child rearing. No--she says that people have had a notion of "Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility". Do you see the subtle difference there? She's claiming that those who are not parents have been unwilling to contribute available resources to ensure that the children (and those parents who are raising them) have everything they need to facilitate proper development. She's not blaming the family at all; she's doing exactly the opposite--blaming the community outside of the family for not caring enough to help out when needed. Now you're actually paying attention to the problem with this video--not the completely invented notion that she wants to step in for parents, but that she wants to reach into everyone else's pockets. I do, in fact, have a notion that my children are my responsibility, and as a result, I don't expect anybody to provide resources for my children. Perhaps this is because I'm a middle-class suburban white man with a decent white-collar job. Regardless, I agree that the public education system has more than enough resources to accomplish the stated goals (educating children) if they're used wisely. The "notion" that we haven't invested sufficiently in education has always offended me.
I'm with you on the last bit. "The notion that these are our children..." She said what she actually said, not what you read into what she might have been suggesting. Do you want your children to be "our" children? Apparently not. What if she got her way? You'd have no say or choice. Have you ever seen her show on MSNBC? Do you realize how what she said fits in with the overall agenda of her show and the network?
