Face the facts. From a university run by lefties. http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/money-cant-buy-genius/
Notice that that says "average". Do you think that the same amount is spent on each child, given the way schools are financed by their local tax base? I invite you to visit North Flint some time.
How I'd feel about my children being considered "our" (community's) children isn't relevant to the discussion of properly interpreting what this person was actually saying. Back on topic, recall that the "these are our children" statement was her stating a notion that doesn't exist. But, to follow your question (and frame it properly), she does talk about recognizing that "kids belong to whole communities". As you say--she said what she said, not what you read into it. So, how do you know what she mean't by that statement? It's open to interpretation, based on contextual evidence. Which evidence shall we use...? Clearly, this is the evidence you're using, which I'll grant you. I've never seen the show, nor am I familiar with this particular person's "agenda". I'm using the actual words in the video, where she talks about investing in education at the beginning of the spot, and making proper investments at the end of the spot. Without the same source from which you're basing your interpretation, you and I obviously will not come to the same conclusions. If you're going to debate her meaning based on external information that you have not brought to the fore, then clearly we're going to differ. Absent that--based solely on the 30-second video--I hold to my interpretation of her video, because it seems to stand alone.
Certain people here certainly seem to think they're libertarians. Let's see what John Locke, whose political theory was a huge influence on the sainted founders and on libertarians every since, has to say about parents: Damn collectivist!
Public education is nonsense and expensive, I think therein lies the problem. There's no way of framing this argument without making the state look inefficient and ignorant.
Wow you don't know much about Libertarians or you talk to soft ones. Von Mises takes a dump on Locke if we go by Libertarian heiarchy. Classical Liberalism is another type of ideology for big-government republican types.
No, I don't think the same amount is spent on each child. Nor should it be beyond some certain minimum. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/30k-per-pupil-cost-of-dc-public-school.html
Let's look at that last sentence. "Once it's everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments." I don't know how you can read it any way but, "once we control the children, we can do better than the parents do."
Sec. 55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal. Sec. 58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.
Easily--you just have to define her "it". If "it" is defined as "making decisions about the children's upbringing", then you come to your conclusion. If "it" is defined as "providing resources to support the children's education" (as is suggested by other statements in the video), then you come to mine.
Once we break through the notion that your children belong to you and your family, "it" becomes making decisions about the children's upbringing. Like I said, if all she wanted were more investment in education, why bother to go into the relationship between kids and parents? I mean, she could have said, "it's all our responsibility to provide access to quality education for the nation's children." But that's not her agenda.
Again, you're imposing meaning, speculating about what she could have said, or how you would have said it. At no point in her spot does she say anything about making decisions about other people's children; that's something you've either constructed or imported from elsewhere. Start from the beginning--she's talking about investing, and why we don't (allegedly) invest in education. Why--because we don't feel it's our responsibility to invest in other people's kids, because those kids are "their" kids. The only decisions she's talking about is people making decisions about where their money should go. Where does this claim that she's supporting government control of children come from?
My speculation is based upon your speculation. What she actually said leaves no doubt what "it" means. She went into great detail about "it."
To bring this thread to closure, perhaps... She walked back from what she said in her video in a public statement. There was a fairly big outcry among more people than just myself. Enough so that MSNBC has pulled the commercial from the air. It's been replaced by one of her talking about how her father taught her to carry on the fight for equal rights, which is fine by me.
