He didn't enact it, but it was a signature policy of his, and he pushed it hard. There were twice as many stops his final year in office as there were his first year. It is only a reduction if you compare it to his penultimate year, when there were 7x as many stops as his first year.
This claim he reduced it is a key talking point of his campaign, and an outright lie. He was defending it literally up until the moment he decided to run for president (defending it publicly for years until October 2019, then apologizing in November 2019 when he announced his campaign).
Linking to an external image and then making a conclusion here isn't profitable to discussion here. It'd been better if the op had said, and here's Bloomberg with Trump and Clinton (I forget the 4th guys name: I'm oz)... all of them clearly golf buddies.
I'd be surprised and suspicious of those colleges if they're teaching based on the Walton heirs... Sam would be a different story, but wasn't who I was referring to with the present tense of "Waltons say".
This is an important point. One could argue, and some have, that the center of US political discourse is actually firmly right of center, especially when compared to European nations for example.
the other thing is, in the us, people say “left” a lot which they really mean is “liberal” (which itself is a very blunt word to be sure)
if put in that context, then saying the media is slanted liberal (market oriented, individualistic, capitalist etc) is probably true (at least from a layman’s eyes)
when reframed in that way, there are very few “left” media in the us; it’s either conservative (socially, right-wing) and liberal corporate media
Buzzfeed has never really enjoyed a reputation of being a trusted news source[1], so this notion that anyone countering your outright dismissal of the publication is defending it is just silly. It's also just disproportionate considering outlets which are more widely trusted are given the benefit of the doubt despite egregious errors or lies. (such as NYTimes)
It was rebranded "public relations", as noted in the referenced documentary. A central figure in the film is Edward Bernays, who was referred to as "the father of public relations".
It's insane to me how quick some folks are to dismiss what they deem "bullshit degrees".
It's our culture that has turned education into some kind of "investment" in future job prospects. To put it simply, education was never intended to be that way, nor should it. It's as if studying the arts is some kind of luxury for those who are already financially well-off.
Education is supposed to be about learning just for the sake of learning, which benefits all of us. If there is not a place for people from certain fields of study, that's a failure of our economy and priorities. Yet it seems that too many have just accepted the current reality as "just the way things are".
I agree that the previous role of education was not intended to be strictly vocational, but that role changed with the industrial revolution following policies like the Morrill Land-Grant Act calling for institutions that focus on more vocationally-minded tracks, like agriculture and engineering, to support the economy. We can debate if this was in the better interest of society, but I think the role of education is allowed to change.
My understanding was that this idea of education being about learning for its own sake was from an era when only the children of the privileged class received higher education and since their future as part of the future elite was more or less guaranteed from their upbringing and connections and it was thought important than the future members of the elite class are broadly well-educated, not merely specialists in their roles.
The reality now is that education is more or less for everyone and most people, even at elite institutions, don't have a clear path to being a member of the elite without working super hard for specific career goals. It would be odd, then, for some of those students to continue to pretend that they have a clear path to being a member of the elite and learn the kinds of things that are disproportionately important for the members of the elite, when they have to accomplish a lot to get there. The world is simply far more competitive.
It's our culture that has turned education into some kind of "investment" in future job prospects. To put it simply, education was never intended to be that way, nor should it. It's as if studying the arts is some kind of luxury for those who are already financially well-off.
Historically, you certainly had a division between apprenticeships for the poor, university for the rather-rich and for middle class and talented and finishing school, philosophical speculation, tutoring by artists, etc for the idle wealthy.
The world where "everyone" was somewhat entitled to the basics of a university education was a product of WWII and the GI bill. Not that this was a bad thing but it's worth saying it's a somewhat recent thing. Moreover, while university education references "learning for learning's sake", I think the fundamental thing is more "the basic skills a citizen needs."
And even here, our society hasn't really integrated the exact use of twenty years of bureaucratic lecture classes. Going back to pure skill-oriented education isn't appealing but a broadening of the learning process is important.
That said, university education is now kind of the worst many world - purely job oriented but sort-of fantasy mid-level bureaucracy jobs that most students won't actually get.
It's meaningless to talk about what education was "intended" to be, because it varies from society to society, and changes over time. In general, we as a society decide what it is intended to be about.
But if you are going to look at history, then why not go all the way to the root of the modern Western academia - where the word itself originates?
On one hand, it was indeed about learning just for the sake of learning. But on the other hand, it also didn't have degrees, positions, tenure, or any other attributes of a formal hierarchy.
And note that it was something that people did aside from gainful employment (or other source of income). Which means that it was closed to most, not even because they weren't welcome there, but because they didn't have the free time to devote to learning for the sake of learning.
Could we revive the Academy today, free for everybody? Sure, but I don't think this would solve any of the problems with "bullshit degrees".
Learning for the sake of learning can happen at home with access to public library, YouTube, GreatCourses, Coursera, etc.
The argument needs to address why learning for the sake of learning at a specific physical location with the price ticket of $40k'ish a year is drastically better.
I think I disagree with almost everything in your post. Historically, education was for the ultra elite/wealthy who could afford to not work and still live. Or in places like ancient India, education was for individuals who willfully chose to forego material comforts and wealth, not unlike devout ascetics.
The "education is about education" sentiment you mention is quite literally the brain-child of the ultra privileged.
I don't think the situation you describe has _ever_ been what education is "supposed" to be about. It's an noble goal, but it doesn't reflect reality. And a degree which cost over $100,000 to acquire, but doesn't yield any job prospects... if that isn't a "bullshit degree" then I don't know what is.
> Education is supposed to be about learning just for the sake of learning, which benefits all of us.
Does it?
Human instructed education is a limited resource. Unlike self-directed or automated education, it doesn't scale without educators. And there aren't an infinite supply of those.
Ergo, a price must be paid to be educated.
What should that price be? How should it be set? Who should pay it?
I'm honestly asking, regarding your assertion (I believe) that education shouldn't be driven by utility and future-ability-to-repay.
They have a string of controversies like most news organizations, but I think they may be referring to the fact it is owned by News Corp, which is run by Rupert Murdoch who is notorious for companies like Fox News.
> Myself and others will step up and defend that right to any who attempt to take it.
I want to hone in on this particular statement you made for some clarification. Are you referring to violence here? If the state or law enforcement are involved, what's the response?
Just trying to get an idea of what "defend that right" is supposed to mean here, since I hear it an awful lot in regards to this specific topic.
I don't fully agree with the comment you're replying to in that Manufacturing Consent has nothing to do with those movements.
However, I completely disagree with your statements that:
>The mechanism is exactly the same.
>People don’t just wake up and change their minds. These opinions are filtered down to them.
People do in fact change their minds, for various reasons. These mechanisms are not the same because of power. Large institutions in the media that have lots of reach and authority act as gatekeepers to what is or isn't discussed. This idea that movements are propelled from sympathizers who are popular or have authority just misses how movements form and grow to begin with.
Yes they start out small, but they aren't cleared by the media or any figure before they grow. Movements grow with pressure through direct action to a point where the media cannot ignore it anymore. It is a challenge for every movement that exists.
