For-Profit Education?

For-profit education? Talk about unAmerican. And at taxpayer expense? Okay, well, that is American.

Let's also remember what life is like in places where the only education is limited to the private, for-profit sector of the economy. . . . Not pretty, huh?

via Portside:

When For-Profits Target Low-Income Students
Arnold L. Mitchem, 10.26.10, 12:00 PM ET

President Barack Obama News Conference on the Recovery Plan (aka Stimulus Package)

I think he did a great job. What did you think?

Case Study: Thailand

To be honest, I'm a little confused about what's going on in Thailand.

The former Prime Minister Thaksin is in England in self-exile. There was a military coup because PM Thaksin was accused of corruption. Charges included selling his family's controlling stake in telecommunications company Shin Corp. to Singapore's state-owned Temasek Holdings for a tax-free $1.9 billion. Critics allege the sale involved insider trading and complain a key national asset is now in foreign hands.

Thaksin also has been accused of stifling the media and mishandling a Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand that flared under his rule.

Here's the thing. People’s Alliance for Democracy, the coalition of businessmen, academics and activists, has accused the new Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat of being a political proxy for Thaksin, his brother-in-law. The PAD is now going for broke, according to many political analysts. The arrest of two of PAD leaders, Chaiwat Sinsuwong and Chamlong Srimuang, who were detained on treason charges in for their roles in the anti-government group's late August raids on government buildings, signals a renewed campaign to attempt to topple the government. Many believe Chamlong orchestrated his own capture to fire up the PAD protestors, whose enthusiasm for the battle has waned in recent weeks.

But, the Thai who live in the large rural sections of the country love Thaksin. Villagers point to the homes they built during Thaksin's tenure from 2001 to 2006, the refrigerators they bought, the general store they opened - all a result of the low-interest loans his government offered.

"Thaksin was the savior of the poor," said Kamcham Pokasang, 68, a farmer from Kok Loi in the northeastern province of Buriram, where lush green paddies of jasmine rice stretch to the horizon. "Before Thaksin we had nothing, only rice fields. Thanks to Thaksin, my family now has everything."

What's most sad is that the political crisis is a tug-of-war between Thaksin's supporters in the countryside, where two-thirds of Thailand's 65 million people live, and an educated middle class who feels threatened by the rural majority's growing political clout.

This isn't to say there hasn't been corruption and that Thaksin's opponents don't care for the poor - like our Republicans. They, unlike our Republicans, Thaksin's critics want to jettison his policies promoting privatization, free trade agreements and CEO-style administration.

There is more to be read about this story here, from BBC News Asia-Pacific, which leads with the fact that you know something ain't right when doctors break their hypocratic oath and refuse to treat injured policement. Also here, Bangkok Post General News details more Thaksin legal troubles.

Admittedly, I came upon this story because my mom has some thing about no one in the house changing the internet homepage, and the story popped up as soon as I opened the web browser. I caught glance of it just before I began to type in the web address to my email account. But, I think there's something here for us Americans to glean. And it does have to do with the difference between socialism and democratic socialism.

First of all, wow! I mean really politicians, do enter politics because you're corrupt? or is it that you were led astray?

Second of all, another wow! at how Asian countries deal with their corrupt politicians. Can you imagine what America would be like if we got rid of our corrupt politicians? And it's not even like Thaksin illegal invaded and sovereign nation or anything like that, and he's had to leave the country!

Third of all and actually most important, all kidding aside, I'm concerned that 1/3 of Thai people think they know what's best for the other 2/3. I'm concerned because maybe the 2/3 were bought off with the new houses and help entering modernity. I'm concerned because maybe the 1/3 are being so legalistic, they see the forest for the trees.

All said, I'm concerned that these groups can't come together and about the swirl of rumors of lies which are believed no matter how sensationalized or ridiculous. Sound familiar.

Listen, Americans. You can't make political decisions based on what you think is best for you as an individual. I mean, you can, I just question the wisdom of such thinking. And you certainly can't make a decision based solely on what the politicians are saying. Get informed. Find out what happens when. And especially, don't believe what one guy (McCain) is saying about the other guy (Obama, for whom I just voted!).

And you can't vote based on "scary" words like "socialism" or "spreading the wealth." Especially if you don't have any wealth, then, dumb- , er, I mean dear voter, you're gonna get some help from the government, which you probably deserve.

And you know what, I just can't figure out how we've gotten to this notion that a person worth is based solely on their paycheck. That if you don't make much, it's your fault, not the fault of the CEO who's milking your labor for all it's worth.

You gotta understand, in a capitalist society, labor is a form of capital. And many of us are allowing a labor to be undervalued. Whether it's because we're believing lies labor unions hurting rather than helping workers. Or, whether it's because you actually believe affirmative action puts whites, especially white men at a grave disadvantage. Or, maybe it's because you think we're being "invaded from the South of the border." Your labor is being undervalued and it's you're own fault. You don't keep yourself informed. You don't read all the different points of views about an issue. And Lord knows it seems like you can hardly read the truth about an issue, Mr and Mrs "I can't trust Obama because he's an Arab."

So, let's do some informing.

socialism: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

democratic socialism: a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government

Now, am I saying that we should move to a completely socialist society where everybody makes the same no matter what work they do or how hard they work? No, no quite. What I'm saying is we shouldn't privatize corporate profit and then nationalize corporate losses. What I'm saying is that instead of being a proud know-nothing, maybe you should find sometime to learn what's really going on. And, trust me, when it comes to telling the truth, NY Times laps anything owned by Ruport Murdoch. (And by the by, am I the only who thinks it's funny the truth always happens to be "liberal.")

And while I encourage everyone to vote, especially for Obama, for the love of all that's good and holy, don't vote for a fellow proud six-pack know-nothing, which amounts to a drunk idiot. And yes, that's a shot a Sarah Palin, I'm sure you couldn't tell.

LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas

Way to go LA! Now, all it needs is Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's signature.

LA blocks new fast-food outlets from poor areas
By CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press July 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES (AP) - City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet. The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.

The yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The action, which the mayor must still sign into law, is believed to be the first of its kind by a major city to protect public health.

"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

Representatives of fast-food chains said they support the goal of better diets but believe they are being unfairly targeted. They say they already offer healthier food items on their menus.
"It's not where you eat, it's what you eat," said Andrew Pudzer, president and chief executive of CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. "We were willing to work with the city on that, but they obviously weren't interested."

The California Restaurant Association and its members will consider a legal challenge to the ordinance, spokesman Andrew Casana said.

Thirty percent of adults in South Los Angeles area are obese, compared to 19.1 percent for the metropolitan area and 14.1 percent for the affluent Westside, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Research has shown that people will change eating habits when different foods are offered, but cost is a key factor in poor communities, said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

"Cheap, unhealthy food and lack of access to healthy food is a recipe for obesity," Brownell said. "Diets improve when healthy food establishments enter these neighborhoods."

A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South Los Angeles restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles.

South Los Angeles resident Curtis English acknowledged that fast food is loaded with calories and cholesterol. But since he's unemployed and does not have a car, it serves as a cheap, convenient staple for him.

On Monday, he ate breakfast and lunch - a sausage burrito and double cheeseburger, respectively - at a McDonald's a few blocks from home for just $2.39.

"I don't think there's too many fast food places," he said. "People like it."

Others welcomed an opportunity to get different kinds of food into their neighborhood.

"They should open more healthy places," Dorothy Meighan said outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. "There's too much fried stuff."

Councilwoman Jan Perry said that view repeatedly surfaced at the five community meetings she held during the past two years. Residents are tired of fast food, and many don't have cars to drive to places with other choices, she said.

Los Angeles' ban comes at a time when governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. On Friday, California became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lower levels of good cholesterol and increase bad cholesterol.

The moratorium, which can be extended up to a year, only affects standalone restaurants, not eateries located in malls or strip shopping centers. It defines fast-food restaurants as those that do not offer table service and provide a limited menu of pre-prepared or quickly heated food in disposable wrapping.

The definition exempts "fast-food casual" restaurants such as El Pollo Loco, Subway and Pastagina, which do not have drive-through windows or heat lamps and prepare fresh food to order.

The ordinance also makes it harder for existing fast-food restaurants to expand or remodel.
Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more.

"They should have better things for children," she said. "This fast food really fattens them up."
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.