Occupy Tulsa

[casualplinker]

I apologize in advance for the sidetrack here. I just had a conversation with my wife yesterday where I argued how over rated a college education has become. For the record, I have a Bachelor's and a Master's. I am not saying there is no value in it but that it has become over rated. If you are going to college for a specific career path, i.e. doctor, accountant, lawyer, teacher, etc., then I get it. If you are going to college, just because that is what the President thinks you need to do, I am not sure that is the best decision. The most successful people I know did not go to college. We've lowered our academic standards to let almost anyone in and let almost anyone graduate. You can get an in MBA by going to class one night a week for a year, give me a break.

We have basically diluted the value of a college degree based on this ridiculous premise that everyone needs to go college. All these people are wasting thousands of dollars and years of their life, delaying the inevitable and wondering why business aren't lined up at graduation to pay them $100k for their general studies degree. I think being a mechanic, plumber, electrician or framer can be a noble and profitable profession. Why doesn't the president encourage people not to throw their money and tax payer money away on college when they may be best suited for another profession.

Contrary to what I've just stated, I'll encourage my kids to go to college but with a specific career path in mind. If they don't have a career path in mind, I may encourage them to work for a while and figure it out before going back to school. So Veggie, I applaud you for having ambition and a good work ethic. If you decide to go to college later so you can pursue a path unattainable without a degree, good for your too. I'm guessing you are going to be just fine either way.

The most successful people I know DID go to college. It may be correct in your mind that a college education is overated. And for some folks, this may be true. BUT, this is the USA and people have choices, if they choose to go to college just for the sake of it, then that's cool. In fact, if they choose to major in Poetry or Art or History, why that's cool too. Who can say there is little value in a liberal arts education? You? Me? No; only those who choose to seek and attain it. There may be lots of people with degrees working fast-food or other service type of jobs, but there are also many people who have attained good, well paying jobs simply because they have a degree too. While not all of us can get into Harvard or Yale, or even OU or OSU right out of high school, there are always alternative routes to take; community colleges hold to the open-access principle, for example. Over 50% of enrolled college students in the US today are at community colleges. Many of those students will learn that they can learn and will go on to 4-year schools and attain something they thought they couldn't have. In Oklahoma today, most community colleges are right around the $100 to $110 mark per credit hour. That's a bargain if compared to other states especially. You can go to a community college then on to a regional 4-year school like Southwestern or UCO and get a Bachelor's degree for right around $16,000 total. You can hardly buy a good used car for that. Is the continuance of higher ed and the opportunity it gives worth that much? I argue so. If you take away access, you may take away opportunity and a chance at a better life. You wanna get into a situation where some "higher authority" decides who can and canot seek higher education in this country? I don't.

As far as education aimed at a specific career field, like medicine or technology, read up on the numbers, do a little research and you'll find out that the literature suggests that many of tomorrow's jobs have not even been invented yet. Example, the proliferation of technology and it's impact on how we communicate. Just a few short years ago, communication via media such as this forum or FACEBOOK were not even around! The advent and rise of the machine (PC's) has changed the way we communicate, advertise, buy and sell, and live.

I well remember pre-social media days. Now, many, and maybe even most people rely on technology that wasn't around just a few years ago to communicate their thoughts. It took critical thinking skills to develop that kind of technology; I say that a good higher ed experience is as much about learning to think like that, critical thinking, that it is about "specific job training".

Now, having said all that, of course we still need mechancis, plumbers, electricians, sheet metal workers, cops, firemen, truck drivers etc. Let the individual make the choice. If they choose to give college a shot, and decide it's not for them , then is the dollars spent on learning that fact a waste? I don't think it is.

 

[twoguns?]

Blah diblah Blah Blah di Blah.....wheres my cut..

 

[vvvvvvv]

...but you cant sustain yourself making quilts and selling them with a one person shop in this day and age...

If they are good enough quality, you can. But most people aren't capable of that kind of output.

You can go to a community college then on to a regional 4-year school like Southwestern or UCO and get a Bachelor's degree for right around $16,000 total.

The more that state funding to the colleges gets cut, the more they raise their tuition. SWOSU's running $24-$27K for a bachelor's degree right now, excl. books (if you buy them, I knew a lot of people that shared) and fees. When I went to college in 2003 and 2004, it would have cost around $10K in tuition. The only reason that I sat through my Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 classes is that I wanted out of high school early. Fall 2003 was a 2 week Government class to get my high school government credit, and Spring 2004 was Algebra so I could get that last math credit.

I could easily get a degree if they'd let me test out of ALL (or at least a large majority) of the courses. The reason I quit school is because it was a waste of time for me to sit there for an entire semester and listen to an explanation of stuff that I could learn on my own in a day or two.

Organized learning has never worked for me. Just ask my teachers about me doing just enough in high school to get a "B" average so I didn't look naked at graduation. There are more important things about educating a person than their born-on date.

Do some people need a college education? Yes. Does college educate everyone who receives a degree? No. I've met some people in my field that have Masters degrees in Computer Science (or something related), yet have trouble comprehending basic concepts that would have been needed to make it through their first semester C.S. course. I've worked with people straight out of college that were 3-5 years behind on current technology trends because the curriculum just can't keep up. On top of that, you can usually filter the college/non-college people in my field based on their critical thinking skills: the ones who went to college generally believe that there is only one right way to do something (usually in an elegant manner), while the ones who didn't look for the simplest approach to solving the problem and only make the solution more complex as absolutely necessary.

But still, it's every individual's choice whether or not they want to go to college. Even so, most of the people that I know personally who earn consistent 6-figure incomes did not get a college degree.

 

[WWB]

Ann Coulter says it well.






This Is What a Mob Looks Like

by Ann Coulter

10/05/2011

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want -- as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate "Wall Street." You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore -- which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd -- besides the smell of patchouli -- is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic.

They chant: "The world is watching!" "This is how democracy looks!" "We are the ones we've been waiting for!"

At the risk of acknowledging that I am, in fact, "watching," this is most definitely not how democracy looks.

Sally Kohn, a self-identified "community organizer," praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN's website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party, which she claimed, "helped spark the American Revolution," adding, "and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent."

First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body–pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere's nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)

Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable.

Our revolution -- the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 -- was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke​.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.

In that document, our Christian forebears set forth in blindingly clear terms their complaints with British rule, their earlier attempts at resolution, and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence from the crown.

The rebel armies defending that declaration were not a disorganized mob, chanting slogans for the press and defacing public property.

Even the Minutemen, whose first scuffle with the British began the war, were a real army with ranks, subordination, coordination, drills and supplies. There is not a single mention in the historical record of Minutemen playing hacky-sack, burning candles assembled in "peace and love," or sitting in drum circles.

A British lieutenant-general who fought the Minutemen observed, "Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob will find himself very much mistaken."

By contrast, the directionless losers protesting "Wall Street" -- Obama's largest donor group -- pose for the cameras while uttering random liberal cliches lacking any reason or coherence.

But since everything liberals do must be heroic, the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd insists on comparing themselves to this nation's heroes.

One told Fox News' Bill Schulz: "I was born to be here, right now, the founding fathers have been passing down the torch to this generation to make our country great again."

The Canadian environmental group behind Occupy Wall Street, Adbusters, has compared the Wall Street "revolutionaries" to America's founding fathers. (Incidentally, those who opposed the American Revolution fled after the war to ... Canada.)

The -- again -- Canadians exulted, "You sense they're drafting a new Declaration of Independence."

I suppose you only "sense" it because they're doing nothing of the sort. They say they want Mao as the president -- as one told Schulz -- and the abolition of "capitalism."

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC's Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama's plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn't arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They're perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama's unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement's inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy's seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year's election.

That's what democracy looks like.

 

[Bootleggn]

“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.” - Confucius

“Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.” - Ayn Rand

 

[MaddSkillz]

If Obama supports these protests it's nothing I want to be a part of.

 

[Billybob]

To say it's simply capitalism v. socialism leaves out a lot of details. Well at least we know it's all "legal", after all it's not like the banks got their own courts set up specifically for what they wanted, (who paid for those courts?, taxpayers again) and at least there aren't any questions/investigations about accurate payment records, bogus docs, or fraud upon the court, well...

But at least we don't have to ask Congress if the banks even had legal standing to foreclose in some cases, well...

And thank goodness there's not a new Attorney General's settlement agreement being talked about, which some contend is another bailout for the banks, (last article) to limit current and possibly future liability right as more suits come out involving taxes not being paid, well...

I'm not saying I agree or side completely with the all of the protesters, but there are as said before some things that should be looked at to prevent it happening again.
And I do believe in personal responsibility, those who screwed up their own deal should pay but so should those who screwed others or helped/allowed/covered said screwing.

Regardless of how we feel about the protest we should all at least hope/pray they stay peaceful and possibly that maybe something positive can come from it even if it's just learning a little more and agreeing to peacefully disagree.

"Rocket Docket" rushing foreclosures, lawyers say
["The fundamental problem," said Chip Parker, an attorney who specializes in foreclosure defense, "is that for the first time, this court was created with the specific goal of reducing foreclosures 62 percent."

It's designed with a result in mind, and that's not how justice is supposed to work."

At least seven states are investigating allegations of wrongdoing involving bogus signatures and missing documents.

Several cases have been tossed out by Florida judges who found fraud. Duval Circuit Judge Jean Johnson declared that one South Florida law firm under investigation, Shapiro & Fishman, had "committed fraud on this court" on behalf of Chase. She dismissed the case in August, finding in favor of Parker's client, because of fraudulent documents.]


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/re...ushing-foreclosures-lawyers-say#ixzz1a1ML7BXT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional hearing: Do banks lack the legal standing to foreclose?
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
12/ 2/2010

A state judge, law professor and consumer attorneys are testifying before Congress that in many cases the banks trying to foreclose on borrowers do not have the legal standing to do so, according to prepared remarks.


University of Utah law professor Christopher L. Peterson raised further questions about MERS in his written remarks, saying the system has a "problematic legal foundation" because it undermines state recording laws.

Calling MERS a "deceptive" and "anti-democratic" institution because it allows 20,000 people who are not its employees but rather employees of mortgage lenders, servicers and law firms to sign mortgage paperwork in its name, Peterson argued that the practice clouds the ownership of the loan.
Peterson called on Congress to bar Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae from purchasing MERS-recorded loans--echoing legislation introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) last month.

Joseph R. Mason, a banking professor from Louisiana State University, said legislation may be necessary to clarify the status of MERS.

"MERS presents two main risks in the current marketplace," he testified. "The first regards whether MERS has legal standing to foreclose in its own name. The second is whether loans recorded in MERS can be foreclosed at all."


Thomas Cox, a pro bono attorney from Maine, took one of the depositions of Ally Financial "robo-signer" Jeffrey Stephan, who triggered the recent uproar. Cox refuted claims by banks that they are foreclosing only on borrowers who are hopelessly behind in their payments.

"I hear and see reports of wrongful foreclosure actions on virtually a daily basis," Cox said in his written testimony.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/12/congressional_hearing_do_banks.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invasion of the Home Snatchers
[Kowalski has seen hundreds of cases like the one he's presenting this morning. It started back in 2006, when he went to Pennsylvania to conduct what he thought would be a routine deposition of an official at the lending giant GMAC. What he discovered was that the official - who had sworn to having personal knowledge of the case - was, in fact, just a "robo-signer" who had signed off on the file without knowing anything about the actual homeowner or his payment history. (Kowalski's clients, like most of the homeowners he represents, were actually making their payments on time; in this particular case, a check had been mistakenly refused by GMAC.) Following the evidence, Kowalski discovered what has turned out to be a systemwide collapse of the process for documenting mortgages in this country.]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys General Settlement: The Next Big Bank Bailout?

[In fact, any federal foreclosure settlement along the lines of what’s been proposed will amount to a last round of post-2008-crisis bailouts. I talked to one foreclosure activist over the weekend who put it this way: “[The AG settlement] will be a bigger bailout than TARP.”

How? The math actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, when you look at it closely.

Any foreclosure settlement will allow the banks to pay one relatively small bill to cover all of their legal liabilities stemming from the monstrous frauds they all practiced in the years leading up to the 2008 crash (and even afterward), when they all schemed to create great masses of dicey/junk subprime loans and then disguise them as AAA-rated paper for sale to big private investors and institutions like state pension funds and union funds.

To recap the crime: the banks lent money to firms like Countrywide, who in turn created billions in dicey loans, who then sold them back to the banks, who chopped them up and sold them to, among other things, your state’s worker retirement funds.

So this is bankers from Deutsche and Goldman and Bank of America essentially stealing the retirement nest eggs of firemen, teachers, cops, and other actors, as well as the investment monies of foreigners and hedge fund managers.To repeat: this was Wall Street hotshots stealing money from old ladies.]


http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...settlement-the-next-big-bank-bailout-20111005

 

[soonersfan]

Wow, perhaps reading comprehension should be emphasized more in college. Somehow an argument that a degree is now overrated and that the importance of it is over emphasized was turned into advocating limited access to education. So you can buy a liberal arts degree for $16,000 in Oklahoma. You are not necessarily a failure without the degree and with a little ambition and a good idea, you might turn your time and money into a whole lot more.

You mentioned Facebook, it was started by a college dropout as was Microsoft, Dell and Virgin. Steve Jobs might be considered a "critical thinker" by a few people. I wonder where he developed his "critical thinking" since he dropped out of college after one semester. In fact, the leading "critical thinkers" in technology are learning on the fly in the basements of their parents' houses, not in college. My point was/is that we over emphasize education and prop it up as the only avenue to success in life. That is simply not the case. We should be talking about values like a good work ethic, ingenuity, and the rewards for taking risks (capitalism). These are the values that made our country great and prosperous, not our universities.

Our high school seniors are given the proposition of college or bust. So what if they don't want to go to college? Why don't we give them a balanced view of their options in life? As I stated before, I have two degrees and will encourage my kids to go to college. I'm not saying no one should go or that it shouldn't be available to people. I am just tired of constantly hearing about higher education, green jobs, more government spending on higher education and then seeing the misguided expectations of college graduates. Sending everyone to college is not the answer. Hard work, individual responsibility and limited government is.

 

[Hobbes]

but you cant sustain yourself making quilts and selling them with a one person shop in this day and age[/B]...that's not my fault and I shouldn't have to give you money so you can continue doing that.

No, she can't compete on the basis of price with quilts made by child labor in China. That's a fact.

And who imports those quilts from China? And who lobbies the politicians for more "Free Trade" agreements so they can import even more quilts from China?
Who donates millions to politicians for those free trade agreements so they can make Billions in profits?

Think about it. Who is really making policy in this country?

 

[Hobbes]

No, she can't compete on the basis of price with quilts made by child labor in China. That's a fact.

And who imports those quilts from China? And who lobbies the politicians for more "Free Trade" agreements so they can import even more quilts from China?
Who donates millions to politicians for those free trade agreements so they can make Billions in profits?

Think about it. Who is really making policy in this country?

Is it the same people who employ the illegals here in America and support more of the same so they can buy cheap labor here and abroad both?