Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Sports Attacks Public Education
"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." - Frederick Douglass
On Thursday, I was proud to take part in a student walkout at the University of Maryland in defense of public education. It was just one link in a National Day of Action that saw protests in more than 32 states across the country. I am not a student, and haven't been since those innocent days when Monica Lewinsky mattered, but I was asked to come speak at a post walkout teach-in about the way sports is used to attack public education. It might sound like a bizarre topic, but it's the world that students see every day.
At the University of Maryland, as tuition has been hiked and classes cut, football coach Ralph Friedgen makes a base salary of 1.75 million bucks, which would be outrageous even if the team weren't two-steps past terrible. Friedgen also gets perks like a $50,000 bonus if none of his players are arrested during the course of the season.
Ground zero of the student protest movement is the University of California at Berkeley. Over at Berkeley, students are facing 32% tuition hikes, while the school pays football coach Jeff Tedford 2.8 million dollars a year and is finishing more than 400 million in renovations on the football stadium. This is what students see: boosters and alumni come first, while they've been instructed to cheer their teams, pay their loans, and mind their business.
The counterargument is that college athletic departments fund themselves and actually put money back into a school's general fund. This is simply not true. The October Knight Commission report of college presidents stated that the 25 top football schools had revenues on average of $3.9 million in 2008. The other 94 ran deficits averaging $9.9 million. When athletic departments run deficits, it's not like the football coach takes a pay cut. In other words, if the team is doing well, the entire school benefits. If the football team suffers, the entire school suffers. This, to put it mildly, is financial lunacy. A school would statistically be better off if it took its endowment to Vegas and just bet it all on black.
If state colleges are hurting, your typical urban public school is in a world of pain with budgets slashed to the bone. Politicians act like these are problems beyond their control like the weather. ("50% chance of sun and a 40% chance of losing music programs.")
In truth, they are the result of a comprehensive attack on public education that has seen the system starved. One way this has been implemented is through stadium construction, the grand substitute for anything resembling an urban policy in this country. Over the last generation, we've seen 30 billion in public funds spent on stadiums. They were presented as photogenic solutions to deindustrialization, declining tax bases, and suburban flight. The results are now in and they don't look good for the home teams. University of Maryland sports economists Dennis Coates and University of Alberta Brad R. Humphreys studied stadium funding over 30 years and failed to find one solitary example of a sports franchise lifting or even stabilizing a local economy. They concluded the opposite: "a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area....Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city's economy." These projects achieve so little because the jobs created are low wage, service sector, seasonal employment. Instead of being solutions of urban decay, the stadiums have been tools of organized theft: sporting shock doctrines for our ailing cities.
With crumbling schools, higher tuitions, and an Education Secretary in Arne Duncan who seems more obsessed with providing extra money for schools that break their teachers unions, it's no wonder that the anger is starting to boil over. It can also bubble up in unpredictable ways. On Wednesday night, after the University of Maryland men's basketball team beat hated arch-rival Duke, students were arrested after pouring into the streets surrounding the campus. In years past, these sporting riots have been testosterone run amok, frat parties of burning mattresses and excessive inebriation. This year it was different, with police needing to use pepper spray and horses to quell the 1,500 students who filled Route 1. In response, students chanted, "Defense! Defense!" At the Thursday teach in, I said to the students that I didn't think there was anything particularly political or interesting about a college sports riot. One person shot his hand up and said, "It wasn't a riot until the cops showed up." Everyone proceeded to applaud. I was surprised at first that these politically minded students would be defending a post-game melee, but no longer. The anger is real and it isn't going anywhere. While schools are paying football coaches millions and revamping stadiums, students are choosing between dropping out or living with decades of debt. One thing is certain: it aint a game.
109 Comments so far
Show AllIt's true at high schools as well. Bond issues are taken out to improve the facilities on the football field and stadium, the gym, weight room, and so forth while art and music programs struggle to stay in existence. Class sizes increase as athletes get special "passes" in their studies (and get to bang the cutest cheerleaders).
It's all a bit sickening the privileged treatment the jocks get in school, as even my best friend -- a four letter man -- admits in private. If the teams won sometimes it would help ease the pain but of course most teams have losing seasons.
Stadium are the biggest con-game of all; promoted as bringing business to the area and actually ending up a sinkhole for dwindling funds.
Gary
"The mere athlete becomes too much of a savage”
-- Plato
You know it's bad when sports feel the sting of budget cuts, as is already happening in the Chicago Public Schools with the elimination of sophomore sports this spring.
More like the district overall. I was a bit mystified that my fourth grader this year told me they started having more than one teacher. I thought this didn't start until junior high where there was and english, math, science teacher etc. Until I asked him to bring home his textbook did I figure it out. Instead of the school purchasing a textbook for each kid, they purchased a book for each desk and they rotate the kids in and out of the classroom. He is not allowed to bring home his textbook because other classes use the same textbook.
Mind you, the district has a FABULOUS football stadium that rivals the local university. This is providing an education?
Very interesting! Thanks for your post. I have also read countless stories about committed teachers taking on a second job, and sometimes even a third job in order to provide their students with books and other supplies. The authorities are literally starving the system -- and now, here we are, students can't even take their textbooks home with them to study. How is that going to help them learn?
This, too, is an important issue!
What school was that? Students not being allowed to take their textbooks home is news but I wouldn't be too surprised to see another method of obstructing learning taking place such as the one you mentioned. This would be a slippery slope to forcing parents into considering online education or home schooling.
Eagle Mountain/Saginaw ISD, in Saginaw Texas. It is a suburban school system, and we pay about 3,000 in property taxes for this school. Granted, the population of kids has exploded in recent years with developments, but it is no reason to not purchase a book for each child.
"(and get to bang the cutest cheerleaders)."
What's so wrong w/banging the cutest cheerleader? and in retrospect the cutest cheerleaders usually end up becomig the fattest sorority girls and uber b$tch#s who just take half! I speak of personal experience.
Yeah, the building new stadium to boost the economy thing is a flat out lie. I haven't seen a single study that concludes that building a new stadium boosts the economy of a city. All it does is move money from other areas of the city, to the immediate vicinity of the stadium. And of course, from all taxpayers into the pockets of the team owners.
I don't have a problem with improving athletic facilities at colleges / schools, as long as EVERY student gets to use the stuff. Want to spends loadsa money on sports? Fine. Spread it around, every student benefits, not concentrate it on a few people. So much money is spent on sports, yet there is the rapidly expanding obesity problem.
Having taught in Georgia high schools, I can give firsthand testimony to the charge that sportsmania damages public education.
I was a hardass as a teacher and treated all students equally. I lost count of the number of times that I was called to the principal's office and threatened with my contract if I did not give preferential treatment to jocks.
One call from a lawyer stopped that nonsense. In the '70's, principals and school boards were more terrified of lawsuits than of losing records in sports.
One thing that I noted casts this whole question into the realm of the absurd. Those schools which did not tolerate favoritism for athletes were often among the
best schools in the state.
Oh, BTW, the jocks weren't screwing the cutest cheerleaders; the coaches were.
q
"I lost count of the number of times that I was called to the principal's office and threatened with my contract if I did not give preferential treatment to jocks." -- quickstepper
Good for you for challenging the system. Some teachers in my hometown didn't give preferential treatment, either, but for the most part, those teachers taught electives. All of our science and history classes were taught by coaches, and it was always very clear that their first priority was coaching and NOT academics. The requirements were such that they had to teach something beyond sports. Whether we learned -- was NOT a priority. Winning on the field, on the track, or in the gym -- that's what counted!
And, you are correct -- one of the very good-looking coaches, in his early 40s, dated girls in high school, despite the fact that he was married. To be fair, though, two other male teachers (drama and biology) were known to assault girls. The drama teacher was known as "four-hands-Adams." There were probably other teachers/coaches about whom I was unaware. It's shocking looking back on what went on in the schools, and to realize that no one in a position of power did anything about these issues. Of course, the community in which I lived was very conservative and very religious, and the churches TAUGHT submission of girls and women. In fact, most of the churches in Red Oak continue to teach submission of girls and women.
I also remember students talking about 'the jocks' raping a girl in my class -- although I didn't exactly understand what had happened until I learned that, she -- the student (not a cheerleader) -- was "pulling the train." In other words, she was inviting the rape/s. I remember, afterwards, looking at the football jocks and wondering which ones actually took part in the rape. I was NOT on the inside of this group, and the chattering was quickly hushed -- as often happens. Nothing happened to "the jocks." At least, we students did NOT hear about it, if there was any scolding, or repercussions, etc.
All of these issues are connected!
In NYC, we have a new Yankee Stadium, and the resulting stadium has been quite controversial -- with higher prices for tickets, and fewer seats available to the public, not to mention the tax subsidies the richest team in the U.S. received from the city. Jobs -- not so many!
At one high school at which I taught, one assistant football coach was denied renrewal of his contract (he hadn't yet achieved tenure). He wasn't given much of a reason but we all knew why.
Earlier in the year, the wife of the head football coach had arrived on campus needing to pick something up from her husband. This assistant had seen her in the hallway and told her that her husband ws in his office and not in the classroom. As a result, the wife walked in on her husband and a student in the most compromising position possible (the coach had apparently neglected to lock the door).
I have other stories just as bad.
q
PS Challenging the system over grade control was not hard. There had been a couple of recent court cases which had affirmed the principle that the classroom teacher was the sole arbiter of grades. Even the school board could not change them.
This situation resulted in a real problem at this same high school. Just a few days before the end of the term, one young first-year teacher simply disappeared and took his grade book with him. Because the reappearance of that gradebook was seen as a potential problem, the school board assigned a status of "pass" to each of this students, several of whom did not deserve it.
In NYC, there are TWO new stadiums, both built with taxpayer help. And both designed with express purpose of lining their owners' pockets even more, with taxpayer help.
You are correct, of course, about two stadiums having been built by the taxpayers. I used the Yankee Stadium to illustrate my point due to the fact that the Yankees are the wealthiest team in the country. Thanks for adding to the discourse!
"preferential treatment to jocks"
It's an example of corruption, plain and simple.
The time has come to ask ourselves a basic question...
Do we want our schools to turn out literate, educated men and women... or do we want them to mass produce mindless killing machines for the Empire.
If you choose education ... fund schools.
If you choose "terminators" ... fund the military.
I believe we know how Capitol Hill feels about the matter...
I don't have the answer, but I think funding schools also produces mindless machines for the Empire. John Taylor Gatto has some very interesting things to say on this subject.
Another issue, for me, is the cult of celebrity that accompanies the "athlete" throughout their careers. I agree with gdgoodman, even in high school, the boys received special privileges, both in and out of the classroom.
For years, I lived in Lincoln, NE -- the home of the Cornhuskers. Because I worked in the restaurant business, I dealt with the "decked-out-in-red" fans on Friday nights and Saturdays, beginning as early as 9 or 10 in the morning. Irving Fryar once-- or maybe more often -- beat up his girlfriend, with NO resulting consequences, as far as I know. At the time, I was working with the Victim/Witness Unit (actually a separate entity) at the police department, and I actually saw the police reports. Irving went on to have some problems when he was playing for the New England Patriots, too. Several years later, when Lawrence Phillips assaulted his girlfriend, he was suspended for a while, but playing football was more important than domestic abuse, and he was reinstated on the team. Lawrence Phillips went on to have countless issues with violence.
Coaches, in Lincoln, lived like royalty! In restaurants, they were catered to, and if you were a woman, a manager, a hostess/host, a waiter, etc., you simply took it if they patted you on the ass, etc. When I worked at the Tam O'Shanter as a bartender, a popular Lincoln hangout, Lance van Zant, defensive coordinator for the Huskers, one night when he was very drunk, came back behind the bar, twisted my arm behind me, and asked in a very drunken voice, "When youz goin' out with me?" I replied, "NEVER!" My reply startled him enough that he loosened his grip, I stepped away from him, and he moved out from behind the bar. The men sitting at the bar saw it all and did NOTHING! Maybe, van Zant was used to being able to intimidate women. I don't know. I will add that he was also a married man! For many, to be noticed means to be envied by those who weren't noticed. The whole scene, though, is repugnant, especially if you have an inside view! More than once, Bob Devaney, the coach who turned the Nebraska football program around, and was known to be a drunk, was literally carried out of Lincoln restaurants -- the best restaurants in town. Everyone knew, but no one was supposed to talk about it. If he was drinking at your restaurant, the crowds would follow!
The "rah! rah!" team spirit business, and it IS a business, does NOT appeal to me in the least! Red polyester is particularly nauseating to me -- and it was a "sea of red" coming my way, each and every Saturday. The team might bring people together, but what are the side-effects? Alcohol sales go through the roof, etc. These sports stars need to be held accountable for their actions in the communities where they live. If they are let off the hook when they are in high school, their behavior will only worsen -- unless they have some kind of a serious epiphany in the meantime.
For anyone to think these issues aren't political is to admit to being naive.
I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm sure this type of behavior happens all over the college football landscape. Thanks for sharing.
If there is one thing I have to say about Nebraska state other than saying it's a hick state in nature, it is this. Too much corn might have to do with the conservative nature of that state. Nebraska needs to grow hemp in place of corn. The soil would improve and so too would brain power and treating others with respect. What you said about alcoholism in NE relates very well to removing the prohibition on alcohol but not cannabis. Forget the THC controversy of cannabis. Cannabis makes people think well and keeps their minds much more stable while alcohol and too much corn kill thinking and promote more rowdiness. I'm glad you survived those days working in the restaurants and good luck to you in your future endeavors.
"Cannabis makes people think well and keeps their minds much more stable while alcohol and too much corn kill thinking and promote more rowdiness." -- maxpayne
I'm not so certain that "Cannabis' helps people to think well. However, people who smoke pot don't tend to become violent. I could relate quite a few stories about people who wake up to smoke a joint, and don't go to sleep without smoking a joint. To have a conversation with someone who is satiated in cannabis is NO easy task! Therefore, I abstain! That's my choice.
As for corn -- I'm not certain I get your point! Corn kills thinking? They don't grow corn on the plains of Nebraska, they grow cattle. Iowa grows more corn. Are you relating corn to making alcohol?
First of all, I think the image of "Herbie Husker' does nothing for the "image" of Nebraska. He does look like a hick. But, I can confirm, with some knowledge, that there really are smart and even some very progressive people who live in Nebraska. During the late 1980s and during the 90s, I worked in Community Radio -- and that experience was one of the best I have ever had! There is a strong arts community in Lincoln, and therefore, NOT everything is dismal. In Lincoln, the people have access to libraries, bookstores etc. People do know how to read! To paint with such a broad brush does not serve any purpose. In my posts, I was simply relating a personal experience, but my entire life did NOT revolve around this experience.
As for future endeavors, thanks for wishing me good luck. Currently, I live in NYC, and there is plenty wrong here, too! But, at the same time, there are some very good people, too -- like there are in most communities.
I didn't mean corn by itself but excess production of corn and using it for HFCS in most of today's sweets can.
On cannabis, I assume that you were referring to people satiating themselves with higher levels of THC as opposed to people ingesting cannabis with near zero levels of THC.
I apologize for misunderstanding NE. I haven't been to the central portion of this nation except for Texas except for brief business visits. I have confused corn producing states in the past but will try to correct that. I don't deny that there are no progressives in NE just as I don't deny that there are no conservatives in NYC but I can see where it's like raisins in a muffin out there. Going from Lincoln to NYC is like moving to another country sort of.
Thanks, maxpayne, for your very thoughtful reply!
Max Payne you are an idiot. There ARE conservatives in New York City just like there are conservatives everywhere else.For you to make an untrue statement max is stupid. If you believe there are no conservatives in nyc you are the biggest idiot in the world. there are conservatives in nyc you moron
Sports and sexism seem nearly synonymous. The fact that more and more women take part in sports hasn't changed things much at all--at least not yet. Masculinity means power over... and often power over women, or weaker men. Male athletes can deliver blows to weaker men during the game and in the corridors. Women after the game--in loss or in victory, and any other time they please. Those football stars who refrain from this are noted as the exception, proving the rule.
Sioux Rose
KAY: Great post! Thanks for sharing your own "field" research!
Thanks, Sioux Rose!
You can't live and work inside a football-crazed community and NOT notice all aspects of the sickness! On Saturdays during football season, the mailmen, delivering the federal mail, wore red Nebraska hats!
Sioux Rose
KAY: I lived in Gainesville, Floria for 5 years. That uber: Christian Bible-belt town worships (and I mean that word) its football team. Watching the women walk BEHIND their men in the idiot mascot colors or orange and blue on game days still repulses me.
Ironically, when I lived in Wembley Park (London) as a college student, I used to like to take the "tube" to Finchley Road. It had a lot of Arab restaurants and the best bread (all kinds of nuts and grains) I ever tasted. All the men would squeeze onto the tube to go to that stop for rugby or soccer (I forget) on Saturday afternoon. I actually met a very striking man on the train who I briefly dated.
I think sports keep many men frozen at an adolescent level of emotional (if not intellectual) development. The women who need to play with balls, I suppose they are not that different from the types who join the military so they can prove to their fathers, uncles, or older brothers that they, too, can be "all that they can be" as if the male (Mars rules) model is the ONLY one that's viable. Wake me from this nightmare...
With reference to what you said about sports, you might be right that sports can lure more people into leaning pro-military but I was also thinking that maybe the way it is the way sports is being treated. From young days to adulthood, children are often brainwashed into believing that it is all about winning and that playing sports for true enjoyment can wait. My mother-in-law described the Olympic games as teams going bonkers about winning and she might be right when one looks at what athletic celebrities inject and ingest themselves with just to stay in the game. The same thing applies to regular sports on the corporate media. Put together the attitude of "it's all about winning" and those aggressive drugs and the connection between sports and military becomes very clear. On the other hand, if people treated sports lightly by letting go of that "gotta win" attitude and enjoying playing sports in a relaxed mode, a connection between sports and peace could be made. Of course, not all sports can be done that way. Football is inherently a rough sport from the start but others like tennis, basketball, soccer, etc... could be played in a relaxed mode without getting tense about winning or losing. That could also lead to building less stadiums as students would play for health and true enjoyment.
PS:
Kay and Sioux, now that both of you mentioned your home towns, I think I will have to compare my hometown of VA Beach to both Lincoln, NE and Gainesville, FL. For a while, VA Beach was looking like it might be breaking away from the red but last year's gubernatorial race indicates a drift back. I don't know about the sports conservatism in my city since I don't get into spectators' sports much.
Sioux Rose
MAX: Gainesville is NOT my home town! Ugh! Heaven forbid. I have lived in many places from New York, to California, to various parts of Florida, to Puerto Rico, to London, to Singapore, and lots of points between. It was where I stayed for 5 years before my daughters went off to college.
"The women who need to play with balls, I suppose they are not that different from the types who join the military so they can prove to their fathers, uncles, or older brothers that they, too, can be "all that they can be" as if the male (Mars rules) model is the ONLY one that's viable. Wake me from this nightmare..." -- Sioux Rose
I agree -- paradigms and current models offer little beyond the "be all that you be," the slogan of the U.S. military.
I find Dave Zirin, the writer of this article, about which we have had quite an interesting conversation, to be a very interesting and unusual person! He connects the issues of sports, making no apologies, to the larger issues and communities.
BTW, in Lincoln, the most famous fan, until he died, was "Husker Bob." His front tooth sported a red "N!"
Now there is something that even a conservative would have to wonder. I mean let's face it. Conservatives will complain about money being thrown at education but with no improvements to show from that and in some ways they're right. What they won't attack are those useless stadiums. Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe that sports kills public education. Every few hours, getting up for a recess break and exercising those muscles is good for the heart and the brain so that students can learn well. The sad and ironic truth is that it is no coincidence that schools are doing away with physical education and even recess as an excuse to make up for budget shortfalls while simultaneously building stadiums to oooh and awe people into just watching a few people play sports but not get involved themselves. Ah, but then the junk food companies wouldn't be getting their business without enough spectators. Let's see now. I think there is some strange connection among spectators, junk food, and lack of physical exercise and it all has to do with thinking.
"Now there is something that even a conservative would have to wonder."
The conservative part of me agrees, see my earlier post.
Sioux Rose
MAX: You tied a lot of interesting, compelling data together in this well-presented post. Thank you.
Public schools should concentrate on scholastics, not big organized sports programs.
There has to be a happy medium, jakenewton. Schools should concentrate on scholastics, but sports programs also have to exist.
I think they play some role, that's why I specified "big". And if there are budget troubles it doesn't look good to continue spending even more on sports programs while neglecting more traditional acedemics. Maybe when you see big money coming in at the gate you have an indication that it should be a private sector thing?
I stand by what I've said.
I think I was in general agreement with you, if I wasn't clear.
Sports programs have to exist, but not in their current form.
Right now, sports programs are being used as sources of cheap job training for the pro leagues, NFL, NBA. The schools and colleges train the athletes for the pro leagues, the pro leagues don't have to pay for their training at all. Instead of the pro leagues having to bear the financial burden of training their sources of labour, the costs are passed onto everyone else.
Sports programs need to be altered to benefit everyone, every student.
"jakenewton"
I agree.
One of the big current obscenities is that the criminals who run this country are turning public access to knowledge into another form of competition.
Either your school "scores" or they will cut off your funding and then give that money to schools which are already ahead of yours.
Apparently, democracy means everybody has the right to dominate everybody else and if you don't dominate, then you are a loser and will be WILLFULLY left behind, and
Justice only means that if you don't dominate, then you get what you deserve, and
Pride is the highest acheivement.
I have long believed that the abundance of "business" schools in this nation was a definite indicator of moral bankruptcy.
The ascendancy of the MBA and Marketing are largely based upon the morality of sharks.
"Marketing"
Often ex-jocks/cheerleaders.
This morning, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed Diane Ravitch about public education and the "choices" represented by charter schools. It's very interesting! And, they discussed the current program of grants by Bill Gates -- "The Race To The Top." Your post reminded me of the program.
Go to:
www.democracynow.org
College football coaches get paid multimillion dollar salaries because they're geniuses. Everyone knows this.
Football is onely slightly more complicated than nuclear physics. After all, how much did Einstein make a year?
From sports to religion to the military, the main focus is to put blinders on people.
We are told again and again by these corporate-minded-dominators that our importance is determined by how much we give up "for the team".
Either you "go along to get along" or you will be ostracized.
The machine cannot deal with "peculiarities" (except when, in rare cases, it reinforces the illusion of the hero) because speed, competitiveness, and short-term monetary profit are seen as superiority.
Ultimately. it is an attack on thinking and reflection.
Don't think, "just do it" or Don't question, just believe - Becoming a tool is presented as if it is the greatest acheivement ("An army of one").
Virtue is seen as forcefulness (This is nothing new. The word virtue comes from "vir", as in virility).
Curiousity, individual identity, empathy, and especially the integration of these characteristics are seen as weaknesses.
"Winning" is supposed to be superiority, but superiority is actually the great fraud and deception.
Birdbrain Alley: Thanks for your great post!
"We are told again and again by these corporate-minded-dominators that our importance is determined by how much we give up "for the team"."
So would you say the individual is superior to the collective or the other way around? Or would you say instead that there is and interdependence between the two?
Thanks in advance for your or anyone else's answer.
I would say (as I did) that there is NO superiority.
Also, I think this goes beyond interpersonal human relations, it is also why we must see ourselves as part of the whole ecology of this planet (and beyond). We are not superior to anything. When we think that we are superior, either individually or collectively, we are agents of disintegration.
Domination depends upon submission. Ultimately, the dominator and the subjugated will both lose.
Even though I think all the major religions are about domination, I do believe that line they use about "the golden rule", but it must apply beyond just humans.
I agree. Thanks for the clarification.
This is an important point that extends also to our relationship with the environment. In Aldo Leopold's "The Land Ethic" as he is discussing the need for humans to change their role "from a conqueror of the land-community to a plain member and citizen of it." He has a great passage on the futility of the conqueror role:
"In human history, we have learned (I hope) that the conqueror role is self defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror knows, ex cathedra ("from the chair" ie with the authority derived from one's office or position), just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always turns out that he knows neither, and this is why conquests eventually defeat themselves.
In the biotic community, a parallell situation exists. Abraham knew exactly what the land was for: it was to drip milk and honey into Abraham's mouth. At the present moment (somewhere in the 1930's for Leopold, I believe), the assurance with which we regard this assumption is inverse to the degree of our education."
in other words, the less educated one is, the more likely one is to assume that the world is one's for the taking and raping (ie conquering). And the less uneducated one is, the less knowledgeable one is in what is valuable and what is worthless in communities. People may point to what an "educated scholar" our president is, and how well "educated" our "leading thinkers" are (Chicago School, Harvard tripe). I don't think this is necessarily so. I think it is more appropriate to say that he has been extremely mis-educated (as have most economists, policy thinkers, and politicians)(fool disclosure: part of my degree is in economics), in such a way that he is completely clueless as to what is valuable and what is worthless, ie the things a conqueror needs know in order to be successful. Conversely, if the conqueror truly knew what is valuable and what is worthless in comunnities, he wouldn't be a conqueror, he would be a benevolent and popular leader with no need to conquer because he would know what made things work without conquering, from within the community. "Obama the Community Organizer" was obviously a sham, "Obama the Conqueror" is a more appropriate title for this miseducated monster.
"EricGregory"
You bring up some good points, but the word "worthless" is a little troubling. We may feel disinterested and even disdainful toward something, but there still may be "value" to be found, such as lessons to be learned. That determinations of worth can be dangerous is what is often overlooked.
One thing you touch on, which I have wondered about recently, is the idea that even though someone, say Obama, has advanced degrees and an impressive reputation, does not mean (and often is indicative of a lacking) that he has ever had any curiousity about or ability to relate in a meaningful way to the "natural world".
Obama (and the majority of his "class") has acheived his position of power because he is obviously very comfortable wearing "blinders" and staying within a track.
The big problem right now is that too many people who are kept out of the "track" are still putting on their own blinders.