<p>I wonder how are you guys doing?</p>
<p>I was a big fan of your Harvard essay, Nick Zhao. Did they admit you with that "gem" on racism?</p>
<p>I can't find a copy of it <em>anywhere</em>! Perhaps you could e-mail me an excerpt from it?</p>
<p>Too many conservatives, I hate them.</p>
<p>I feel your pain. Maybe Brown might have been a better choice, with all the hippies, liberals and communists? Or perhaps UC Berkeley?</p>
<p>NickZhao, I loved the rejection letter you made up. Too bad i can't find it anymore. I'd like to read more jokes of that sort.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe Brown might have been a better choice, with all the hippies, liberals and communists?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So which state school are you at again?</p>
<p>I'm actually matriculating at an ivy league school in the fall. Just because I dislike hippies, liberals and communists doesn't mean I refuse to be around them. I like stirring the pot and starting arguments.</p>
<p>watercannon: What do you hold against public schools?</p>
<p>You'll have to forgive watercannon, he's probably a hippie/liberal/communist elitist, who looks down on state schools and the people who attend them. This is despite the fact that some brilliant individuals (likely more intelligent than he is) matriculate and attend them for a variety of reasons (financial and otherwise).</p>
<p>Cant say much for your intelligence gulielmo with your broad categorisation of Brown as being a hippie/liberal/communist school.. The fact that you classify it as being only that proves how little you know.. Its okay - you might actually learn with time if you overcome your retardation..</p>
<p>About state schools, nothing against them at all.. Just that overall, people who attend IVY's vs. state schools tend to have higher grades, SAT's etc.. Im not saying that this holds true for every kid, just on average.. </p>
<p>Didnt really mean to demeam state schools.. Just to point out how stupid guglielmo was with his broad and obviously off the mark generalisation..</p>
<p>guglielmo, it's true, many bright people attend state schools. Many of those individuals are also liberals. Hardworking, non-elitist, bright and, yes, the other l-word, liberal. </p>
<p>I wonder, what makes you dislike one massive chunk of the population in such a visceral fashion? You've described a pretty wide range of people there: liberals, hippies, communists, elitists. What is it about each group that you dislike so much?</p>
<p>They are anti individual and anti freedom. Liberals are non elitist? Hahaha!</p>
<p>I never had a problem with attending a state school. Neither has my roommate. Both of us are liberals. When I decided to transfer, it was because I wanted a broader curriculum--my school doesn't have very many resources for what I want to study--and better resources, along with a more intellectual student body. (This is a quality that is tough to find anywhere.) </p>
<p>In short, I had very concrete reasons for wanting to transfer. I couldn't give a fig about prestige, and probably never will. </p>
<p>As for anti-individual and anti-freedom, w1cked, could you please clarify? Perhaps by giving examples. They're usually quite helpful when making sweeping generalizations about millions of ppl.</p>
<p>Liberals support: Social security, welfare, multilateralism, Kyoto Protocol, government education monopoly, etc, etc. They also prefer high taxes, more environmental regulation, affirmative action, political correctness, as well as gun control or even banning guns, controlling free speech (conservatives too; McCain-Feingold for example) etc etc etc. All of the above are either anti freedom, anti individual, or both.</p>
<p>lol who the hell is nick zhao</p>
<p>Out of the issues you listed above, I would say that only three really matter to most liberals I know: Social Security, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and multilateralism. The rest are, quite frankly, Fox News charicatures of liberal issues.</p>
<p>I don't support the Kyoto protocol. I think env. reg works best at the local/regional level. And I worked for an env lobbying group. I was opposed to McCain-Feingold for the same reason--it undermined Buckley v. Valeo. Political correctness is overrated, and I don't pay any attention to it. (Actions mean a whole lot more to me than words.) Affirmative action was useful when it was first initiated. However, the future of the American meritocracy depends on HEOP and low-income programs--not race quotas. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that it would need to be re-evaluated and reformed eventually in the Baki decision; poverty has gotten much more complex in this country. With all but the most egregious weapons (i.e. plastic guns that can make it through metal detectors, etc) gun control is a waste of time. And I actually just had a second interview with a non-profit that lobbies for education reform. Through charter schools. </p>
<p>Multilateralism can save an awful lot of money. Social Security and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families can, too. In the case of SS programs, things like SSI and SSDI can be v. useful in decreasing state institution and prison costs. Keeping a schizophrenic in prison or an institution is a lot more expensive than giving them medicine, sending them a small stipend for basic needs, and giving them vocational training. In the case of TANF, a number of popular misconceptions abound. I've known ppl who were on it; one even went back to school is now a registered nurse. </p>
<p>Noone WANTS to go on public assistance. Noone wants to wind up in that situation. However, hard work and talent are not a guarantee of anything in this society, and the most basic safety nets are vital to preserving our social capital and investing in our human capital. Such safety nets are pro-individual, if anything, as they allow the individual in question to recover from hardship and then prove their worth once more.</p>
<p>They are not pro individual because someone else has to be forced to pay for them.</p>
<p>Public education is important to liberals too..Just look a all the unions such as NYSUT or whatever, and just look at all the politicans and their committment to education.</p>
<p>I did forget to add socialized medici..oops I meant universal healthcare. Now that is seriously anti freedom.</p>
<p>And you don't see that as an investment? If we don't have social safety nets, we will have to pay for the consequences of their absence. Someone will be forced to pay more for prisons. Someone will be forced to pay more for mental institutions. Someone will be forced to pay for shortages in hospital funding. And so on. Doesn't providing temporary cash for necessities (like medicine, rent, and foor) as well as training in vocational skills sound a lot cheaper? Look at what it costs to keep someone in prison, and then look at what it costs to keep them healthy and train them for the workforce. Either way, poverty, temporary hardship, and illness will persist within society. The question is what is the cheapest and most sustainable remedy for such issues.</p>
<p>As my mother always said: "I don't have a problem with paying taxes. I just want to make sure that they go to the right things." (She voted for Reagan twice, btw.) As Milton Friedman said: "We all have a little Keynes in us."</p>
<p>The point is not whether or not there will be taxes, but the most cost-effective ways of spending that money. As voters and taxpayers, we should see ourselves as investors in public goods. By paying more in state taxes and less--I mean much less--in federal taxes, there are many advantages to be had: </p>
<p>1) Virtually every investment in social and human capital is much cheaper and more cost-effective at the local/state level. </p>
<p>2) There is greater opportunity for oversight and scrutiny, and much less opportunity for govt waste.</p>
<p>3) State governments are much, much, much more responsive than the federal govt. </p>
<p>4) Different states have different needs. </p>
<p>I would much rather see my tax dollars go to keeping a mentally ill person from my state on their medicine and in a job than paying their prison expenses. I would rather see my tax dollars devoted to making sure children receive necessary immunization than I would see them devoted to paying their hospital fees after they have gotten sick. Investments in social and human capital are renewable and sustainable, and among the most valuable choices taxpayers can make.</p>
<p>watercannon: You're still attempting to justify your elitist statement by saying that students at Ivy League schools tend to have higher grades, SAT scores, etc. Just admit your eliticism.</p>
<p>No. I believe having safety nets is wrong. Its basically a crutch that people know they can fall back on. Thus, they won't give it their 100% before taking another job or something. I don't buy that being unemployment will just automatically cause you to become insane or committ a crime. I think that being down on your luck should teach you a lesson, and that you can learn from your mistakes. I don't believe it should be an excuse for coercing money. I do agree that I rather pay more states taxes than federal ones.</p>