March 27, 2024 • 23 mins
A Dr. Thomas Sowell short YouTube video criticizing our existing education system has generated an extended family discussion. Several questions emerge: Do we have a problem with our education system? Does our existing education system shortchange minorities?
Why is our system flawed, and what is a better solution? Many people have suggested that a voucher plan similar to the G.I. bill would at least give education systems an incentive to compete, instead of relying on monopoly power.
Dr. Walter Williams, another famous economist, has made an inflammatory statement about education, “If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to sabotage black academic excellence, they couldn’t find a tool more effective than the public school systems in most major cities.”
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Tumblr
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Why is our system flawed, and what is a better solution? Many people have suggested that a voucher plan similar to the G.I. bill would at least give education systems an incentive to compete, instead of relying on monopoly power.
Dr. Walter Williams, another famous economist, has made an inflammatory statement about education, “If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to sabotage black academic excellence, they couldn’t find a tool more effective than the public school systems in most major cities.”
Follow Us:
YouTube
Tumblr
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee withMike and Julie Libertarians Talk Psychology. This
is current commentary from an NBA businessmanand a PhD psychologist. Today, I
want to talk about education, andI want to admit that I had a
(00:24):
family discussion with my cousins and arethey in education? Well, at least
one of them is, but they'reall PhD aunt Sally was a school teacher,
Mama was a school teacher. Okay, so the big history of education
family. This is going to endup revolving around a Thomas Soule clip that
(00:45):
I passed along in defense of myargument with my relatives, and they said,
Okay, we want to talk furtherabout this. We want to have
a serious family discussion on this topic. So today's podcast is a warm up
for me to help me prepare forthis family discussion. I'm going to have
it about a month. You're gonnahave to sound intelligent. Yeah, I
(01:08):
can't just wing it on a thirtysecond YouTube video. I'm gonna have to
that's new. Be prepared. Ican't just wing it. You always wing
it. That's what I like,but that's what you like. So I'm
going to play this Thomas Soul clipconcerning education that my relatives say, some
of it is truth, some ofit they agree with, and some of
(01:30):
it they don't agree with. BecauseI'm thinking, how can you disagree with
Thomas Soul on anything? The guyis a phenomenal, long term, well
regarded economist. But we'll do that. So here is the clip from Thomas
Soul. Some time ago, Iremember a well on TV news band.
(01:55):
I asked him, why is itwhen I look on television and I see
what Black folks of saying, Isee them saying diametrically the opposite of what
I hear in the Black community,what I see in Gallup Poles and other
poles, for example, that Blacksin this country support voucher systems two to
one. Wats in this country prefermore strict enforcement of prime laws, pose
(02:19):
ota systems, and employment for collegeadmissions, and have never had a majority
in favor of bussing. And yetwhen I look at the TV news,
entirely different world is created before myeyes on that too. And he said
to me, well, we canput Ben Hooks or Jesse Jackson on TV,
but we can't put the Gallup poleon TV. Okay, So that's
(02:39):
the thing with Thomas soul And heis an economist. I don't know if
he would say it, but heclearly is the kind of economists I like
the Walter Williams, even Milton Friedman. They all kind of sound similar when
they talk on a topic. Theybelieve in individual freedom versus government intrusion.
(03:01):
So as I was listening to itthis time, I saw that he is
making the point that black leaders arethe ones pushing these issues, and that
on these specific issues, the blackpopulation. He makes the point the black
population has not in favor of thesethings. These black leaders are seeing something
(03:24):
different from what the black population issaying. And then he's implying that the
individual black families would be better decisionmakers than these black leaders and the big
politicians. And maybe that's the wholegripe to begin with, that the elites
of the world think, you know, these people are wrong. I don't
care if they are in favor ofvouchers two to one. They're not smart
(03:49):
enough to be making decisions for themselves. We are smarter, And that's the
elite's position, is that we canmake a better decision than you can.
Sue, Yeah, okay, AndI think that might be what this all
boils down to, is making betterdecisions for other people. Yeah, tyranny
and autocratic leadership. You know,I've been amazed by the autocratic leadership being
(04:15):
the default option in the psychologist.You know, I thought everybody studied the
same information I studied in graduate schooland knew that there's a continuum from autocratic
to participative leadership. And you know, you're not supposed to be an autocrat.
Intellectually, you can choose not tobe an autocrat. You can be
(04:36):
skillful at being a participative leader.But the psychologists are all default option and
autocrats. Now, maybe it's justthat same globalist elite mentality. Maybe that's
not how it was fifty years ago. I mean, I can't remember whether
my professors and graduate graduate school wereautocratic or not. I was in a
(05:00):
position to notice that, but it'sfor sure today I want to bring up.
I want to bring up the thingwe talked about this morning when we
woke up about Republican democrat versus eliteand the masses. And I had had
a discussion with our son about this, but you pointed out to me that
you wrote a editorial on this nottoo long ago, and I just totally
(05:21):
liked on it. Oliver, what'sthe song Richmond, Richmond above the Richmond
or north of Richmond, Richmond aboveRichmond, above Richmond. That's what the
song was about, was about theelites, about the elites. And I
wrote an editorial about it because itwas the first time it really dawned on
(05:44):
me that it's not a left rightvalues conflict. It's an elite versus populist
common man versus the elites. Andthe concern for US peons as we watch
thee and we watch the news mediummaking a big deal about whatever the latest
(06:05):
concept is. But the thing that'sscary for us is it looks like,
no matter what happens, the elitesseem to stir up some sort of controversy,
and then the Democrats and Republicans getin some sort of conflict about it,
and it almost gets out of controlso that the elite authority figures have
(06:27):
to come in and say, okay, guys, you need to calm down.
We need to take over control ofthis whole situation and calm you guys
down. And this is temporary situationwhere we're going to control things for a
while and then we will return backto the freedoms that you normally have,
and they never turns back. Theelites get additional power and additional control and
(06:55):
they do whatever level of it thatthey have to to maintain peace. Yeah,
and then it just goes you havea new reality and we peons we
object to that. We wish theywouldn't keep treading on our freedoms. Yeah,
and of course that's what you're saying, your redheaded singer. Yeah.
And lately there's been the Irish referendumfilled miserably in Ireland. I haven't been
(07:21):
watching Ireland, but Russell Brand reportedon it. The elites there wanted to
take the word family and women's dutiesout of the constitution, and the populace
came out overwhelmingly voted against it,and it was you know, we're seeing
this backlash against the elites. Theelites not only want control, they want
(07:43):
you to follow their religion. Theykeep thinking it's all about sex and race.
I mean, they hammer that homeis. I don't think there's any
real problem with sex and race anymore. I don't think there's a big gen
you mean in general, not justeducation, but in general. I don't
think I think people are comfortable withdiversity, they're comfortable with people doing their
(08:07):
own thing as long as they leavethem alone. But the elites would have
you believe that it's a big,big, traumatic situation and everybody's a bigot,
and everybody's racist, and everybody's sexistand homophobe and transphobe. They have
you believe that, which is alongthe line of what you're saying. Have
(08:28):
you believe there's a crisis. There'sa crisis in they're victims and dead bodies
lying all over the ground. Thedistinction I'd like to make, and I've
made it before, is that there'sa difference between racism and other issues when
it's supported by government. I don'thave any problem with individual I don't say
I don't have any problem. Isort of don't have any problem with an
(08:52):
individual who say is a racist ora sexist. They're just stupid. And
the marketplace will takes advantage of thosepeople. People who refuse to hire someone
because of their race or their genderare making themselves vulnerable to their competition.
Who is willing to hire a highlyqualified woman or a highly qualified minority.
(09:16):
So the marketplace takes care of individualproblems and those individual problems if people want
to be racist or sexist. Sowhat you're saying from a system standpoint is
freedom takes care of injustice over time. That's right. The marketplace competitors love
(09:39):
that if their competitor is being stupidand the way they're hiring, they want
to take advantage of that. Butif you've got a government institution who enforces
those prejudices, you've got a problem. You've got a major problem. And
that's what we've had in this countrywith sexism and racism. We have government
(10:01):
institutions who enforce those things, andthat was terrible. Yeah, just like
with the psychology board, there's thisorganization that took over the testing for psychology
license. They don't know what they'redoing. They have a racist test,
they have a test with adverse impact, they set the cutoff high, ridiculously
(10:22):
high, and they deny black candidateslicenses. And those are the elites doing
that, and they're impervious to feedback. You can give them feedback and they
just ignore it. And let merestate that in language that I can understand
is that you have a bunch ofblack PhDs. These are people that have
(10:43):
gone through the system and gotten PhDs, and they take a test, a
national test that the elites have seta cut off on this test that excludes
people who are normally perfectly capable psychologists. In other words, they because they
(11:03):
can their boards and conditions, whocan set a cutoff. And what they're
really doing is they are limiting thenumber of people that are in that profession
so those people can charge more moneyfor their services. Well, you think
you know the ultimate I mean,I've been puzzled by this. You think
you know the ultimate game going onis what you just said, But I
(11:28):
can't say that for sure. Idon't know what the game is. I
don't know why they fail to listen. I mean, it could be just
as simple as you know. Theprofession psychology is a profession where most people
are super arrogant and they just don'tlisten to reason, and they're committed to
their way of doing things, justlike the farmers committed to his or her
(11:50):
way of doing things. I mean, human beings are notoriously stupid acting well,
these boards should be. If theirwhole purpose is to protect the public,
they should be only excluding those peoplewho would be incompetent. No,
they're grossly incompetent. I mean,the law says it. So that's another
(12:11):
logical mistake they make is you can'treally say someone anyone can be incompetent to
a minor degree. But the boardsto support what you're saying, of course,
that the boards are only given theright to exclude someone they can prove
will be a danger to the public, not just incompetent, but a danger
(12:35):
to the public, which is adifferent standard. And they go way past
that. They go way past that, and they're excluding whole populations of people
that would that. They're excluding wholechunks of people so that they can make
money on their test. There's thatis the people who administer the test.
(12:58):
They're making money. They're making money. See to me, that's just simple.
It's all about the money. Butthey're excluding big chunks of people who
would never be a danger to thepublic. They may not be great psychologists,
but they're not going to be adanger to anybody. And your point
when you object to this is thatthey are excluding the therapists who are the
(13:20):
most likely to help the disadvantaged endof our population. Well, it's just
a difference in culture. I wouldn'tsay it's disadvantaged. I worked as a
clinical psychologist for a lot of yearsand occasionally I would have a black client.
And the reason I had black clientsis because there weren't enough black psychologists
(13:41):
for the black community to go toa black psychologist. Just like a woman
might want to go to a woman, a man might want to go to
a man. Yeah, you know, you want to select. But I
really struggle to understand the experiences ofthese black individuals because they have a different
cultural background than I do, andI think it was unfortunate that they probably
(14:05):
felt my lack of understanding. Itried to understand. I did the best
I could, but it would probablybe much much easier if they would have
had a person of their own cultureto relate to, and the trust level
would have been higher. Automatically,we saw something about some comparison of medical
(14:28):
doctors who were black with their blackpatients and how those black patients did so
much better if they had a blackdoctor, yeah, than if they had
had a white doctor. Well,I can tell you, as a female
male doctors, you know I haddislike them. You know, I got
over them pretty I mean, youcan find a good male doctor every now
(14:50):
and then but most of them are. They just don't have the I don't
care how much education they have.They didn't they didn't live the struggle like
this neurologist. I mean, Idon't know. Maybe I'm hard on mail
doctors, but this neurologist who isdismissive, I mean, I'm put up
with that bullshit all my life.You know, you go to a mail
doctor and you're having a baby,remember doctor job. You go to a
(15:15):
mail doctor and he thinks he knowseverything about you and your body and having
a baby, and he's a goddamnmail he's never had a period. Have
we told that story. I thinkwe've told it many times. We've told
him many times. I don't knowif we've told it on a post.
We can tell it again, Ohgod, Oh no, you've told it
(15:35):
on the podcast. But it wasfunny. It's funny enough to tell twice.
I think it's hilariously funny. Well, the first part of the story
is that you believed an individual choice. You didn't want some authority figure making
decisions about your having your baby,so you didn't want to go to a
(15:56):
hospital where you risk having them tieyou down. You wanted, well,
I believe in individual choice. Ialso believe in the research, and our
researched it and found out you werejust as safe, more so at home
than you were in a hospital.I found out the secret we're seeing this
now is how the medical profession keepseverything a secret if it has to do
(16:18):
with them making money. But soyou declared to me that you were going
to have a home delivery. Wefound one doctor who did home deliveries and
he was he did home deliveries becausehe was delivered at home, because he
must have been three hundred years old. He was like three hundred years old,
(16:40):
and you know, and looked atyes he did, with the gray
goatee and everything. Yeah, whata character. But I'll just tell the
one about the office visit where hesays he's going to I show up elate
for the visit and you two arearguing and he's declaring to you that he's
(17:03):
going to be the decision maker whenit comes to when you're going to get
the anesthetic, and you said,now wait a minute, this is me
getting this anesthetic, and I willmake the decision. You can recommend whatever
you want to recommend, but I'mthe patient and I declare when I get
this anesthetic, and he was tellingyou you know and no uncertain terms,
(17:23):
that he's the one. That's whenI walked into the room and YouTube both
of you are irritated and talking loudand everything, and finally you got what
ship going on now with this woman? And he said, what trouble is
she starting on now? He thinkshe's going to really lay down the law
(17:44):
with you. And he said,look, who's talking the young woman who's
never had a baby. And yousaid, oh yeah, how many babies
have you had? And that's whenthat's when I said, okay, you
too, It's time to calm downhere. So I played the peacemaker.
You played peacemaker after I made afterI won the argument, after you want
that was a perfect time, perfecttiming after I won the argument, because
(18:06):
he was stunned, he didn't haveanything to say. That was a perfect
company him. He realized he hadscrewed up, but he laid up that
basketball for me to dunk it in. Yeah, but that does go back
to the original dilemma that I talkabout here is who should be the decision
(18:27):
maker? And we are very convincedthat the individual consumer is should be the
decision maker in the school system.The individual parents should be the decision makers
and not the government elites. Yeah, let me throw in that one.
Keep in mind your next point,but me throw in that one thing,
(18:48):
which was a stunning piece of informationthat the FBI or the CIA had identified
parents at town hall meetings school youknow, at superintendent meetings for the school
boards, had identified these parents asterrorists. I mean, unbelievable, the
(19:12):
craziness going on right now. Well, the links that the elites will go
to to maintain their power, Well, there you go. I mean,
once power is lost and you andI are both in agreement that they barely
consider what's a better way to dothings. They just unilaterally claim that their
(19:34):
way of doing things is superior,but they don't consider that very much.
Well, you're pointing out a naturalproblem with power. Once you get power,
your defenses, your psychological defenses ariseto protect that power, and the
boundary around you or your group becomeshardened and you can't get new information in
(19:59):
to that system because the boundary becomeshard and so your decisions are crappy because
you can't process new information. Sothat's why power corrupts. That's why it
is so power always corrupts because it'shuman nature. One basic thing we have
here is do we really have aproblem with our education system? And I
(20:22):
think it's pretty I think it's prettyobvious. There have been a lot of
studies that show that our education systemis pretty sorry compared to other education systems.
Amount of money that we spend perpupil is much higher than anybody else.
So I think everyone can pretty muchagree that we do have a problem
(20:42):
with our education system. I dowant to list a couple of things that
some of these economists have said,and this one is the best one,
even though he doesn't back it upwith any facts. But Walter Williams made
the statement that the Ku kux Klanthey had wanted to institute an education system
(21:03):
that would set black people back,that they couldn't have done anything better than
what has been done in the publicschool systems in our city. That that's
how bad the system is for educatingminorities. But he didn't say why.
Well, he thinks parental choice iseverything. Well, the amount of money
(21:26):
spent. I already addressed that,But of course he talks about white people
have it better than black people do. But even white people, that fifty
percent of them go to college andneed remedial education on math, and the
blacks are much worse than that,of course, and that both of these
are getting high school diplomas, whichthe high school diploma is supposed to say.
(21:49):
These people have remedial education in theseareas and they don't even norse after
COVID and Milton Friedman makes a suggestionwhen it comes to the voucher system.
At the time he made this suggestion, he would saying the typical price per
student and the school system is twentyseven hundred dollars per student. He said,
(22:11):
I propose that we have a vouchersystem that lets the parents choose.
And he said, he made thecomparison, this is exactly like the GI
Bill. The GI Bill was avoucher system where you had the GI who
gets out of the military, andhe can take this sum of money and
use it in any school he wantedto. Therefore, the schools had an
(22:34):
incentive to compete against each other forthis GI money. So he said,
I suggest we do the same thingand take that twenty seven hundred dollars and
let people use it in any schoolthey want to. And he said,
in fact, I am so confidentthat the public schools are inefficient, I
would say make that voucher half ofwhat the school gets. He said,
(22:57):
public schools are spending twenty seven hundreddollars per student. Let's take half that
dollar figure and make that the voucher, and let the parents decide if they
want to take half of that moneyand apply it toward private education or charter
schools instead of the public schools.And he said, I'm confident that parents
(23:17):
won't make the right decisions for theirchildren. So that's all I have to
say about this. You've got anyfurther comments about it, I'm done.
Okay, that's it.
You're listening to the podcast Coffee withMike and Julie Libertarians Talk Psychology. This
is current commentary from an NBA businessmanand a PhD psychologist. Today, I
want to talk about education, andI want to admit that I had a
(00:24):
family discussion with my cousins and arethey in education? Well, at least
one of them is, but they'reall PhD aunt Sally was a school teacher,
Mama was a school teacher. Okay, so the big history of education
family. This is going to endup revolving around a Thomas Soule clip that
(00:45):
I passed along in defense of myargument with my relatives, and they said,
Okay, we want to talk furtherabout this. We want to have
a serious family discussion on this topic. So today's podcast is a warm up
for me to help me prepare forthis family discussion. I'm going to have
it about a month. You're gonnahave to sound intelligent. Yeah, I
(01:08):
can't just wing it on a thirtysecond YouTube video. I'm gonna have to
that's new. Be prepared. Ican't just wing it. You always wing
it. That's what I like,but that's what you like. So I'm
going to play this Thomas Soul clipconcerning education that my relatives say, some
of it is truth, some ofit they agree with, and some of
(01:30):
it they don't agree with. BecauseI'm thinking, how can you disagree with
Thomas Soul on anything? The guyis a phenomenal, long term, well
regarded economist. But we'll do that. So here is the clip from Thomas
Soul. Some time ago, Iremember a well on TV news band.
(01:55):
I asked him, why is itwhen I look on television and I see
what Black folks of saying, Isee them saying diametrically the opposite of what
I hear in the Black community,what I see in Gallup Poles and other
poles, for example, that Blacksin this country support voucher systems two to
one. Wats in this country prefermore strict enforcement of prime laws, pose
(02:19):
ota systems, and employment for collegeadmissions, and have never had a majority
in favor of bussing. And yetwhen I look at the TV news,
entirely different world is created before myeyes on that too. And he said
to me, well, we canput Ben Hooks or Jesse Jackson on TV,
but we can't put the Gallup poleon TV. Okay, So that's
(02:39):
the thing with Thomas soul And heis an economist. I don't know if
he would say it, but heclearly is the kind of economists I like
the Walter Williams, even Milton Friedman. They all kind of sound similar when
they talk on a topic. Theybelieve in individual freedom versus government intrusion.
(03:01):
So as I was listening to itthis time, I saw that he is
making the point that black leaders arethe ones pushing these issues, and that
on these specific issues, the blackpopulation. He makes the point the black
population has not in favor of thesethings. These black leaders are seeing something
(03:24):
different from what the black population issaying. And then he's implying that the
individual black families would be better decisionmakers than these black leaders and the big
politicians. And maybe that's the wholegripe to begin with, that the elites
of the world think, you know, these people are wrong. I don't
care if they are in favor ofvouchers two to one. They're not smart
(03:49):
enough to be making decisions for themselves. We are smarter, And that's the
elite's position, is that we canmake a better decision than you can.
Sue, Yeah, okay, AndI think that might be what this all
boils down to, is making betterdecisions for other people. Yeah, tyranny
and autocratic leadership. You know,I've been amazed by the autocratic leadership being
(04:15):
the default option in the psychologist.You know, I thought everybody studied the
same information I studied in graduate schooland knew that there's a continuum from autocratic
to participative leadership. And you know, you're not supposed to be an autocrat.
Intellectually, you can choose not tobe an autocrat. You can be
(04:36):
skillful at being a participative leader.But the psychologists are all default option and
autocrats. Now, maybe it's justthat same globalist elite mentality. Maybe that's
not how it was fifty years ago. I mean, I can't remember whether
my professors and graduate graduate school wereautocratic or not. I was in a
(05:00):
position to notice that, but it'sfor sure today I want to bring up.
I want to bring up the thingwe talked about this morning when we
woke up about Republican democrat versus eliteand the masses. And I had had
a discussion with our son about this, but you pointed out to me that
you wrote a editorial on this nottoo long ago, and I just totally
(05:21):
liked on it. Oliver, what'sthe song Richmond, Richmond above the Richmond
or north of Richmond, Richmond aboveRichmond, above Richmond. That's what the
song was about, was about theelites, about the elites. And I
wrote an editorial about it because itwas the first time it really dawned on
(05:44):
me that it's not a left rightvalues conflict. It's an elite versus populist
common man versus the elites. Andthe concern for US peons as we watch
thee and we watch the news mediummaking a big deal about whatever the latest
(06:05):
concept is. But the thing that'sscary for us is it looks like,
no matter what happens, the elitesseem to stir up some sort of controversy,
and then the Democrats and Republicans getin some sort of conflict about it,
and it almost gets out of controlso that the elite authority figures have
(06:27):
to come in and say, okay, guys, you need to calm down.
We need to take over control ofthis whole situation and calm you guys
down. And this is temporary situationwhere we're going to control things for a
while and then we will return backto the freedoms that you normally have,
and they never turns back. Theelites get additional power and additional control and
(06:55):
they do whatever level of it thatthey have to to maintain peace. Yeah,
and then it just goes you havea new reality and we peons we
object to that. We wish theywouldn't keep treading on our freedoms. Yeah,
and of course that's what you're saying, your redheaded singer. Yeah.
And lately there's been the Irish referendumfilled miserably in Ireland. I haven't been
(07:21):
watching Ireland, but Russell Brand reportedon it. The elites there wanted to
take the word family and women's dutiesout of the constitution, and the populace
came out overwhelmingly voted against it,and it was you know, we're seeing
this backlash against the elites. Theelites not only want control, they want
(07:43):
you to follow their religion. Theykeep thinking it's all about sex and race.
I mean, they hammer that homeis. I don't think there's any
real problem with sex and race anymore. I don't think there's a big gen
you mean in general, not justeducation, but in general. I don't
think I think people are comfortable withdiversity, they're comfortable with people doing their
(08:07):
own thing as long as they leavethem alone. But the elites would have
you believe that it's a big,big, traumatic situation and everybody's a bigot,
and everybody's racist, and everybody's sexistand homophobe and transphobe. They have
you believe that, which is alongthe line of what you're saying. Have
(08:28):
you believe there's a crisis. There'sa crisis in they're victims and dead bodies
lying all over the ground. Thedistinction I'd like to make, and I've
made it before, is that there'sa difference between racism and other issues when
it's supported by government. I don'thave any problem with individual I don't say
I don't have any problem. Isort of don't have any problem with an
(08:52):
individual who say is a racist ora sexist. They're just stupid. And
the marketplace will takes advantage of thosepeople. People who refuse to hire someone
because of their race or their genderare making themselves vulnerable to their competition.
Who is willing to hire a highlyqualified woman or a highly qualified minority.
(09:16):
So the marketplace takes care of individualproblems and those individual problems if people want
to be racist or sexist. Sowhat you're saying from a system standpoint is
freedom takes care of injustice over time. That's right. The marketplace competitors love
(09:39):
that if their competitor is being stupidand the way they're hiring, they want
to take advantage of that. Butif you've got a government institution who enforces
those prejudices, you've got a problem. You've got a major problem. And
that's what we've had in this countrywith sexism and racism. We have government
(10:01):
institutions who enforce those things, andthat was terrible. Yeah, just like
with the psychology board, there's thisorganization that took over the testing for psychology
license. They don't know what they'redoing. They have a racist test,
they have a test with adverse impact, they set the cutoff high, ridiculously
(10:22):
high, and they deny black candidateslicenses. And those are the elites doing
that, and they're impervious to feedback. You can give them feedback and they
just ignore it. And let merestate that in language that I can understand
is that you have a bunch ofblack PhDs. These are people that have
(10:43):
gone through the system and gotten PhDs, and they take a test, a
national test that the elites have seta cut off on this test that excludes
people who are normally perfectly capable psychologists. In other words, they because they
(11:03):
can their boards and conditions, whocan set a cutoff. And what they're
really doing is they are limiting thenumber of people that are in that profession
so those people can charge more moneyfor their services. Well, you think
you know the ultimate I mean,I've been puzzled by this. You think
you know the ultimate game going onis what you just said, But I
(11:28):
can't say that for sure. Idon't know what the game is. I
don't know why they fail to listen. I mean, it could be just
as simple as you know. Theprofession psychology is a profession where most people
are super arrogant and they just don'tlisten to reason, and they're committed to
their way of doing things, justlike the farmers committed to his or her
(11:50):
way of doing things. I mean, human beings are notoriously stupid acting well,
these boards should be. If theirwhole purpose is to protect the public,
they should be only excluding those peoplewho would be incompetent. No,
they're grossly incompetent. I mean,the law says it. So that's another
(12:11):
logical mistake they make is you can'treally say someone anyone can be incompetent to
a minor degree. But the boardsto support what you're saying, of course,
that the boards are only given theright to exclude someone they can prove
will be a danger to the public, not just incompetent, but a danger
(12:35):
to the public, which is adifferent standard. And they go way past
that. They go way past that, and they're excluding whole populations of people
that would that. They're excluding wholechunks of people so that they can make
money on their test. There's thatis the people who administer the test.
(12:58):
They're making money. They're making money. See to me, that's just simple.
It's all about the money. Butthey're excluding big chunks of people who
would never be a danger to thepublic. They may not be great psychologists,
but they're not going to be adanger to anybody. And your point
when you object to this is thatthey are excluding the therapists who are the
(13:20):
most likely to help the disadvantaged endof our population. Well, it's just
a difference in culture. I wouldn'tsay it's disadvantaged. I worked as a
clinical psychologist for a lot of yearsand occasionally I would have a black client.
And the reason I had black clientsis because there weren't enough black psychologists
(13:41):
for the black community to go toa black psychologist. Just like a woman
might want to go to a woman, a man might want to go to
a man. Yeah, you know, you want to select. But I
really struggle to understand the experiences ofthese black individuals because they have a different
cultural background than I do, andI think it was unfortunate that they probably
(14:05):
felt my lack of understanding. Itried to understand. I did the best
I could, but it would probablybe much much easier if they would have
had a person of their own cultureto relate to, and the trust level
would have been higher. Automatically,we saw something about some comparison of medical
(14:28):
doctors who were black with their blackpatients and how those black patients did so
much better if they had a blackdoctor, yeah, than if they had
had a white doctor. Well,I can tell you, as a female
male doctors, you know I haddislike them. You know, I got
over them pretty I mean, youcan find a good male doctor every now
(14:50):
and then but most of them are. They just don't have the I don't
care how much education they have.They didn't they didn't live the struggle like
this neurologist. I mean, Idon't know. Maybe I'm hard on mail
doctors, but this neurologist who isdismissive, I mean, I'm put up
with that bullshit all my life.You know, you go to a mail
doctor and you're having a baby,remember doctor job. You go to a
(15:15):
mail doctor and he thinks he knowseverything about you and your body and having
a baby, and he's a goddamnmail he's never had a period. Have
we told that story. I thinkwe've told it many times. We've told
him many times. I don't knowif we've told it on a post.
We can tell it again, Ohgod, Oh no, you've told it
(15:35):
on the podcast. But it wasfunny. It's funny enough to tell twice.
I think it's hilariously funny. Well, the first part of the story
is that you believed an individual choice. You didn't want some authority figure making
decisions about your having your baby,so you didn't want to go to a
(15:56):
hospital where you risk having them tieyou down. You wanted, well,
I believe in individual choice. Ialso believe in the research, and our
researched it and found out you werejust as safe, more so at home
than you were in a hospital.I found out the secret we're seeing this
now is how the medical profession keepseverything a secret if it has to do
(16:18):
with them making money. But soyou declared to me that you were going
to have a home delivery. Wefound one doctor who did home deliveries and
he was he did home deliveries becausehe was delivered at home, because he
must have been three hundred years old. He was like three hundred years old,
(16:40):
and you know, and looked atyes he did, with the gray
goatee and everything. Yeah, whata character. But I'll just tell the
one about the office visit where hesays he's going to I show up elate
for the visit and you two arearguing and he's declaring to you that he's
(17:03):
going to be the decision maker whenit comes to when you're going to get
the anesthetic, and you said,now wait a minute, this is me
getting this anesthetic, and I willmake the decision. You can recommend whatever
you want to recommend, but I'mthe patient and I declare when I get
this anesthetic, and he was tellingyou you know and no uncertain terms,
(17:23):
that he's the one. That's whenI walked into the room and YouTube both
of you are irritated and talking loudand everything, and finally you got what
ship going on now with this woman? And he said, what trouble is
she starting on now? He thinkshe's going to really lay down the law
(17:44):
with you. And he said,look, who's talking the young woman who's
never had a baby. And yousaid, oh yeah, how many babies
have you had? And that's whenthat's when I said, okay, you
too, It's time to calm downhere. So I played the peacemaker.
You played peacemaker after I made afterI won the argument, after you want
that was a perfect time, perfecttiming after I won the argument, because
(18:06):
he was stunned, he didn't haveanything to say. That was a perfect
company him. He realized he hadscrewed up, but he laid up that
basketball for me to dunk it in. Yeah, but that does go back
to the original dilemma that I talkabout here is who should be the decision
(18:27):
maker? And we are very convincedthat the individual consumer is should be the
decision maker in the school system.The individual parents should be the decision makers
and not the government elites. Yeah, let me throw in that one.
Keep in mind your next point,but me throw in that one thing,
(18:48):
which was a stunning piece of informationthat the FBI or the CIA had identified
parents at town hall meetings school youknow, at superintendent meetings for the school
boards, had identified these parents asterrorists. I mean, unbelievable, the
(19:12):
craziness going on right now. Well, the links that the elites will go
to to maintain their power, Well, there you go. I mean,
once power is lost and you andI are both in agreement that they barely
consider what's a better way to dothings. They just unilaterally claim that their
(19:34):
way of doing things is superior,but they don't consider that very much.
Well, you're pointing out a naturalproblem with power. Once you get power,
your defenses, your psychological defenses ariseto protect that power, and the
boundary around you or your group becomeshardened and you can't get new information in
(19:59):
to that system because the boundary becomeshard and so your decisions are crappy because
you can't process new information. Sothat's why power corrupts. That's why it
is so power always corrupts because it'shuman nature. One basic thing we have
here is do we really have aproblem with our education system? And I
(20:22):
think it's pretty I think it's prettyobvious. There have been a lot of
studies that show that our education systemis pretty sorry compared to other education systems.
Amount of money that we spend perpupil is much higher than anybody else.
So I think everyone can pretty muchagree that we do have a problem
(20:42):
with our education system. I dowant to list a couple of things that
some of these economists have said,and this one is the best one,
even though he doesn't back it upwith any facts. But Walter Williams made
the statement that the Ku kux Klanthey had wanted to institute an education system
(21:03):
that would set black people back,that they couldn't have done anything better than
what has been done in the publicschool systems in our city. That that's
how bad the system is for educatingminorities. But he didn't say why.
Well, he thinks parental choice iseverything. Well, the amount of money
(21:26):
spent. I already addressed that,But of course he talks about white people
have it better than black people do. But even white people, that fifty
percent of them go to college andneed remedial education on math, and the
blacks are much worse than that,of course, and that both of these
are getting high school diplomas, whichthe high school diploma is supposed to say.
(21:49):
These people have remedial education in theseareas and they don't even norse after
COVID and Milton Friedman makes a suggestionwhen it comes to the voucher system.
At the time he made this suggestion, he would saying the typical price per
student and the school system is twentyseven hundred dollars per student. He said,
(22:11):
I propose that we have a vouchersystem that lets the parents choose.
And he said, he made thecomparison, this is exactly like the GI
Bill. The GI Bill was avoucher system where you had the GI who
gets out of the military, andhe can take this sum of money and
use it in any school he wantedto. Therefore, the schools had an
(22:34):
incentive to compete against each other forthis GI money. So he said,
I suggest we do the same thingand take that twenty seven hundred dollars and
let people use it in any schoolthey want to. And he said,
in fact, I am so confidentthat the public schools are inefficient, I
would say make that voucher half ofwhat the school gets. He said,
(22:57):
public schools are spending twenty seven hundreddollars per student. Let's take half that
dollar figure and make that the voucher, and let the parents decide if they
want to take half of that moneyand apply it toward private education or charter
schools instead of the public schools.And he said, I'm confident that parents
(23:17):
won't make the right decisions for theirchildren. So that's all I have to
say about this. You've got anyfurther comments about it, I'm done.
Okay, that's it.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.