Enron Chiefs found Guilty

[GameSnake]

Justice served, for now, in Enron case

"Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling presided over the greatest corporate fraud since at least the Great Depression. Yet on the witness stand, these onetime Smartest Guys in the Room showed no remorse."

I'm glad these white collar assholes got what they deserved.

[dark_drake]

"I've always known Skilling had no integrity," said former Enron employee and Valley resident Joe Mulnix, who said the company's collapse "destroyed our family and our kids' futures."

I really don't believe it's fair to blame these criminals for the future of the children.

[GameSnake]

Enron ruined several people's lives by liquidating thier 401ks, retirement plans and investments and e.t.c.

[Sidoh]

Public School is free.  If they're motivated enough to apply their best efforts, their success will come regardless of their family's past financial situation.

I personally think that's a rediculous exaggeration.

[Joe]

Except one thing, though - public schools are horrible because you're around people (staff and peers alike) that couldn't care less about anything.

[Sidoh]

Except one thing, though - public schools are horrible because you're around people (staff and peers alike) that couldn't care less about anything.

That's a very large, very stupid generalization.

A teacher I've had all four years of my high school career is extraordinarily caring, giving and loving of all of his students.  In fact, almost all of the teachers at my school are that way.  There are several kids who don't share the attitude that you describe as well.

[Eric]

If they're motivated enough to apply their best efforts, their success will come regardless of their family's past financial situation.

You know this how?  You're still in high school, aren't you?

[Sidoh]

You know this how?  You're still in high school, aren't you?

Their due success is going to come whether their family is rich or not.  True, even if they do apply themselves as much as they are able, they might not be relatively successful.  However, it's much more likely that they do become so if they actually try.

[Joe]

I think LoRd is talking about college tuition.

I agree Sidoh, most teachers and students aren't like that, although there are a few teachers who are (like my gym teacher, who couldn't care less if someone gets tackled and strangled while playing speedball), or this one kid Tom, who was the one tackling and strangling. =p

[Eric]

You know this how?  You're still in high school, aren't you?

Their due success is going to come whether their family is rich or not.  True, even if they do apply themselves as much as they are able, they might not be relatively successful.  However, it's much more likely that they do become so if they actually try.

You did not answer my question: You know this how?  The United States has been proven to be one of the most difficult countries to overcome your born-in class designation -- if you grow up poor, you will most likely remain poor for the duration of your life; if you grow up rich, you have a good chance of remaining rich for the rest of your life.

Public schooling is an option while you are young; however college costs money and financial aid can only take you so far.  The college that you go to determines your place and line of work.  Going to a low-rated, cheap, community college will not earn you a job at a fortune 500 company, but it will earn you a job -- a much lower paid one.  This assumption, of course, is assuming that you follow the traditional linear path of life (elementary school -> junior high school -> high school -> college -> work -> family) that many assume everyone follows when most do not.  Those without significant financial support are forced to obtain jobs during their early years of life.  This, in turn, reduces the amount of time they can spend going to school and generally results in lower grades due to stress and lack of sufficient study time.  The need for food, clothes and a home outweighs one's schooling goals, whether they're truly motivated or not.  Those who live in low-income neighborhoods are also more exposed to bad influences such as drugs, alcohol, unprotected sex, and school's filled with teachers who truly do not care if someone falls behind (I've seen this occur first- and second-hand at one of the most reputable high schools in my middle-class district).  These factors can further hinder their chances of following the traditional path.  Work ethic is not necessarily a determinant factor of success.  Your environment plays a significant role in your future.

[Sidoh]

You did not answer my question: You know this how?  The United States has been proven to be one of the most difficult countries to overcome your born-in class designation -- if you grow up poor, you will most likely remain poor for the duration of your life; if you grow up rich, you have a good chance of remaining rich for the rest of your life.

Because it's an intuitively obvious, completely logical conclusion.  I understand that their childhood status gives them a certain amount of predisposition toward the success they'll have later in life, but if they remain motivated, I really don't see much that is hindering them.  College will be harder to pay for, but that's why loans exist.  A person's attitude makes an outstanding difference in their potential.  If they think they will succeed despite their poor home situation and apply themselves, they probably will.

Public schooling is an option while you are young; however college costs money and financial aid can only take you so far.  The college that you go to determines your place and line of work.  Going to a low-rated, cheap, community college will not earn you a job at a fortune 500 company, but it will earn you a job -- a much lower paid one.  This assumption, of course, is assuming that you follow the traditional linear path of life (elementary school -> junior high school -> high school -> college -> work -> family) that many assume everyone follows when most do not.  Those without significant financial support are forced to obtain jobs during their early years of life.  This, in turn, reduces the amount of time they can spend going to school and generally results in lower grades due to stress and lack of sufficient study time.  The need for food, clothes and a home outweighs one's schooling goals, whether they're truly motivated or not.  Those who live in low-income neighborhoods are also more exposed to bad influences such as drugs, alcohol, unprotected sex, and school's filled with teachers who truly do not care if someone falls behind (I've seen this occur first- and second-hand at one of the most reputable high schools in my middle-class district).  These factors can further hinder their chances of following the traditional path.  Work ethic is not necessarily a determinant factor of success.  Your environment plays a significant role in your future.

As I've already mentioned, it depends on the child's attitude.  As long sa they remain focused, motivated and optimistic about their future, they will probalby do much better than what seems to be destined.  I don't really disagree with you, but you have to realize that there are exceptions.

[Eric]

Yes, there are exceptions, but the same exceptions apply to your conclusion: someone who remains motivated throughout his/her entire life is not guaranteed a future specifically because of the fact that they remained motivated.

[GameSnake]

By assuming what Enron did was "no big deal" shows me that you know nothing about this and shouldn't have posted in this thread.

[d&q]

Who said it was no big deal?

[Sidoh]

By assuming what Enron did was "no big deal" shows me that you know nothing about this and shouldn't have posted in this thread.

Gamesnake, your stupidity never fails to amuse me.

I'm extremely tired of you failing to recognize what someone is addressing, or assuming they're addressing a larger matter just because they criticize one aspect of something.

Please, just shut up.