I read it. Had it said, "X% of black children can't swim because they aren't allowed into pools," I'd say, "Yes, that's a huge problem, let's do something about it."
What bothered me about both the article and your initial presentation of it was the implication that there's something wrong with those kids. That everyone SHOULD know how to swim and are deficient if they don't. I'd say everyone should have the RIGHT to learn if they so choose, but I don't like government saying "You should do or not do this" any more than they absolutely have to.
My dad can't swim, and the only way it affects him is that he doesn't go swimming or boating. It seems pretty simple to me: if you do this dangerous thing that you have no control over, it might be fatal. I went skydiving fully aware that it carried the risk of death because I can't fly. If black kids are going out on lakes without knowing how to swim... well, they're taking the same chance. Why would their parents allow this? I guess I just think that something like this should be more left to the control of the parents, not government. If the kids want to go swimming/boating, and don't know how to swim, the parents should either say, "Hell no!" or see that the kid's taught to swim first. I don't like nanny government taking a hand in this.
What bothered me about both the article and your initial presentation of it was the implication that there's something wrong with those kids.
*looks up at the original post* All I did was provide a link. I didn't imply--you inferred.
There's not something wrong with those kids--there's something wrong with the situation.
My dad can't swim, and the only way it affects him is that he doesn't go swimming or boating.
I can't swim. It affects me if there's a flash flood or, if I am in a plane or a boat and an accident happens over water. There are plenty of recreational activities that I don't participate in because they might kill me.
Swimming to me is like language acquisition. You can learn the skill later in life, but it's much easier if you do so when you're young. This is a skill that could save one's life. So, the question is, who doesn't have that skill, and why? How do we address this problem?
actually, without looking at the article, my reaction was the same: "black kids can't swim", not "black kids are not given a chance to learn how to swim at the same rate others are".
Swimming to me is like language acquisition. You can learn the skill later in life, but it's much easier if you do so when you're young. This is a skill that could save one's life. So, the question is, who doesn't have that skill, and why? How do we address this problem?
Who doesn't have the skill, and why, is a fine thing to study. Framing it as a problem, as you did, is where *I* have a problem. That implies there's something that should be done about it, which begs the question of "Who does this thing to fix this perceived problem?"
Answer 1 (mine): The parents of the kids. It's their responsibility and their right and their choice.
Answer 2: the government, either through policy or through funding to non-profit organizations. This answer leads right back to "nanny government". Sure, it's EASIER to learn languages early in life, and swimming as well, but that doesn't mean that it's necessary. It's just as easy to prove that most Americans speak only one language; does that mean the government should step in and force everyone to teach their kids three languages by the time they're ten so they can keep up with European kids? No! And yes, knowing how to swim could save your life; so could knowing police-level driving skills, but it's not mandated that everyone learn that, either. There are many functions of government, but telling parents how to raise their kids, directly or through intermediaries, isn't one of them. You can't be a small-government democrat and still expect that level of governmental access.
I guess I just think that something like this should be more left to the control of the parents, not government.
The article says, "If a parent couldn't swim, as was far more likely in minority families than white families, or if the parent felt swimming was dangerous, then the child was far less likely to learn how to swim."
Something's got to give. There are parents who may have witnessed a drowning and, in an unrational response, are keeping their children from learning skills that may reduce the likelihood of a drowning.
It's not like children don't want to learn how to swim. There are barriers keeping them from learning, and this study is trying to shake out those factors.
The article says, "The study also found that swimming ability, regardless of race, increased in relation to parents' income and education." So it is a class issue. That is something that would not have been known had the study not been done.
USA Swimming merely commissioned the study. I don't see how this is an example of "nanny government".
Something's got to give. What? What do you expect to come out of this study? The study itself is nothing; what's done about it, and by whom, is the part that concerns me. If parents don't want their kids to learn to swim, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. Many parents don't want their kids learning how to drive until they're 18 or older, and I think that's a serious detriment to their learning how to drive *well* at any age. But I'm not going to tell those parents that they have to do things my way. They made their choice, and the kids have to live with the consequences. That's how life works. There's nothing from stopping the children from learning swimming (or advanced driving) later in life; so it's a bit harder, it's still possible and they'll know not to put their own kids through the extra effort. Social evolution.
everyone wants to know how to swim, every parent wants their kid to know how to swim.
the number one cause of death in children is accidents we all know that. car crashes are the single biggest source of accidental accidents, and slightly less than motor vehicle deaths you'll find drowning (depends on the age group how high it is).
One of the single biggest preventable causes of death could be stopped if all you did was teach kids to swim.
The only question next is how to do it. I know with smoking we have massive smoking campaigns, federally funded, with automobiles there are federally mandated airbags, for fatties, doctors will put their patients on a diet and suggest exercise programs.
Now, perhaps you think it is not the government's business to teach swimming. THATS FINE. But dont you dare tell other people not to worry about this and want to start up programs that will teach black kids how to swim.
Actually I think that it would be nice if the schools taught everyone how to swim, black white whatever. The nederlands does this, to pass school you need to know how to swim. And because of this the nederlands has one of the lowest rates of death by drowning.
Remember that universities used to have requirements for physical education, harvard used to not allow students to graduate unless they could swim.
The question is not forget about it and shut the hell up, the only question is, where when how and why is the best way to teach everyone how to swim.
There is so much useless crap taught in schools today. If the kids learned how to swim at school at least there would be one good thing they learned.
How much of a libertarian are you? Do you think that all the government, all the schools they should all be razed that all the cars with their safety features all the government regulation should be halted, that the cigarette taxes on cigarettes, the luxury tax should be abolished so that cigarettes will be $1 a pack, that smokers will be allowed to light up in public buildings once again?
Because swimming is just like all those other things, it's a problem which can be fixed with the help of public and private institutions.
But dont you dare tell other people not to worry about this and want to start up programs that will teach black kids how to swim.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
Actually I think that it would be nice if the schools taught everyone how to swim, black white whatever.
It'd probably have to be elementary schools, but that could be made to work if, say, first and second grade classes had an every-two-week field trip to the local community pool. I wouldn't be against that.
How much of a libertarian are you? Do you think that all the government, all the schools they should all be razed that all the cars with their safety features all the government regulation should be halted, that the cigarette taxes on cigarettes, the luxury tax should be abolished so that cigarettes will be $1 a pack, that smokers will be allowed to light up in public buildings once again?
The short answer is yes. The long answer is that I wish government would go back to doing what it was founded to do, which is regulate trade (instead of pander to monopolies) and manage the business between the states and with foreign governments. That means NOT butting into people's private lives, NOT saying "Wear a seatbelt", NOT holding everyone's hand such that everyone's totally dependent on the goodwill of the state. There's a place for some government influence, but not in every damned thing. This is not a public health issue; it's up to the individual what to do about it. People need to start taking some personal fucking responsibility for themselves and their families.
oh that figures. You understand that you come across as an anti-swimmite here instead of a full blown libertarian. It seems like you are against black people leaning how to swim, but the reality is you want people to use drugs, smoke cigarettes, buy cars from mexico that don't pass a single safety inspection dismantle the entire government and educational system, and it goes without saying that teaching swimming is another thing that the government shouldn't be doing.
How do you feel about the interstate highway. Was that a big fat mistake by Ike? That was government subsidy on a massive scale of automobiles and trucks.
Anti-swimmite? Do you realize that you come across as barely literate?
I specifically said "I would not be against that" regarding teaching swimming in elementary school.
Re cars from Mexico: see "managing the business with foreign governments."
Re cigarettes: That IS a public health issue. I don't give a damn if you wear a seatbelt, because if you don't YOU get hurt. If you smoke around me, *I* get hurt. Lack of skill at swimming is the former category, a personal safety issue, not public.
Re interstate highway: Trade between the states.
I'm done responding to your troll comments, so don't bother responding. Oh, and learn to capitalize.
I'm not trying to troll you. I was just trying to better understand your positions. Serious!
ps "Anti-Swimmite" is a nod to the Seinfeld episode about dentists, just a little joke, sorry if it mad you angry.
I actually am a bit uncomfortable about the interstate system, while I understand that it increased the trade between the states, personally I think it gave an unfair advantage trade-wise to the cars and trucks.
It might have been a bad idea. Think how america would be today if instead of trucks being the main cargo hauling vehicle, trains were. We would in a lot better shape to face future economic problems due to peak oil if our train transportation had not be usurped by Ike's interstate highway system.
On the other hand, I love the superhighways, it makes it really easy for everyone to just get in a car and go places.
Unlike democrats or republicans, libertarians are a pretty diverse group so it's difficult to tell apriori what type you are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 04:03 am (UTC)What bothered me about both the article and your initial presentation of it was the implication that there's something wrong with those kids. That everyone SHOULD know how to swim and are deficient if they don't. I'd say everyone should have the RIGHT to learn if they so choose, but I don't like government saying "You should do or not do this" any more than they absolutely have to.
My dad can't swim, and the only way it affects him is that he doesn't go swimming or boating. It seems pretty simple to me: if you do this dangerous thing that you have no control over, it might be fatal. I went skydiving fully aware that it carried the risk of death because I can't fly. If black kids are going out on lakes without knowing how to swim... well, they're taking the same chance. Why would their parents allow this? I guess I just think that something like this should be more left to the control of the parents, not government. If the kids want to go swimming/boating, and don't know how to swim, the parents should either say, "Hell no!" or see that the kid's taught to swim first. I don't like nanny government taking a hand in this.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 04:29 am (UTC)*looks up at the original post* All I did was provide a link. I didn't imply--you inferred.
There's not something wrong with those kids--there's something wrong with the situation.
My dad can't swim, and the only way it affects him is that he doesn't go swimming or boating.
I can't swim. It affects me if there's a flash flood or, if I am in a plane or a boat and an accident happens over water. There are plenty of recreational activities that I don't participate in because they might kill me.
Swimming to me is like language acquisition. You can learn the skill later in life, but it's much easier if you do so when you're young. This is a skill that could save one's life. So, the question is, who doesn't have that skill, and why? How do we address this problem?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 04:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 05:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 05:36 am (UTC)Who doesn't have the skill, and why, is a fine thing to study. Framing it as a problem, as you did, is where *I* have a problem. That implies there's something that should be done about it, which begs the question of "Who does this thing to fix this perceived problem?"
Answer 1 (mine): The parents of the kids. It's their responsibility and their right and their choice.
Answer 2: the government, either through policy or through funding to non-profit organizations. This answer leads right back to "nanny government". Sure, it's EASIER to learn languages early in life, and swimming as well, but that doesn't mean that it's necessary. It's just as easy to prove that most Americans speak only one language; does that mean the government should step in and force everyone to teach their kids three languages by the time they're ten so they can keep up with European kids? No! And yes, knowing how to swim could save your life; so could knowing police-level driving skills, but it's not mandated that everyone learn that, either. There are many functions of government, but telling parents how to raise their kids, directly or through intermediaries, isn't one of them. You can't be a small-government democrat and still expect that level of governmental access.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 05:01 am (UTC)I guess I just think that something like this should be more left to the control of the parents, not government.
The article says, "If a parent couldn't swim, as was far more likely in minority families than white families, or if the parent felt swimming was dangerous, then the child was far less likely to learn how to swim."
Something's got to give. There are parents who may have witnessed a drowning and, in an unrational response, are keeping their children from learning skills that may reduce the likelihood of a drowning.
It's not like children don't want to learn how to swim. There are barriers keeping them from learning, and this study is trying to shake out those factors.
The article says, "The study also found that swimming ability, regardless of race, increased in relation to parents' income and education." So it is a class issue. That is something that would not have been known had the study not been done.
USA Swimming merely commissioned the study. I don't see how this is an example of "nanny government".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 05:41 am (UTC)The rest was addressed in my response above.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 03:38 pm (UTC)the number one cause of death in children is accidents we all know that. car crashes are the single biggest source of accidental accidents, and slightly less than motor vehicle deaths you'll find drowning (depends on the age group how high it is).
One of the single biggest preventable causes of death could be stopped if all you did was teach kids to swim.
The only question next is how to do it. I know with smoking we have massive smoking campaigns, federally funded, with automobiles there are federally mandated airbags, for fatties, doctors will put their patients on a diet and suggest exercise programs.
Now, perhaps you think it is not the government's business to teach swimming. THATS FINE. But dont you dare tell other people not to worry about this and want to start up programs that will teach black kids how to swim.
Actually I think that it would be nice if the schools taught everyone how to swim, black white whatever. The nederlands does this, to pass school you need to know how to swim. And because of this the nederlands has one of the lowest rates of death by drowning.
Remember that universities used to have requirements for physical education, harvard used to not allow students to graduate unless they could swim.
The question is not forget about it and shut the hell up, the only question is, where when how and why is the best way to teach everyone how to swim.
There is so much useless crap taught in schools today. If the kids learned how to swim at school at least there would be one good thing they learned.
How much of a libertarian are you? Do you think that all the government, all the schools they should all be razed that all the cars with their safety features all the government regulation should be halted, that the cigarette taxes on cigarettes, the luxury tax should be abolished so that cigarettes will be $1 a pack, that smokers will be allowed to light up in public buildings once again?
Because swimming is just like all those other things, it's a problem which can be fixed with the help of public and private institutions.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 04:58 pm (UTC)You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
Actually I think that it would be nice if the schools taught everyone how to swim, black white whatever.
It'd probably have to be elementary schools, but that could be made to work if, say, first and second grade classes had an every-two-week field trip to the local community pool. I wouldn't be against that.
How much of a libertarian are you? Do you think that all the government, all the schools they should all be razed that all the cars with their safety features all the government regulation should be halted, that the cigarette taxes on cigarettes, the luxury tax should be abolished so that cigarettes will be $1 a pack, that smokers will be allowed to light up in public buildings once again?
The short answer is yes. The long answer is that I wish government would go back to doing what it was founded to do, which is regulate trade (instead of pander to monopolies) and manage the business between the states and with foreign governments. That means NOT butting into people's private lives, NOT saying "Wear a seatbelt", NOT holding everyone's hand such that everyone's totally dependent on the goodwill of the state. There's a place for some government influence, but not in every damned thing. This is not a public health issue; it's up to the individual what to do about it. People need to start taking some personal fucking responsibility for themselves and their families.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 05:09 pm (UTC)How do you feel about the interstate highway. Was that a big fat mistake by Ike? That was government subsidy on a massive scale of automobiles and trucks.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 07:24 pm (UTC)I specifically said "I would not be against that" regarding teaching swimming in elementary school.
Re cars from Mexico: see "managing the business with foreign governments."
Re cigarettes: That IS a public health issue. I don't give a damn if you wear a seatbelt, because if you don't YOU get hurt. If you smoke around me, *I* get hurt. Lack of skill at swimming is the former category, a personal safety issue, not public.
Re interstate highway: Trade between the states.
I'm done responding to your troll comments, so don't bother responding. Oh, and learn to capitalize.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-02 07:41 pm (UTC)ps "Anti-Swimmite" is a nod to the Seinfeld episode about dentists, just a little joke, sorry if it mad you angry.
I actually am a bit uncomfortable about the interstate system, while I understand that it increased the trade between the states, personally I think it gave an unfair advantage trade-wise to the cars and trucks.
It might have been a bad idea. Think how america would be today if instead of trucks being the main cargo hauling vehicle, trains were. We would in a lot better shape to face future economic problems due to peak oil if our train transportation had not be usurped by Ike's interstate highway system.
On the other hand, I love the superhighways, it makes it really easy for everyone to just get in a car and go places.
Unlike democrats or republicans, libertarians are a pretty diverse group so it's difficult to tell apriori what type you are.