Jazz as a medium of self expression

[Patrick2]

Great post, Patrick2. I'm glad that discussion hasn't been stifled on this thread after all.

While I do believe that, along with student performance and achievement, the existence of these courses is cause for celebration, it's the culture engendered by their high cost which gives me pause.

Without wishing to fan the flames of jealousy, the fees are so prohibitive to locals as to foster the feeling that there's 'them and us'.

I find the title I Am Because You Are a tad ironic.

Yeah . . . I agree. It was a great post, except for my ever present dyslexic typo (preformance vs performance). I'll go back and fix that.

Regarding the culture of . . . "them and us";;; hopefully, there will always be a "them and us" culture here in the US, as it realtes to differing levels of wealth. Without such a culture, the "us" will never have a motivation to become one of the "them". We just need to work harder at closing the gap between those two, while not eliminating it . . and helping to make it easier for the "us" to join the levels of the "them", without giving them a "free" ride to do so.

It's important to remember that nothing is free in life. All things come with a cost, to someone. Great things come with a greater cost than those of less greatness. Berklee is a great thing . . and it's not an entitlement. It's an education in the world music, music history, performance, engineering, writing . . etc, that kids will be very hard pressed to get, [to a similar level], elsewhere.

Berklee isn't the only place kids and young adults can get a good education in the world of music. But, it's a venue created for those who have amassed enough wealth to provide such an institution of higher education for their kids . . . as are institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Yale etc.. These are great institutions of learning. They carry great costs of attendance. Those costs are borne by either the very hard work that parents put into becoming successful and wealthy. Or, the very hard work that the kids put into earning performance based scholarship assistance, or the drive and commitment it takes to work their own asses off to pay their own tuition and other related costs . . . which is a part of how character is created. Providing such greatness in education at lesser costs, or no costs at all to the parents or the students . . . would then necessitate that those costs be transfered to the government . . . aka . . . the tax payers. That equates to a form of socialism, or at the very least, a redistribution of wealth at a disproportionate and unfair rate. These are not the principals and/or the philosiphocal approach to greatness that our country was founded upon. Despite the intense efforts of our current President to become one, we are not (yet) a socialist society here in the US . . . and hopefully our voting populous will prevent us from ever becoming one.

So then, if the costs associated with attending such great institutions of learning are not being paid by the post tax personal income of the wealthy, then they are being paid by tax dollars . . . monies confiscated by government, from people of all levels of income. I don't want my tax dollars paying for the education of Steven Speilberg's, Donald Trump's, Bill Gates' or Oprah Winfry's kids . . (if she ever gets around to having any). Nor do I want my tax dollars paying for kids who haven't done all they can on their own to gain access to the luxuries of such institutions.

The aspirations of parents to want to provide only the best of the best for their kids, are a the fuel of the engines that drive people to strive for success and wealth. The aspirations of these kids whose parents can't afford such levels of great institutions, are the fuel of the engines that drive them to achieve access on their own, through performance based scholarship assistance . . or working their asses off to earn while they learn. I don't want to ever see such engines run out of that fuel.

What gives me pause, is that it's some of the very people (kids and young adults) who rail against the "greedy, wealthy corporate giants and business people" . . who are currently enjoying the luxuries of attending such expensive institutions of education and higher education . . . and tooling around in $75,000 automobiles that are taking them to and from the frat houses within . . and the expensive social life out side of campus. These things were provided by the "greedy wealthy corporate giants and business people" . . who are literally the parents of some of these kids. THAT'S ironic!

[destinytot]

I don't know the figures involved, but the building Berklee ended up using is part of what's considered a white elephant by many, and public funds 'invested' in culture is a terribly sore point.

However, I basically agree with what you've written, Patrick2. I don't doubt that Berklee's presence in Valencia is a positive force in more than economic terms.

Moreover, I'm delighted to say that there are perfectly affordable alternatives to Berklee here in Valencia.

For that reason, and regarding the building of character, I think there's almost a moral imperative to mock Berklee's relentless, marketing-driven advance.

[Irez87]

Hate to say it, but can we end this thread? I dunno how productive it is now. Kinda ranty. Let's all agree to disagree and start talking Benson, ballads, and bop again. Aye, aye?

[Patrick2]

Hate to say it, but can we end this thread? I dunno how productive it is now. Kinda ranty. Let's all agree to disagree and start talking Benson, ballads, and bop again. Aye, aye?

No disrespect intended, Irez . . . but you didn't start this thread. Henryrobinett did. Therefore, it's very presumptuous of you to call for its ending, just because a few of the post don't suit your liking. However, if you really do wish to end it, you can do so by simply . . . not looking in on it. It will then end . . for you.

For me, I've stil got more to say. Destinytot and I seem to be enjoying a short and very civil exchange of the philosophical viability of Berklee School of Music . . which is indeed pertinent to the OP topic. Because, "Jazz as a medium of self expression" is indeed included in the teachings at Berklee. I'm sure our little exchange is very close to ending. So, why not just chill?

If I don't like the song on the radio, I change the channel and search for a new station, which might be playing something I enjoy. I don't call for a cancellation of the entire station.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=destinytot;556425]I don't know the figures involved, but the building Berklee ended up using is part of what's considered a white elephant by many, and public funds 'invested' in culture is a terribly sore point.

However, I basically agree with what you've written, Patrick2. I don't doubt that Berklee's presence in Valencia is a positive force in more than economic terms.

Moreover, I'm delighted to say that there are perfectly affordable alternatives to Berklee here in Valencia.

For that reason, and regarding the building of character, I think there's almost a moral imperative to mock Berklee's relentless, marketing-driven advance.

Berklee is a business, not an arm or branch of government. It provides a service and a product . . . and does so rather well. Its service is to teach. Its products are educated musicians. To mock it's relentless, market driven advance, is to mock the very concept of business success and growth. There is no moral imperative [of which I am aware] to mock the concept of market driven success and growth of a business, when such successes are realized honestly and ethically.

As you say, there are many more affordable alternatives to Berklee. In a market driven economy, such as we have here in the US, the market will . . and does, dictate whether or not Berklee survives its very high costs. Berklee seems to be thriving. As such, the market has spoken.

"White Elephant"?? Who's to say? That's how Berklee chooses to run their business. If Berklee chooses to put solid 24k gold toilet seats on their toilet bowls, then needs to raise their tuition fees to cover such an extravagance . . and their student body chooses to pay the higher fees . . . then, so be it. When the parents of the student body visit the facilities and see such extravagances . . they'll more than likely start to push back on the tuition fees. Then Berklee will either fold and go under . . or back off of the extravagances and start to operate in a more fiscally responsible mannar. Because, once again . . the market will have spoken.

Ever visit the buildings at Notre Dame? Yale? Oxford? Not exactly what I'd call shit-shacks.

[destinytot]

Hate to say it, but can we end this thread? I dunno how productive it is now. Kinda ranty. Let's all agree to disagree and start talking Benson, ballads, and bop again. Aye, aye?

Sorry you don't approve - and I hope you don't feel aggrieved by anything being expressed.

[Irez87]

Point taken, I'll frequent the other threads. Channel changed *noise of dial and static to different station*

[Patrick2]

Point taken, I'll frequent the other threads. Channel changed *noise of dial and static to different station*

You are a very reasonable person!!

[Patrick2]

The 'official video' surprised me and by that I mean, I can't help but think less of the school because of it. THIS is what they want to showcase? To borrow two hated words from another current thread, 'Whatever, dude.'

So then it's safe to say you won't be sending your childred and/or grand children to Berklee? Fair enough, albeit somewhat close minded and short sighted. But, this too . . is a microcosm the market speaking. Is it not?

[destinytot]

I do think your point - applied to Berklee-Valencia - about business prerogatives in a market-economy is a hugely-important one. (You make the point well - I particularly enjoyed "solid 24k gold toilet seats".) I also believe that it's dangerously naïve to think otherwise.

While I fully acknowledge and applaud its graduates' achievement, skill and expertise in the performance, production and presentation of music, I wouldn't necessarily use the word 'educated' to describe them. I rather think that what Berklee-Valencia students enjoy can reasonably be called luxury.

I'm not certain that you followed the link at 'white elephant' in my earlier post, so I'll reiterate that it's how many describe the building that houses Berklee-Valencia. But as you ask 'who's to say?', it's probably worth quoting the headline from the article (from April this year) in the link:
"Valencia’s herd of white elephants
The City of Arts and Sciences is over budget, unfinished, and plagued by scandals" (from El País)

I've found several similar reports, but perhaps the most notable is this one from the UK Telegraph, which seems
worth quoting: "Such exorbitant public works projects jar with the region’s 5.1 million residents, who have watched the local economy freefall and unemployment hit 27 per cent – more than two points above the national average"
And, as it deals with public education - at its most prosaic level - here is a short BBC news report about what local schools are facing.

I maintain that, against the above backdrop, it becomes almost a moral imperative to 'mock the concept of market driven success and growth of a business' - even when 'such successes are realized honestly and ethically' - because the institution's complicity is, in my view, dishonourable.

Re. the thread topic, I think mockery of institutional culture is a healthy form of resistance to pressure to conform to the wearing of a kind of moral straight-jacket - the wearing of which mitigates against self-expression.

[Patrick2]

Destinytot; You are correct. I didn't review the white elephant link. Your overview of what the white elephant reference was seems to induicate that it's used to describe facilities that are state/government owned. Is that correct? If so, then there is good reason for people who pay for such indulgencies by nature of confiscated earning . . aka taxes . . to complain. But, is Berklee-Valencia government owned or subsidized?

We agree that Berklee is a luxury. I said as much in a prior post. What's wrong with luxuries? Aren't those who can afford luxuries entitled to them if they're willing to pay their own money for them?

I'm totally confused as to how you can possible view a graduate, or even an under graduate of Berklee School of Music as being uneducated . . . unless you take the word educated as only relating to studies in social or business studies. If so . . . then we have very different definitions on an education;

ed·u·ca·tion
/ˌejəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.
2. an enlightening experience.

"I maintain that, against the above backdrop, it becomes almost a moral imperative to 'mock the concept of market driven success and growth of a business' - even when 'such successes are realized honestly and ethically' - because the institution's complicity is, in my view, dishonourable.

Dishonorable? The above paragraph is in total conflict with itself. How can an institution be complicit in dishonesty if its successes are achieved ethically and honestly?

[fumblefingers]

I don't think that's true. Those - er - 'studs' would prevail when and where it counts, regardless of which school they attended - or whether they attended at all.

but they didn't go somewhere else, so that's purely hypothetical.

besides, the logic got right by you, sorry. i'll try it again - your way.


assuming that one thinks that those kids/their music sucks:

the punks would suck "when and where it counts, regardless of which school they attended - or whether they attended at all."

[fumblefingers]

Yeah . . . I agree. It was a great post, except for my ever present dyslexic typo (preformance vs performance). I'll go back and fix that.

Regarding the culture of . . . "them and us";;; hopefully, there will always be a "them and us" culture here in the US, as it realtes to differing levels of wealth. Without such a culture, the "us" will never have a motivation to become one of the "them". We just need to work harder at closing the gap between those two, while not eliminating it . . and helping to make it easier for the "us" to join the levels of the "them", without giving them a "free" ride to do so.

It's important to remember that nothing is free in life. All things come with a cost, to someone. Great things come with a greater cost than those of less greatness. Berklee is a great thing . . and it's not an entitlement. It's an education in the world music, music history, performance, engineering, writing . . etc, that kids will be very hard pressed to get, [to a similar level], elsewhere.

Berklee isn't the only place kids and young adults can get a good education in the world of music. But, it's a venue created for those who have amassed enough wealth to provide such an institution of higher education for their kids . . . as are institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Yale etc.. These are great institutions of learning. They carry great costs of attendance. Those costs are borne by either the very hard work that parents put into becoming successful and wealthy. Or, the very hard work that the kids put into earning performance based scholarship assistance, or the drive and commitment it takes to work their own asses off to pay their own tuition and other related costs . . . which is a part of how character is created. Providing such greatness in education at lesser costs, or no costs at all to the parents or the students . . . would then necessitate that those costs be transfered to the government . . . aka . . . the tax payers. That equates to a form of socialism, or at the very least, a redistribution of wealth at a disproportionate and unfair rate. These are not the principals and/or the philosiphocal approach to greatness that our country was founded upon. Despite the intense efforts of our current President to become one, we are not (yet) a socialist society here in the US . . . and hopefully our voting populous will prevent us from ever becoming one.

So then, if the costs associated with attending such great institutions of learning are not being paid by the post tax personal income of the wealthy, then they are being paid by tax dollars . . . monies confiscated by government, from people of all levels of income. I don't want my tax dollars paying for the education of Steven Speilberg's, Donald Trump's, Bill Gates' or Oprah Winfry's kids . . (if she ever gets around to having any). Nor do I want my tax dollars paying for kids who haven't done all they can on their own to gain access to the luxuries of such institutions.

The aspirations of parents to want to provide only the best of the best for their kids, are a the fuel of the engines that drive people to strive for success and wealth. The aspirations of these kids whose parents can't afford such levels of great institutions, are the fuel of the engines that drive them to achieve access on their own, through performance based scholarship assistance . . or working their asses off to earn while they learn. I don't want to ever see such engines run out of that fuel.

What gives me pause, is that it's some of the very people (kids and young adults) who rail against the "greedy, wealthy corporate giants and business people" . . who are currently enjoying the luxuries of attending such expensive institutions of education and higher education . . . and tooling around in $75,000 automobiles that are taking them to and from the frat houses within . . and the expensive social life out side of campus. These things were provided by the "greedy wealthy corporate giants and business people" . . who are literally the parents of some of these kids. THAT'S ironic!

very well crafted post Patrick.

however, there is a growing issue at least in the US with regards to tuition rates going up and up. and there are forces beyond the universities themselves driving those rates. furthermore, it's not just about rich vs. not rich. that's too simplistic, although some would like to have it told that way.

can you say - student loans?

[fumblefingers]

The 'official video' surprised me and by that I mean, I can't help but think less of the school because of it. THIS is what they want to showcase? To borrow two hated words from another current thread, 'Whatever, dude.'

yes, because they would like to have some students actually show up. you were expecting what? Jazz?

bwahahahaha!

[fumblefingers]

I do think your point - applied to Berklee-Valencia - about business prerogatives in a market-economy is a hugely-important one. (You make the point well - I particularly enjoyed "solid 24k gold toilet seats".) I also believe that it's dangerously naïve to think otherwise.

While I fully acknowledge and applaud its graduates' achievement, skill and expertise in the performance, production and presentation of music, I wouldn't necessarily use the word 'educated' to describe them. I rather think that what Berklee-Valencia students enjoy can reasonably be called luxury.

I'm not certain that you followed the link at 'white elephant' in my earlier post, so I'll reiterate that it's how many describe the building that houses Berklee-Valencia. But as you ask 'who's to say?', it's probably worth quoting the headline from the article (from April this year) in the link:
"Valencia’s herd of white elephants
The City of Arts and Sciences is over budget, unfinished, and plagued by scandals" (from El País)

I've found several similar reports, but perhaps the most notable is this one from the UK Telegraph, which seems
worth quoting: "Such exorbitant public works projects jar with the region’s 5.1 million residents, who have watched the local economy freefall and unemployment hit 27 per cent – more than two points above the national average"
And, as it deals with public education - at its most prosaic level - here is a short BBC news report about what local schools are facing.

I maintain that, against the above backdrop, it becomes almost a moral imperative to 'mock the concept of market driven success and growth of a business' - even when 'such successes are realized honestly and ethically' - because the institution's complicity is, in my view, dishonourable.

Re. the thread topic, I think mockery of institutional culture is a healthy form of resistance to pressure to conform to the wearing of a kind of moral straight-jacket - the wearing of which mitigates against self-expression.

well maybe they are trying to boost the economy there. maybe they are expecting to bring Euros in from outside Spain, because Boston is too far away. and maybe they chose Valencia Spain partly because its less expensive to build a nice school there as opposed to London, or Paris, or Madrid. Have you considered that?

[fumblefingers]

Tuition is going up. Why? Because it can.

Federal Aid?s Role in Driving Up Tuitions Gains Credence - WSJ

Why the Government is to Blame for High College Costs - US News

Loans, Tuition, and the Disease of Government : Anything Peaceful : Foundation for Economic Education

Explosive New Study: Government?s Role In Increasing Tuition Costs | www.independentsentinel.com

[destinytot]

First of all, Patrick2, whether we agree or not, thank you very much for being a good sport. That goes a long way, and you have my respect.

To the points.

Destinytot; You are correct. I didn't review the white elephant link. Your overview of what the white elephant reference was seems to induicate that it's used to describe facilities that are state/government owned. Is that correct? If so, then there is good reason for people who pay for such indulgencies by nature of confiscated earning . . aka taxes . . to complain. But, is Berklee-Valencia government owned or subsidized?

No, not government-owned - it rents public space (in the facilities described above).

well maybe they are trying to boost the economy there. maybe they are expecting to bring Euros in from outside Spain, because Boston is too far away. and maybe they chose Valencia Spain partly because its less expensive to build a nice school there as opposed to London, or Paris, or Madrid. Have you considered that?

Yes, I have. But they didn't actually build; that plan - building a 24-level Tower of Music and American-style campus - was abandoned in favour of renting the public space described above, the hub of the 'white elephant' controversy.

Destinytot; We agree that Berklee is a luxury. I said as much in a prior post. What's wrong with luxuries? Aren't those who can afford luxuries entitled to them if they're willing to pay their own money for them?

Of course those who can afford luxuries are entitled to them if they're willing to pay their own money for them. Let's please keep sight of the object of my 'mockery' comment.

J'accuse marketing of repeatedly and forcefully bringing to the attention of the 'have-nots' what is (in my view, understandably) perceived as... grotesque ostentation of pharaonic proportions.

I'm totally confused as to how you can possible view a graduate, or even an under graduate of Berklee School of Music as being uneducated . . . unless you take the word educated as only relating to studies in social or business studies. If so . . . then we have very different definitions on an education;

I think we clearly do have very different definitions. But that's OK.

The dictionary definitions you posted are perfectly valid - but one could add to them by considering etymology. Bear in mind that 'education' is a loan-word. If we look to the verb, to the action or process being defined, we find Latin educere - with many subtle (and not-so-subtle) connotations. Suffice to say that it conveys more than 'training'.

I'm reminded of a pun and aide-mémoire: "I used to subscribe to structural linguistics, but now I'm not so sure..." ('so sure' being a pun on 'Saussure' - linguist/semiologist Ferdinand de Saussure).

Dishonorable?

Dishonourable - yes, that's my perception of the (business) decision to involve themselves with the above exorbitant public works (instead of seeing through their own plans). That's no laughing matter.

Dishonourable - yes, that's my perception of the flaunting of (exotic, from a local perspective) excess in times of austerity. Again, j'accuse marketing of relentless fanning of the flames. That, in my view, deserves to be laughed at - mocked.

In my view, it is the proper object of satire.

And, for me, the medium of 'jazz' is the proper vehicle. (To borrow a great description attributed to Irving Ashby - "Rhythm guitar is like vanilla extract in a cake. You can't taste it when it's there, but you know when it's left out.")

The above paragraph is in total conflict with itself. How can an institution be complicit in dishonesty if its successes are achieved ethically and honestly?

Sitting indoors - avoiding the sweltering heat of the midday sun (I may be English, but I'm not that mad) - I love listening to the local church bells playing fragments of melodies from works of classical music used in worship. I find it beautiful (and the experience is more than an aesthetic one). I'm thankful to live amidst the elegance of the Mediterranean.

But I'm also aware of its contradictions - past and present.

I'm reminded that the Borgias were great patrons of the arts, and that they contributed to the Renaissance. They were Valencian, and what has been called the Route of the Borgias is (not another white elephant!) a very good model of culture as a tool for economic development.

The Borgias remind me of - er - successful family businesses. I do think an institution can be run 'ethically and honestly' - e.g. fair pay and conditions, respecting the dignity of employees - and at the same time be complicit in 'dishonesty' (not my word, which was 'dishonourable').

Employees aren't the ones who pull the strings. I don't mean to suggest that Berklee-Valencia are involved in bribery, extortion or theft - but I do think they're complicit in a kind of 'racket'. It may be legal, but I don't think it's honourable.


Again, I think the above is best exposed by satire.

To return to contradictions, I reiterate that I do believe Berklee's presence in Valencia is a positive force in more than economic terms. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." (Walt Whitman)

'Might' doesn't make 'right'; obviously, there are other dimensions than economics to the integration and symbiosis of cultures. I think the Renaissance is a wonderful example.

And I think a renaissance is needed now. Berklee-Valencia may well have an important part to play.

[destinytot]

the punks would suck "when and where it counts, regardless of which school they attended - or whether they attended at all."

That seems to rule out effective teaching.

but they didn't go somewhere else, so that's purely hypothetical.

Sure it's hypothetical.

Assuming 'studs' to be not a short form for 'students' but something along the lines of 'the gifted and talented', I maintain that such persons flourish without - or in spite of - instruction.

('When and where it counts' is another matter.)

[destinytot]

My last post about Valencia, catharsis and renewal: Fallas

[fumblefingers]

That seems to rule out effective teaching.



Sure it's hypothetical.

Assuming 'studs' to be not a short form for 'students' but something along the lines of 'the gifted and talented', I maintain that such persons flourish without - or in spite of - instruction.

('When and where it counts' is another matter.)

We’re losing track. Let’s recap:

1. The point was made that Berklee Valencia was expensive

2. Then they point was made that one could study somewhere else, for a lesser price, and where top players are on the faculty roster. Nothing was said about pedagogy, ensembles, or general musical instruction beyond the presence of pro artists occupying space on a faculty roster.

3. Then the point was made that Berklee has the pedagogy down pat, and that enrolling in one of those other schools does not promise that any student will EVER take weekly 1-hour lessons from “the maestro” (but that’s what people like to picture in their minds, and the schools don’t discourage that notion)

4. Then the point was made that the output of contemporary Berklee students playing pop oriented music was a sign that Berklee sucks (for lack of more eloquent terms).

5. (Then other points were made about class, “white elephants”, rising tuition costs, economics, the role of big government etc., etc.)


So, I will reiterate a few things about Berklee:

They have been the world leader in jazz and contemporary music instruction for decades and decades. To borrow from IT process lingo – they have a repeatable, defined, managed and optimized model. They had a correspondence course in the 1970s (I own it). It was superior then to what many colleges offer today (that’s 40 years later BTW). Today they also have a global, world-class, nothing-else-even-remotely-like-it, online school.

Are they perfect? Nah. Does their instruction guarantee that players will exit the school as genius composers or players? Of course not. Furthermore, are they a style enforcer that strictly requires Monk style composing and Miles/Trane/Wes style playing? Hell no, that’s just a really stupid question.

That said, there are other schools which compete effectively with Berklee in certain ways - but name a school that’s superior overall, and defend how.

[targuit]

Btw, I believe that Berklee is in serious negotiations with The Boston Conservatory to merge the two institutions for synergy.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Ozkf55swf49U5Q

[Patrick2]

Destinytot; I'll leave this duscussion with you now, realizing the you and I are just going to continue to have differing business opinions as well as differing philosophical opinions on the matters we've been discussing. But, I agree . . the discussion was fun and it was civil. I too respect you for that.

Saludos!

[edh]

....but why leave?...after all you have your opinions and so does destiny?

Unfortunately, I will have to agree with distintot.

what I'm currently interested in is the the catolonia separatist movement

[mrcee]

Destinytot; I'll leave this duscussion with you now, realizing the you and I are just going to continue to have differing business opinions as well as differing philosophical opinions on the matters we've been discussing. But, I agree . . the discussion was fun and it was civil. I too respect you for that.

Saludos!

This forum may not be the right place for it but I'd like to participate in a thread addressing the Keynes/Hayek Polemic.
There may not be a comfortable solution which is why economics has been called The Dismal Science.

[Patrick2]

very well crafted post Patrick.

however, there is a growing issue at least in the US with regards to tuition rates going up and up. and there are forces beyond the universities themselves driving those rates. furthermore, it's not just about rich vs. not rich. that's too simplistic, although some would like to have it told that way.

can you say - student loans?

Why are student loans a problem? Having the money without the grades will not get you into an expensive university . . . certainly not Ivy League. Nor will it get you into Berklee

The people applying for student loans are vetted for credit worthyness. If kids want to go into hock for 10 years to get the education they want, then so be it. Adults go into hock for 35 years to get the home they want, don't they? The problem with student loans begins when liberals start talking about student loan forgiveness. Then, it once again becomes a burden on the tax payers. Once again a socialist philosophy with government (tax payers) bailing out banks. Bankers get fat . . . kids get a free education . . tax payers get screwed. And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.