The Tea Party is Not Racist

[BeAChooser]

So the issue is public education vs. private education it seems. Not Liberal vs. Conservative.

So now you are not only not listening, but you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said with strawmen you think you can knock down.

Or do actually believe liberals hate private schools?

Well certainly democrat Congressmen don't mind them. They are far more likely to send their kids to private schools than republican Congressmen.

But as far as supporting them for the masses, they've been steadfastly opposed … because teacher's union money has been opposed. Only recently have they begun to go along with the notion of charter schools and that's probably only because the unions saw an opportunity to expand even though the idea of unionized charter schools will prevent much that could be gained in cost and accountability from them.

Are you implying private schools are somehow a conservative institution and public schools a liberal one?

In the K-12 arena that's been pretty much the case. Anywhere there is a union you can almost guarantee democrat decisions are in play.

Do you believe conservatives bare no blame in the current status of public education?

See what I mean about you descending to strawmen in your arguments? I've neither said nor implied any such thing. Of course conservatives share blame, if for no other reason then they allowed the publics schools to become the democrat dominated institution they've become. They've allowed public schools to be about something other than getting a good education. I cringed when George Bush and Ted Kennedy stood side by side to expand such a failed institution to even greater size and waste. The problem is that republicans fear the way democrats and their complicit mainstream media will present any reluctance to go along with such stupidity to a public that the democrat controlled public school system has successfully dumbed down. And you'd admit that if you were honest about it.

Again you seem confused about my stance.

If there's confusion, there is noone to blame but you and the way you've phrased things during this discussion.

I'm not blaming anyone for slavery or using it as an excuse for any plight i've suffered.

I know you aren't blaming the *effective* slavery that's been promulgated by liberals on the black community that last 50 years. That's the problem.

My point was simply that the niche black people have filled seems to be endemic to our origins in this country.

Shirley Sherrod claimed she'd changed and was no longer a racist, then turned right around in the same speech and blamed racism (Obama being black) for opposition to the health care bill. You've effectively made the same argument with regards to slavery. The very way you phrased that statement suggests you do still believe slavery is the cause of the black community's continuing failure to do what so many other immigrant populations have done. Whereas I ask why your community hasn't done what the Japanese community did in this country following World War 2.

Tell me, Juniversal, are you aware that prior to the start of LBJ's War On Poverty, more than half of blacks had already entered the middle class (the $15,000 - $50,000 income range)? But after the democrat WOP began, what's happened? Well, contrary to the public perception that mainstream media has fostered, that percentage declined. According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/economics/analysis.html , in 1970, that percentage was 56%. But by 1994, it had declined to less than 47% … despite the government spending literally trillions and trillions of dollars on welfare programs that largely targeted the black community.

Shockingly, this 2007 article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html ) indicates that

forty-five percent of black children whose parents were solidly middle class in 1968 -- a stratum with a median income of $55,600 in inflation-adjusted dollars -- grew up to be among the lowest fifth of the nation's earners, with a median family income of $23,100"

despite over 10 trillion dollars being funneled into welfare related programs over that period. Something really went VERY, VERY wrong with that multi-trillion dollar social experiment that democrats began in 1964. Now a Columbia University economist that the Washington Post quoted said "There is a lot of downward mobility among African Americans. We don't have an explanation." But I think we do know the explanation. It's been staring that economist and the nation in the face for quite some time.

And here is a clue:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281886

November 14, 2007

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that many African-Americans say they can no longer be seen as a single race. Work ethic and education are creating a class divide. Nearly 40 percent of low-income blacks say they have nothing in common with middle-income and poor blacks.

… snip …

INSKEEP: So when large numbers of black Americans say they don't think there's just one race there anymore, they're not really talking about skin color; they're talking about values and economics?

WILLIAMS: Exactly. What we're talking about is things like work ethic and education. … snip ...

WILLIAMS: Right now, Steve, it's like 53 percent of black Americans who say that African-Americans who aren't getting ahead are responsible for their own problems, and then two-thirds of all Americans - whites, blacks, Hispanics - now feel that personal behavior - and by that we come back to the values concern - that wrong values with regard to education, keeping family together - that those are the things that are keeping poor black people oppressed. It's not racism.

Note that there are two black income groups that did see growth between 1970 and 1994. Blacks making between $50,000 and $75,000, and blacks making more than $75,000. And I'm willing to bet most of them achieved that through a good education and by embracing the capitalist, rather than socialist, system. Most of them achieved that because of the new opportunities that resulted from the Civil Rights Law … not welfare. They did it by not being victicrats dependent on the government. (Although there is one other possibility for part of that increase. Some of that increase could reflect more blacks working for the government and that's effectively just another form of dole.)

You're great at making baseless assumptions. Hate to break it to you but my family has never been on welfare (not to say nobody in my extended family hasn't because that's certainly not the case) and we definately struggled. Even if we were on welfare it would be out of neccesity.

Good for you. And perhaps I shouldn't have written "you", when I'm just trying to get you to focus on the black community in general. And the victicrat mentality that dominates it.

Seems you're commiting the causation/correlation fallacy.

Get your head out of the liberal quicksand. Here's a rope to pull yourself out. I direct you to the middle portion of the article starting here:

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/articles/7_welfarestate.htm

The government’s post-1960s policies must be examined in their cumulative effect. The state made welfare a more lucrative short-term option than full-time minimum-wage employment. It made chronic illegitimacy a superior financial alternative to marriage and self-supporting family. It increasingly refused to discourage unruly behavior in school. By promoting even those who failed to learn, it undercut the motivation to study and get an education. By permitting disruptions and undermining motivation, it made learning as difficult as possible in the urban public schools. By decreasingly punishing youthful offenders, it encouraged crime. Governmental policies have encouraged indolence, illegitimacy, lack of family structure and supervision, disruptive school behavior, diminished education and crime.

and ending here:

The government’s effort to help the black urban poor has resulted in reduced employment, diminished economic progress and soaring rates of illegitimacy and crime. Conservatives have long pointed out one level of causation. If the government financially encourages indolence, illegitimacy and the decline of two-parent households, and if it adopts a more permissive attitude toward disruptive behavior in the schools and criminal behavior in the streets, then it makes a direct assault on the ethics of personal responsibility necessary for individuals to lead a productive life.

I really hope you will read that entire article and not just dismiss it out of hand. Because it has a wealth of common-sense, data, causation and correlation … just what the black community needs at this juncture … rather than simply stepping deeper into the socialist, victicrat quicksand because democrat leaders and racebaiting black leaders suggest that.

And what is this liberal attack on marriage you speak of? I don't recall anyone condemning marriage

You never heard of NOW?

Here, I'll let Ann Coulter answer your question, from her book "Guilty: liberal 'victims' and their assault on America":

Still, the Left's transformation of society from family-based to single-mother-based has been accomplished with astonishing speed. Author Maggie Gallagher, who, as an erstwhle single mother, speaks with some authority, says the problem is that people shrink from addressing the social disasters of their friends. People are mum about the horror of single motherhood -- if they know a single mother. They refuse to condemn divorse -- if they know a divorcee. They can't think of a single objection to gay adoption -- if they know a gay couple that has adopted. … snip …

That would help explain how marriage, the central force in tranmitting civilization, has unraveled with such alacrity. Starting only a few decades ago, liberals launched a three-front attack on marriage through the courts, the welfare system, and popular culture. With each incremental gain, their advances grew geometrically as people lost the ability to condemn what their family, friends, and neighbors were doing. … snip …

Welfare bureaucrats paid single women money just for having children out of wedlock, liberal justices on the Supreme Court stripped away the legal benefits of marriage, and pop culture glamorized single motherhood far more than cigarette companies have ever dreamed of glamorizing smoking. While massquerading as socially conscious do-gooders speaking for society's victims, liberals created a world where there would be a constant supply of new victims in need of their merciful aid. An illegitimate child might or might not be better off by having contact with his biological father. But social workers would definitely be better off with a lot more illegitimate children.

Time and again, organizations purporting to speak for the children urged the courts to abolish the legal protections of marriage. To quote Irving Kristol again, liberalism "aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it camn make us all losers." The problem with liberalism, he says, "is liberalism."

… snip …

To eliminate the pain of illegitimacy, liberals set out to destroy the stigma attached to illegitimacy, rather than reduce its incidence. They turned a small problem into a national crisis by attacking laws that supported the idea that children should be born within marriage. Stigma or no stigma, the damage done to children born outside of marriage is the same.

From various Supreme Court decisions stripping marriage of its legal benefits, through Hillary Clinton's comparison of marriage and the family to "slavery and the Indian reservation system," right up to the Left's freakish obsession with gay marriage today, liberals have never been able to grasp the point of marriage. The only interest society has in marriage is its abilituy to harness men's energy and direct it to the upbringing of particular children, allowing children to grow up in a secure environment and not become rapists and serial killers.

And then Coulter goes on to detail instance after instance where liberals have worked to destroy the institution of marriage and it's ability to fulfill that important role in society.

But I also don't believe marriage is some magic solution. If a immature 16 year old girl has an unplanned pregnancy with an equally immature boy than i'd say marriage is not a reasonable solution. And in many cases these days it is immature 16 year olds having kids with immature 16 year olds.

So let's see if I have *your* logic right. Marriage isn't the solution because it can't fix the problem liberals created by destroying the institution of marriage with welfare and social de-stigmification. Well, I don't agree. I think that if we eliminate most of the welfare crutch and re-stigmify out of wedlock birth, in one or two generations you will find this problem much reduced.

Do your grandparents want a cookie?

What sort of smart-ass response is that? That's the problem with the left. It's got nothing left but more failed policy and smart-ass remarks because of an inability to learn from history and wise advice from others.

Quote:
You really believe that black leaders are only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything?

In many cases? Yes.

Well name a few. Let's see if you're right.

I just don't need Larry Elder to preach and condascend to me about things i'm fully aware of.

Are you? I'm a little skeptical because you seem to have resisted his message from the very start of this conversation. I question whether you really have a problem with black ministers preaching the sermon of victimization. Obama didn't. He attended Reverend's Wright's sermons every week for years and years. He called him a mentor. He titled his book after something Wright said. So what do you think of Wright?

Bond is not a "racemonger" ala Jesse Jackson or Sharpton. Simply a civil rights activist (an activist for gay rights as well which I think is great) who's activism extends beyond the civil rights movement era.

True, Jackson and Sharpton are in a class of their own. But Julian Bond is indeed using race to preach the gospel of victimization because he puts racism on the front burner when there are so many more serious problems facing the black community that simply aren't caused by racism. And in 2004 he told NAACP convention delegates that President Bush and other republicans appeal to a racist "dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality." "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division ... their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon." Sorry, but in my book those statements clearly makes him a race monger and race baiter. So does his statement that republicans "draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution." So does his refering to the GOP as "the white people's party". Over and over he uses claims of racism as the centerpiece of his statements. As Larry Elder is right to point out.

Social justice...boogity boogity boo!! Never have I seen anyone try to apply a negative connotation to social justice until Beck.

Then you haven't been paying much attention. Long before Glen Beck entered the TV world, the "social justice" philosophy was being identified for what it is … a code word for communism. It has it's foundations in the writings of Brazilian Marxist/socialist, Paolo Freire. Read this to learn a little about that: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978 "Social Justice: Code for Communism".

Long before Beck got his Fox News show, Obama's communist associates were promoting "social justice". Remember Mike Klonksy? His father was a communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Well like father, like son. Mike is a marxist who was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Really hardcore. He is also someone that Obama has maintained a continuing relationship for more than a decade. During the Chicago Anneburg Challenge, which Obama and little "c" communist Bill Ayers co-chaired, he was handed the lion's share of the money to teach America's children … presumably about "social justice", which is his number one issue. Klonsky was given a webpage on Obama's Presidential campaign website promoting … guess what … "social justice". It was one of the few webpages that Michelle Obama's web page linked. Only when his communist affiliations (which Obama had to know about given his decade long history with Klonsky before that) were noticed by conservatives did both Klonsky's page and Michelle's link to it quietly disappear. I think the story of Klonsky and Obama's relationship is far from meaningless … especially in the context of "social justice". Just as the story of Obama and Bill Ayers, another big "social justice" advocate, is far from meaningless. You just haven't been paying attention.

Also I would think you would enthusiastic about Obama attempting to recreate the results of the program since you're so adamant at the qaulity of private school education vs. public school education.

I told you why I have my doubts he can do that and keep liberals happy. I told you why I doubt his motivations in doing it. I told you why I think actually trying to fix the public school system makes more sense. Rather than just starting a few schools at a tremendous cost per student to serve the needs of (it appears) the black community, while ignoring the much larger problem that democrat control of public education has created over the years. Why ignore all I told you?

Quote:
Maybe what we need to do instead is figure out why the HCZ schools work compared to public schools and fix the public schools? Is it the fact that HCZ schools maintain student discipline whereas public schools don't? Is it the fact that HCZ students spend 50% more time in school than regular public school kids? Is it the fact that HCZ schools seem to teach middle class values rather than tear them down like so many public schools do? Is it the fact that it only enrolls 1% "limited English proficient" students? But can we really afford schools where the staff to child ratio is 8 to 1?

I don't know. But whatever it is it seems to be working.

But perhaps all those conditions just make this a special case rather than a workable general solution to the overall public education problem? For one thing, how much does the HCZ program really cost, per student? The HCZ website lists its 2010 budget as about $48 million, and claims it costs an average of $5,000 per child (other liberal sources tout HCZ as costing only $3500 per student), but frankly that claim is just plain dishonest.

When HCZ and it's allies throw out numbers like 14,000 or 17,000 people "served" by the Zone, they are including kids whose after school programs are run by HCZ, and adults who get annual tax help or one-shot housing guidance (shades of ACORN). And even the claim of 14,000 served at an average cost of $5000 would put the budget in the $70 million range, not the $48 million range. But more important, there are actually only about 1200 children in HCZ charter schools. Here's a more accurate presentation of HCZ's finances (one corroborated by sources such as Education Week):

http://educatedguess.org/2010/04/01/harlem-childrens-zone-times-20/

It’s not clear whether Harlem Children’s Zone can be replicated; certainly its scale can’t. Canada is a prodigious fund-raiser; his organization has a $70 million budget and an endowment of $170 million. It spends $19,000 on the 1,200 students in its two charter schools and $5,000 per child on other children in the 70-block Zone.

Did you get that? $19,000 per student, plus a capital endowment in the hundreds of millions of dollars (just for 1200 students a year capacity)! That's nearly two and half times the current average cost of public schools per student nationwide (assuming you believe the figures the public schools cite on cost). It's just not going to fly because lack of money isn't the problem at most schools … private schools have proven that over and over.

I don't care about the origins of the word. I'm talking about the connotation.

And you think the connotations of "red neck" and the N-word are the same?

 

[BeAChooser]

See, there you go cherry picking data again. You can't choose just Texas and ignore the rest. I mentioned TX as an example, not as THE example.

And I ripped your example apart.

Cities, yes.

Oh … so now local politics don't matter?

I wonder if economics has anything to do with graduation rate?

Well if that's the case then Washington DC schools, which spend close to $25,000 per student (a point I've proven many times on previous threads), should have an astounding graduation rate. Right? But they don't. The graduation rate in DC schools is terrible. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060803996.html ) says that half the students don't graduate. In fact, (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13458 ) "only 12% of 8th-graders in the District's public schools scored at grade-level proficiency or better in reading in the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress tests that were administered in the District and all 50 states. Only 7% of the District's public-school 8th-graders scored grade-level proficiency or better in math." How do you explain that, Lurker?

Seriously, Lurker, if economics is really what matters, then why (http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/01/29/state-rankings-on-education-spending.aspx) do students at Utah schools, which spend the least in the US per public school student, get higher SAT scores than say Vermont, which spends the most per student on average? In fact, the highest SAT scores in the US come from Iowa which only spends at the national average (i.e., 25th place). And the worst SAT scores come from Maine which spends the 5th most. Is economics the explanation?

And let's look at the worst schools in that list of worst schools I mentioned earlier. Turns out that 38 of the schools in the worst 100 schools are in South Carolina (http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.word...ome-to-11-of-nations-25-worst-public-schools/ ). And if my sampling of the 25 worst schools is a guide, all of them are democrat controlled. And this (http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/what-does-your-district-spend-per-child/ ) indicates that in 2008-2009 South Carolina public schools spent an average of $11,480 per student which is above what's claimed is the national average for spending. It's $1300 more than North Carolina which has no schools in that 25 worst schools list. And in fact, this analysis (http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/poorest-schools-are-states-best-funded/ ) finds that the worst schools in South Carolina are in the best funded districts. How do you explain that, Lurker?

both conservatives and liberals are doing poorly by the black community when it comes to education. Who is at fault? I don't know if fault lies with one party.

But only one party wants to keep the school system the way it is … entirely public, entirely union controlled, and increasingly focused on "social justice". I see where the fault lies even if you don't.

 

[BeAChooser]

I guess you missed the part of your source that said this:

and any black farmer who had filed a complaint between 1983 and 1997 would be given at least $50,000

You are comparing current # of farmers yet the lawsuit goes back to 1983. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out the why there is a discrepancy.

I suggest you should have done a browser search first.

http://letjusticeroll.blogspot.com/2010/03/blackcommentator-black-farmers-and.html

There were an estimated 926,000 black-run farms in the U.S. in 1920. By the early 1980s, there were said to be only 33,000 and, by the 1990s, even that low number had dwindled by a third.

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/SRS 1990 7 106-121.pdf

By 1987, black farm numbers had declined by 98 percent to 22,954.

http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/jun10/jun7/0601AgriPulseMRsr.cfm

Already, the number of people who have been paid and are still seeking payment will likely exceed the 26,785 black farmers who were considered to even be operating back in 1997, according to USDA. At that time, sources predicted that at most 3,000 might qualify.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-76296531/returning-african-american-farmers.html

The number of black farmers in the United States peaked at approximately 926,000 in 1920 (Beale 1966; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1982; Banks 1986; Wimberley et al. 1992). Between 1920 and 1969 there was a 90 percent decrease and by 1997 a 98 percent decrease.

Now a 90 decrease means that in 1969 there were only 93,000 or so black farmers. A 98% decrease means there were only about 19,000 black farmers in 1997. Assuming a straight line decrease between the two dates means that in 1983 there would have been about the 33,000 black farmers in 1983, just like the first source I cited indicated.

So Lurker, how come 86,000 claims were filed? Hmmmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

Ahh my heart sings when I see conservatives attempting to make the Sherrod non-story into a story. Since the "NAACP racism!!" thing didn't pan out it's transformed into "lets try our best to demonize Sherrod" instead. Grasping..at..straws.

LOL! I suspect you haven't heard the last of the NAACP and racism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/29/sherrod-says-she-will-sue-andrew-breitbart/

Sherrod says she will sue Andrew Breitbart

And don't think this won't backfire.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. ...

And yet you cite city politicians below.

Plus, major elements of the curriculum are set at the national level by national organizations of one form or another. For example, the NEA which is democrat controlled has considerable influence. So does the AERA which is highly liberal. Also, you need to consider the effect of universities on public schools because universities train the teachers and teachers have a significant impact on the message that gets relayed to students. Teachers are predominantly liberal in part because the colleges are predominantly liberal.

What country do you live in? Ever hear of the Texas school board's influence on public school textbooks?

Second, you make the mistake of thinking the red/blue labels at the state level mean much at the local level. Perhaps they don't. For example, Mississippi, is red, but the mayor of Jackson appoints the school board and he is a democrat. You need to ask yourself what fraction of public school boards are conservative.

You might be surprised. democrats dominate school boards in general, in part because republicans foolishly let them control school boards for so long thinking they weren't that important.

What source do you have for this incredulous claim? School boards reflect their communities. Many parents get very involved in the schools their kids attend. That is equally true for conservative parents as it is for progressive parents.

...By the way, take a look at the 25 worst performing public schools in the country: http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/worst-performing-public-schools/ . Here are the cities/states they are in along with the party that appears to have controlled that city for last 30 years or so:

D - Milwaukee, Wis.
D - Chicago Ill.
D - Philadelphia, Pa
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Chicago, Ill.
R (slight edge) Columbus, Oh
R? - Highland Park, Mich
D - Chicago, Ill
R - Greenville, SC
Indian reservation - Sacaton Ariz
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Florence, SC
D - Charleston, SC
D - Poughkeepsie, NY
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
Indian reservation - St Francis, SD
D - Chicago, Ill
D - North Charleston, SC
D - Milwaukee, Wis
D - Milwaukee, Wis
Aiken, SC
D - East St Louis, Ill.

Looks to me like democrats are in control of most of those.

Schools are not run by cities. They are run by their own districts with state input. In addition, going by the outcome of WA State's school performance tests that have been in place now for a number of years, the scores are tightly correlated with the school's free lunch programs which are a reflection of the income brackets of the children in each district. If lots of kids are in the free lunch program at any particular school, the school's scores are lower, regardless of the district, and vice versa.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here cherry picking city party affiliations. In addition, the source you picked to ID the "worst schools" uses its own 'secret' methodology:

The findings reported here use each school's own No Child Left Behind test scores, but standardized by Neighborhood Scout's patent-pending methodology for true national comparison.

 

[Juniversal]

So now you are not only not listening, but you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said with strawmen you think you can knock down.

Do you even know what a strawman is? I stated my position (considering the links you offered, the problem appears to be public schools vs. private schools. Not liberal vs. conservative). A strawman = misrepresenting YOUR position. I stated MY position.

See what I mean about you descending to strawmen in your arguments? I've neither said nor implied any such thing. Of course conservatives share blame, if for no other reason then they allowed the publics schools to become the democrat dominated institution they've become. They've allowed public schools to be about something other than getting a good education. I cringed when George Bush and Ted Kennedy stood side by side to expand such a failed institution to even greater size and waste. The problem is that republicans fear the way democrats and their complicit mainstream media will present any reluctance to go along with such stupidity to a public that the democrat controlled public school system has successfully dumbed down. And you'd admit that if you were honest about it.

You clearly don't know what a strawman is.

A strawman would be as follows:

"Why do you hate kids succeding in public schools?"

or

sarcastically saying "Yea conservatives have absolutely NO cupability in the current state of education".

Simply asking if you believe if Conservatives bare no responsibility is not a strawman. And you answered my question. You clearly believe there's shared responsibility.

Shirley Sherrod claimed she'd changed and was no longer a racist, then turned right around in the same speech and blamed racism (Obama being black) for opposition to the health care bill. You've effectively made the same argument with regards to slavery. The very way you phrased that statement suggests you do still believe slavery is the cause of the black community's continuing failure to do what so many other immigrant populations have done. Whereas I ask why your community hasn't done what the Japanese community did in this country following World War 2.

Yes I believe to assess the current status of a certain group you have to look to the past. Do you object to me doing so? Do you believe the past has no implications on the future? Does the social niche black americans seem to have carved out for ourselves not have origins in the past?

Tell me, Juniversal, are you aware that prior to the start of LBJ's War On Poverty, more than half of blacks had already entered the middle class (the $15,000 - $50,000 income range)? But after the democrat WOP began, what's happened? Well, contrary to the public perception that mainstream media has fostered, that percentage declined. According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/economics/analysis.html , in 1970, that percentage was 56%. But by 1994, it had declined to less than 47% … despite the government spending literally trillions and trillions of dollars on welfare programs that largely targeted the black community.

Shockingly, this 2007 article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html ) indicates that



despite over 10 trillion dollars being funneled into welfare related programs over that period. Something really went VERY, VERY wrong with that multi-trillion dollar social experiment that democrats began in 1964. Now a Columbia University economist that the Washington Post quoted said "There is a lot of downward mobility among African Americans. We don't have an explanation." But I think we do know the explanation. It's been staring that economist and the nation in the face for quite some time.

And here is a clue:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281886



Note that there are two black income groups that did see growth between 1970 and 1994. Blacks making between $50,000 and $75,000, and blacks making more than $75,000. And I'm willing to bet most of them achieved that through a good education and by embracing the capitalist, rather than socialist, system. Most of them achieved that because of the new opportunities that resulted from the Civil Rights Law … not welfare. They did it by not being victicrats dependent on the government. (Although there is one other possibility for part of that increase. Some of that increase could reflect more blacks working for the government and that's effectively just another form of dole.)

Another correlation - causation fallacy. How many of the unwed mothers during the 1970's and 80's (for example) accounted for in the welfare rolls? Your dissection also ignores other pertinent issues that occured during the 60's and 70's (business flight, deindustrialization, social upheaval/riots, ect.)

Get your head out of the liberal quicksand. Here's a rope to pull yourself out. I direct you to the middle portion of the article starting here:

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/articles/7_welfarestate.htm



and ending here:



I really hope you will read that entire article and not just dismiss it out of hand. Because it has a wealth of common-sense, data, causation and correlation … just what the black community needs at this juncture … rather than simply stepping deeper into the socialist, victicrat quicksand because democrat leaders and racebaiting black leaders suggest that.

Your link is broken. And there you go again suggesting that someone gets on welfare or plays the victim because "black leaders suggest that". People do have minds of their own fyi.

You never heard of NOW?

I'll ask again. What liberal assualt on marriage?

Here, I'll let Ann Coulter answer your question, from her book "Guilty: liberal 'victims' and their assault on America":



And then Coulter goes on to detail instance after instance where liberals have worked to destroy the institution of marriage and it's ability to fulfill that important role in society.

Yes, because Coulter is a reasonable voice of the right. Believe it or not there is no Liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage. I would hope you and coulter realize woman on welfare tend to use it for short periods of time. And where's the statistics that show that woman avoided getting married so they could take avantage of welfare programs?

So let's see if I have *your* logic right. Marriage isn't the solution because it can't fix the problem liberals created by destroying the institution of marriage with welfare and social de-stigmification. Well, I don't agree. I think that if we eliminate most of the welfare crutch and re-stigmify out of wedlock birth, in one or two generations you will find this problem much reduced.

I said I didn't believe marriage was some "magic solution". Certainly if two responsible mature adults have a child, marriage is certainly a reasonable solution but if two irresponsible and immature children have a child then marriage for the sake of marriage is not the appropriate solution imo..

What sort of smart-ass response is that? That's the problem with the left. It's got nothing left but more failed policy and smart-ass remarks because of an inability to learn from history and wise advice from others.

And what extraordinary and revolutionary policies does the Right have? I wait with baited breath. Also I don't need stories of your parents/grandparents to prove to me that perseverance will get you far.

Well name a few. Let's see if you're right.

Julian Bond himself for one. John Lewis.

Are you? I'm a little skeptical because you seem to have resisted his message from the very start of this conversation. I question whether you really have a problem with black ministers preaching the sermon of victimization. Obama didn't. He attended Reverend's Wright's sermons every week for years and years. He called him a mentor. He titled his book after something Wright said. So what do you think of Wright?

I'm no fan of Wright. I believe he's trapped in the 1950's and 60's mentality of millitant Civil Rights activism against the white anti-black establishment that has diminished immensely.

True, Jackson and Sharpton are in a class of their own. But Julian Bond is indeed using race to preach the gospel of victimization because he puts racism on the front burner when there are so many more serious problems facing the black community that simply aren't caused by racism. And in 2004 he told NAACP convention delegates that President Bush and other republicans appeal to a racist "dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality." "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division ... their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon." Sorry, but in my book those statements clearly makes him a race monger and race baiter. So does his statement that republicans "draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution." So does his refering to the GOP as "the white people's party". Over and over he uses claims of racism as the centerpiece of his statements. As Larry Elder is right to point out.

I don't know if you're a aware but Bond is a Civil Rights activist. His statements are inline with his job description. I imagine you believe civil rights activism is race baiting by design. I don't see anything paticularly controversial about what he said. No more fiery then what you claim about Democrats and blacks.

Then you haven't been paying much attention. Long before Glen Beck entered the TV world, the "social justice" philosophy was being identified for what it is … a code word for communism. It has it's foundations in the writings of Brazilian Marxist/socialist, Paolo Freire. Read this to learn a little about that: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978 "Social Justice: Code for Communism".

Long before Beck got his Fox News show, Obama's communist associates were promoting "social justice". Remember Mike Klonksy? His father was a communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Well like father, like son. Mike is a marxist who was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Really hardcore. He is also someone that Obama has maintained a continuing relationship for more than a decade. During the Chicago Anneburg Challenge, which Obama and little "c" communist Bill Ayers co-chaired, he was handed the lion's share of the money to teach America's children … presumably about "social justice", which is his number one issue. Klonsky was given a webpage on Obama's Presidential campaign website promoting … guess what … "social justice". It was one of the few webpages that Michelle Obama's web page linked. Only when his communist affiliations (which Obama had to know about given his decade long history with Klonsky before that) were noticed by conservatives did both Klonsky's page and Michelle's link to it quietly disappear. I think the story of Klonsky and Obama's relationship is far from meaningless … especially in the context of "social justice". Just as the story of Obama and Bill Ayers, another big "social justice" advocate, is far from meaningless. You just haven't been paying attention.

Bull . The Right has been demonizing liberals as communist for many a decade and I see that habit hasn't changed. You can't decide yourself if Obama is a communist or a socialist.

But perhaps all those conditions just make this a special case rather than a workable general solution to the overall public education problem? For one thing, how much does the HCZ program really cost, per student? The HCZ website lists its 2010 budget as about $48 million, and claims it costs an average of $5,000 per child (other liberal sources tout HCZ as costing only $3500 per student), but frankly that claim is just plain dishonest.

When HCZ and it's allies throw out numbers like 14,000 or 17,000 people "served" by the Zone, they are including kids whose after school programs are run by HCZ, and adults who get annual tax help or one-shot housing guidance (shades of ACORN). And even the claim of 14,000 served at an average cost of $5000 would put the budget in the $70 million range, not the $48 million range. But more important, there are actually only about 1200 children in HCZ charter schools. Here's a more accurate presentation of HCZ's finances (one corroborated by sources such as Education Week):

http://educatedguess.org/2010/04/01/harlem-childrens-zone-times-20/


Did you get that? $19,000 per student, plus a capital endowment in the hundreds of millions of dollars (just for 1200 students a year capacity)! That's nearly two and half times the current average cost of public schools per student nationwide (assuming you believe the figures the public schools cite on cost). It's just not going to fly because lack of money isn't the problem at most schools … private schools have proven that over and over.

So your contention is that these programs shouldn't be recreated because they're too expensive? Surely a similar program can be institued without using the same amount of resources.

And you think the connotations of "red neck" and the N-word are the same?

Now that's a strawman if i've ever seen it. For one, I compared redneck to uncle tom. Not the N word. Also my point was that both words have racial connotations but aren't racist as your making the word "uncle tom" seem.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. ...

And yet you cite city politicians below.

Only to prove that the assumptions made by Lurker were consistently wrong. I'm not suggesting that local school boards and city officials have "no" impact. Of course they do. But the Federal government, teachers unions and liberal dominated education associations are still dominating the direction that public school systems are going … and have been going for some time. To deny that is to show true cluelessness or partisanship.

What country do you live in?

Sometimes I wonder.

Ever hear of the Texas school board's influence on public school textbooks?

LOL! You want to use Texas as an example again? Sure thing.

First, let me make it clear once and for all … I'm not saying school boards have "no" influence. But what the school boards choose as books is influenced by (1) mostly liberal teachers, (2) mostly liberal education associations like the NEA and AERA, and (3) federal government guidelines on what must be taught to get federal dollars.

Or at least that has been the case until conservatives recently began to wake up to the importance of schools in shaping the way their all-too-soon-to-be-adult children view the world, history, economics, and morality. The feeling in Texas now is that the curriculum has been unfairly skewed to the left.

And why would it be skewed to the left? Because the curriculum in Texas is only revised every 10 years and 10 years ago it was democrats who dominated the school board, not republicans (http://www.thegrio.com/news/texas-school-board-votes-for-conservative-curriculum.php ). And it was democrat dominated in the 10 years before that. The textbook controversy in Texas is just a facet of the changing perception and activism of conservative parents. Who are tired of textbooks referring to the US as a "democracy" instead of a "constitutional republic". Who don't think Cesar Chavez deserves the same space in history books as the founding fathers. And who think that history like the Contract With America should be taught, not just misinformation about FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society.

School boards reflect their communities. … Many parents get very involved in the schools their kids attend. That is equally true for conservative parents as it is for progressive parents.

LOL! What country do you live in?

Up till recently most Americans … especially conservatives … have paid very little attention to who is on school boards. Democrats have been far more active and successful in getting liberals on school boards than conservatives. Which is why the composition of schools boards in state after state and city after city does not match the conservative/liberal composition of the community.

You want some examples of that disinterest?

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/live/2...er-turnout-low-at-school-board-elections.html

As predicted, voter turnout low at School Board elections

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/23/big-job-little-voter-interest/

Serving on School Board a big job with little voter*interest

School Board elections often decided by fraction of*electorate

And speaking of disinterest and Texas,

http://libertymarket.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-few-thoughts-on-the-texas-school-board-decision/

In the last election, held on 11/04/2008, there were 7 state school board seats up for grabs. All but one of the seats were won by incumbents because District 6 had no incumbent. The highest vote count in this election was in District 14 where 579,172 people voted in school board race. These school board elections happened on the same night as the Presidential election when voter turnout is always the highest. Over 8 million people in Texas voted that night for President so I guess most of them either forgot to or didn’t care to vote for their school board member. I bring this up because if everyone who voted for Barack Obama, and lived in a District where there was a school board election, had voted for the Democrat running for school board, that would have had a huge impact on the recent curriculum decision.

Schools are not run by cities.

Actually you are wrong in many cases. Take Los Angeles, for example. It's the second largest school district in the US. It has a 7 member Board of Education. The mayor of Los Angeles currently has considerable power where the school board is concerned (and, in fact, now wants total control).

Or look at New York City, the country's largest public school system. It too has a Board of Education consisting of 7 members. Two are appointed by the mayor (and if you think Bloomberg is conservative, you are delusional). The others are appointed by the Borough Presidents (who generally are also liberals). And since 2002, the mayor also gets to appoint the chancellor of the system and has more direct control over many aspects of it. And note that democrats were against mayoral control of the Board of Education during Guilianni's term as mayor, when the Board of Education was controlled by democrats. Isn't that interesting?

The fact is that the mayors of many cities have a strong influence on the makeup of the school boards. I listed a few example earlier. And even if the school boards are elected at large, isn't it likely that the politics of the school board will match the politics of the major or city manager. Meaning that if the mayor of the city happens to be democrat, there is a better than 50% chance that so is the school board. Just common sense, SG.

In addition, going by the outcome of WA State's school performance tests that have been in place now for a number of years, the scores are tightly correlated with the school's free lunch programs which are a reflection of the income brackets of the children in each district. If lots of kids are in the free lunch program at any particular school, the school's scores are lower, regardless of the district, and vice versa.

Talk about muddying the water. I didn't know that anyone didn't get free lunches nowadays, SG. Afterall, Uncle Sam currently hands our free or subsidized meals to 32 million kids. In fact, 62% of children who eat school lunches are getting free or reduced price meals. I frankly suspect your claimed correlation is worthless but I'd love to see more about it so why don't you offer a source to back it up. (Oh … and by the way … isn't the liberal justification for the free lunch program supposed to be that it will increase student performance? Don't they claim it did that in Massachusetts? Hmmmmm? )

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you even know what a strawman is?

Yes. Falsely claiming your opponent holds a position so you can knock it down. Which is what you tried to do. Several times.

Simply asking if you believe if Conservatives bare no responsibility is not a strawman.

LOL! Is that all you were doing? Just asking an innocent question to find out what I thought? Sorry, but you and I both know that's not all you were doing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? Perhaps you thought you could lead our audience into thinking I believe conservatives bare no blame for the current status of public education … by couching it in the form of a question? Well I object, your honor.

Yes I believe to assess the current status of a certain group you have to look to the past. Do you object to me doing so? Do you believe the past has no implications on the future?

If you are half as smart as you appear, you don't honestly think I think the past has no implications on the future, so why do you ask the question? My question to you is why have Japanese Americans been relatively successful post-WW2 compared to blacks? Do you think there was no discrimination against the Japanese after WW2? Do you think the Japanese came out of the internment camps loaded with money and land? Just curious?

Another correlation - causation fallacy.

One can lead a horse to water but one can't make him drink. If all you are going to do is casually dismiss any statistics, facts and logic that are offered, I'll stop trying and simply let our audience on this thread decide who has made his/her case so far and leave it at that. I won't beat my head against a stone wall.

Your link is broken.

It works fine on my computer. Perhaps your computer or browser is broken. Don't tell me, you've got a PC? Try a Mac and Safari, instead. It's a wonderful experience.

And there you go again suggesting that someone gets on welfare or plays the victim because "black leaders suggest that". People do have minds of their own fyi.

Obstinant, stubborn minds, perhaps. What? Have you no comment about the 45% of black children of parents who were middle class in 1968 who are now in the lowest fifth of earners? What happened to them for things to go so wrong at the same time that the nation was shoveling trillions of dollars into anti-poverty programs, many of which were aimed specifically at blacks? And despite decades of economic prosperity in this country overall … prosperity that created millions and millions and millions of new jobs? What went wrong?

Here, let me quote a little more from that link you say you can't access (it's from an essay titled "The Welfare State Versus Values and the Mind" by Andrew Bernstein):

As of 1950, the percentage of black families that consisted of husband-wife households was 78 percent; as late as 1967, the ratio hovered in the range of 72 to 75 percent. All of this changed in the post-1960s period. … snip ..,

By the late 1960s and 1970s, the welfare system was in place, and its effects were fully felt. In many cases, families never formed, as AFDC payments allowed men to reject marriage and full-time employment. In New York City in 1970, 600,000 children belonged to welfare families, of whom 445,000 had no fathers in their lives. By 1980, 48 percent of black babies were born to single mothers, compared to 17 percent in 1950. In that same year, 82 percent of all children born to black girls aged 15-19 were illegitimate. By 1998, the illegitimacy rate for black children stood at a staggering 70 percent.

The news is equally grim regarding the trends in LFP [labor force participation]. In 1954, 85 percent of black males aged sixteen or older were participating in the labor force, i.e., were either working or actively seeking employment. Such a high figure was not unusual, for black males had been participating in the labor force at rates as high or higher than white males back to the turn of the 20th century. But from 1966-1976, the black reduction in LFP was 271 percent higher than for whites, with the overwhelming preponderance of the decline centering on young males aged 16-24. However, older black men (those born before 1950) showed a significant rise in employment during the same period. This means that young black men were showing vastly less interest in working than had their fathers, grandfathers and even older brothers. Something had changed for those who reached their late teens in the late 1960s and 1970s.

And what do you think that was, Juniversal? Got a clue?

Quote:
You never heard of NOW?

I'll ask again. What liberal assualt on marriage?

And I'll remark again, you've never heard of NOW?

In 2007 NOW filed suit against the Bush administration seeking to abolish Fathers Day. In speaking on the lawsuit, Andrea Dworkin, one of NOW's longterm members stated "marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." On other occasions she stated marriage is "a legal license to rape" and that one "of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man"? When she died NOW eulogized her, calling her "one of feminism's more rigourous minds and fiercest crusaders." Now there's a liberal pro-marriage institution if there ever one. (sarcasm)

Yes, because Coulter is a reasonable voice of the right. Believe it or not there is no Liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage.

Which you claim not by having defeated the factual content of what Coulter offered in her book (do you wish to claim that link was broken too?), but by a hand-waving dismissal. Like I said earlier, if all you are going to do is casually dismiss any statistics, facts and logic that are offered, I'll stop trying and simply let our audience on this thread decide who has made his/her case so far and leave it at that. You might walk away thinking you've won this debate, but you haven't. Far from it.

I would hope you and coulter realize woman on welfare tend to use it for short periods of time.

Do they?

From 1996, http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html

Time on Welfare and Welfare Dependency

Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Human Resources

… snip …

Over the course of their lifetimes, about one-third of women who ever use welfare will spend longer than five years on the welfare rolls and 60 percent will spend 24 months or longer receiving assistance.

It is important to note that the figures I just presented are for women who ever turn to the welfare system for support, regardless of whether they are currently receiving assistance or not. A very different picture of time on welfare emerges if one examines the total time families currently receiving welfare will spend on the welfare rolls over the course of their lifetimes. About 90 percent of those currently on the rolls will eventually spend more than 24 months on the welfare rolls and 76 percent will receive welfare for longer than five years.

… snip …

My research shows that, on average, women who ever use welfare will receive assistance for about six years and current recipients will receive assistance for about thirteen years.

… snip …

Thus, recipients who spend long periods of time on the welfare rolls are primarily women with limited job prospects. In fact, the employability of those who are most likely to reach a five-year time limit does not look especially promising.

From 1995, http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml :

Over the past 25 years, the number of female-headed families almost tripled. In 1965, there were 2.8 million female-headed families with children, compared to 8.2 million in 1992. If the nation had had the same proportion of female-headed households in 1985 as in 1959, there would have been about 5.2 million fewer persons in poverty. According to a special Census Bureau report, the poverty rate for black families would have been 20 percent in 1980, rather than the actual 29 percent, if black family composition had remained what it was in 1970.

… snip …

Out-of-wedlock births and divorces impoverish hundreds of thousands of American families. The median income for female-headed families is about one-third that of intact families. In 1993, the median family income for children living with both parents was $43,578. For children living with their mothers only, however, median family income was $12,073.

… snip …

These demographic differences between unmarried and divorced women translate into dramatically different rates of AFDC utilization. A much higher proportion of unwed mothers go on welfare than do divorced mothers. According to AEI's Nick Eberstadt, almost three- fifths of children born out of wedlock in the United States were on AFDC in 1982, compared to just under a third of children of divorced mothers. In fact, children of never-married mothers are three times more likely to be on welfare than are children of divorced mothers.

Again, racism isn't the black communities real problem. And just throwing more welfare money at it obviously isn't the solution.

I said I didn't believe marriage was some "magic solution".

Well anything that might fix the mess liberals have created now certainly qualifies as "magic" in my book.

Certainly if two responsible mature adults have a child, marriage is certainly a reasonable solution but if two irresponsible and immature children have a child then marriage for the sake of marriage is not the appropriate solution imo..

You're just repeating your canard rather than addressing the facts that have been pointed out to you … oh that's right … you couldn't be bothered to read what I linked in Ann Coulter's book.

And what extraordinary and revolutionary policies does the Right have? I wait with baited breath.

Wow! You really haven't been paying any attention during this discussion, have you?

Well like I said, I'm not going to beat my head against a stonewall.

Quote:
Well name a few. Let's see if you're right.

Julian Bond himself for one.

LOL! So you are claiming that the black community as a whole already believes what I quoted Bond saying … that he's merely a reflection of the black community? Well if that's the case, the black community is in a lot more trouble than even I feared.

John Lewis.

You mean John Lewis in the Congressional Black Caucus … the same John Lewis who was involved in the bogus claims of N-words and spitting when a few Black Caucus members and staff decided take a provoking walk through Tea Party members protesting the health care debate? The same John Lewis who was offered a check for $10K, payable to the United Negro College Fund, if he'd just take a lie detector test regarding his claims about the incident and pass it? The same John Lewis who refused to take the test and *win* that $10K for a worthy black cause? The same John Lewis who a few years ago compared republicans to Nazis and who said McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" during the Presidential campaign and then linked them with George Wallace? Really?

I'm no fan of Wright. I believe he's trapped in the 1950's and 60's mentality of millitant Civil Rights activism against the white anti-black establishment that has diminished immensely.

And Julian Bond and John Lewis aren't … even though many of their statements are just as inflammatory?

I don't know if you're a aware but Bond is a Civil Rights activist. His statements are inline with his job description.

So that's your excuse for exaggerations and lies? I see.

I imagine you believe civil rights activism is race baiting by design.

There you go with another strawman.

No more fiery then what you claim about Democrats and blacks.

What I say about democrats and blacks is absolutely true. I say them not to hurt either. But hopefully help some to see how they are being controlled and mislead by democrat and black leaders.

Quote:
Then you haven't been paying much attention. Long before Glen Beck entered the TV world, the "social justice" philosophy was being identified for what it is … a code word for communism. It has it's foundations in the writings of Brazilian Marxist/socialist, Paolo Freire. Read this to learn a little about that: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978 "Social Justice: Code for Communism".

Long before Beck got his Fox News show, Obama's communist associates were promoting "social justice". Remember Mike Klonksy? His father was a communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Well like father, like son. Mike is a marxist who was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Really hardcore. He is also someone that Obama has maintained a continuing relationship for more than a decade. During the Chicago Anneburg Challenge, which Obama and little "c" communist Bill Ayers co-chaired, he was handed the lion's share of the money to teach America's children … presumably about "social justice", which is his number one issue. Klonsky was given a webpage on Obama's Presidential campaign website promoting … guess what … "social justice". It was one of the few webpages that Michelle Obama's web page linked. Only when his communist affiliations (which Obama had to know about given his decade long history with Klonsky before that) were noticed by conservatives did both Klonsky's page and Michelle's link to it quietly disappear. I think the story of Klonsky and Obama's relationship is far from meaningless … especially in the context of "social justice". Just as the story of Obama and Bill Ayers, another big "social justice" advocate, is far from meaningless. You just haven't been paying attention.

Bull .

Are you claiming that any fact I stated above is false? Because unless you are and can prove it, the only BS I see being spouted here was your suggestion that the only place I could have derived a concern about "social justice" is by listening to Glen Beck.

The Right has been demonizing liberals as communist

I don't need to "demonize" anyone as communist. The folks I mentioned above ADMIT they were/are communists. Or are you suggesting that being communist, and associating with communists, is no big deal?

You can't decide yourself if Obama is a communist or a socialist.

Well pardon me, but the definition of the two is blurred. Marx himself said that socialism is merely a step on the way to communism. What's more worthy of is the refusal by people like you to acknowledge that Obama is one or the other, given the unparalleled number of associations he has with socialists and communists, and his rhetoric over the years which certainly matches one or the other ideology or a mix of them.

So your contention is that these programs shouldn't be recreated because they're too expensive?

You aren't listening. Not only are they very expensive (as government programs invariably are) but they don't address anything but a narrow portion of the problem. Even if another 20 schools are opened with 1200 students each, the total number of students who will be addressed by this program (assuming all the other factors can also be put into effect to make it work) would be a drop in the bucket compared to the number of students who are not graduating from the 50 largest public school districts.

Surely a similar program can be institued without using the same amount of resources.

And now you are just handwaving. Sure, such a successful program is possible. The private sector has done it several times. So has the Catholic Church. But the secular left (and it's unions) want nothing to do with either, it appears.

Now that's a strawman if i've ever seen it. For one, I compared redneck to uncle tom. Not the N word.

Fine. I guess I just got confused because in the sentence before you did that, you wrote "Regardless of which word he used, In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot."

Also my point was that both words have racial connotations but aren't racist as your making the word "uncle tom" seem.

Red neck has no racial connotations. As several of us have tried to point out to you, it has economic connotations. But Uncle Tom most definitely does have racial connotations. Blacks don't seem to call a white person an Uncle Tom. They reserve that for blacks. So it's clearly got something to do with race.

 

[Lurker]

Oh … so now local politics don't matter?

I don't know. That is my point. You know, causation/correlation.

Well if that's the case then Washington DC schools, which spend close to $25,000 per student (a point I've proven many times on previous threads), should have an astounding graduation rate. (...) How do you explain that, Lurker?

Well first off I would say my point went completely over your head. When I said economics I did not mean the amount spent, I meant the economic background of the student.

Seriously, Lurker, if economics is really what matters, then why (http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/01/29/state-rankings-on-education-spending.aspx) do students at Utah schools, which spend the least in the US per public school student, get higher SAT scores than say Vermont, which spends the most per student on average? In fact, the highest SAT scores in the US come from Iowa which only spends at the national average (i.e., 25th place). And the worst SAT scores come from Maine which spends the 5th most. Is economics the explanation?

Hmm, interesting. Are we talking SAT scores now instead of grad rates? It is hard to keep up with you as you keep changing metrics to suit your conclusion. I would posit that comparing SAT scores may be an imperfect measure of comparison as the population that takes the SAT may be different state to state.

 

[Lurker]

I suggest you should have done a browser search first.
(...) Assuming a straight line decrease between the two dates means that in 1983 there would have been about the 33,000 black farmers in 1983, just like the first source I cited indicated.

So Lurker, how come 86,000 claims were filed? Hmmmmmm?

Dude, you totally FAILED in this homework assignment. Again, the time period of the lawsuit is from 1983 to 1997. Think for a moment, BAC. You cannot take a snapshot of any given year and say that is the amount of claimants. Over a 14 year period people go in and out of a profession. That is the key.

 

[varwoche]

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...created-bush-hitler-ads-during-2004-election/

Broken link.

I'm dubious. The only Bush/Hitler ad that I'm aware of was the one created by some random bozo that was submitted to moveon as part of a public contest. (Which was quickly removed by moveon I might add.)

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

LOL! Is that all you were doing? Just asking an innocent question to find out what I thought? Sorry, but you and I both know that's not all you were doing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? Perhaps you thought you could lead our audience into thinking I believe conservatives bare no blame for the current status of public education … by couching it in the form of a question? Well I object, your honor.

He doesn't have to, your refusal to answer or drop the bile-laden snark says more about your views than he ever could.

If you are half as smart as you appear, you don't honestly think I think the past has no implications on the future, so why do you ask the question? My question to you is why have Japanese Americans been relatively successful post-WW2 compared to blacks? Do you think there was no discrimination against the Japanese after WW2? Do you think the Japanese came out of the internment camps loaded with money and land? Just curious?

Non-sequitor. You are aware that institutional and otherwise legal discrimination of blacks didn't end until almost two-decades after the Japanese were released, right? For Christ's sake, we still had segregated units in WWII. You might as well claim that German-Americans should be as bad off as the black population because of the meager amount of discrimination they faced during WWI. For that matter, do you have any evidence that the temporary discrimination the Japanese faced (and on a scale much smaller than blacks, Native Americans, and other groups discriminated against have ever faced in the US) would have the sort of effect that hundreds of years of slavery followed by decades upon decades of forced poverty and a society which not only legalized but encouraged racism and discriminatory policy against blacks would have?

It works fine on my computer. Perhaps your computer or browser is broken. Don't tell me, you've got a PC? Try a Mac and Safari, instead. It's a wonderful experience.

Mac and Safari don't link to a better internet reserved for people permanently attached to Steve Jobs teat, you know. Your link works fine for me on my PC and Internet Explorer 8 browser, maybe you should stop and consider that perhaps the website was down at that point in time before harping on about the superiority of Apple products and their malware that they spam through iTunes.

 

[BeAChooser]

When I said economics I did not mean the amount spent, I meant the economic background of the student.

And what exactly does that have to do with the ability of the child to learn, to be taught? The fact is that private schools and catholic schools have proven they can take children from poor minority communities and succeed with them ... for far less cost than what the public school system spends. It's not about the *economics* of the student, or the money spent by the schools, it's about the way they are taught and what is expected of them. Which is a lesson that the liberals supporting the public school system can't seem to learn.

Are we talking SAT scores now instead of grad rates? It is hard to keep up with you as you keep changing metrics to suit your conclusion.

I'll bet you the graduation rates at schools with higher SAT scores is higher than schools with lower SAT schools. What should we wager?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I suggest you should have done a browser search first.
(...) Assuming a straight line decrease between the two dates means that in 1983 there would have been about the 33,000 black farmers in 1983, just like the first source I cited indicated. So Lurker, how come 86,000 claims were filed? Hmmmmmm?

Dude, you totally FAILED in this homework assignment. Again, the time period of the lawsuit is from 1983 to 1997. Think for a moment, BAC. You cannot take a snapshot of any given year and say that is the amount of claimants. Over a 14 year period people go in and out of a profession. That is the key.

No, DUDE, it is YOU who has failed both history and logic.

It is YOU who needs to think *for a moment*.

We know, using sources like this: http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/20100527 Pigford.pdf, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06469r.pdf …

- that just 3 farmers sued in Pigford I representing a class of 641 black farmers.

- that to be eligible for Pigford I, a black had to have "farmed or attempted to farm" between January 1981 and December 31, 1996, had to have applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits believing that he or she was discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and had to have made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997.

- that the court noted that 15,000 to 20,000 farmers were estimated to be members of the class.

- that in 1997, when Pigford I was approved, it was predicted (by then Agriculture Secretary Glickman) that about 2000-3000 would qualify for payment in the class action suit.

- that there ended up being about 22,500 Track A claims heard of which about 16,000 (69%) were approved, as of May 11, 2010, receiving about $1 billion total in awards. There were also 172 eligible Track B claimants, of which Sherrod's New Communities was one.

- that under the original consent decree, claimants were to file their claim no later than October 12, 1999. The Court extended the deadline to September 15, 2000 for claimants who could show that “extraordinary circumstances,” such as damages incurred from a hurricane or a medical problem prevented them from doing so on-time.

- that another 73,800 claims were filed under the late filing process of which about 66,000 were received before Sept 15, 2000. It's claimed that because those cases were late they were not allowed to proceed, and according to the Black Farmers Claims website, 58,000 of those claimants didn't have their cases resolved because they failed to meet the "extraordinary circumstances" test.

So, all in all, we know that about 88,000 claims were filed before Sept 15, 2000 for discrimination taking place between 1981 through 1996 under Pigford I. Another 8,000 were filed after that deadline for a total of 96,000 claims. That's pretty amazing considering they initially estimated there would be a few thousand to a few tens of thousands. Don't you think?

Now before continuing, ask yourself why they thought there would only be about 2000-20000 claims, Lurker? Do you imagine they just pulled that number out of thin air? Or could they have had good reason to believe that? Doesn't that seem likely?

In the event you do insist on claiming that there were legitimately 96,000 black farmers who "farmed or attempted to farm" between 1981 and 1996, and who applied for USDA loans and were turned down due to race (and surely not every black farm in the country met all three conditions in which case there must have been many more black farms and farmers than that), let's see if we can determine if that claim is remotely logical.

First, according to Appendix 3 of http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/rr194.pdf , the official USDA census said there were

33,250 black farms in 1982,
22,940 black farms in 1987,
18,816 black farms in 1992, and
18,451 black farms in 1997.

Assuming there was a constant 23,000 black farms during the period (a generous assumption), even if there was 100% turnover (a generous assumption) every 5 years (a generous assumption), and 100% of them had tried and failed to get USDA loans (unlikely), there still wouldn't have been enough farmers to add up to the 88,000 claimed, much less 96,000. So you get a F on your homework, Lurker. Unless you can prove that 100% of black owned farms do fail, that they all fail within about 4 years of starting, and that all of them request USDA loans and are turned down. But I'll bet you can't and that you won't even try.

Furthermore, since it's unlikely that having failed once, the same set of farmers would have tried again and again (somehow getting the money to start over), the only possible way that there could be 86,000 legitimate claimants is if tens of thousands of relatively wealthy urban blacks moved out to the country during the 80s and 90s and bought farms. Now I've heard of white flight but is there ANY evidence that black flight … to the country … occurred, Lurker? Any at all? Because unless you can offer some, you get a F-.

Next, we know that this last May the democrat controlled congress approved another $1.15 billion to settle what is expected to be (according to liberal sources) another 80,000 claims by *supposed* black farmers from that time period. John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, estimated about half of those 80,000 *farmers* will get an award. So now, all told, we are up to about 100,000 claims for discrimination to black farmers. And unless you can find the logic to explain another 10000+ black farmers in addition to the above, you get an F--.

Sure looks like this has the makings of a huge abuse of the system, folks.

Now mind you, I'm not saying that there weren't a lot of Black farmers who were discriminated against by the USDA and deserved compensation … probably more than they actually got. I'm saying that the way this was handled opened up the possibility of blacks in large numbers gaming the system and this appears to be what happened (and is still happening).

We now know that the USDA has been unwilling to release information that might resolve some of the allegations of fraud that have been made. When Agri-Pulse attempted to verify an allegation via a FOIA request by asking USDA to provide the names and locations of individuals who had received payments, "the agency denied access to the Pigford information, citing an 'unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'"

How convenient. You get to take public money yet keep your name secret. Could that be because Obama, Holder and Vilsack are up to their necks in this scam? That it's not about farmers who were discriminated against, but a means of getting *reparations* to the any black who can play the system? That would be so Cloward-Piven, would it not?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm dubious. The only Bush/Hitler ad that I'm aware of was the one created by some random bozo that was submitted to moveon as part of a public contest.

Ok, I checked further and it looks like you are right … as far as an *ad* making that connection being run by democrats. But …

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/05/01/a-short-history-of-liberals-using-the-nazi-card/

 

[BeAChooser]

You are aware that institutional and otherwise legal discrimination of blacks didn't end until almost two-decades after the Japanese were released, right?

I'm also aware that 2 decades ago, Japanese in this country were already doing quite well economically and socially. So in the same amount of time as blacks have had since 1964, they not only recovered from having almost all their assets and belongings forceably taken away from them, but managed to overcome the intense hatred of Japanese that the cruel fighting and attrocities of WW2 engendered in the American people. Hatred that persists even to this day amongst certain Americans. And they did it without trillions of dollar in government help.

For that matter, do you have any evidence that the temporary discrimination the Japanese faced (and on a scale much smaller than blacks, Native Americans, and other groups discriminated against have ever faced in the US) would have the sort of effect that hundreds of years of slavery followed by decades upon decades of forced poverty and a society which not only legalized but encouraged racism and discriminatory policy against blacks would have?

I'm going to just pass on dissecting the many victicratic inaccuracies in that statement, and focus instead on this. The economic status of Japanese Americans in post WW2 America was far worse than that of most black Americans in 1964. Also, by 1964, black Americans were certainly viewed better than Japanese Americans were viewed following WW2. So let's call it a level playing field and see what happened next:

http://library.thinkquest.org/20619/Japanese.html

The wartime internment of Japanese, and its lasting economic after-effects reflected themselves in occupational declines among Japanese Americans after the war. The number of first-generation business owners dropped to half of what it had been in prewar years, with the number of house servants of the same generation more than doubling. Those who became farm laborers in the postwar years was more than triple the prewar percentage and the number of Japanese professionals also declined. But while disastrous economic retrogression struck the first-generation Japanese Americans (Issei), the second generation (Nisei) steamed along at an accelerated rate. As American citizens, American educated- with more years of schooling than whites- the Nisei sought lucrative professions, resulting in the Japanese seldom majoring in liberal arts. 1959 saw the Japanese American income reach the family income of whites, and by 1969, it surpassed the national average in family income by 32 percent. The trend continued, with the 1990 census showing the median family income of Japanese Americans to be 45 percent higher than the median family income of native-born, non-Asian Americans. Along with this economic progress came acculturation and social acceptance, including rising rates of intermarriage; by 1980, three-quarters of all Japanese Americans spoke only English.

Now compare that to the black communities approach … nonstop cries of "racism" at every slight (real or imagined); rioting; a general lack of focus on the value of education and even amongst those who do get one, a tendency to major in ethnic studies, community organizing, sports or liberal arts rather than something lucrative; and a widespread movement that seems to desire separation of the races rather than acculturation and acceptance. And where did that get them?

Mac and Safari don't link to a better internet reserved for people permanently attached to Steve Jobs teat, you know.

Odd. I never seem to have any trouble opening links that PC users point me too. The problems all seem to be the other way. That your particular computer didn't have a problem may just be a function of your particular computer. See, that's one of the problems with the PC world. A lack of standardization.

consider that perhaps the website was down at that point in time

I suppose that's a possibility. Although I checked the website just 2 hours after Juniversal posted and it was working for me. Guess we'll have to wait to hear from him whether it's still down for him.

and their malware

PS. I also have NO PROBLEM with viruses. How about you? And years later my computer is still running just as fast as the day I bought it. Is yours?

I know, I know. The one thing you never do is insult the other guy's computer. But I couldn't resist. So all of the above is just good-natured kidding. Don't take it so serious.

 

[Lurker]

And what exactly does that have to do with the ability of the child to learn, to be taught?

Dude, are you serious? You don't think the socio-economic background has any effect on the ability of a child to learn? Really? Do I have to bother googling it to link to a study? I wonder what the quality of pre-K education/preparation kids of middle to upper class backgrounds get versus those from lower class backgrounds.

The fact is that private schools and catholic schools have proven they can take children from poor minority communities and succeed with them ... for far less cost than what the public school system spends. It's not about the *economics* of the student, or the money spent by the schools, it's about the way they are taught and what is expected of them. Which is a lesson that the liberals supporting the public school system can't seem to learn.

I would say it is a mix of the two. Anyway, I'd love to see your sources on that. Not that I don't think they exist, but I am just interested.

I'll bet you the graduation rates at schools with higher SAT scores is higher than schools with lower SAT schools. What should we wager?

You are probably correct. Then again, SAT scores are an entity to themselves. There is no guarantee that SAT scores are truly comparable year to year, for example. Also, some schools encourage SATS more than others.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I'm also aware that 2 decades ago, Japanese in this country were already doing quite well economically and socially.

This has what to do with the fact that our government was practicing a form of anti-black institutional racism as far off as two decades after World War II?

So in the same amount of time as blacks have had since 1964, they not only recovered from having almost all their assets and belongings forceably taken away from them, but managed to overcome the intense hatred of Japanese that the cruel fighting and attrocities of WW2 engendered in the American people. Hatred that persists even to this day amongst certain Americans. And they did it without trillions of dollar in government help.

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that what the Japanese had to endure during WWII was worse than what blacks had to endure for hundreds of years in this country? Instead of responding to your next copy-paste quote that you picked up off the first google hit, I'm just going to respond to all of this nonsense at once.

No one told you about the massive movement for reparations following World War II did they? And I suppose no one told you that they got them either? From 1948 to 1999 the US government gave literally billions of dollars to the victims of these internment camps. Clearly, the US government and society at large wasn't looking down on the Japanese nearly as much as they were the black population. True, at least one politician lost his office for publically apologizing to the Japanese. But that's still one cherry out of the entire bunch that you're gleefully ignoring. Somewhat shocking, I'm sure, but the very thing you're decrying may have actually helped boost the Japanese population. Not to mention that the Japanese didn't have to suffer long following WWII. As your own link mentioned, Japanese-Americans rebounded quickly following WWII and the Civil Rights movement was just around the corner. Clearly the mindset for racial equality and social justice (GASP! COMMIES!) had already been planted, the Japanese never had to face anything like the Jim Crowe laws following WWII.

Now compare that to the black communities approach … nonstop cries of "racism" at every slight (real or imagined); rioting; a general lack of focus on the value of education and even amongst those who do get one, a tendency to major in ethnic studies, community organizing, sports or liberal arts rather than something lucrative; and a widespread movement that seems to desire separation of the races rather than acculturation and acceptance. And where did that get them?

You stay classy BAC

Odd. I never seem to have any trouble opening links that PC users point me too. The problems all seem to be the other way. That your particular computer didn't have a problem may just be a function of your particular computer. See, that's one of the problems with the PC world. A lack of standardization.

I have a magic PC that connects to an internet made especially for me, gotcha.

I suppose that's a possibility. Although I checked the website just 2 hours after Juniversal posted and it was working for me. Guess we'll have to wait to hear from him whether it's still down for him.

You're right, far more likely that we're connecting to a special internet that only shows all of the websites to us.

PS. I also have NO PROBLEM with viruses. How about you? And years later my computer is still running just as fast as the day I bought it. Is yours?

The only reason anyone would write a virus for Mac is if you wanted to take down a gradeschool computer lab. But no, I don't have virus problems because I'm an informed PC owner. You, however, are using that lovely little piece of malware Apple was caught trying to shove down our throats through iTunes.

 

[Lurker]

No, DUDE, it is YOU who has failed both history and logic.

Hmm, YOU were the one citing one year's population of farmers and using that as the number that should be represented in the lawsuit for a timespan of 15 years. I just showed you why your logic was totally faulty. Now you want to backtrack and misrepresent what you wrote and do a whole lot of handwaving but it does not negate your initial error.

I don't doubt the stats you posted. I was not here defending the judgement, nor the numbers used. I just jumped in when I saw you make a huge error in logic (or math, however you want to look at it). Go back and look at my posts on this topic and you will see I am correct.

Instead of bluster, why don't you just say, "Hey, a one year population is inappropriate for a 15 year term lawsuit." No big deal.

 

[BeAChooser]

Dude, are you serious? You don't think the socio-economic background has any effect on the ability of a child to learn? Really?

http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html

Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000

And those percentages are about the same as in public schools. So by your reasoning, private schools must be taking many students that would end up doing poor in public school. But do they do just as poorly in a private venue? From the same source,

Private school students from low socio-economic backgrounds are more than three times more likely than comparable public school students to attain a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s.

In other words, private schools must be taking students that the public schools would fail to help, according to you due to their minority and socio-economic background, and turn them into successes instead.

Do I have to bother googling it to link to a study?

Why don't I.

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm

In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

- The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

- Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

- 85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

- The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

- 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

Sorry, Lurker, but it looks to me like it's the democrat controlled public schools that make kids poor students. The poor students are the victims of poor schools, rather then the schools being the victims of poor students. Even uneducated parents can apparently do a better job than public schools …

http://newsblaze.com/story/2007100403040200003.cc/topstory.html

TORONTO, ONTARIO - (Marketwire - Oct. 4, 2007) - Home schooling appears to improve the academic performance of children from families with low levels of education, according to a report on home schooling released today by independent research organization The Fraser Institute.

"The evidence is particularly interesting for students who traditionally fall through the cracks in the public system," said Claudia Hepburn, co-author of Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream, 2nd edition and Director of Education Policy with The Fraser Institute.

"Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do. One study we reviewed found that students taught at home by mothers who never finished high school scored a full 55 percentage points higher than public school students from families with comparable education levels."