Ah, here we go. The Bill O'Reilly school of "If I can't get the libruls to say it, I'll say it myself and pretend they did." 'flow, what say you?
This is true, but there are two data points. Distance to the market is one, the other is lack of car. To register on the map, a population most have low car access and distant groceries.
Well experts above our pay grade have already determined via academic success rates that the schools themselves are rarely at fault. It's not skin color because all kinds of immigrants do okay attending our public schools. Is there a remote possibility (though far-fetched as it is) that the families adhering to a particular cultural norm might have influence on their members with whom they form their attitudes? Just askin'
Yeah, cut the crap about skin color. I live in Boston where the black population is pretty low, and yet we still have the families that don't support their kids. It is related to poverty, not culture.
Somehow, every time we have this conversation, I can't help hearing an undertone of "Yeah, these kids are hopeless. Write 'em off. Because God forbid they had the same chance as my kids. They might actually be able to compete with my kids. Can't have that."
The possibility is not remote. In our current system kid's from shitty families generally perform shittily in school. Now the question is what do you do about the kids who are in those shitty families/households? Just write them off?
Strangely enough, the undertone I hear is "anyone not raising their children up to my arbitrary standards should turn said children over to the State to raise instead, so that they'll be proper little drones."
Because watching your country slide down the academic slope compared to the rest of the developed world is a Good Thing.
Ah, another variation on the Bill O'Reilly school of "If I can't get the libruls to say it, I'll say it myself and pretend they did."
Of course it's not a good thing. But what right has anyone got to do anything else? Let me flip it around -- the boondock Bible shouters think "kids bein' raised up all Gawdless" is a terrible thing -- have they got the right to "prevent Godlessness" among urban youth? I think they should "write them off", too.
I love how she thinks it's just swell to put words in others' mouths via her passive-aggressive little, "the undertone I hear is..." Anyone does anything similar with her, whole different story.
If you'd ask instead of telling... "Teach the Controversy" is another of those things that's dragging this country down. You concentrate on that. We'll concentrate on prenatal nutrition, access to good medical care, etc.
It is a good thing if your politics depend upon tricking voters in to acting against self-interest. Rational and informed citizens are tougher to demagogue. Hence, guys like Castle say what he said above.
It's funny how the "rational and informed" citizens always seem to be the ones who agree with the viewpoint of whoever is calling them rational and informed . . .
I'd be tempted to agree, except we have a major political party that actively works to undermine public education. Occam's Razor?
Wow, how incredibly condescending. And I'm sure you wonder why you'll never win some people over by telling them they're going against what you think their self-interest is.
Be realistic for a moment, and I'm sure you'll agree that people very often act against self-interest. We hear it all the time in multiple red room threads. People are poor because they choose minimum wage jobs rather than one that pays well, isn't that the refrain? It is incredibly naive for you to think there aren't any political operatives trying to win elections through lies and obfuscation.
...for children who can grow up healthy and well educated and join the workforce. Yeah, how unAmerican. I thought the Democrats were the wealthy ones? If all you're going to do is recite talking points, can you at least try for consistency?
No, quite the opposite. People act in what they perceive as their best short term interest. It's in the long term that they fail. "Vote for X because he'll get me free stuff" is what wins elections. Taxing a country into oblivion to pay for all that "free" stuff is the long term and unconsidered consequence.
Didn't I post a thread on that a while ago? Something like seven of the ten wealthiest congresscritters are Democrats? Which has nothing to do with giving "free" stuff to people to buy their votes. There's no inconsistency in there at all.
...for children who can grow up healthy and well educated and join the workforce. Yeah, how unAmerican. - Garamet Well allow me to retort: 1. Health - can't control what parents choose to feed them, or what they buy themselves with whatever money might be their own. 2. Well educated - can't make them learn if they aren't interested or acting out of control. 3. Workforce - if welfare/unemployment/EBT pays more than a low paying job, why work? If it's good enough for my family/friends it's good enough for me.
So an educated populace is just a waste of money? Such a populace couldn't possibly lead to a faster growing economy. @Lanzman, I was talking about long-term, and this bit about paying to educate is an example of long-term self-interest.
But you can improve prenatal care, utilize the suggestions in Post #19 that nobody on the Right seems able to read, and replace the junk food vending machines in schools with these: http://www.freshvending.com Improve their nutrition and healthcare and you'll reduce the incidence of learning disabilities and behavioral problems. Are you suggesting raising the minimum wage and creating enterprise zones, you commie?