I second that, indeed they are.

I'm a Chinese immigrant (to Canada) and I got a different kind of racist treatment from, er, the "majority".

But the theory is that, the best way to beat a racist is to be better than him/her - both in character & wealth. No matter what kind of unfair (in my POV) treatment the majority/society-at-large throw at me, the best way forward is make myself useful, bear the hardship to make my 2nd generation better off then I, have them pass on the same ideal to the next generation. Down the road, parity can be achieved, and my kids & grand-kids will be even better off then those racists.

My dad always said he hadn't much schooling (been at school for a total of 3 years), but through sheer determination he was very successful.
Rather than spoiling us he made sure he got us into good schools and we return the favor with good grades and focus.

What I'm saying is, those racists don't bother me, I'd rather do some good with my time than arguing with those ne'er-do-wells. This I think is rather typical thinking for most Asians immigrants.

What if the low income communities had what the high income communities had -- GOOD schools with all the amenities to achieve. Lets further say that these students now become 85% graduation and 60% college bound.

Would segregation still be needed?

Locally, it is generally cheaper to buy than rent... you need the deposit and all that of course, but the per month costs, even after insurance, property taxes and mortgage still end up cheaper. Now other expenses such as upkeep, utilities and the like may go up, but given you can get into a super nice home in a good school district and good neighborhood, for well under $150k (under $100k and even under $50k for less good areas) and rent is still in the $450-500 for smaller apartments... ownership appears to be the better idea. More space, for less money. When I had a house, I went from a small one bedroom apartment to a 3 bedroom house, 2 stories, walk up attic, basement (minor leaks)... saved a bundle per month, though gas ended up being ultra high, and job changes caused me to lose it eventually. Still, it was per month cheaper.

Heck, I know somebody, not local, but in Pittsburgh who moved from an apartment to owning a condo, and even after mortgage, association fees and utilities, it all comes out cheaper than her rent was alone before utilities, and the places are the same size (if not a bit bigger at the condo)... and that is still in the much coveted North Allegheny school district . Obviously homes and the like there are much more expensive than where I live, but still, seems cheaper to own than to buy for equal square feet even out there.

Christ....

Odd how Republicans always scream about "redistribution of wealth", but are fine with the fact that most employers no longer pay living wages the way they used to. They are fine if it's some rich guy taking his wealth generated by his employees' hard work for himself, but god forbid that the government take anything to help those that rich guy is leaving behind. Over half the people who work for Walmart qualify food stamps (only about 30% actually take it), despite the fact Walmart's profits are so high it could pay them all living wages, give them benefits, higher more, give more hours, and still make a huge profit while not raising prices... but it's the people needing food stamps that are bad, not the people who own and operate the company and take so much from their workers.

The one true small government candidate that the Republicans had was Rand Paul, and they rejected him for big government, tough talk, candidates that capitalize on their fears... most of which are fairly unjustified. Americans aren't lining up on the streets to get the sort of jobs that they accuse Mexican's of coming here to take. Our own actions of telling Muslims how to live is the reason they want to kill us, leave them alone and govern themselves... stop preemptively attacking... you know be more Christ like who wouldn't support such things...

And as @oritteropo basically noted, Reagan was far to the left what today's Republican party is. Reagan wouldn't even get through the Primary process. Fox News, Rush and all of them would be ripping him a new asshole for not being "conservative enough". Obama is far closer to Reagan style politics and economics than most today's primary candidates. McCain once upon a time was close to Reagan, but he swung to the right to appeal to the extreme right base, and then added an idiot running mate. Had he ran down the center as he used to be, and got a centralist running mate, he would have had a chance of winning... though Obama sort of captured a hope for progressive change that never came, he turned out to be a Democrat in Name Only and was closer to a Reagan Republican than a true progressive.

Let's also not forget that Congress controls the purse strings and the US economic outlook (at least to what degree the government can, since the rest is in the hands of investors and business owners). Congress has been obstructionist for the last 6 years, and haven't allowed ANY of Obama's policies through, any of his attempts to help fix the economy. Want to blame somebody in the government for the mess, blame Congress, not Obama... if they attempted his stuff, then yes it would be his fault, but they haven't tried a single one of them. You can't say no to trying something, then when what you did instead doesn't work blame the person you said no to.

For the price of the F35 program so far, a plane that only barely passed some of it's flight tests, the rest still failing, we could have bought every homeless person a $600,000 home.... in this area a $150,000 home is very nice (good 3 bedroom home, nice safe neighborhood with good schools), let alone what $600,000 would get you... for the price of it this year, we could fund the school lunch program for 24 years. Now to be fair, I haven't fully vetted those two "facts" myself, but what I have vetted, is for the price of the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011, we paid more than NASA's entire history, even after adjusting for inflation. It's all a question of priorities. Republican's don't care how much the military costs the taxpayer, but suggestions to help the people being left behind as the rich take more and more for themselves (redistributing the wealth generated by their workers to themselves, rather than their workers) and suddenly they start screaming bloody murder.

Every time a Republican opens their mouth and spouts such things like this video I hate their gullibility... and all too often they talk about their faith and Christ... and I've already covered how the Republican views are 100% opposed to the teachings of Christ and it's why I first lost faith in God as he'd be screaming at them and trying to convict them that their views are wrong were he real. Don't just trust the first few Google results you see, as they filter their results to appeal to you and your views. Don't listen to the echo chamber. Learn to truly vet sources and understand what is actually going on. Don't parrot claims about a "liberal media" or whatever, when over 95% of the news sources out there are controlled by the same 5 companies, none of which have an incentive on letting people know just how bad they are being fucked by the business interests in this country... supporting gay marriage, supporting a minimum level of help isn't liberal, it's being a decent person... being against equal rights under the law because somebody sins differently than you, or not wanting to help somebody because they aren't working 80-100 hours a week is being a heartless asshole. But feel free to keep living in your echo chamber of stupidity, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

When I first started volunteering to serve at a homeless shelter, many years ago, I didn't know exactly why I was doing it. Certainly it felt like the "right" thing to do. I was at least confident that I wasn't doing it for personal gain because I didn't wear it on my sleave, didn't brag about it or hang my ego on my personal identity of being a good person. When dissillusionment set in, when I realized just how many of the people I was serving were homeless by choice, I pushed through and carried on...and I still didn't know why. I just trusted that I would get it one day.

Eventually I made a connection to the time I spent living in Sweden. In the town I lived in, every night a group of vagrants assembled in the market square. Every bit as dirty and drunken as the worst homeless person that most people imagine them all to be. Fighting, having sex in the public restroom, vomiting and carrying on loudly all night. But this was socialism, so they went home every night to their government payed for apartments. I realized that no matter what you do, there will always be a segment of society that just doesn't give a Fuck and is happy to take and never give back. We've all known these people. Family members, friends, acquaintances, who use up the good will of everyone they meet until they've got no one left to use and it falls to the larger community to support them. No economy, government or community planning will ever compell them to support themselves. We loathe them and shun them. Politicians with ulterior motives tell us that ALL homeless and disadvantaged ARE them. But it's a lie. There are the mentally and physically ill who have no support structure, who NEED their communities to help them. Most of these people were once functioning members of their communities who no longer have the ability to survive on their own.
And so I came to understand that it's better to feed a hundred leaches to serve a single helpless individual.

Boy was I proud of myself for realizing that.

And then I was layed off and my job shipped to India, followed closely by my wife spending a year in and out of the hospital, with no insurance. A careers worth of hard work, reduced to a data point on a corporate profit sheet. Waiting for the other shoe to drop, when the medical debt comes for me and everything I've built in my life is taken, to become a line in someone else's ledger. Betrayed by the greed in the system. Because I upheld my end of the social contract. I worked hard in school, excelled in my career, had two kids and bought a house in a neighborhood with good schools. But the system is run by the greediest and most power hungry. Politics and business is the domain of the high functioning sociopath. And to a sociopath, you're not a real person like them. You're a data point, a line in the ledger.

Then I came to respect the other segment of the homeless. The ones who rejected the social contract, who don't feel societal pressure to give more than they take. Because they got it right. It's all a lie. You don't earn anything in America. You don't deserve the fruits of your labor. You subsist at the whim of the people with money and power. And when it serves them, you get nothing.

We are all standing in line for food, hoping there's a room for the night.

Take any one statement of Bill O'Reilly here (for example, "You can't be on top as long as the Fox News Channel has been on top, 'annnsell'-(slurred, cocktails @ 2pm) and sell a product that's inferior or dishonest, it's impossible in this country.")

What the fuck does that actually mean? Nothing. Anyone that has an I.Q. of 90 should see his blathering for absolute shit.
NOw...

Compare that statement to any statement taken out of context during a speech by either party's candidate to the presidency and you will hear he same rhetorical bullshit regarding fuck-all and who cares. FOR EXAMPLE:

"Are we going to make it easier for you to afford your degree and pay off your student loan debt? (Applause.) Are we going to build more good schools and hire more good teachers, so that our kids are prepared to attend colleges like Iowa State, and prepared for the 21st century workforce? (Applause.)"....to robots at Iowa State University,Barack Obama - August 28, 2012.

Meaningless phrases strewn together cliche', with positive verbal gestures and cued pauses inducing applause as to be rendered ephemeral as soon as they are uttered.
Now kids-Go back to your dorm rooms, remember to vote on Nov. 2nd for the Not-Mormon, and play some more Mario Cart for quarters.

All news channels in the UK and the U.S. are total, and complete, sheit....great for infotainment and a sort of barometer of our progress towards idiocracy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This has much less to do with education systems and much more do to with how one teaches. I support this type of education for many youth. To make this about politics and not educational practices is a great disservice to what they have accomplished. This mode of discovery based teaching could be executed in a system of public and private schools, that isn't the issue at all. I throw in my support of discovery based teaching as a really great way let kids inspire themselves to learn. Imma vote for this even though I think Cenk is missing the point (this is why I hate politics, you can't see the trees for the forest at times)


Thanks for the upvote, but I strongly disagree.

How one teaches is directly controlled by the education system--which is directly controlled by politics (e.g. No Child Left Behind). The part of the plan which makes all schools equal is crucial to the success of the system. Instead of a few really great schools in the rich neighborhoods--and really shitty schools in all the poor neighborhoods--you get very good schooling for all the children. That--along with the amount of eduction needed to teach and a living wage for teachers--is completely controlled by politics.

If you focus too closely on one tree you'll miss the entire forest.

Haha, that's pretty funny. The people on the balconies have no idea. They probably grew up extremely sheltered, went to good schools (believed in their lifestyle & education) & believe success is based on where one works & the amount of money you have.

They see no problem, the only problem they see are the protestors, "Look at these uncultured, middle class monkey's... they dislike me because I am rich & successful, har har har, cheers guys!" Instead of "Oh shit, I'm pillaging unprecedented amounts of money from the people who do all of the actual work, I'M A A PIECE OF SHIT!! I need to change my fake, frivolous, meaningless lifestyle right now and figure out what is really going on in the world!"

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for that. I think I understand your position now too. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course poverty and parenting matter significantly, but so does teaching. Teachers may well only account for 10-20% of achievable outcomes as she claims in her article, but with enrollment restrictions to their district for many schools and no incentive for good teachers to teach there, the schools mirror the poverty of the region.

I think you're too focussed on sticking within the constraints of NCLB. Rewards and recognition payments can be calibrated to the difficulty of raising standards in schools at different performance levels. If anything, pay for performance could be the very way to attract great teachers into impoverished regions and under performing schools where previously there was no such incentive.

There's no reason law enforcement couldn't work partially on merit. Again you need the right measurements though, not arrest rates, but levels of crime measured independently and regular opinion polls from the region on perceived safety, conduct and manner of police and other indicators.

Similarly, with the right combination of monetary incentives for working in disadvantaged areas, a focus on improvements in standards rather than purely meeting standards you could create a system that addresses many of the issues you raise.

There is no reason that any test needs to be solely the memorisation of arbitrary facts. That speaks more to the failure of exams that fully emphasize predictable questions rather than requiring a broad understanding certain concepts. I agree completely that school is about learning to learn, and partially that involves developing a work ethic and ultimately memorising some facts. There is no reason that good schools can not devote time towards the arts/music/theater when they feel that their students have mastered basic math and reading skills. There could very well be an upper limit to rewards for performance which allows the best schools to be incentivised to differentiate themselves with broader teaching.

I simply don't see how you can argue though that there aren't basic reading comprehension and a certain degree of numeracy skills, that you simply need to make a living in today's world. Skills that can be easily measured through well designed tests.

If intuition isn't good enough:

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1_1,00.html

Executive summary page 15 onto 16:

"Within countries where schools are held to account for their results through posting achievement data publicly, schools that enjoy greater autonomy in resource allocation tend to do better than those with less autonomy. however, in countries where there are no such accountability arrangements, the reverse is true."

"In countries that use standards-based external examinations, students tend to do better overall, but there is no clear relationship between performance and the use of standardised tests or the public posting of results at the school level. However, performance differences between schools with students of different social backgrounds are, on average, lower in countries that use standardised tests."

The only assertion I made about charter schools is to imply that having more of them and allowing more competition for enrollment would not be a bad thing. I am arguing my own point not one of a movie.

You missed my point with the last comment. That's exactly what I'm asking you. How is teaching the only skilled field where paying talented people is anathema?

While I don't think public is better than homeschooling, this is lying with numbers, it's comparing apples to oranges.

Good school/test performance correlates very highly with high socio-economic status. If homeschooling is also an indicator of socio-economic status, as this data on parent education suggests, then you have a poor argument for a causative link here between the schooling situation and the outcome.

I would want to see the data broken down by household income, or even by households that have a stay at home parent vs not. I would be inclined to wager that in either case the disparity would dwindle to statistically insignificant.

I mostly went to private schools, and while the educational options were fewer, the classes were smaller, and that made a significant difference in the level of general disorder and thuggery. My parents were also well off and well educated, I test very well, and did so even when I was in public school.

I'm with Kurt Vonnegut on public school, just limit class sizes to 12, that would take care of the lord of the flies factor, and it would work out just fine.

Currently in the US we underfund the schools, and keep classes as large as we can while keeping classroom bloodbaths "rare". By doing this we get very little out of the institution of public education, and this neglect harms those from less educated and affluent families disproportionately, as they don't practicably have access to the other options, and don't have the osmotic education that takes place in affluent homes.

Synopsis

For a nation that proudly declared it would leave no child behind, America continues to do so at alarming rates. Despite increased spending and politicians’ promises, our buckling public–education system, once the best in the world, routinely forsakes the education of millions of children. Oscar®—winning filmmaker Davis Guggenheim (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH) reminds us that education “statistics” have names: Anthony, Francisco, Bianca, Daisy, and Emily, whose stories make up the engrossing foundation of WAITING FOR “SUPERMAN.” As he follows a handful of promising kids through a system that inhibits, rather than encourages, academic growth, Guggenheim undertakes an exhaustive review of public education, surveying “drop—out factories” and “academic sinkholes,” methodically dissecting the system and its seemingly intractable problems. However, embracing the belief that good teachers make good schools, Guggenheim offers hope by exploring innovative approaches taken by education reformers and charter schools that have—in reshaping the culture—refused to leave their students behind.

While i think the talking parrot comment might have been the most accurate description of Palin i've heard to date...

I'm sorry but I think the "europeans > americans" education is pretty flawed... there are good schools and bad schools... and smart people and well... not so much...

The 200 miles away from a university is an absurd point... I don't have a statistic to back it... but if you look at the US population the VAST majority meet that same criteria... The only states that wouldn't would be ones with huge territory and small population... alaska... montana... etc...

Just seems like a silly point to hang your hat on... and not sure how this video in any way illustrates that this particular European has a good grasp (in my opinon) on Sarah Palin... it says nothing more than that.