Lowest math scores in the nation goes to...

[DisgruntledVirus]

Simple solution. Offer $5000 for any man in Detroit (nationally would be better) who gets a vasectomy. Offer $10K for any woman of child bearing age who gets her tubes tied (more invasive surgery warranting bigger payout). Sliding scale for folks who already parents. Lots of folks who have no business having kids will take the money, saving the taxpayers far more than the cost of the program.

Requiring parental performance bonds would also be good. Fining parents for raising worthless kids might improve things.

I await my $5,000 check.

I, for one, am in support of such a program. Granted it wouldn't be in the nations best interest, and would never happen.

 

[DukeN]

Um, hello - schools funded by local taxes instead of a uniform distribution areas ensure that lower income areas continue to have the most poorly funded schools. Which results in the worst performing schools.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Awhile ago someone posted the differences in thought between Reds and Blues and it seems to hold true for the two extremes.

Reds want everyone to start at their own place and go where they can get themselves
Blues want everyone to end up the same

The logical course (for my pseudo-libertarian self) is to start everyone near the same line and let them run their course.

This thread is rampant with making sure that all people share the same result. It sickens me a bit that this is so. If we oust those who are capable of more (or hold them back as it seems), then how can we advance and become better as a nation and as a community?

 

[nick1985]

Simple solution. Offer $5000 for any man in Detroit (nationally would be better) who gets a vasectomy. Offer $10K for any woman of child bearing age who gets her tubes tied (more invasive surgery warranting bigger payout). Sliding scale for folks who already parents. Lots of folks who have no business having kids will take the money, saving the taxpayers far more than the cost of the program.

Requiring parental performance bonds would also be good. Fining parents for raising worthless kids might improve things.

Agree 100%

Time for eugenics

 

[nick1985]

Granted it wouldn't be in the nations best interest

The fuck it wouldnt be

 

[Carmen813]

Awhile ago someone posted the differences in thought between Reds and Blues and it seems to hold true for the two extremes.

Reds want everyone to start at their own place and go where they can get themselves
Blues want everyone to end up the same

The logical course (for my pseudo-libertarian self) is to start everyone near the same line and let them run their course.

This thread is rampant with making sure that all people share the same result. It sickens me a bit that this is so. If we oust those who are capable of more (or hold them back as it seems), then how can we advance and become better as a nation and as a community?

That isn't what "Blues" want, in fact what "Blues" want is exactly what you want.

 

[alphatarget1]

Rather than respond to your post now, I want to say what a pleasant surprise it is you are watching the video, and to not there was an addition to my post.

But I will make one comment - you seem to be missing why I referenced this video - it's to dispell the racism of people who say 'doen't matter what's done, those back kids are not going to do well since their culture is so bad', if they aren't saying even worse based on race. Watch the change in that kid they interviewed years ago and now. It's simply to point out that it's not a race problem, it's an environment problem.

Just as armchair posters can comment with expertise on why foreign people and cultures do what they do with terrible ignorance, they do the same about urban black kids they have no experience with.

By pointing this out, I'm tring to redirect the topic from idiotic racist comments to the relevant question of what if anything can be done to help the kids' environement.

We can't easily change the effects caused by centuries of racism, can't easily cure the poverty (though we should work on that too), but it's more practical to look at how to give them better education.

My black friends from high school were just like any normal kids. Some decided to graduate high school and get a job and some decided to go to college.

Africans I have met in Germany do not have the same mentality as some of the ghetto communities in the US. I will say this: It's not racist to discuss on (some) parts of the mentality of the African American community, namely lack of responsibilities of fathers. Your Messiah talked about this. It's liberal douches like you that cry racism on every opportunity that we can't have a frank, candid discussion on what best to do to help these kids to realize their potential.

Liberals like you don't really contribute anything to society. It's easy to spend money on ineffective social policies that make you feel good instead of actually doing something that helps.

 

[Toastedlightly]

That isn't what "Blues" want, in fact what "Blues" want is exactly what you want.

Then fund these innner city schools equally. Let the teachers teach. Do not give them special treatment (as they do get).

You seem to demand that black students from the inner city do as well as the white students of the suburbs and you will get there come hell or high water. The fact of the reality is that starting the inner city schools off in a better position only nets the same results as the suburbs who started at a lesser level.

 

[0marTheZealot]

The simple answer is that the US needs to look at what works around the world and ruthlessly implement those policies in our country. Too bad it'll never happen. Republicans will never support it because of two reasons. One is because they can never accept that other countries can do things better than the US. Two is because it'll be seen as a Democratic initiative. Remember, 30 republican senators voted against a measure that bans the US from doing business with companies who force arbitration over the US criminal justice system; the infamous gang rape case is just one example of this. This was just because a Democrat proposed this sensible piece of legislation.

Second, Democrats will oppose this because the Teachers' Unions will protest so loud and high, it'll kill the measure in it's cradle. Sure, you'll have a few Democrats on board, but by and large, most will backtrack and end up defeating the measure. So in the end, we'll just pay more money into the status quo and fix nothing. This is the modus operandi for American politics. Find a problem, propose a crap solution, pass crap solution, circle-jerk until the next problem comes up.

It's a goddamn shame considering that education of our next generation is how we'll maintain our place in the world. If we have crap students, we simply won't be able to compete with the next generation of Chinese, Russian and German scientists. We'll be back to the 1900s-1940s, where Europe was the center of science and innovation. Except this time, it'll be Russia and China.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Agree 100%

Time for eugenics

Ummm how exactly would a voluntary program that gave a cash incentive to get sterilized be eugenics? First off, it would be a program available to anybody so it wouldn't be discouraging reproduction of people with defects or "less desireable traits". Secondly, we have state run "here's your $ to have kids" so where is the program "here's your $ to not have kids"? Third, it would not do anything to the existing welfare programs that reward having more kids. Finally, there are many people I know who do not want kids and providing them a way to have some sort of financial gain to doing something they want (at minimum make it a free procedure for the state).

 

[F1N3ST]

Oh, an idea! Take detroit and relocate it to Arizona or something.

 

[Carmen813]

Then fund these innner city schools equally. Let the teachers teach. Do not give them special treatment (as they do get).

You seem to demand that black students from the inner city do as well as the white students of the suburbs and you will get there come hell or high water. The fact of the reality is that starting the inner city schools off in a better position only nets the same results as the suburbs who started at a lesser level.

Two points:
1.) I fail to see how an unequal basic education provides an equal starting position.
2.) Where did I demand anything?

 

[Toastedlightly]

Two points:
1.) I fail to see how an unequal basic education provides an equal starting position.
2.) Where did I demand anything?

1. I mentioned that above. I would like to see districts equally funded per student. That would allieviate some inequality in the education business (as funding seems to be directly correlated to outcomes). Would this equal out all education? Most likely not, but as I have oft heard; "Education is what YOU make of it". We cannot replace lack of effort with money.

It seems that we are at an impass in how to define equal starting position. Do we hamper the well off to the expense of those who start off lower? These are more philosophical questions than policy questions.

2. I was referring to Craig who demands the equal results. Sorry if that got lost in the message.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And the winner is...Detroit! We got the lowest math scores in the nation!

Detroit is America's little piece of Somalia. It was even ruled by a gorilla named King Kwame at one point.

Simple solution. Offer $5000 for any man in Detroit (nationally would be better) who gets a vasectomy. Offer $10K for any woman of child bearing age who gets her tubes tied (more invasive surgery warranting bigger payout). Sliding scale for folks who already parents. Lots of folks who have no business having kids will take the money, saving the taxpayers far more than the cost of the program.

This sounds like an excellent idea. I don't see how reducing the amount of dysgenics in our society could hurt.

There was a woman some years back who tried that, she was was called pretty much every name in the book.

If this is the woman I'm thinking of, her goal was to get crack addicts sterilized, not merely poor people, but crack addicts who pump out litters of retarded crack babies that the rest of society will have to pay and care for for their lives. However, she was accused of black genociiide and of trying to kill black bay-yay-yay-yay-bies.

In reality, she is deserving of receiving government funding. At least what he is doing might actually make a small difference.

While my wide doesn't work for DPS she works in a district pretty close to it and I can tell you there is very little cultural motivation for doing well in school.

What do you mean by "district pretty close to it"? Are you referring to a mostly black inner ring suburb that isn't radically different than Detroit or are you referring to the likes of an upper middle class area like West Bloomfield? From what I can tell, the schools in the upper middle class areas are doing just fine.

 

[werepossum]

My black friends from high school were just like any normal kids. Some decided to graduate high school and get a job and some decided to go to college.

Africans I have met in Germany do not have the same mentality as some of the ghetto communities in the US. I will say this: It's not racist to discuss on (some) parts of the mentality of the African American community, namely lack of responsibilities of fathers. Your Messiah talked about this. It's liberal douches like you that cry racism on every opportunity that we can't have a frank, candid discussion on what best to do to help these kids to realize their potential.

Liberals like you don't really contribute anything to society. It's easy to spend money on ineffective social policies that make you feel good instead of actually doing something that helps.

To a large extent the lack of responsibility in black fathers is a function of well-intentioned government programs. Black fathers (at least the few I know) want the same things for their kids as any other fathers. However we set up welfare programs that enabled young girls to have their own apartments and incomes if they had a baby - as long as there was no father around. Every race was affected, but especially blacks because blacks were targeted for "help" and tended to be poor at a much higher rate due to the legacy of slavery - blacks were poorly educated, placed little value on education, were often prohibited from getting the better jobs, and had no family connections in the higher strata of the economy. Just as things were finally getting better for blacks our government, no doubt with the best of intentions, yanked the rug out from under them by destroying the family structure. (Oddly enough we know that doesn't work on elephants, yet we somehow think it works fine on people.)

Now our government has placed poor blacks mainly on a maintenance program, providing welfare and subsidized housing and allowing a few to climb up by lowering the standards while ensuring that the majority of poor inner city blacks remain poor inner city blacks. There is a healthy black middle class and a growing black upper class, but these people are no closer to poor inner city blacks than am I; they are more a myth to them than a reality. Until we begin demanding that blacks achieve to move up we are going to continue the same cycle, but honestly I'm at a loss as to how you accomplish that without starving children whose parents are too dumb or too unmotivated to learn and to work. One thing that may help is Obama himself, a symbol that maybe it's not the system holding you back, maybe it's you. As he gives speeches about the value of education, surely some blacks who saw education as something largely unconnected with their world, of dubious benefit to their lives, will get the message.

 

[Craig234]

1. I mentioned that above. I would like to see districts equally funded per student. That would allieviate some inequality in the education business (as funding seems to be directly correlated to outcomes). Would this equal out all education? Most likely not, but as I have oft heard; "Education is what YOU make of it". We cannot replace lack of effort with money.

It seems that we are at an impass in how to define equal starting position. Do we hamper the well off to the expense of those who start off lower? These are more philosophical questions than policy questions.

2. I was referring to Craig who demands the equal results. Sorry if that got lost in the message.

I did not say that, you are lying.

I have always said I support healthy inequality - not too much and not too little.

Inequality is part of a system of incentives, where the incentives are essential to making the pie bigger that we cut the slices from for people.

Too little inequality reduces incentive and shringks the pie, too much inequality reduces incentive as well as the rewards go far too much to a small group who simply 'own' things and are largely parasitical.

An area we differ is that you are an idiot ideologue who has no clue but parrots nonsense and who sees explanations of the situation as if they're in a language you can't read.

They dont go out your other ear, they are not allowed to hit your ear to begin with. There are things that actually help groups and society and you are not interested in that, just in spouting your blind ideology.

There's am old saying 'when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail'. All most righties have is the hammer of the 'incentive' talking point, and a compllicated issue for them is a simple nail.

And as they pound on their computer circuit with their hammer, big surprise that their ideology doens't actually work too well. But you need to keep saying I'm for something I never said to cover ignorance.

 

[Toastedlightly]

I did not say that, you are lying.

I have always said I support healthy inequality - not too much and not too little.

Inequality is part of a system of incentives, where the incentives are essential to making the pie bigger that we cut the slices from for people.

Too little inequality reduces incentive and shringks the pie, too much inequality reduces incentive as well as the rewards go far too much to a small group who simply 'own' things and are largely parasitical.

An area we differ is that you are an idiot ideologue who has no clue but parrots nonsense and who sees explanations of the situation as if they're in a language you can't read.

They dont go out your other ear, they are not allowed to hit your ear to begin with. There are things that actually help groups and society and you are not interested in that, just in spouting your blind ideology.

There's am old saying 'when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail'. All most righties have is the hammer of the 'incentive' talking point, and a compllicated issue for them is a simple nail.

And as they pound on their computer circuit with their hammer, big surprise that their ideology doens't actually work too well. But you need to keep saying I'm for something I never said to cover ignorance.

I apologize, I should have clarified that the impression I was getting from you was such, not that you had actually said it.

And then you delve into personal attacks for what gain? We are discussing education and suddenly I am called an idiot.

To comment you your quote:

They dont go out your other ear, they are not allowed to hit your ear to begin with. There are things that actually help groups and society and you are not interested in that, just in spouting your blind ideology.

I do listen. That is why I am having this discussion, is it not? We simply have different views on the way education as a whole should work.

About the incentive quote as well (which seems to be more inline with the topic). What other reason is there for most people to improve?

Whether the incentive is to merely improve one's self [which seems to be rather rare], or to aquire more things [the incentive of weath], or the desire to help others [the incentive to make you feel good about yourself?], incentive drives people's desires. To every action there is a gain or a loss. It is the nature of people to gain, not to lose. Incentive is not merely a hammer, but it is the toolbox which contains all the reasons of why we act.

Once again, you have grouped a simple pseudo-libertarian in with the right wing. Unlike extreme libertarians (which some even deny me the name), I am for social programs which help us as a nation. Welfare? Sure, but make it carefully monitored and limited. Education? Sure, as long as it is advantageous to the nation as a whole.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fixed. And Mississippi/Alabama/non-Austin Texas are what happens when you let Republicans run it.

And the Great Depression and 2008 crash are what happen when Libertarians run things/

Absent any government regulation representing the public = wealth concentrating more and more and society being forced to serve those few until you have another third world country.

Well in NY the Progressive policies have once again struck. Not only have they put the western side of the state at the highest per capita tax rate in the nation, the governor is cutting the education budget by 10%. That's to pay for the other programs they foisted on us. Medicaid continues to climb, we are getting hit with more fees and only an idiot would put his business here, because of the vampires running this place. Democratic Progressive Fail. They make sure only wealth concentrates in their pocket and their friends, and not the middle class.

And yet it's not enough.

People are leaving when they get the chance because they can't afford 8K or so in taxes on a 190K house, AND the fees, AND the income tax, AND the sales taxes.

We love the people here in the western part of the state, but they even inflated the hunting fees, then stole that money which was to be dedicated to wildlife. Many of the locals have decided to hunt and screw the license. I don't blame them.

When it's time to retire, we're out of here and will probably head to NH where it's sane compared to this tar pit.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Then fund these innner city schools equally. Let the teachers teach. Do not give them special treatment (as they do get).

You seem to demand that black students from the inner city do as well as the white students of the suburbs and you will get there come hell or high water. The fact of the reality is that starting the inner city schools off in a better position only nets the same results as the suburbs who started at a lesser level.

I just looked up the figures for Michigan, Detroit is in the top 10% of districts in the state for funding - most of the state funding laws have special rules for "class A" districts with 100k plus, of which Detroit is the only one - that gives them an even larger share of state revenues.

So Detroit gets over $11k per student, but most of the districts near where I live - in the same county but about 20 miles away get anywhere from $7.7 to $9k, and the academic performance is night and day different.

 

[F1N3ST]

I just looked up the figures for Michigan, Detroit is in the top 10% of districts in the state for funding - most of the state funding laws have special rules for "class A" districts with 100k plus, of which Detroit is the only one - that gives them an even larger share of state revenues.

So Detroit gets over $11k per student, but most of the districts near where I live - in the same county but about 20 miles away get anywhere from $7.7 to $9k, and the academic performance is night and day different.

Well, the gross money seems fine, but after everyone embezzles it and whatnot, there's probably like half, lolcake. God, Detroit is just that bad, it's seriously THAT bad. That's what my state is known for anyways I guess, Detroit.

 

[BladeVenom]

I just looked up the figures for Michigan, Detroit is in the top 10% of districts in the state for funding - most of the state funding laws have special rules for "class A" districts with 100k plus, of which Detroit is the only one - that gives them an even larger share of state revenues.

So Detroit gets over $11k per student, but most of the districts near where I live - in the same county but about 20 miles away get anywhere from $7.7 to $9k, and the academic performance is night and day different.

+1. Just look at Washington DC. They spend more per student than any state does, and yet no politician would send their kids to DC public schools.

 

[werepossum]

+1. Just look at Washington DC. They spend more per student than any state does, and yet no politician would send their kids to DC public schools.

And yet they make damn sure that poor people have no other choice but to send their kids to those same useless schools, no matter how much they care about their children getting a good education. So do politicians value union employees that much more than children, or just find poor people too useful to risk losing?

 

[KMFJD]

They just be keepin it real, learnin' an stuff is for losers

 

[Craig234]

I apologize, I should have clarified that the impression I was getting from you was such, not that you had actually said it.

And then you delve into personal attacks for what gain? We are discussing education and suddenly I am called an idiot.

To comment you your quote:



I do listen. That is why I am having this discussion, is it not? We simply have different views on the way education as a whole should work.

About the incentive quote as well (which seems to be more inline with the topic). What other reason is there for most people to improve?

Whether the incentive is to merely improve one's self [which seems to be rather rare], or to aquire more things [the incentive of weath], or the desire to help others [the incentive to make you feel good about yourself?], incentive drives people's desires. To every action there is a gain or a loss. It is the nature of people to gain, not to lose. Incentive is not merely a hammer, but it is the toolbox which contains all the reasons of why we act.

Once again, you have grouped a simple pseudo-libertarian in with the right wing. Unlike extreme libertarians (which some even deny me the name), I am for social programs which help us as a nation. Welfare? Sure, but make it carefully monitored and limited. Education? Sure, as long as it is advantageous to the nation as a whole.

First, thanks for your apology, it's accepted. I hope you gotmore from the exchange on that than just the overreaching comment, and consider my position that's not based on what you thought.

Second, the tone of your post here is very civil and I'll moderate mine in response, since the harsher statements are not accurate for the way you are posting here.

What I'm trying to get across, to make the point less harshly, is that I think that you, like pretty much everyone including me to an extent, don't appreciate the complex issue of 'culture' here and its solutions.

It's far easier to do what most do, and just invent a simpler, ideological position and neglect what will actuallly help, to insist on things that won't help and ressit efforts, to 'not waste money'.

I can point to my own white suburban background evolution as I learned more about another culture's situation, and can say you really don't know what you don't know until you learn more.

We all want largely the same thing, but how are we going to get it, if people stick with ignorant assumptions and insist they're right, and don't do any more to improve things?

That approach has been proven it can last for centuries - a self-reinforcing myth. The easiest thing is to rationalize not doing anything by saying nothing can be done.

It's not one-side either. There ARE 'culture problems'. And while most whites underestimate the role of historical racism's effects today, many blacks can scapegoat them, often irrationally, make excuses.

Blame isn't very useful for imkproving things and isn't the reason to look at those effects- but understanding them can help identify the causes of some problems and identify solutions.

That's the bottom line, identifying 'what will help for this nation where there are not such large gaps by race, not because of simple equalizing handouts but because productivity by race is equalized'.

And to the extent that that answer includes understanding the legacy effects of racism and where some short-term assistance is essential to overcoming some of those unjust effects, we don't need people screaming murder in objection. To the extent that it involves blacks having to do their part, we don't need them screaming murder about imagined injustice.

It's a complicated issue and not many accept that, instead indulging in simplistic positions. If I ask you, what will really help improve things, inprove the culture, I think the correct response is 'who the hell knows'.

Just as with my earlier question about how you would 'fix' racism in a southern state in the 1950's. But just as a variety of efforts were made that improved that issue, we need efforts on this one.

It seems to me that just as getting whites to to focus on their common traits as humans rather than their social differences with blacks was important, understanding the effects historic racism still has and the need to correct some of them now is important to 'solving' this issue. Support not for 'throwing money at the problem' in misguided ways, but funding well-planned efforts.

I can't much stand the 'culture' that's so controversial - the 'no snitch', rap, 'gangsta' ignorance-accepting culture. But I think we need to look past the revulsion to understand the causes and how to improve it.

I think there are some ugly truths about how much of the bad things are created because of hate and poverty that's existed., that people don't want to hear.

There was a good documentary by Stacy Peralta on the history of the Crips and Bloods, and it's educational for how well-meaning middle-class black culture there was improved and then deteriorated.

I think it's a start for others to get some idea there's 'more to the story'.

In the meantime, we need not neglect nor waste, we need solid study and plans for 'what helps', and an openness to make the effort with the vigilance against waste and 'perpetual entitlement'.

 

[F1N3ST]

They just be keepin it real, learnin' an stuff is for losers

+1