AOC tweet o’ the day
Comments
-
Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
-
I get his point and I don't disagree with it. A healthier tax base would provide more money to impoverished schools. But I don't buy that it's nearly enough to solve the problem. And I don't see him making that claim, so I have no argument with him.MikeDamone said:
You still have it backwards. Funding is a symptom. Read Williams article again.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Which facts? I'm all ears.MikeDamone said:
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.GreenRiverGatorz said:
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
My issue is that the entire mechanism is flawed. School funding shouldn't be as disparate as the wealth of the local taxpayers who fund it. States should play a more active role in closing the funding inequality gap. That's a much easier lever to pull than hoping an increased police presence will bring about fundamental change within the community which will then spill over into a healthier school system. -
Sounds like school choice and vouchers would help.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I get his point and I don't disagree with it. A healthier tax base would provide more money to impoverished schools. But I don't buy that it's nearly enough to solve the problem. And I don't see him making that claim, so I have no argument with him.MikeDamone said:
You still have it backwards. Funding is a symptom. Read Williams article again.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Which facts? I'm all ears.MikeDamone said:
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.GreenRiverGatorz said:
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
My issue is that the entire mechanism is flawed. School funding shouldn't be as disparate as the wealth of the local taxpayers who fund it. States should play a more active role in closing the funding inequality gap. That's a much easier lever to pull than hoping an increased police presence will bring about fundamental change within the community which will then spill over into a healthier school system. -
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.WestlinnDuck said:Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
-
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.WestlinnDuck said:Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
-
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. -
Agreed. The teachers unions are another huge obstacle to quality education.MikeDamone said:
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.WestlinnDuck said:Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
-
Dude. You seriously have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Do you have kids in economically diverse public schools? If you did, you'd know what you're saying is bullshit.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Which facts? I'm all ears.MikeDamone said:
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.GreenRiverGatorz said:
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale. -
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.
Yep. The entire reason there is a lack of tax base is because 3/4 of the children in the black community are born without a father. You will never get liberals to ever discuss this point. Ever. They know it is a loser for them.
The distractions, violence and lack of interest in education in the South side of Atlanta is astounding. In 30 years it has gone from one of the best school districts in the state to the worst. That follows exactly the demographic change. Money was not the issue. Children having children with no man in the house was and continues to be the issue.
Now we will hear crickets from the liberals. They aren't really interested in solving this issue. They make themselves FEEL good by heartlessly throwing dollars at it and ignoring the root cause. -
A lack of two parent homes and parents that give a shit is the elephant in the room.Bendintheriver said:
Yep. The entire reason there is a lack of tax base is because 3/4 of the children in the black community are born without a father. You will never get liberals to ever discuss this point. Ever. They know it is a loser for them.
The distractions, violence and lack of interest in education in the South side of Atlanta is astounding. In 30 years it has gone from one of the best school districts in the state to the worst. That follows exactly the demographic change. Money was not the issue. Children having children with no man in the house was and continues to be the issue.
Now we will hear crickets from the liberals. They aren't really interested in solving this issue. They make themselves FEEL good by heartlessly throwing dollars at it and ignoring the root cause.
So women in the black community primarily get pregnant by artificial insemination? Chinteresting stat you have there. -
Sperm donor =/= father.2001400ex said:So women in the black community primarily get pregnant by artificial insemination? Chinteresting stat you have there.
Also, learn how to quote. -
This. The Teachers Unions have done more to screw kids out of a good education than any other force ever. Absolute joke. Fuck them.MikeDamone said:
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.WestlinnDuck said:Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
-
The fucking teachers' union. Fuck the fucking NEA and WEA....and every EA in the fucking country.Swaye said:
This. The Teachers Unions have done more to screw kids out of a good education than any other force ever. Absolute joke. Fuck them.MikeDamone said:
Too bad the teachers union doesn’t care about students. They will fight to the death in order to keep the monopoly on public funded education and protect their members from competition.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I'm also in favor of increased vouchers and charter schools. Forcing impoverished kids to stay at their underfunded and underperforming school isn't doing them any favors.WestlinnDuck said:Barry forced public schools from disciplining students because of "disparate impact". The result was inner city schools had a further increase in violence against students and teachers. I support private vouchers for public schools so that black parents aren't stuck with government run crap schools. Why do I care about poor black kids more than Cummings or Booker?
Teacher's union and public employee unions. Total bullshit.
And both of the Throbber's two dads were teachers. They're both rolling over in their graves at the abhorrent state of public education. One of my two dads (the Korean vet) would take some of these incompetent fuck teachers that should be fired for breathing out behind the teachers lounge and beat the fuck out of them. The old teachers policed their own - Greatest Generation hazing style. They didn't need any goddamned union protection or intervention.
-
Some people need to inform themselves of the real world test case where your theory was tested GreenRiver.
For more than a decade, the Kansas City district got more money per pupil than any other of the 280 major school districts in the country. Yet in spite of having perhaps the finest facilities of any school district its size in the country, nothing changed. Test scores stayed put, the three-grade-level achievement gap between blacks and whites did not change, and the dropout rate went up, not down.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-most-costly-educational-failure
There have been mountains of scholarly studies done on this case. It's one of things turned me away from being a Rat. It's not a lack of money that causes crappy results.
Utah is a state that spends less than half of what is spent per pupil in DC and Chicago yet they routinely beat both of those districts when you compare grades and test scores.
-
You're right about education being a prescription to the problem but you're dead wrong about a lack of funding being responsible for the education disparity.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
-
Please read that article I linked to regarding the Kansas City school system. Poorly funded schools isn't the problem.GreenRiverGatorz said:
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.MikeDamone said:
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. -
Rainier Beach High and South Shore Middle school were remodeled when our kids went there. I realize that was awhile ago but not that long
The biggest problem was white teachers with low expectations. And bored kids -
I sent my kids to private school and it was expensive. Yet the amount of money spent per classroom was a many times less than the public schools which at that time was 280K per class. Private had much better educational outcomes.
-
It would sure be nice if he identified these "programs" that were helping black people that Reagan cut. But I guess that was expecting too much from him.TurdBomber said:
The programs Reagan cut were not helping black people. They were trapping them in shitty buildings, neighborhoods and schools for eternity.allpurpleallgold said:I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people. -
RaceBannon said:
Rainier Beach High and South Shore Middle school were remodeled when our
kidsprops went there. I realize that was awhile ago but not that long
The biggest problem was white teachers with low expectations. And bored kids -
-
I am speaking out of my ass here...much like hondo... IMHO private schools are generally better because of a smaller class size... I live in small town...but the class sizes in middle school/jr high are 25-35 per teacher in public and about half that in the local biblethumping/recruiting school...Sledog said:I sent my kids to private school and it was expensive. Yet the amount of money spent per classroom was a many times less than the public schools which at that time was 280K per class. Private had much better educational outcomes.
-
AVERAGE CLASS SIZES AROUND THE WORLD
1. CHINA – 48.8 PER CLASS
2. SINGAPORE – 35.5 PER CLASS
3. JAPAN – 32.5 PER CLASS
4. UNITED STATES – 26.7 PER CLASS -
We could raise that number up significantly if we introduced caning, like Singapore.SFGbob said:AVERAGE CLASS SIZES AROUND THE WORLD
1. CHINA – 48.8 PER CLASS
2. SINGAPORE – 35.5 PER CLASS
3. JAPAN – 32.5 PER CLASS
4. UNITED STATES – 26.7 PER CLASS -
It's the exchange rate.SFGbob said:AVERAGE CLASS SIZES AROUND THE WORLD
1. CHINA – 48.8 PER CLASS
2. SINGAPORE – 35.5 PER CLASS
3. JAPAN – 32.5 PER CLASS
4. UNITED STATES – 26.7 PER CLASS
$USD very strong right now.
There's 4,200 per class in Venezuela. -
Class sizes about equal. Money spent was way less per class. 130K vs 280K.YouKnowIt said:
I am speaking out of my ass here...much like hondo... IMHO private schools are generally better because of a smaller class size... I live in small town...but the class sizes in middle school/jr high are 25-35 per teacher in public and about half that in the local biblethumping/recruiting school...Sledog said:I sent my kids to private school and it was expensive. Yet the amount of money spent per classroom was a many times less than the public schools which at that time was 280K per class. Private had much better educational outcomes.
-
It’s not about the money that those schools districts are receiving. It’s the same throughout a school district for the most part. The difference is the environment. In the roughest areas, there is little parenting going on and half the kids don’t listen to their teachers and disrupt the whole learning process because they have no respect for anything. No amount of money solves that problem. Better parenting and more Principal Joes with Baseball bats is the answer.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. -
I'm sure those little darlings who were tossing water on the police officers are very respectful of their teachers.salemcoog said:
It’s not about the money that those schools districts are receiving. It’s the same throughout a school district for the most part. The difference is the environment. In the roughest areas, there is little parenting going on and half the kids don’t listen to their teachers and disrupt the whole learning process because they have no respect for anything. No amount of money solves that problem. Better parenting and more Principal Joes with Baseball bats is the answer.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.MikeDamone said:What's Most Important?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. -
Beach is getting another remodel, very soon. Last time they got rid of the shop classes and tried to make a Garfield Mini music & theater program that failed miserably. At one point Beach almost closed when enrollment was <400 students. They kept it and Cleveland open because SPD feared gang clashes and a spike in fights and violence if they merged the two schools. Nothing like letting the gang tails wag the dog.RaceBannon said:Rainier Beach High and South Shore Middle school were remodeled when our kids went there. I realize that was awhile ago but not that long
The biggest problem was white teachers with low expectations. And bored kids
Since 2009, both RB and Cleveland have bounced back quite a bit. Finishing the light rail that tore up the neighborhood definitely helped RB, along with new housing in the area. Both those schools, along with most in the district, have 5% to 7% of the students who DNGAF about school or education in general. They don't even try and couldn't give two shits about history or biology. I'd call them fast strategy. And they test like runny green shit on standardized tests, which pulls the rest of their demo way, way down.
The biggest waste of money in school districts are the program directors, the diversity police, who literally do nothing, and most of the incompetent administrators in the Central Office. They could cut that staff by 50% and nobody would notice a difference in the schools, except a lot more dollars would reach the classroom.
That's where all the money gets burned, GRG. It ain't about levy equalization.
