A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
1. Japan
2. Singapore
3. South Korea

4) Ownership: People who don't own their homes don't treat them as well and don't have as much vested in their community. Public housing should be converted to private ownership. Programs should be set up that encourage home ownership.

Public housing is almost always a disaster. It works in Singapore because the people that live in Public Housing have absolutely no rights. So unless you want a police state, public housing is not an option.

S--Not taking any issue with US public housing being a disaster, but the home ownership rates in both SKo and Japan are significantly below the ownership rates in America. How are the urban poor of Seoul, for example, housed (I have no idea)?

Also, with the "conversion to private ownership" are you suggesting (a) an expansion (effectively) of Section 8 housing with public housing privately-owned and managed or (b) selling (at undoubtedly nominal cost) existing public housing to the residents?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Now that we've dealt with the estate tax, tort reform probably is the next priority for helping the poor.

If only. I fear that the battle to retain the tax break on dividends and capital gains may get in the way of eliminating the minimum wage and public school funding.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
1. Japan
2. Singapore
3. South Korea

My bad -- I meant to add "black" since that's what we are talking about.

But, as for your examples -- Any minimum wage in those countries? Any welfare?

There are clearly some lessons we could draw from these countries. I believe that Japan, for example, pushes responsibility along with rights in its welfare system. And I believe that should be done here, too. But I do question whether largely homogenous Asian societies are so culturally and historically different from us so as not to be a good model. And I also would guess that other, more similar countries -- say, Canada -- do better by their urban poor, and have more of the "great society" stuff that you guys reject.



On the rights/responsibilities question -- if we make healthcare more available, as we should, I personally believe that people who fail to see their doctors, and who treat their bodies like shit, should get less access. Bluntly, if someone wants to eat at McDonald's three times a day, never exercise, and smoke like a fish, why should everyone else pay for the urgent medical care he's eventually going to need?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
S--Not taking any issue with US public housing being a disaster, but the home ownership rates in both SKo and Japan are significantly below the ownership rates in America. How are the urban poor of Seoul, for example, housed (I have no idea)?

Also, with the "conversion to private ownership" are you suggesting (a) an expansion (effectively) of Section 8 housing with public housing privately-owned and managed or (b) selling (at undoubtedly nominal cost) existing public housing to the residents?

I don't know about South Korea but they also have pubic housing in Japan. However, as in Singapore, they do not have any right to privacy in the public housing, and they have really strict rules. Still the places are much more run down than everywhere else, (as always the common areas are total crap) but they don't have the rampant crime our public housing has. However, their solution to the problem is not an acceptible solution here so public housing is out.

I just know that Pubic Housing (like Cabrini Green) just doesn't seem to work in the US.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
smoke like a fish

I agree, especially if he also drinks like a chimney.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pubic Housing

Well, this has been an entertaining foray into the politics board. I will stop with the non-substantive comments now and leave you to whatever it is you all do here.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Suburban and rural schools have less restrictions on getting rid of bad eggs.

I am nearly positive that this is untrue. It certainly wasn't true in my suburban Minnesota public school system.

And to be clear, in general, I actually agree with much of what you have written in these last two posts (although I am sure we would quibble about how your suggestions should be implimented), but I think to suggest that bad personnel is the key challenge facing urban schools is to ignore many other significant impediments.

Which is not to say that bad personnel can't be a problem too. But there is a long list of other factors.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
My bad -- I meant to add "black" since that's what we are talking about.

But, as for your examples -- Any minimum wage in those countries? Any welfare?

There are clearly some lessons we could draw from these countries. I believe that Japan, for example, pushes responsibility along with rights in its welfare system. And I believe that should be done here, too. But I do question whether largely homogenous Asian societies are so culturally and historically different from us so as not to be a good model. And I also would guess that other, more similar countries -- say, Canada -- do better by their urban poor, and have more of the "great society" stuff that you guys reject.



On the rights/responsibilities question -- if we make healthcare more available, as we should, I personally believe that people who fail to see their doctors, and who treat their bodies like shit, should get less access. Bluntly, if someone wants to eat at McDonald's three times a day, never exercise, and smoke like a fish, why should everyone else pay for the urgent medical care he's eventually going to need?

But how do separate these people out? And who turns in the constant eater at McDonalds? And how does the person know who turns them in that it is not a genetic problem but their lifestyle? The only solution to this problem, I can see is to tax unhealthy stuff and throw that money towards the healthcare system. That way you are really increasing their insurance rates because of unhealthy eating and living.

I know the anti-tax cabal is going to kill me for saying that, but I am going to dig my hole deeper by saying would should also have a safety tax. If you drive a car that is less safe, doesn't have automatic seatbelts, or if you drive a motorcycle, you pay more taxes (unless maybe if you sign you organ donor card - then we subsidise your motorcyce riding).

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Generally the level one trauma centers are located in big cities and usually in public hospitals. I know that if I were to end up in an accident, I'd be begging the ambulance to take me to Ben Taub.

I don't know that much about the 9/11 system, though I did help a group try to get a hold of diversion data from the trauma registry here so they could make the system more effiecient. The problem in Houston is that the city is the size of the state of Rhode Island, but the best hospitals are clustered in the Med Center. The problem is slowly being fixed, but it's taking time to build new hosptials.

In Dallas, our doctor friends always told us that the best place to go in the event of any major trauma was Parkland Hospital (huge, county-run hospital to the masses) because of its top-of-the-line trauma facilities, doctors and other resources. Then, of course, once the trauma was over, the key was to be transferred over to Baylor or Presbyterian for any continuing care. I would assume this is true in most cities.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Well, this has been an entertaining foray into the politics board. I will stop with the non-substantive comments now and leave you to whatever it is you all do here.

Mostly it's Alphonse and Gas . . . uh, I mean Hank and Penske, jerking chains.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I am nearly positive that this is untrue. It certainly wasn't true in my suburban Minnesota public school system.

It is really hard to get rid of a teacher in the Palo Alto pubic school system, but it can be done. In Los Angeles and Oakland, the teacher pretty much has to molest a student before you can get rid of them. My friend was a principle in LA and he had teachers that were missing a third of the school year that he couldn't get rid of. Some didn't teach at all and just shot the shit with their students all day; couldn't get rid of them.

Originally posted by Adder And to be clear, in general, I actually agree with much of what you have written in these last two posts (although I am sure we would quibble about how your suggestions should be implimented), but I think to suggest that bad personnel is the key challenge facing urban schools is to ignore many other significant impediments.

Which is not to say that bad personnel can't be a problem too. But there is a long list of other factors.

That is fair.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Well, this has been an entertaining foray into the politics board. I will stop with the non-substantive comments now and leave you to whatever it is you all do here.

Definitely you should try not to make any non-substantive comments over here. Some people are very sensitive about non-substantive comments.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Well, this has been an entertaining foray into the politics board. I will stop with the non-substantive comments now and leave you to whatever it is you all do here.

Goddamit, people! We had primo FB membership bored with the dead Xmas tree sitting in the living room, wander over here to check out the digs, and this is the best we can do to retain their interest?

(OTOH, it's probably better that gwnc didn't see Penske & Hank's vaudville act of a day or two ago. Carry on.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is really hard to get rid of a teacher in the Palo Alto pubic school system, but it can be done. In Los Angeles and Oakland, the teacher pretty much has to molest a student before you can get rid of them. My friend was a principle in LA and he had teachers that were missing a third of the school year that he couldn't get rid of. Some didn't teach at all and just shot the shit with their students all day; couldn't get rid of them.

Around here, the suburban school districts have real trouble getting rid of bad eggs - in part because they don't have the resources to go through what is a painful process. On the other hand, Boston has on-staff lawyers dedicated to the process, and so can weed out a steady stream.

Remember, though, the big reason its hard to weed out teachers is the civil service rules, generally put in place by those who wanted to get rid of urban machine patronage. Unions may provide the lawyers and reps in that process, and may add a bit of additional process into the mix contractually, but it is the civil service process that takes most of the effort. The Rs played quite a role in that historically (though I know it's always fun to blame the unions that provide the representation).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Well, this has been an entertaining foray into the politics board. I will stop with the non-substantive comments now and leave you to whatever it is you all do here.

I disagree.