Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, it for the same reason that the DEMS don't want them sitting on the appelllate court. They don't want to be in a position of opposing a minority to the SCt, and by nominating them, Bush can have a true conservative pass through the process and sit for 30 years to come.*

*This is not to suggest that either of them is not qualified for the job.

You seem to think you have discovered something, but I can't figure out what this is.

I don't understand this. Who said anything about asking teachers (other then unqualified ones) to surrender money?

What is it you think teachers unions should give up? So substitute "sacrifice" for "money."

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yo, I hope y'all aren't taking such extreme positions!

"great success"? Fuck. With 270,000 Chicago kids (1/10th of the city's population) in failing public schools, I can't imagine anyone here wants to defend the existing system.

The results so far seem to indicate mild success in the places where the systems and studies are based on blind subject selection. Nothing miraculous, but even the "dismal failure" you cite does not necessarily mean that the system was properly implemented.

In any case, if you want to require "great success", or if the sarge is arguing that "problems are caused only by Teachers' Unions", then I don't think either one of you is going to convince anyone of your positions.

Perhaps you and I have different ideas of success. If vouchers can take a group of students and at least have some of them do better than the current system then I would agree that they should be used. Here is a link to a newspaper article on the Cleveland voucher system:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/5644288.htm

"Study questions voucher value
No difference found in performance versus Cleveland Public Schools students
By Doug Oplinger and Dennis J. Willard
Beacon Journal staff writers

Children using publicly funded vouchers to attend private schools aren't performing any better than children in Cleveland Public Schools, according to a new, state-funded report.

The third installment in the ongoing study continues to raise questions about the value of the Cleveland voucher program, which was pitched in 1995 as a way for poor students to escape what some called ``the failing Cleveland Public Schools.''

In his latest report, Indiana University researcher Kim Metcalf says there is no statistical difference between the academic performance of children using vouchers to attend private schools and those in the 77,000-student district.

Previous reports showed similar results."

I wouldn't call that success, much less great success.

aV

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub The problem I have with the teachers' unions is that they continuously stand in the way of needed reforms, and not just vouchers, but others as well - mainly, anything having to do with accountability.

Was this the title of an article in the Limbaugh Letter? Seriously, do you know what you're talking about, or is it just a good sound bite? Do you practice labor or public education law? Have you seen the positions that the AFT and NEA are taking in regard to the tenure process and teacher certification? I'm asking because you seem to have an amazing ability to make sweeping generalizations about "unions."

aV

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by andViolins
...Here is a link to a newspaper article on the Cleveland voucher system:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/5644288.htm

"Study questions voucher value
No difference found in performance versus Cleveland Public Schools students
By Doug Oplinger and Dennis J. Willard
Beacon Journal staff writers

Children using publicly funded vouchers to attend private schools aren't performing any better than children in Cleveland Public Schools, according to a new, state-funded report.

The third installment in the ongoing study continues to raise questions about the value of the Cleveland voucher program, which was pitched in 1995 as a way for poor students to escape what some called ``the failing Cleveland Public Schools.''

In his latest report, Indiana University researcher Kim Metcalf says there is no statistical difference between the academic performance of children using vouchers to attend private schools and those in the 77,000-student district.

Previous reports showed similar results."

I wouldn't call that success, much less great success.

aV

As you know, words are important and each word and phrase should be given the meaning that reasonably appears on its face.

Thus:

>>Children using publicly funded vouchers to attend private schools aren't performing any better than children in Cleveland Public Schools, according to a new, state-funded report.<<

Are they looking at absolute performance or at improvement in student performance over the studied period? If its the first, as I'm reading the quote to state, then it was not worth the 20 seconds it took to write. Additionally, my understanding from a 15 second search yesterday is that there have only been 5 blind studies of improvements in student performance, based on blind selection of voucher recipients. Was the Cleveland study one of them?

I'll edit the post with a link in a minute. There are articles to the contrary of what you've posted, including criticisms of the studies by the entrenced educational institutions.

Edited to add this link: http://www.iedx.org/

(the internet education exchange: arguments and article links from both sides). Information at the link I've given includes criticism of some of the studies that can support statements like the one noted above. Basically, if the parents in the worst schools are enabled to start sending their kids elsewhere, its absurd to compare their absolute performance 6 months later with the overall population. Their relative improvement versus their peers is a far more relevant metric.

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am suggesting that they are opposing them on race, though not for the reasons you suggest. The simple fact is that the DEMS will oppose whomever Bush puts up as his first SCt nominee to make a point/use it for political purposes. And they are opposing the minorities for the appeals court in preparation for the big fight ahead. If they approve her or another conservative minority it makes it awfully hard to oppose her for the SCt (and Bush will surely make try to make that appointment). In addition, they don't want to be put in a position of having to oppose a minority on national TV.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I think they'd have no more trouble opposing a hard right mainority candidate than they had in opposing Thomas -- even less after 15+ years of poisonous politics have further polarized our body politic.

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are just wrong on this. Not sure where you live, but I'm pretty certain it's not CA. Check her supporters on both sides of the aisle (here in CA).

I was referring to the 'legal community" as her peers, not the politicos -- focusing on the qualifications ratings provided by the review committees. I will further clarify that I now recall that it is the white chick from Texas who is the lunatic lone dissenter-type -- that confusion did cloud my initial post.

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are prejudiced against minorities who don't toe the line. Any conservative minority is automaticallly branded an uncle Tom. See Clarence Thomas. See also Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. I could go on.

No more so than others who don't toe the line. As Ty pointed out -- what about Pickering, and all of the white conservatives they are opposing?? As to the "Uncle Tom" stuff, you'll have to go speak to the minorities about that, and tell them that they have no right or reason to hold onto their identity group politcking.

Originally posted by sgtclub
The left also refuses to approve school choice/vouchers which would most benefit poor people (a large percentage of which are minorities), even though those minorities overwhelmingly are in favor of vouchers. Why? Because the teachers' union opposes them. So you tell me who's prejudiced.

I like the idea of vouchers, if they were actually big enough to provide choice, and because I'm willing to simultaneously force local and state governments to spend a boatload more on public schools by raising property taxes and by redistributing funds between districts. (I think that's the only way to do the program well -- big government alert!!). But its ridiculous to speak of this issue as showing bias against minorities -- it is pure power politics driven by a key interest group. That's like saying that the GOP's perennial enslavement to religious conservatives (i.e. the Christian right) and its resulting positions on certain issues, means that the GOP is "prejudiced" against Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and atheists.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you also forgot Ronald Reagan, who appointed the first woman to the SCt. and the first woman to the United Nations.

Yes, although his numbers nowhere near approached Bush's. Part of the reason I forgot that is because I hardly think of women as "minrorities" or politically disadvantaged anymore. I think that gender discrimination, rather than race discrimination, may be the field in which we satisfy Justice O'Connor's optimistic pronouncement that affirmative action may no longer be needed in 25 years or so.

I respon to you because it is no fun to chime in and say "I agree" -- and most of the other people I disagree with here aren't worth debating. You know -- Pig, Mud, Wrestling, etc.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
not bias. flat out fabrication. distain for facts, thank you.
help me Ty. the WP was quoting him and all, or quoting guys who supposedly reported to him, but they weren't. or is your point, its okay that they fabricated, or were, at best, grossly negligent, because what WP reported was sort of correct if you accept that what it says is true? you know, he lied but it is okay because he didn't need to.
I wasn't clear before maybe. here's your challenge: explain the second letter, you know from the Aussi guy who was directly quoted. I want to still believe in the press. Help me understand how I can, please?

Nonsense. I read the letter too -- No one is claiming that quotes were fabricated. The Aussie general said essentially that his interview was taken out of context -- and that his comments werereferring only to the use of the tubes for conventional weapons (not in a nuke program). In other word -- he says that the reporter got it wrong -- not that he liee. Kay's letter pointed out som inaccuracies, but mostly just disagreed with the entire premise of the Post article, and said essentially, that "Gosh, Sadam may have had a huge nuclear program that we just can't find. So we don't know yet."

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
Perhaps you and I have different ideas of success. If vouchers can take a group of students and at least have some of them do better than the current system then I would agree that they should be used.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
Was this the title of an article in the Limbaugh Letter? Seriously, do you know what you're talking about, or is it just a good sound bite? Do you practice labor or public education law? Have you seen the positions that the AFT and NEA are taking in regard to the tenure process and teacher certification? I'm asking because you seem to have an amazing ability to make sweeping generalizations about "unions."

aV

My mother is a teacher, so I have access to the various positions they take.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm sorry, I just don't buy this.

I guess I don't understand. You don't buy that for some districts/kids/cities that vouchers may not be the answer? You think that vouchers are always the answer? You don't buy that I believe that vouchers could work for some kids?

aV

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nonsense. I read the letter too -- No one is claiming that quotes were fabricated. The Aussie general said essentially that his interview was taken out of context -- and that his comments werereferring only to the use of the tubes for conventional weapons (not in a nuke program). In other word -- he says that the reporter got it wrong -- not that he liee. Kay's letter pointed out som inaccuracies, but mostly just disagreed with the entire premise of the Post article, and said essentially, that "Gosh, Sadam may have had a huge nuclear program that we just can't find. So we don't know yet."

S_A_M

here is how the article builds its premise:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most notably, investigators have judged the aluminum tubes to be "innocuous," according to Australian Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Meekin, who commands the Joint Captured Enemy Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to Kay. That finding is pivotal, because the Bush administration built its case on the proposition that Iraq aimed to use those tubes as centrifuge rotors to enrich uranium for the core of a nuclear warhead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to me "the Joint Captured Enemy Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to Kay" sounds impressive. in fact, the tubes he handles are by definition innocuous because his department handles only conventional weapons. If you ask the commander for the Joint kitchen and feeding the troops Center he probably say the aluminum he has is for making soup.
To have made the implications the reporter made without spelling out what the Australian guys job was reads to me as a lie. Since people take these papers as perhaps biased, but at least factually accurate, this distresses me. It sounds like you feel it perhaps wasn't deliberately misleading, but instead grossly negligent. Okay, I'll accept that. For a disagreement on the board to come this close to agreement is not something I would toss away.
Resolved: the Washington Post is grossly negligent in reporting facts.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
I guess I don't understand. You don't buy that for some districts/kids/cities that vouchers may not be the answer? You think that vouchers are always the answer? You don't buy that I believe that vouchers could work for some kids?

aV

I don't buy the conclusions of the "study," as reported.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No more so than others who don't toe the line. As Ty pointed out -- what about Pickering, and all of the white conservatives they are opposing?? As to the "Uncle Tom" stuff, you'll have to go speak to the minorities about that, and tell them that they have no right or reason to hold onto their identity group politcking.

Appripot of this, see this:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/A...20031103.shtml

[Walter Williams column charging racisism by DEMS]

[edited to add]

Key Quote:

"This is the approach the Democrats take every time a conservative minority is nominated for a position of prominence. This is what I call, "new racism." It's about systematically preventing conservative blacks and Hispanics from achieving positions of prominence in this country. It's about summing up complex human beings by the color of their skin. And it sends the damaging message that because we share the same skin color, we all need to think, act and vote the same way.

American Blacks and Hispanics are complex human beings. They should be allowed the intellectual freedom to arrive at those views and values that are the best mesh with their individual personalities. Whites can vote for whomever they chose. But minorities are told that they must be liberals or they're traitors to their race. This is one more assault on intellectual freedom and diversity, conducted by patronizing Democrats who still feel they know what is best for blacks and Hispanics."

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't buy the conclusions of the "study," as reported.

Fair enough. Here is a link to an executive summary of Metcalf's 2003 study results of the Cleveland voucher program:

http://www.coloradoea.org/media/clev5sumrep.pdf

Although it is posted on the Colorado Education Association website, it appears to be a summary drafted by Dr. Metcalf. In addition, you could probably find the same document at the Indiana Center for Evaluation website: www.indiana.edu/~iuice

The same information is likely available on the State of Ohio's Department of Education website.

aV

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Appripot of this, see this:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/A...20031103.shtml

[Walter Williams column charging racisism by DEMS]

Jeez, club! Consider your source. What else could you expect from an Uncle Tom like Williams?



S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Appripot of this, see this:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/A...20031103.shtml

[Walter Williams column charging racisism by DEMS]

P.s. here is my key quote, which shows Williams is either blind or hopelessly biased:

"For 200 years the Senate carefully considered the professional track record of any judge nominated for the federal bench.

That changed three years ago when ranking Democrats decided to turn the Senate Judiciary Committee into their own personal meat grinder. Despite having nearly one hundred federal judgeships to fill, these Democrats resolved to torpedo most of President Bush's nominations. This partisan blood oath-as opposed to careful consideration of the Jurist's record-now decides who presides over our federal courts."

Me:

Sure motherfucker -- it all changed in 2000. The Clinton administration never existed, and you and your ideological bretheren are as pure as the driven snow. It's all the f-in Democrats.

also -- (1) "Most" of his nominations??! "Most!??" and (2) How many vacancies were there by the end of the Clinton administration??

Ladies and gentlemen -- I give you Armstrong Williams, the black Ann Coulter.

S_A_M