A policy that all Republicans can get behind
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally
used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an
elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with
conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a
new report found Tuesday.
The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s
inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of
investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of
nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first
time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics
who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized
during the Bush administration.
"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s
honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the
report found. Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted
misconduct and also violated the department’s policies and civil
service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political
or ideological affiliations."
4095 Dead
wrote:
I posted it earlier. Not one response.
In their cowardice, they are quite adept at ignoring articles that
they don't like--and these days, that's most of them.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
>Just watch usenet Republicans come to the defense of this policy.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
>
> Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally
>used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an
>elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with
>conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a
>new report found Tuesday.
Where does it say that anybody was CONVICTED?? Isn't that kinda
necessary before recklessly throwing around claims of illegality?
> The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s
>inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of
>investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of
>nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first
>time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics
>who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized
>during the Bush administration.
As expected no mention of BJ firing ALL US attorneys. Hypocrites.
> "Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s
>honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the
>report found.
BFD. They can recruit whomever they want.
Note how the liberal shills at the Times used two paragraphs to echo
the partisan attacks by DEM John Conyers but didn't allow the other
side a chance to speak.
Ernst Blofeld
> "Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s
> honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the
> report found
It's hardly unknown for, say, Federalist Society members to get black-
balled, contrary
to the law.
---
The report does not establish that either John Ashcroft or the much
maligned Alberto Gonzales were involved in any of the hiring
decisions. The report does show, however, that former Assistant
Attorney General Peter Keisler (the guy the Democrats won't allow the
President to appoint to the federal bench) actively stood up for
liberal job applicants who may have been passed over for some of the
available openings. The report also shows that the "non-partisan"
career DOJ staff consistently recommended self-described liberals
instead of conservatives for openings by a more than 2-1 margin.
---
Though this may be the result of a lop-sided applicant pool rather
than active discrimination.
I also note that in one of the years the IG found political bias in
hiring--2006--the DoJ still hired 67 identifiable liberals, 23
identifiable conservatives, and 326 indeterminate affiliation lawyers.
(p. 42)
Interestingly it looks like the selection committee googled the
candidates and booted one for being a self-described anarchist and
another for "dissemenating compromising photos."
It looks like the hiring process was relatively fair for several years
(2003-2005), probably somewhat biased in 2002, and more heavily biased
in 2006.
I denounce political bias in civil service hiring.
Steve
<LOL> It's just that nobody really cares what *YOU* post Fatty.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Jun 24, 8:06 pm, gjohn...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
>> "Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s
>>honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the
>>report found
>
>
> It's hardly unknown for, say, Federalist Society members to get black-
> balled, contrary to the law.
There's legal protection for fraudulent shysters? Where's you evidence?
--Jeff
--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy
Ernst Blofeld
> > It's hardly unknown for, say, Federalist Society members to get black-
> > balled, contrary to the law.
>
> There's legal protection for fraudulent shysters? Where's you evidence?
To parse your sentence literally, it's the same protection offered
everyone else
for their political views in hiring.
If you're trying to say there's no bias against conservative
candidates in the legal
world,
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/conservatives_in_academia/
gjoh...@gmail.com
> > On Jun 24, 8:06 pm, gjohn...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >> "Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s
> >>honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the
> >>report found
>
> > It's hardly unknown for, say, Federalist Society members to get black-
> > balled, contrary to the law.
>
> There's legal protection for fraudulent shysters? Where's you evidence?
>
defense, without bothering to prove that everyone actually does it.
He then posts an anecdote written by a partisan Republican that is
supposed to "prove" something.
It's the same way they justify rigging elections. It's OK to
disenfranchise tens of thousands of minorities because some Democrat
running for
dog-catcher in bumf*ck, nowhere, cheated in the last election.
B1ackwater
wrote:
>Just watch usenet Republicans come to the defense of this policy.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=3D1&hp&o=
>ref=3Dslogin
>
> Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally
>used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an
>elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with
>conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a
>new report found Tuesday.
I'll be waiting with bated breath to see Obamas
Justice Dept hire lots of conservatives ....
Jeffrey Turner
So, you've got an old David Brooks column that depends on hearsay
evidence - and only a couple of instances, at that - and that's what you
have to show for your assertion that "Federal Society members get
black-balled, contrary to the law"? A little anecdotal evidence doesn't
really go a long way. If that's representative of what conservatives
can do, then it's no wonder there aren't many in academia, they don't
belong there. But, as Bainbridge's former student points out in the
blog Bainbridge links to, there's such a broad array of points of view
that qualify as "not conservative" that the claim certainly _needs_ more
evidence than has been presented. I wonder if a statistical analysis
would show a bias against syndicalists, Marxists, or vegetarians (not
that there might not be conservative vegetarians).
Ernst Blofeld
> He's not even going that far. He's giving the "everyone does it"
> defense, without bothering to prove that everyone actually does it.
How is "I denounce political bias in civil service hiring" a defense
of
the practice?
> He then posts an anecdote written by a partisan Republican that is
> supposed to "prove" something.
I think it's a near-universal desire to hire people of similar
political beliefs
in politically charged positions. If you think the Clintonistas were
somehow
Above All That, you're delusional.
As Orin Kerr, a person hired during the Clinton administration
observes,
---
When I applied to the Honors Program in the fall of 1997 (and was
accepted), it was generally understood among conservative/libertarian
applicants that being conservative/libertarian was a negative on a DOJ
Honors Program application. It wasn't necessarily an automatic ding,
except of course at the Civil Rights Division. But it was a negative
in an intensely competitive process. As a result, it was common not to
list extracurricular activities that signaled conservative/libertarian
viewpoints and that were the kind of thing that an applicant might or
might not list on a resume depending on the job. I followed that
practice in my case. I remember thinking at the time that I wouldn't
have gotten the job otherwise.
---
As someone in the comments at Volokh points out,
---
Prior to the Bush administration, the Civil Rights Division looked for
"demonstrated commitment to civil rights" on resumes, defined narrowly
as active membership in groups such as the ACLU or NAACP.
---
Stevie Nichts
> Just watch usenet Republicans come to the defense of this policy.
Speaking of defending a policy, what became of your
staunch defense of public campaign financing? Whither
your... reaction... to the revelation that Barack Obama
is foregoing public financing of his campaign? You were
one of the staunchest defenders of public campaign
financing, but evidently your many denunciations of those
who didn't agree with you have gone out the same window
as Obama's principles.
Ernst Blofeld
> So, you've got an old David Brooks column that depends on hearsay
> evidence -
Actually, it was a post by Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at
UCLA.
---
I have spent enough time around law school hiring to know that it does
happen. All too often, applicants with conservative lines on their
resume -- an Olin fellowship, Federalist Society membership, or,
heaven help you, a Scalia clerkship -- are passed over no matter how
sterling the rest of their credentials may be. The problem is that at
most law schools there is no critical mass of conservatives to act as
"champions" for such candidates. (Leiter says "libertarians ... are
well-represented at most of the top law schools (Yale, Harvard,
Chicago, Virginia, Texas, UCLA, Northwestern, etc.)" He clearly has
not met enough of our faculty.) Law school hiring tends to be driven
by the self-perpetuating network of left-leaning senior faculty.
Nobody pulls the conservative candidate's AALS form out of the
slushpile, while the latest left-leaning prodigy gets the benefit of
phone calls from their mentors to buddies of the mentors and having
their AALS form flagged or even hand carried around the building. It
may not be deliberate bias, but there still is a disparate impact.
---
You can also look up James Lindgren's and John McGinnis' papers on the
subject. At one point Harvard Law School hadn't hired an identifiable
conservative in 25 years.
> I wonder if a statistical analysis
> would show a bias against syndicalists, Marxists, or vegetarians (not
> that there might not be conservative vegetarians).
I suspect syndicalists, Marxists and vegetarians would be considerably
over-represented in academia compared to the general population. You
can't club a seal on a campus without smacking one on your backswing.
Raymond
> gjohn...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> >Just watch usenet Republicans come to the defense of this policy.
>
>
> > Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally
> >used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an
> >elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with
> >conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a
> >new report found Tuesday.
>
> Where does it say that anybody was CONVICTED?? Isn't that kinda
> necessary before recklessly throwing around claims of illegality?
>
> > The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s
> >inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of
> >investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of
> >nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first
> >time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics
> >who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized
> >during the Bush administration.
>
> As expected no mention of BJ firing ALL US attorneys. Hypocrites.
>
> > "Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department’s
> >honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the
> >report found.
>
> BFD. They can recruit whomever they want.
>
> Note how the liberal shills at the Times used two paragraphs to echo
> the partisan attacks by DEM John Conyers but didn't allow the other
> side a chance to speak.
RE; A policy that all Republicans can get behind
A. Stealing taxpayers' money.
4105 Dead
Odd how Stevie thinks it should be unilateral.
When are YOU going to support it.
Stevie Nichts
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:24:35 -0700 (PDT), Stevie Nichts
> <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 24, 11:06 pm, gjohn...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> >> Just watch usenet Republicans come to the defense of this policy.
>
> >Speaking of defending a policy, what became of your
> >staunch defense of public campaign financing? Whither
> >your... reaction... to the revelation that Barack Obama
> >is foregoing public financing of his campaign? You were
> >one of the staunchest defenders of public campaign
> >financing, but evidently your many denunciations of those
> >who didn't agree with you have gone out the same window
> >as Obama's principles.
>
> Odd how Stevie thinks it should be unilateral.
Your attempt to change the subject is as odd
as Midtowng's failure to comment on Obama
tossing another principle under the bus.
> When are YOU going to support it.
I support the radical notion of allowing people to
spend their money as they like on campaigns,
with full, immediate, and public disclosure.
Ernst Blofeld
> >Actually, it was a post by Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at
> >UCLA.
>
> Actually, it doesn't matter in the least who the FUCK posted it because
> actually, he's right.
>
> YOu see, actually, it is, indeed, just an old David Brooks column, which,
> actually, is why Bainbridge begins by saying, "In today's NY Times,
> newly-hired token conservative David Brooks writes of...."
The post in question is here:
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/conservatives_in_academia/
Which is a Bainbridge post that _quotes_ a Brooks column, and then
goes on to add his own personal observations as a law professor that
has seen the hiring process first hand. He also quotes Brian Leiter,
yet it is not a Brian Leiter column. He quotes Juan Non-Volokh, yet it
is not a Juan Non-Volokh column. He quotes C.E. Petit, yet he is not
C.E. Petit. You get the idea. That's why the quoted sections are
quoted, a convention that arose in writing several hundred years ago.
I am surprised I have to explain these things.
> And, actually, the moldy oldy Brooks column he cites is actually nothing
> more than hearsay.
"I have spent enough time around law school hiring to know that it
does happen. All too often, applicants with conservative lines on
their resume -- an Olin fellowship, Federalist Society membership, or,
heaven help you, a Scalia clerkship -- are passed over no matter how
sterling the rest of their credentials may be."
Ie, first hand observation based on his status as a tenured professor
of law with direct knowledge of the hiring process.
> IOW, you are, actually, a moron. Congratulations!
Heh.
Stevie Nichts
It would appear that Garrett has, indeed, joined Obama
in tossing a fiercely-held principle under the proverbial
bus when it conflicts with reality. (And money.)
Jeffrey Turner
> On Jun 25, 5:46 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So, you've got an old David Brooks column that depends on hearsay
>>evidence -
>
>
> Actually, it was a post by Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at
> UCLA.
>
> ---
> I have spent enough time around law school hiring to know that it does
> happen. All too often, applicants with conservative lines on their
> resume -- an Olin fellowship, Federalist Society membership, or,
> heaven help you, a Scalia clerkship -- are passed over no matter how
> sterling the rest of their credentials may be.
If it's happening "all too often" - however often that is - why hasn't
he offered to testify in EOE lawsuits?
> The problem is that at
> most law schools there is no critical mass of conservatives to act as
> "champions" for such candidates. (Leiter says "libertarians ... are
> well-represented at most of the top law schools (Yale, Harvard,
> Chicago, Virginia, Texas, UCLA, Northwestern, etc.)" He clearly has
> not met enough of our faculty.) Law school hiring tends to be driven
> by the self-perpetuating network of left-leaning senior faculty.
> Nobody pulls the conservative candidate's AALS form out of the
> slushpile, while the latest left-leaning prodigy gets the benefit of
> phone calls from their mentors to buddies of the mentors and having
> their AALS form flagged or even hand carried around the building. It
> may not be deliberate bias, but there still is a disparate impact.
So, even Bainbridge doesn't think there's a nefarious liberal
conspiracy. It makes me wonder. If he's been around to see so many
of these travesties, why doesn't he stand up for conservative
applicants himself? And if he's such a junior faculty member, how
many has he really seen?
> You can also look up James Lindgren's and John McGinnis' papers on the
> subject. At one point Harvard Law School hadn't hired an identifiable
> conservative in 25 years.
At one point? Considering Nixon might not be classified as a
conservative these days, maybe there weren't so many applicants.
>> I wonder if a statistical analysis
>>would show a bias against syndicalists, Marxists, or vegetarians (not
>>that there might not be conservative vegetarians).
>
> I suspect syndicalists, Marxists and vegetarians would be considerably
> over-represented in academia compared to the general population. You
> can't club a seal on a campus without smacking one on your backswing.
I suppose they could hire every conservative applicant and still be
over-representative of opera buffs and under-representative of NASCAR
fans in the general population. I'm not sure the general population is
the proper baseline for evaluating law schools. Why can't someone do a
rigorous study to prove bias in law school hirings?
Jeffrey Turner
>
> As someone in the comments at Volokh points out,
> ---
> Prior to the Bush administration, the Civil Rights Division looked for
> "demonstrated commitment to civil rights" on resumes, defined narrowly
> as active membership in groups such as the ACLU or NAACP.
As opposed to the Orwellian Republican position of seeking KKK members?
Ernst Blofeld
> If it's happening "all too often" - however often that is - why hasn't
> he offered to testify in EOE lawsuits?
Not aware that conservatives are a protected class.
>
> > The problem is that at
> > most law schools there is no critical mass of conservatives to act as
> > "champions" for such candidates.
>
> So, even Bainbridge doesn't think there's a nefarious liberal
> conspiracy.
If "conspiracy"is your criterion, there aren't that many conspiracies
in the
world. I doubt that the DoJ hiring under question was a conspiracy.
They simply felt better hiring like-minded people.
Ernst Blofeld
omments at Volokh points out,
> > ---
> > Prior to the Bush administration, the Civil Rights Division looked for
> > "demonstrated commitment to civil rights" on resumes, defined narrowly
> > as active membership in groups such as the ACLU or NAACP.
>
> As opposed to the Orwellian Republican position of seeking KKK members?
Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota hiring
is also a racist and against civil rights.
And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
David Johnston
>> The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s
>>inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of
>>investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of
>>nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first
>>time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics
>>who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized
>>during the Bush administration.
>
>As expected no mention of BJ firing ALL US attorneys. Hypocrites.
No, hypocrisy would have been if there has been a great outcry over
Bush firing all US attorneys at the start of his term. There wasn't.
The later firing of 9 was not remarked simply because they were fired,
but because they were fired for not using their authority to influence
elections in favour of the Republicans.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
Red herring. It doesn't matter when, where, why or how they were
fired. They worked for the executive branch and the POTUS is head
of the executive branch. End of story.
Even if they were fired for political reasons it doesn't matter. If a
vice president of Ford was openly pushing Honda products then
it would be the duty of senior management to fire him.
mariposas rand mair fheal
Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s
> >>>inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of
> >>>investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of
> >>>nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first
> >>>time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics
> >>>who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized
> >>>during the Bush administration.
> >>
> >>As expected no mention of BJ firing ALL US attorneys. Hypocrites.
> >
> >No, hypocrisy would have been if there has been a great outcry over
> >Bush firing all US attorneys at the start of his term. There wasn't.
> >The later firing of 9 was not remarked simply because they were fired,
> >but because they were fired for not using their authority to influence
> >elections in favour of the Republicans.
>
> Red herring. It doesn't matter when, where, why or how they were
> fired. They worked for the executive branch and the POTUS is head
> of the executive branch. End of story.
so why was shrub suddenly disappointed in his own people?
did he hire a bunch of incompetents?
or were they more honest than him?
(trick question - everybodys more honest than shrub)
> Even if they were fired for political reasons it doesn't matter. If a
> vice president of Ford was openly pushing Honda products then
> it would be the duty of senior management to fire him.
traditionally us attorneys were supposed to be pushing law enforcement
i guess thats gone now
arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
David Johnston
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s
>>>>inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of
>>>>investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of
>>>>nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first
>>>>time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics
>>>>who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized
>>>>during the Bush administration.
>>>
>>>As expected no mention of BJ firing ALL US attorneys. Hypocrites.
>>
>>No, hypocrisy would have been if there has been a great outcry over
>>Bush firing all US attorneys at the start of his term. There wasn't.
>>The later firing of 9 was not remarked simply because they were fired,
>>but because they were fired for not using their authority to influence
>>elections in favour of the Republicans.
>
>Red herring. It doesn't matter when, where, why or how they were
>fired.
So you think it's fine to use the Justice Department to manipulate the
electoral system? Will you still think it's fine when a President
Obama does it to the Republicans?
Jeffrey Turner
What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that is
a problem"?
Ernst Blofeld
> > Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota hiring
> > is also a racist and against civil rights.
>
> > And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>
> What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that is
> a problem"?
Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
Jeffrey Turner
Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
Stevie Nichts
> Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota hiring
> >>>is also a racist and against civil rights.
>
> >>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>
> >>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that is
> >>a problem"?
>
> > Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>
> Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that
notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
mariposas rand mair fheal
Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
should or should it not match the population as a whole?
if it does not should that imply anything?
Stevie Nichts
wrote:
> In article <bba6199a-0b05-4e18-b990-e6990d1f1...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > > Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> > > > On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota hiring
> > > >>>is also a racist and against civil rights.
>
> > > >>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>
> > > >>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that is
> > > >>a problem"?
>
> > > > Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>
> > > Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
>
> > I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
> > of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that
> > notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
>
> so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
> should or should it not match the population as a whole?
Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>No, hypocrisy would have been if there has been a great outcry over
>>>Bush firing all US attorneys at the start of his term. There wasn't.
>>>The later firing of 9 was not remarked simply because they were fired,
>>>but because they were fired for not using their authority to influence
>>>elections in favour of the Republicans.
>>
>>Red herring. It doesn't matter when, where, why or how they were
>>fired.
>
>So you think it's fine to use the Justice Department to manipulate the
>electoral system?
Non sequitur.
>Will you still think it's fine when a President
>Obama does it to the Republicans?
Cokehead isn't smart enough to do any manipulation. No doubt
his handlers will do any kind of sleazy scheming they can whether
it's legal or otherwise. Or perhaps you have forgotten how BJ and
his goons used the FBI to dig up mud on 900 political enemies.
mariposas rand mair fheal
Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
if the results are not
mlk is dead
David Johnston
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>No, hypocrisy would have been if there has been a great outcry over
>>>>Bush firing all US attorneys at the start of his term. There wasn't.
>>>>The later firing of 9 was not remarked simply because they were fired,
>>>>but because they were fired for not using their authority to influence
>>>>elections in favour of the Republicans.
>>>
>>>Red herring. It doesn't matter when, where, why or how they were
>>>fired.
>>
>>So you think it's fine to use the Justice Department to manipulate the
>>electoral system?
>
>Non sequitur.
If by non sequitur you mean "What the dispute was actually about".
>
>>Will you still think it's fine when a President
>>Obama does it to the Republicans?
>
>Cokehead isn't smart enough to do any manipulation.
He has that in common with Bush.
No doubt
>his handlers will do any kind of sleazy scheming they can whether
>it's legal or otherwise.
Will you still think it's fine when they do that to the Republicans?
Jeffrey Turner
> Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 30, 8:10 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Ernst Blofeld wrote:
>>>>>>On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota
>>>>>>>>hiring is also a racist and against civil rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that
>>>>>>>is a problem"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
>>>>
>>>>I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
>>>>of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that
>>>>notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
>>>
>>>so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
>>>should or should it not match the population as a whole?
>>
>>Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
>>equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
>
> how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
> if the results are not
Any inequality in the system is just because whites are naturally
better. We is doin' all we kin fo' dem po' darkies, but dere's a limit
to da natural generosity of da white race.
> mlk is dead
King wasn't taken in by conservative claptrap.
Jeffrey Turner
And the gov't has to step in when that standard is violated.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>In article <bba6199a-0b05-4e18...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> > Ernst Blofeld wrote:
>> > > On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota hiring
>> > >>>is also a racist and against civil rights.
>> >
>> > >>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>> >
>> > >>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that is
>> > >>a problem"?
>> >
>> > > Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>> >
>> > Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
>>
>> I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
>> of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that
>> notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
>
>so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
>should or should it not match the population as a whole?
No...not really. I woud be suprised if it did. Do you think it
should?
>
>if it does not should that imply anything?
No. Should it?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You can't demonstrate equality of opportunity by judging results.
>
>mlk is dead
JSL
Stevie Nichts
wrote:
> In article <fd1f3c57-7c13-4145-a107-7d63138a0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> �Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
> > equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
>
> how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
> if the results are not
If you're a college, you guarantee admission to the
top 10% of every high school class, regardless of
race - and then let each student prove herself on her
merits. If you're a company, you hire the top applicants
regardless of race. There is no more equitable way.
> mlk is dead
Did his ideals die with him?
Jeffrey Turner
> mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Jun 30, 8:10 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Ernst Blofeld wrote:
>>>>>>>On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and quota
>>>>>>>>>hiring
>>>>>>>>>is also a racist and against civil rights.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut tut, that
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>a problem"?
>>>>
>>>>>>>Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>>>>
>>>>>>Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
>>>>
>>>>>I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
>>>>>of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that
>>>>>notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
>>>>
>>>>so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
>>>>should or should it not match the population as a whole?
>>>
>>>Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
>>>equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
>>
>>how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
>>if the results are not
>
> You can't demonstrate equality of opportunity by judging results.
With a large enough sample size you can. Unless you believe there are
inherent differences that preclude some people from achieving results.
It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
better "opportunity."
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Give me an example.
>Unless you believe there are
>inherent differences that preclude some people from achieving results.
No, just choices.
>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
>better "opportunity."
Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
JSL
mariposas rand mair fheal
so basically you want faith based law enforcement
mariposas rand mair fheal
linde...@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
that youre a liar
mariposas rand mair fheal
Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:19?am, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fd1f3c57-7c13-4145-a107-7d63138a0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
> > > equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
> >
> > how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
> > if the results are not
>
> If you're a college, you guarantee admission to the
> top 10% of every high school class, regardless of
> race - and then let each student prove herself on her
> merits. If you're a company, you hire the top applicants
> regardless of race. There is no more equitable way.
define -top- and provide an objective method to determine it
Jeffrey Turner
Lawd yes. Dem [black folks] is lazy, shif'less good-fer-nuthin's. Ya
can't expect them to make good, responsible choices lik'n us white
folks.
>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
>>better "opportunity."
>
> Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act -
and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have had
full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so do
poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You don't have an example to give?
>>
>>>Unless you believe there are
>>>inherent differences that preclude some people from achieving results.
>>
>> No, just choices.
>
>Lawd yes. Dem [black folks] is lazy, shif'less good-fer-nuthin's. Ya
>can't expect them to make good, responsible choices lik'n us white
>folks.
I would suggest you look at the dropout rate, teen pregnancy rate, and
single motherhood rate.
Here are some useful links:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tables/1_Table_1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf
>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
>>>better "opportunity."
>>
>> Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>
>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act -
>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have had
>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so do
>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
No. You can't take a snapshot of the present and figure out what
happened in the past.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
I see...
I really didn't think you could defend your position....I was correct.
JSL
mariposas rand mair fheal
theres no arguing with obstinate stupidity
youve already indicated that yours is position of the modern bigot
that it is the little girl who said the emperor has no clothes
who was the one who stripped the emperor naked
mariposas rand mair fheal
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Identifying a crime. Identifying a victim. Developing evidence and
follow it where it leads.
Now tell...what crime was committed if the workforce doesn't match the
general population?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Stupidity? Because I asked you to support your claim?
>youve already indicated that yours is position of the modern bigot
Well...proof through assertion...how trite.
>that it is the little girl who said the emperor has no clothes
>who was the one who stripped the emperor naked
JSL
Jeffrey Turner
I already gave the example: medical testing.
>>>>Unless you believe there are
>>>>inherent differences that preclude some people from achieving results.
>>>
>>>No, just choices.
>>
>>Lawd yes. Dem [black folks] is lazy, shif'less good-fer-nuthin's. Ya
>>can't expect them to make good, responsible choices lik'n us white
>>folks.
>
> I would suggest you look at the dropout rate, teen pregnancy rate, and
> single motherhood rate.
>
> Here are some useful links:
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html
> http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tables/1_Table_1.htm
We know that majority minority schools are lower funded and in worse
condition than mostly white schools - and that schools are more
segregated than they were in 1968. It's also known that teachers and
administrators are less sympathetic to minorities and don't work as hard
to keep them from dropping out.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf
When there isn't equal economic opportunity people find other things to
do with their time.
>>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
>>>>better "opportunity."
>>>
>>>Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>>
>>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act -
>>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have had
>>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so do
>>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
>
> Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
>
> Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.
And individuals make choices that directly impact the quality of the
lives of others. And in America there's a racial bias to those
decisions overall.
Steve
Jeffrey Scott Linder
No they aren't.
> and that schools are more
>segregated than they were in 1968.
Are you saying that blacks can't learn without whitey around to show
them how?
> It's also known that teachers and
>administrators are less sympathetic to minorities and don't work as hard
>to keep them from dropping out.
Oh we do? Do you have any evidence of this?
I didn't think so.
>
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf
>
>When there isn't equal economic opportunity people find other things to
>do with their time.
Like I said...individuals make choices.
>
>>>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>>>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
>>>>>better "opportunity."
>>>>
>>>>Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>>>
>>>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act -
>>>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have had
>>>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so do
>>>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
>>
>> Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
>>
>> Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.
>
>And individuals make choices that directly impact the quality of the
>lives of others. And in America there's a racial bias to those
>decisions overall.
I see...when asked for specifics all you can do is point to the man
behind the curtain.
JSL
Jeffrey Turner
Yes, they are.
<quote>
In light of this inspiring language, one might be surprised to learn
that high-minority school districts in Kansas receive substantially less
state and local educational funding than high-majority school districts.
The Education Trust observed that in 2001 the per-pupil funding gap
between high-minority and low-minority districts in the state was $1,812
($6,033 – $7,845), ranking the state second only to New York in racial
funding gap.3
3 Kevin Carey, The Funding Gap: Minority and Low-Income Students Still
Receive Fewer Dollars in Many States, at
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B8228502/0/funding2003.pdf
(visited Oct. 2, 2004).
http://web.ku.edu/~bdbaker/WestsLaw05.pdf
Similarly, in 28 states the school districts with the highest percentage
of minority children receive less funding than districts with the fewest
minority children. And again, this is true of the nation as a whole.
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B8228502/0/funding2003.pdf
>>and that schools are more
>>segregated than they were in 1968.
>
> Are you saying that blacks can't learn without whitey around to show
> them how?
I'm saying that "separate but equal" still isn't.
<quote>
"I don't think that the education that you get hinges on the color of
the person sitting next to you in the classroom," Clegg says. "What
educators should focus on is improving schools."
That sounds great in theory, say some experts, but the fact is that
segregated schools tend to be highly correlated with such things as
school performance and the ability to attract teachers.
"Once you separate kids spacially from more privileged kids, they tend
to not get the same things," says Amy Stuart Wells, an education
professor at Columbia University's Teachers College in New York. "And we
need to start thinking about how a school that's racially isolated can
be preparing students for this global society we live in."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0125/p01s01-ussc.html?page=2
>>It's also known that teachers and
>>administrators are less sympathetic to minorities and don't work as hard
>>to keep them from dropping out.
>
> Oh we do? Do you have any evidence of this?
> I didn't think so.
"There's an inequity in resources," says Pam Green, Garfield's Parent
Teacher Student Association president and the black parent of a
struggling Garfield 10th-grader. "The inequity starts in elementary
schools, when teachers start labeling kids and putting them in
groups.... To me, it's really two camps. It's very disturbing because
the AP program is serving less than a third of the school." A study
released in March by the Applied Research Center, a think tank in
Oakland, California, bolsters Green's viewpoint. The study found that
minority students in just about every state are doing worse than their
white counterparts, and noted that school districts exacerbate the
problem by trapping kids in largely segregated academic tracks that are
almost impossible to escape. As Libero Della Piana, one author of the
study, puts it, "Those classes are geared toward you never catching up.
Maybe having more AP classes is not the best idea."
[...]
Jim Creighton, head of the history department, is the lead advocate for
AP classes at Garfield, and embodies yet another barrier -- teacher
attitudes. He refuses to discuss in any detail the lack of black
students in his classes, and justifies the overrepresentation of white
students by claiming that less is required of black students applying to
colleges. The logic, apparently, is that blacks can be lazier because
they've got it made. "There are two different sets of circumstances," is
all Creighton would say.
[...]
Nearly all of Garfield's 12 AP teachers are white, and none are black.
(This reflects a trend in the school as a whole; only 13 of Garfield's
79 teachers are black.) Yet, according to the 1998 book The Black-White
Test Score Gap, a collection of research on racial disparity in
test-score results, teachers make the biggest difference in raising test
scores, and black students learn more effectively from black teachers on
average. One Asian AP student, who asked to remain anonymous, speculates
that "if there [were] more competent black teachers, the black students
would be much more interested."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3774
>>>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf
>>
>>When there isn't equal economic opportunity people find other things to
>>do with their time.
>
> Like I said...individuals make choices.
Yeah, they choose not to put nearly as much money into training and
hiring blacks and latinos as they do for whites.
>>>>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>>>>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a
>>>>>>better "opportunity."
>>>>>
>>>>>Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>>>>
>>>>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act -
>>>>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have had
>>>>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so do
>>>>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
>>>
>>>Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.
>>
>>And individuals make choices that directly impact the quality of the
>>lives of others. And in America there's a racial bias to those
>>decisions overall.
>
> I see...when asked for specifics all you can do is point to the man
> behind the curtain.
And all you can do is pretend there isn't anybody in charge in America.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>>>>>mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Jun 30, 8:10 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@yahoo.=
>com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wro=
>te:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ernst Blofeld wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wr=
>ote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and q=
>uota=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is also a racist and against civil rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tut =
>tut, that=20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a problem"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
>>>>>>>>>>>>of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that
>>>>>>>>>>>>notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
>>>>>>>>>>>should or should it not match the population as a whole?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
>>>>>>>>>>equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
>>>>>>>>>if the results are not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can't demonstrate equality of opportunity by judging results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>With a large enough sample size you can. =20
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Give me an example.
>>>>
>>>>You don't have an example to give?
>>>
>>>I already gave the example: medical testing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Unless you believe there are
>>>>>>>inherent differences that preclude some people from achieving resul=
>ts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, just choices.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lawd yes. Dem [black folks] is lazy, shif'less good-fer-nuthin's. Y=
>a
>>>>>can't expect them to make good, responsible choices lik'n us white
>>>>>folks.
>>>>
>>>>I would suggest you look at the dropout rate, teen pregnancy rate, and=
>
>>>>single motherhood rate.
>>>>
>>>>Here are some useful links:
>>>>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html
>>>>http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tables/1_Table_1.htm
>>>
>>>We know that majority minority schools are lower funded and in worse
>>>condition than mostly white schools -
>>=20
>> No they aren't.
>
>Yes, they are.
>
><quote>
>In light of this inspiring language, one might be surprised to learn
>that high-minority school districts in Kansas receive substantially less
>state and local educational funding than high-majority school districts.
>The Education Trust observed that in 2001 the per-pupil funding gap
>between high-minority and low-minority districts in the state was $1,812
>($6,033 =96 $7,845), ranking the state second only to New York in racial
>funding gap.3
>
>3 Kevin Carey, The Funding Gap: Minority and Low-Income Students Still
>Receive Fewer Dollars in Many States, at
>http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B8228502=
>/0/funding2003.pdf
>(visited Oct. 2, 2004).
>
>http://web.ku.edu/~bdbaker/WestsLaw05.pdf
>
>Similarly, in 28 states the school districts with the highest percentage
>of minority children receive less funding than districts with the fewest
>minority children. And again, this is true of the nation as a whole.
>
>http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B8228502=
>/0/funding2003.pdf
>
>>>and that schools are more
>>>segregated than they were in 1968.=20
>>=20
>> Are you saying that blacks can't learn without whitey around to show
>> them how?
>
>I'm saying that "separate but equal" still isn't.
>
><quote>
>"I don't think that the education that you get hinges on the color of
>the person sitting next to you in the classroom," Clegg says. "What
>educators should focus on is improving schools."
>
>That sounds great in theory, say some experts, but the fact is that
>segregated schools tend to be highly correlated with such things as
>school performance and the ability to attract teachers.
But later you quote someone who says that blacks learn best from other
blacks. Which is it?
>
>"Once you separate kids spacially from more privileged kids, they tend
>to not get the same things," says Amy Stuart Wells, an education
>professor at Columbia University's Teachers College in New York. "And we
>need to start thinking about how a school that's racially isolated can
>be preparing students for this global society we live in."
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0125/p01s01-ussc.html?page=3D2
>
>>>It's also known that teachers and
>>>administrators are less sympathetic to minorities and don't work as har=
>d
>>>to keep them from dropping out.
>>=20
>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3D3774
>
>>>>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf
>>>
>>>When there isn't equal economic opportunity people find other things to=
>
>>>do with their time.
>>=20
>> Like I said...individuals make choices.
>
>Yeah, they choose not to put nearly as much money into training and
>hiring blacks and latinos as they do for whites.
I guess you didn't compare graduation rates.
>
>>>>>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those ta=
>king
>>>>>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a=
>
>>>>>>>better "opportunity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act =
>-
>>>>>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have h=
>ad
>>>>>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so d=
>o
>>>>>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
>>>>
>>>>Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.
>>>
>>>And individuals make choices that directly impact the quality of the
>>>lives of others. And in America there's a racial bias to those
>>>decisions overall.
>>=20
>> I see...when asked for specifics all you can do is point to the man
>> behind the curtain.
>
>And all you can do is pretend there isn't anybody in charge in America.
>
>--Jeff
>
>--=20
>The struggle with evil by means of violence
>is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
>in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/010125.html
"The nation’s public school districts spent an average of $8,701 per
student on elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2005, up
5 percent from $8,287 the previous year, the U.S. Census Bureau
reported today.
Findings from Public Education Finances: 2005, show that New York
spent $14,119 per student — the highest amount among states and state
equivalents. Just behind was neighboring New Jersey at $13,800, the
District of Columbia at $12,979, Vermont ($11,835) and Connecticut
($11,572). Seven of the top 10 with the highest per pupil expenditures
were in the Northeast.
Utah spent the least per student ($5,257), followed by Arizona
($6,261), Idaho ($6,283), Mississippi ($6,575) and Oklahoma ($6,613).
All 10 of the states with the lowest spending per student were in the
West or South.
The report and associated data files contain information for all
local public school systems in the country. For example, in New York
City, the largest school district in the country, per pupil spending
was $13,755."
Jeffrey Turner
>>>Are you saying that blacks can't learn without whitey around to show
>>>them how?
>>
>>I'm saying that "separate but equal" still isn't.
>>
>><quote>
>>"I don't think that the education that you get hinges on the color of
>>the person sitting next to you in the classroom," Clegg says. "What
>>educators should focus on is improving schools."
>>
>>That sounds great in theory, say some experts, but the fact is that
>>segregated schools tend to be highly correlated with such things as
>>school performance and the ability to attract teachers.
>
> But later you quote someone who says that blacks learn best from other
> blacks. Which is it?
What makes you think there aren't good black teachers?
>>"Once you separate kids spacially from more privileged kids, they tend
>>to not get the same things," says Amy Stuart Wells, an education
>>professor at Columbia University's Teachers College in New York. "And we
>>need to start thinking about how a school that's racially isolated can
>>be preparing students for this global society we live in."
>>
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0125/p01s01-ussc.html?page=3D2
>>
>>
>>>>It's also known that teachers and
>>>>administrators are less sympathetic to minorities and don't work as hard
When the system is biased, what else would one expect? I know. You
walked three miles uphill in both directions to get an education, but I
hardly think you can expect everyone to succeed by doing that.
>>>>>>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those taking
>>>>>>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had a=
>>>>>>>>better "opportunity."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Act -
>>>>>>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have had
>>>>>>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so do
>>>>>>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.
>>>>
>>>>And individuals make choices that directly impact the quality of the
>>>>lives of others. And in America there's a racial bias to those
>>>>decisions overall.
>>>
>>>I see...when asked for specifics all you can do is point to the man
>>>behind the curtain.
>>
>>And all you can do is pretend there isn't anybody in charge in America.
>
> http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/010125.html
>
> "The nation’s public school districts spent an average of $8,701 per
> student on elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2005, up
> 5 percent from $8,287 the previous year, the U.S. Census Bureau
> reported today.
I wonder how much of that increase was just heating school buildings.
But education, plus administrative overhead like NCLB, is expensive to
do right.
> Findings from Public Education Finances: 2005, show that New York
> spent $14,119 per student — the highest amount among states and state
> equivalents. Just behind was neighboring New Jersey at $13,800, the
> District of Columbia at $12,979, Vermont ($11,835) and Connecticut
> ($11,572). Seven of the top 10 with the highest per pupil expenditures
> were in the Northeast.
>
> Utah spent the least per student ($5,257), followed by Arizona
> ($6,261), Idaho ($6,283), Mississippi ($6,575) and Oklahoma ($6,613).
> All 10 of the states with the lowest spending per student were in the
> West or South.
>
> The report and associated data files contain information for all
> local public school systems in the country. For example, in New York
> City, the largest school district in the country, per pupil spending
> was $13,755."
Do you have a point? At least you've conceded most of my arguments,
though I hardly expect that you've learned anything.
--Jeff
--
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stevie Nichts <nix2n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jun 30, 8:10 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fh...@yaho=
>o.=3D
>>>
>>>com>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jun 30, 11:19 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> w=
>ro=3D
>>>
>>>te:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ernst Blofeld wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jun 29, 8:44 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> =
>wr=3D
>>>
>>>ote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because, you know, anyone against affirmative action and=
> q=3D
>>>
>>>uota=3D20
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is also a racist and against civil rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And thus you quickly prove the point I was making.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is the conservative approach, other than to say, "Tu=
>t =3D
>>>
>>>tut, that=3D20
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a problem"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Um, not discriminating on the basis of race?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh right, pretending there is no problem. Gotcha.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought the standard was judging a person by the content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of his character, and not by the color of his skin. Has that=
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>notion been wholly abandoned by the left?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>so if we compare the color of skin in a large enough company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>should or should it not match the population as a whole?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, yes: the canard that equality of results trumps
>>>>>>>>>>>>equality of opportunity. What did MLK think of that, anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>how do you demonstrate equality of opportunity
>>>>>>>>>>>if the results are not
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You can't demonstrate equality of opportunity by judging results=
>=2E
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>With a large enough sample size you can. =3D20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Give me an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't have an example to give?
>>>>>
>>>>>I already gave the example: medical testing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unless you believe there are
>>>>>>>>>inherent differences that preclude some people from achieving res=
>ul=3D
>>>
>>>ts.
>>>
>>>>>>>>No, just choices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lawd yes. Dem [black folks] is lazy, shif'less good-fer-nuthin's. =
> Y=3D
>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>>>>can't expect them to make good, responsible choices lik'n us white
>>>>>>>folks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would suggest you look at the dropout rate, teen pregnancy rate, a=
>nd=3D
>>>
>>>>>>single motherhood rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here are some useful links:
>>>>>>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html
>>>>>>http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tables/1_Table_1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>We know that majority minority schools are lower funded and in worse
>>>>>condition than mostly white schools -
>>>>
>>>>=3D20
>>>>No they aren't.
>>>
>>>Yes, they are.
>>>
>>><quote>
>>>In light of this inspiring language, one might be surprised to learn
>>>that high-minority school districts in Kansas receive substantially les=
>s
>>>state and local educational funding than high-majority school districts=
>=2E
>>>The Education Trust observed that in 2001 the per-pupil funding gap
>>>between high-minority and low-minority districts in the state was $1,81=
>2
>>>($6,033 =3D96 $7,845), ranking the state second only to New York in rac=
>ial
>>>funding gap.3
>>>
>>>3 Kevin Carey, The Funding Gap: Minority and Low-Income Students Still
>>>Receive Fewer Dollars in Many States, at
>>>http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B82285=
>02=3D
>>>/0/funding2003.pdf
>>>(visited Oct. 2, 2004).
>>>
>>>http://web.ku.edu/~bdbaker/WestsLaw05.pdf
>>>
>>>Similarly, in 28 states the school districts with the highest percentag=
>e
>>>of minority children receive less funding than districts with the fewes=
>t
>>>minority children. And again, this is true of the nation as a whole.
>>>
>>>http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B82285=
>02=3D
>>>/0/funding2003.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and that schools are more
>>>>>segregated than they were in 1968.=3D20
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that blacks can't learn without whitey around to show
>>>>them how?
>>>
>>>I'm saying that "separate but equal" still isn't.
>>>
>>><quote>
>>>"I don't think that the education that you get hinges on the color of
>>>the person sitting next to you in the classroom," Clegg says. "What
>>>educators should focus on is improving schools."
>>>
>>>That sounds great in theory, say some experts, but the fact is that
>>>segregated schools tend to be highly correlated with such things as
>>>school performance and the ability to attract teachers.
>>=20
>> But later you quote someone who says that blacks learn best from other
>> blacks. Which is it?
>
>What makes you think there aren't good black teachers?
I didn't. You just keep making excuses.
>>>"Once you separate kids spacially from more privileged kids, they tend
>>>to not get the same things," says Amy Stuart Wells, an education
>>>professor at Columbia University's Teachers College in New York. "And w=
>e
>>>need to start thinking about how a school that's racially isolated can
>>>be preparing students for this global society we live in."
>>>
>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0125/p01s01-ussc.html?page=3D3D2
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's also known that teachers and
>>>>>administrators are less sympathetic to minorities and don't work as h=
>ard
>>>>>to keep them from dropping out.
>>>>
>>>>=3D20
>>>>Oh we do? Do you have any evidence of this?
>>>>I didn't think so.
>>>
>>>"There's an inequity in resources," says Pam Green, Garfield's Parent
>>>Teacher Student Association president and the black parent of a
>>>struggling Garfield 10th-grader. "The inequity starts in elementary
>>>schools, when teachers start labeling kids and putting them in
>>>groups.... To me, it's really two camps. It's very disturbing because
>>>the AP program is serving less than a third of the school." A study
>>>released in March by the Applied Research Center, a think tank in
>>>Oakland, California, bolsters Green's viewpoint. The study found that
>>>minority students in just about every state are doing worse than their
>>>white counterparts, and noted that school districts exacerbate the
>>>problem by trapping kids in largely segregated academic tracks that are=
>
>>>almost impossible to escape. As Libero Della Piana, one author of the
>>>study, puts it, "Those classes are geared toward you never catching up.=
>
>>>Maybe having more AP classes is not the best idea."
>>>[...]
>>>Jim Creighton, head of the history department, is the lead advocate for=
>
>>>AP classes at Garfield, and embodies yet another barrier -- teacher
>>>attitudes. He refuses to discuss in any detail the lack of black
>>>students in his classes, and justifies the overrepresentation of white
>>>students by claiming that less is required of black students applying t=
>o
>>>colleges. The logic, apparently, is that blacks can be lazier because
>>>they've got it made. "There are two different sets of circumstances," i=
>s
>>>all Creighton would say.
>>>[...]
>>>Nearly all of Garfield's 12 AP teachers are white, and none are black.
>>>(This reflects a trend in the school as a whole; only 13 of Garfield's
>>>79 teachers are black.) Yet, according to the 1998 book The Black-White=
>
>>>Test Score Gap, a collection of research on racial disparity in
>>>test-score results, teachers make the biggest difference in raising tes=
>t
>>>scores, and black students learn more effectively from black teachers o=
>n
>>>average. One Asian AP student, who asked to remain anonymous, speculate=
>s
>>>that "if there [were] more competent black teachers, the black students=
>
>>>would be much more interested."
>>>
>>>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3D3D3774
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>When there isn't equal economic opportunity people find other things =
>to=3D
>>>
>>>>>do with their time.
>>>>
>>>>=3D20
>>>>Like I said...individuals make choices.
>>>
>>>Yeah, they choose not to put nearly as much money into training and
>>>hiring blacks and latinos as they do for whites.
>>=20
>> I guess you didn't compare graduation rates.
>
>When the system is biased, what else would one expect?
Sorry...its not biased. Students, and parents, as a whole, decide
whether or not they wish to graduate.
>I know. You
>walked three miles uphill in both directions to get an education, but I
>hardly think you can expect everyone to succeed by doing that.
As a matter of fact...I did walk to school. Grade school was 3
blocks, high school was just a little over a mile.
>
>>>>>>>>>It's done all the time. If you're testing a new drug, and those =
>taking
>>>>>>>>>it live longer than the control group, then you conclude they had=
> a=3D
>>>>>>>>>better "opportunity."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Different system....no self-selection is expressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Black folks choose to be poor. Ever since the 1965 Civil Rights Ac=
>t -
>>>>>>>and hardly a man is now alive who remembers that year - blacks have=
> had
>>>>>>>full equal rights and just keep choosing to be poor. Of course, so=
> do
>>>>>>>poor whites every time they vote Republican. Uh huh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and point blame elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Individuals make choices that directly impact their quality of life.=
>
>>>>>
>>>>>And individuals make choices that directly impact the quality of the
>>>>>lives of others. And in America there's a racial bias to those
>>>>>decisions overall.
>>>>
>>>>I see...when asked for specifics all you can do is point to the man
>>>>behind the curtain.
>>>
>>>And all you can do is pretend there isn't anybody in charge in America.=
>
>>=20
>> http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/010=
>125.html
>>=20
>> "The nation=92s public school districts spent an average of $8,701 per
>> student on elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2005, up
>> 5 percent from $8,287 the previous year, the U.S. Census Bureau
>> reported today.
>
>I wonder how much of that increase was just heating school buildings.
>But education, plus administrative overhead like NCLB, is expensive to
>do right.
School funding is skyrocketing, well above inflation and other
mandates.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_56/ai_n13675424
The truth is that, between 1960 and 2000, after-inflation education
spending more than tripled. Harvard's Caroline Hoxby has found that
real, inflation-adjusted spending grew from $5,900 per pupil in 1982
to more than $9,200 in 2000. In its most recent figures, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates
that current U.S. education spending is over $10,800 per child.
In fact, some may be surprised to learn that the U.S. ranks at the top
of the international charts when it comes to education spending. In
2000, the most recent year for which international comparisons are
available, the OECD found that the United States spent significantly
more per child than any other industrial democracy, including those
famous for their generous social programs. In primary education, on a
per-pupil basis, the United States spent 66 percent more than Germany,
56 percent more than France, 27 percent more than Japan, 80 percent
more than the United Kingdom, 62 percent more than Finland, 62 percent
more than Belgium, and 122 percent more than South Korea. At the
secondary-school level, the figures are similar, with the U.S.
outpacing Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and South Korea,
among others, by more than 40 percent per pupil.
Despite all this spending, the U.S. ranked 15th among the 31 countries
that participated in the OECD's 2000 Program for International Student
Assessment reading exam. Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand were among
the nations that outperformed the U.S. while spending far less per
pupil. The results in math are equally disquieting: In the
international 1999 TIMSS study, which assessed mathematics and science
achievement at the eighth-grade level, the U.S. ranked 19th out of 38
countries.
>
>> Findings from Public Education Finances: 2005, show that New York
>> spent $14,119 per student =97 the highest amount among states and state=
>
>> equivalents. Just behind was neighboring New Jersey at $13,800, the
>> District of Columbia at $12,979, Vermont ($11,835) and Connecticut
>> ($11,572). Seven of the top 10 with the highest per pupil expenditures
>> were in the Northeast.
>>=20
>> Utah spent the least per student ($5,257), followed by Arizona
>> ($6,261), Idaho ($6,283), Mississippi ($6,575) and Oklahoma ($6,613).
>> All 10 of the states with the lowest spending per student were in the
>> West or South.
>>=20
>> The report and associated data files contain information for all
>> local public school systems in the country. For example, in New York
>> City, the largest school district in the country, per pupil spending
>> was $13,755."
>
>Do you have a point? At least you've conceded most of my arguments,
>though I hardly expect that you've learned anything.
I haven't conceded anything. You came up with one example in one
school district that was an artifact of a funding formula.
Face the facts...most people end up where they are at because of the
choices they've made in life. Whimpering and whining about how its
the fault of someone else will keep you right where you're at.
JSL
Jeffrey Turner
Obviously the more you spend on education the worse the results. What a
blow to capitalism.
But seriously, I'm not sure what you think this means or proves. How
does the cost of health insurance for staff and faculty (and even
children) get figured into the above? Does anywhere spend as much on
high school football coaches as Texas? Then there's school breakfast
and lunch programs. How many of those countries charge major social
welfare programs to their schools? Come back when you've got some
analysis that won't fit on a bumper sticker.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Well...education isn't run by capitalists so there you have it.
>
>But seriously, I'm not sure what you think this means or proves. How
>does the cost of health insurance for staff and faculty (and even
>children) get figured into the above?
Right...those costs gone up so much that its tripled the real dollars
spent since the 60's.
>Does anywhere spend as much on
>high school football coaches as Texas?
Here we go again.
>Then there's school breakfast and lunch programs.
Exaclty...why?
>How many of those countries charge major social
>welfare programs to their schools? Come back when you've got some
>analysis that won't fit on a bumper sticker.
Fine. Keep passing the buck...that way you can convince yourself
you're not part of the problem.
JSL
Jeffrey Turner
They tried. The Edison Project was going bankrupt before Jeb Bush used
some retirement funds to bail it out.
>>But seriously, I'm not sure what you think this means or proves. How
>>does the cost of health insurance for staff and faculty (and even
>>children) get figured into the above?
>
> Right...those costs gone up so much that its tripled the real dollars
> spent since the 60's.
Plus it's expensive teaching those extra forty years of history.
Of course, many black schools back then hardly cost anything.
>>Does anywhere spend as much on
>>high school football coaches as Texas?
>
> Here we go again.
>
>>Then there's school breakfast and lunch programs.
>
> Exaclty...why?
Because kids can't concentrate on schoolwork if they're hungry.
>>How many of those countries charge major social
>>welfare programs to their schools? Come back when you've got some
>>analysis that won't fit on a bumper sticker.
>
> Fine. Keep passing the buck...that way you can convince yourself
> you're not part of the problem.
You don't even know what the problem is. Why don't you go to your
local school board meetings and give them your marvelous advice on
saving money.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Of course not...and we all know how hungry the are.
>>>How many of those countries charge major social
>>>welfare programs to their schools? Come back when you've got some
>>>analysis that won't fit on a bumper sticker.
>>
>> Fine. Keep passing the buck...that way you can convince yourself
>> you're not part of the problem.
>
>You don't even know what the problem is. Why don't you go to your
>local school board meetings and give them your marvelous advice on
>saving money.
Because they're like you. They want to pass the buck.
JSL