a Chinese american thinks that some races are better than others and uses the american experience as justification for these opinions. She thinks asians are a superior race or races and she bases these assumptions on parenting methods. It is difficult to argue against the argument that nurture makes the difference, excepting of course, that the argument has been couched in racial terms. Now we all remember that there was a race who had such ideas and the end result was they were proven wrong, their supposed superiority led them on the wrong path

Tiger Mum: Some races are just better than others | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/tiger-mum-some-races-are-just-better-than-others/story-fnixwvgh-1226795184279)

So let's ignite the argument, how does your race fair in the racial stakes. I personally think opportunity is what makes the difference. a person without education has little opportunity to shine

Let me see Chinese parenting skills.?

At 3 years of age, the child is placed in a kindergarten from about 7 am to 6 pm every evening. Then the child will go to elementary school where there are about 60 children to a classroom with one teacher. The classrooms are small and crowded. They are in school from about 630 or 7 am till 630 to 8 pm every day. 6 days a week.

At middle school about 1/2 the children live on campus, and will go to school till about 9pm every night.

The ones that do go home, have so much home work, they are doing school work every night till 10 or 11.

High school, if they pass the test to go, ( they have a required test to go to high school) is just a repeat of the same for middle school.

Of course often dad works out of town and is seldom home.

Chinese parents do not raise their children, the school system does. In talking to my college students, few really know their parents, about 1/3 were raised by grandparents since mother and father worked,

Chinese children are raised by "society" and government rules in school.
If that is the best parenting model,? Well I guess that is what America is trying to do also.

So schooling is a way of life and in such a system you do well to survive, Chuck I doubt this is what your system seeks to achieve. However there is no nurture in the chinese system, but you speak of the chinese system in communist China, not the chinese system in capitalist america as does the article cited. As I said earlier what we have here is a racist view, a justification for why certain students do well. In the society in which I live students from a asian background do well too, and I suspect that has more to do with a migrant background than it does with ethnicity, since I'm no slouch and my ancestors were Irish. I also note that students from an indigenous background don't do well and that is definately down to nurtute

You might be onto something with the "migrant background," Clete, inasmuch as the migrant has already shown more initiative than natives in migrating. Even refugees took that initiative, if out of desperation rather than ambition. That sort of initiative will show up in a work ethic and will be absorbed at least somewhat by the children of those migrants.

I seriously doubt race has anything to do with it.

The Chinese here in China, believe they are the best parents, we hear it all the time, they tell us, that chinese parents love their children more.

Now with that, everything in their life is geared at passing certain tests. They must pass a test to get into high school, they must past a test to get into college. For the right jobs, they must have stacks of certificates to prove they passed classes.

So parents must pay money for these tests or for extra training, so the work and save. For example, they may earn 2000 RMB a month and will save to they can buy their child a 7000 RMB computer.

They view how many tutors and how many training classes the child takes as how well they are loved.

The Chinese lack creativity (except perhaps the risk takers who emigrate ).Our innovators are the rebels who ignore the education system and all the preconceived assumptions that go with it.Amy Chua's children will be excellent cogs in the machine.

Yes, the standard method, and is accepted in high school and many Chinese university, is if you write a paper, you find one on internet and just copy it. They could not understand, failing in our classes if they did that.
But my first question, to them is "what is your dream" yep, to be a good student, to get a college degree and enter society as a productive member" that is about 99 percent of them.

We work hard trying to teach them anything is possible. To give them the ability to think.

opportunism will not serve them well, it will produce a race of clones. Facts are only important if you can employ them, don't they understand that you gain wisdom through the application of knowledge

Mormons are a race?

yes I found that interesting, obviously their isolation in Utah produced something in the Chinese mindset. Again mormons prove the nurture argument

I believe the premise was about cultures, not races.

Well you may be right although that wasn't as clear

Not by the headline, but this was clear:


In a new book, The Triple Package, Chua and her husband, co-author Jed Rubenfeld, argue that some "cultural" groups of people are superior to everyone else.

Either way, she sounds like a wacko.

We could take her argument and argue that Christian culture is superior to Muslim culture but we both know we would be speaking about caucasian and arab peoples. We could use the same argument when speaking about Judaism and Islam but we both know we would be speaking about the differences between two semetic peoples. Chua clearly thinks the jewish race is superior without mentioning the arab. these are the same sort or arguments Hitler used and we should be cautious about any person who puts forth these opinions

Okie dokie, you stay on top of it. I personally intend to ignore the wacko lady.

I tend to agree with Speech on this one since there is but one race of human on the earth, and fools who claim superiority are stupid, and should be ignored as long as they don't cross the lines of good behavior that is discrimination based on race. Or any other man made difference.

yes, but you see we have learned the lesson of not ignoring dangerous people or at least some of us have. Islamic fundamentalists and extremists were ignored until their actions demanded action, Hitler was ignored until his actions demanded action, I put Chua in the same category

Obama thinks his drop in the polls just might be because he's black (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all).


Obama’s election was one of the great markers in the black freedom struggle. In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama’s drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters. “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.” The latter group has been less in evidence of late.

That just might be true, but then they didn't support him to begin with so I don't follow how that adds to a drop in his approval ratings. Regardless, it's rather pathetic for the President of the United States to play the race card. You lied to us, big time. You look increasingly incompetent, we're certainly not happy about your healthcare overhaul, the economy barely drags along still and your foreign policy is incoherent. What's not to love?

wouldn't that factor already been accounted for ? Did the number of people who dislike him because of his race increase recently ? If his poll numbers were to go up would that mean fewer dislike hime over race ?

Apparently a bunch of folks that previously supported him just realized they don't like him because he's black, not because he lied to them and screwed up their insurance.

We all know race is but one factor, more important to some than others. Fact is republican lawmakers in Washington have lower numbers than the Prez, or the democrats, on a national level.

OK, but how do you get lower approval numbers because of people who didn't like him in the first place? You don't, his drop in approval has nothing to do with race.

all the drop in approval is measuring is the poor perceived performance of government. perhaps it is a measure of his ability to convince his political opponents of the wisdom of his program or the ineptitude of his advisers. He is destined to spend six years of his presidency as a lame duck

all the drop in approval is measuring is the poor perceived performance of government. perhaps it is a measure of his ability to convince his political opponents of the wisdom of his program or the ineptitude of his advisers. He is destined to spend six years of his presidency as a lame duck

Yep, but nothing is ever his fault. "Damn that Bush, damn those racists, damn those bitter clingers, damn those Republicans and Tea Partiers and Fox News - if it weren't for them everything would AWESOME."

There is only one thing that might be his fault, the ACA but because there wasn't a proper path for the passage of the legislation where the bugs could be debated and disposed of he can blame others. The opposition to his tenue and program has been very effective, but he is afflicted with the chinese curse; to live in interesting times or pehaps in this case to lead in interesting times and I can only reflect that perhaps wiser heads left him to it

To use a racing term; one out, one back and could that describe Kerry

The first part has nothing to do with race but the left's liar Texas hero who doesn't stand a chance actually said her paraplegic opponent "hasn't walked a day in my shoes. " The racist part is the NAACP calling North Carolina's black senator, the first black senator from the south in 130 years, a "ventriloquist’s dummy. "

Wendy Davis Slams Paraplegic Opponent: 'Hasn't Walked a Day in My Shoes' | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369104/wendy-davis-slams-paraplegic-opponent-hasnt-walked-day-my-shoes-andrew-stiles)

Tim Scott responds to NAACP's insults | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/tim-scott-responds-to-naacp-insult-reminds-me-and-others-of-what-not-to-do/)

Come on guys, stop pretending you give a crap about diversity, racial harmony, tolerance and sensitivity, because you're full of BS if you can't condemn this ignorant bullsh*t.

Satan has more favorible poll numbers than Obama has. THe voters that put him into office have awoken from their commas.

Come on guys, stop pretending you give a crap about diversity, racial harmony, tolerance and sensitivity, because you're full of BS if you can't condemn this ignorant bullsh*t.

Speech, all I can give about that is a crap, it is an agenda to subvert. I'm not against minorities persee, they can take their place in society without getting special treatment

Democrats are a coalition of minority groups, made possible by republican BS!! They run from what you guys are cooking.

hey tal I'm not cooking anything, I'm very middle of the road. If you are saying they are running from responsibility, I can buy that. They always have a reason why they can't succeed and it isn't their "fault". I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen but it happens much less than they might think. The election of Obama proves what I'm saying, maybe his race worked for him, maybe it did not, but I expect it will be a cold day in hell before another "black" man strides the stage, been there, done that

Let's now play the race card in a different form. How stupid can you get? well I don't know if there is a reference point but we may just have found it

Anger in NT community after circumcision rite ends with three boys airlifted to hospital - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/nt-elders-concede-to-mistakes-in-ritual-circumcision/5213526)

call it race, call it culture, I don't know where you draw the line, but criminal neglegence must come pretty close. if this happened in my community there would be criminal charges, probably GBH, but because some backward people of, well let's say, ethnic origin, are involved it's culture.. We have outlawed the islamic practice of female circumcision, we should also outlaw the ritual circumcision of males, no matter who we might offend whether it be jewish, islamic or indigenous. You want it done, get a doctor. I seriously think some ethnic or cultural practices in a modern society should be outlawed, and this isn't sour grapes it is common sense and to think that supposedly responsible public employees are involved...................

Democrats are a coalition of minority groups, made possible by republican BS!! They run from what you guys are cooking

Obviously you agree with the NAACP. A black can't be black unless he carries your water. ThInk about it.

You do the same thing to those that YOU want to carry YOUR water. But don't in your view. Maybe not you personally but your side certainly does. Doesn't change the FACT that minorities groups run from your side in great numbers.

Nor the TParty push for more far right wing representation. It's so far been easier locally, than nationally. You have a right to rail against liberals and progressives and the NAACP, and we can rail against YOUR side, individuals and groups. It's the American way.

You do the same thing to those that YOU want to carry YOUR water.

Really? That would be fun to see you prove, but this has nothing to do with criticizing our own as in alleged conservatives not acting like conservatives. It's about race and gender, something you're BORN with. Only YOUR side disparages blacks and women as not black or female enough if they dare not think like you - while PRETENDING to be all about diversity.


But don't in your view. Maybe not you personally but your side certainly does. Doesn't change the FACT that minorities groups run from your side in great numbers

I'd rather maintian my integrity than sucker and lie my way into making minorities and women slaves to my party and government. THat's what you do.


Nor the TParty push for more far right wing representation. It's so far been easier locally, than nationally. You have a right to rail against liberals and progressives and the NAACP, and we can rail against YOUR side, individuals and groups. It's the American way.

So you do claim the right to be racist when it suits you. I knew it.

The Democrat party can't possibly be more leftist than the Current President.

JFK is spinning in his grave in Arlington over what the Democrat party has become.

I don't think you have clear left/right distinctions over there except at the margins. I cannot see Obama as leftist just because he supports health care or regulation of firearms or because he has spent too much money. He isn't a warmonger, that is to be applauded. You have some big issues that need to be dealt with and until you have bipartisan support it doesn't matter which way he leans

THose are both policies ONLY embraced by the far left...

Hitler was a gun control proponent... history shows why.

Obama IS a warmonger...more people died in wars under his reign than under Bush....he is also makes drunken sailors look fiscally responsible.

WHat did those fools do... emergency foreskin reattachment? Talk about Frankenwienie!!!!!!!! Cripes... circumcision doesn't scar men for life... and it doesnhurt their ability to have sex in any way shape or form... and as such its very, VERY different than female circumcision which is meant to deprive the woman from getting any enjoyment during sex so some socially impared (usually muslim) mental midget won't have to fear his wife is getting her jollies with the guy down the street that pays her attention.

smoothy you are a historical revisionist. Hitler was not far left but far right, you forget he opposed communism and used a capitalist industrial base to further his warmongering

Obama hasn't started any wars, he is working to end the wars started by others, such as George Bush

Obama didn't cause the GFC he inherited it from Bush

The things you blame him for where committed by Bush and are in response to the way Bush handled issues

You can blame Obama for the ACA, you can blame Obama for QE but you can't blame him for those other things

No I doubt that, stem the bleeding would be my guess. What did they do, fail to realise young men arn't children, fail to understand anatomy, fail to care. As I said you want to do these things, get a doctor and do the job properly. I think other forms of abuse in initiation should be outlawed too, it is time we came in from the stone age and its thinking, whether that be indigenous, muslim or anyone else who thinks mutilation is fun

You guys get a different version of what happens here than what really happens here on your news apparently. Bush wasn't responsible for ANYTHING that happened under his ownwatch using that logic... he inherited all of them from Bill Clinton. So blame Clinton...not Bush.

Everyone here in the USA would GLADLY go back to the way things were when Bush was in office... EVERYTHING was better than it is now. Obama alone spent more money than George Bush did AND every other president COMBINED. And there were several very big wars paid for during that time as well.

Hitler was no Right winger... no right winger believes in fascism or any other form of collectivism. The Nazi party was the National Socialist party...

National Socialism (political movement, Germany) -- Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405414/National-Socialism)

The Socialists and Communists might not always like each other... but they are birds of the same feather. And they share far more in common than they have differences.

Smoothy, don't be an ostrich Bush committed your country to a war in Afghanistan and then didn't follow through, can't see Clinton involved in that one, unless it is he didn't start it sooner. Bush committed your country to a war in Iraq, if anyone is to blame it is GHW Bush for failing to prosecute it years earlier. We would all like to go back to the days before the GFC. I think it would have been interesting to see the G. W. Bush approach, would he have looked like a stunned mullet like he did on 9/11 or declared a War on Wall Street to match the War on Terror.

Hitler was right wing, extreme right wing. There really is no difference between extreme right and extreme left in methodology, both believe in the supremacy of the state and it's right to coerce compliance. Fascism is right wing that is why it has echoes in fundamentalist Islam and you don't see them implementing socialist policies. In any case the argument is academic because your country is not socialist but there are echoes of fascism.

As far as getting a different version of the news, we sometimes get news you don't get, and of course, just like yourselves the focus of our media is local, so you have little idea of what is really happening in the world at large, but anything news worthy finds its way into our media because otherwise we would be starved of any real news, but many of us have an interest in what is happening in Europe and Asia, we even have a specialist news service providing other language news services, so we get a different perspective. I think it is perspective that makes the difference, we don't happen to think you are right and everyone else is wrong

You are being the Ostrich... the Taliban were HOSTING Al Queda in afghanistan... we had every reason in the world to go there... me of course... I would have nuked the hellhole and been over with it, I don't have my finger on the button however.

Really... OBL was offered to us on a silver platter... Clinton refused to take him... and even further back... BIll CLinton insisted on treating the first attempted bombing of the WTC as a criminal act rather than treating it what it was... it almost always starts when a Democrat is in charge..
THere was nothing right wing about hitler... the right supports NOTHING Hitler did... never has... never will. The left however does and always has.

I've had a insider perspective on a lot of these events when they were happening Joe Average didn't. If they did... they would see it the way I do. However I can't and won't go into detail why or how... thats just how it is... take my word for it or don't... but I'm no Snowden.


As I've said before...people who believe every word they hear on the news....are actually less informed than some goatherder living in the remote mountains.

I doubt the left in your country supported Hitler and the left in my country certainly didn't, as far as Afghanistan was concerned it was a stuffup, as far as Iraq was concerned it was a stuffup and the Buck must stop with Bush. what does your perspective tell you now? has your country gone to the dogs or not?

Smoothy

"Hitler was no Right winger... no right winger believes in fascism or any other form of collectivism. The Nazi party was the National Socialist party...

National-Socialism" National Socialism (political movement, Germany) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The Socialists and Communists might not always like each other... but they are birds of the same feather. And they share far more in common than they have differences."


This is not quite correct. It is a bit more complicated than that. Having made this claim will say it is very difficult to give a brief summary, but I think will be worth effort.As your link points out the National Socialist Party had its beginning long before the rise of Hitler. Its roots can be found in agrarianism. More specifically the promotion of agricultural interest associated with a particular class.

I don't think it is possible to understand National Socialism without first understanding the contribution that Bismarck made to the movement. Before such an explanation, it is important to understand that Bismarck was very active in banning some of the most important elements of the socialist movement encroaching upon Europe at the time. This is because there was rapid industrialization taking place during this time that inevitably led to an embracement of Marxism by the working class.This forced Bismarck to implement his own socialist agenda. This led Bismarck to adopt his own form of 'socialism'. This attempt at socialism has some aspects of modern socialism, but is largely an anathema to the modern movement.

Hitler can be seen as someone who took up the reins of National Socialism because he could see how it would suit his ends. Hitler's National socialism certainly had common elements shared with Bismarck's attempt, while at the some time adding some of his own flavour.As your link also says, Hitler's party had common elements with the Fascism of Mussolini. Some of the elements would be, heavy nationalistic sentiment , antisemitism (somewhat reluctantly) stateism, anti-Marxist, anti-rationalist and anti-intellectual

In the end Nazism and Fascism are no different to any other time in history. Namely, they are somewhat unique.

I completely disagree... there were groups (all leftists) that actually did support Hitler before out entry into the war... they were never a majority.

Iraq was no more Bushes fault than Korea was... yes remember that one... same deal... cease fire agreement in both cases... onlt despite the pilsbury dogh boys near constant chest beating... and trying to appear manly just Justine Beiber... they are both just pompus asses. Saddam however actually did repeatedly violate the cease fire over and over again... He Did use Chemical Weapons against the Kurds... (proven fact). Taking him out was justified by every international law.

And Afghanistan hy hosting and supporting Al Queda when they committed an act of war... opened them up to a very legal and very moral attack. THey started that... not us. The fact 90% of that countries inhabitants aren't worth the sheep they sodomize is immaterial.

Tutty... as a lefty... you really don't grasp reality as well as you think you do.

I'm a right winger... I know what the right likes and doesn't like... there is NOTHING Hitler stood for that the right stands for... despite what you might think. Everything Hitler stoof for has far more in common with Obamas Democrat party than you might want to admit... becasue the Republican party shares nothing that Hitlers Nazi party or any Facists party.

THerefore no rational educated person can make the claim the Republicans are right wingers... then in the same breath claim Nazis and Fascists are right wingers when they share absolutely nothing in common, they do however share a lot in common with the American Democrat party of today. If you wasn't on the opposite side of the planet getting all your information from factualy questionable sources....this would be more clear to you.

The fact 90% of that countries inhabitants aren't worth the sheep they sodomize is immaterial.


You really do have some racial hangups just as you apparently don't believe the evidence. You can fly the flag of convenience as much as you like, GHW Bush left the Iraqi to the tender mercies of Saddam, meaning that GW Bush had unfinished business in Iraq, and he started a war to finish it, no doubt egged on by GHW Bush's Saudi buddies. I didn't see any one being concerned about the Kurds

I'm a patient man. Lets start at the top and slowly work our way down.

"I completely disagree...these were groups (all leftist) that actually did support Hitler before our entry into the war...they were never a majority"

First of all your above sentence doesn't make sense. Who were never a majority?

Secondly, are you talking about political parties from the Weimar Republic? Is so are you in all seriousness suggesting these numerous political parties were all leftist?

THerefore no rational educated person can make the claim the Republicans are right wingers... then in the same breath claim Nazis and Fascists are right wingers when they share absolutely nothing in common,

Even within the ranks of the Republicans today there are individuals who have a different agenda and may have little in common with others. You don't like the connotations when comparisons are drawn between fascists of the past and right wingers today

Tuttyd... its well known there were groups in the USA at that time very sypathetic to the Nazis... many were investigated... some were even sent to jail... a few executed. THOSE are who I was talking about... in Germany the Majority even if they weren't hard core Nazi's at least supported them... caused mostly from the punative measures after WW1. Not saying they didn't deserve them because they did, but I can understand where the resentment came from that fostered the rise of the Nazi party.....

Even within the ranks of the Republicans today there are individuals who have a different agenda and may have little in common with others. You don't like the connotations when comparisons are drawn between fascists of the past and right wingers today
There is a huge difference between not agreeing with everything... and not agreeing with ANYTHING.

THere is nothing the Fascists ever stood for that that the Right wingers here have ever stood for.....the Lefties are who share many of the same objectives......not the right. If you think otherwise then you really don't know much about the American Right.

THere are disagreements in every political party in the world... even in North Korea , but they keep it to themselves or they get fed to the dogs.

You see missinformation again, the dogs story was a hoax, but your Tparty actually shut down government, I'm surprised they weren't wearing Brown Shirts. The american right is dangerous, fortunately you don't have the american people with you

yes I think the german people were complicit in nazism, just like the japanese people were complicit in their part of WWII and the people of North Korea are complicit in the actions of their regime today, you like to blame the left, but not all error lies in the left camp

"...inGermany the Majority even if they weren't hard core Nazi's at least supported them..caused mostly from punitive measures after WW!..."


Ok, so it looks like you are talking roughly about the time Hitler dismissed the Reichstag and his consolidation of power. About the time of the 1933 elections:

Hitler unleashed a rein of terror Storm troopers began ATTACKING TRADE UNION AND COMMUNIST(KPD) PARTY OFFICES AND HOUSES OF LEFT WINGERS. Wikipedia

Here is the whole article from wikipedia:



Hitler gained his support from the left or the right, depending on what suited his purpose at the time. He quickly turned on anyone or any group he thought would provide opposition to his nationalistic agenda.

As I said right at the beginning Nazism has elements that make it a unique time in world history.

Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. The Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party) registered a large increase in votes, again emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority (despite the massive suppression against Communist and Social Democratic politicians) in their own right, needing the votes of their coalition partner, the DNVP German National People's Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party), or "Black-White-Red-Struggle-Front," for a working majority. Due to the success in the poll, party leader Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) – Chancellor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany) since 30 January – was able to pass the Enabling Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933) on 23 March, which effectively made Hitler dictator of Germany. As a result, while three more elections (with only a Nazi party list) were held in the Nazi era, this was the last free election held in Germany before the end of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) and the formation of the German Bundestag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundestag) in 1949, and the last for the whole country before reunification in 1990.

The election took place after the Nazi Machtergreifung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) of 30 January when President Paul von Hindenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg) had appointed Hitler Chancellor, who immediately urged the dissolution of the Reichstag and the arrangement of new elections. In early February, the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far." Storm troopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany) (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#cite_note-1) In the second half of February, the violence was extended to the Social Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany), with gangs of brownshirts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownshirts) breaking up Social Democrat meetings and beating up their speakers and audiences. Issues of Social Democratic newspapers were banned.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#cite_note-2) Twenty newspapers of the Centre Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_%28Germany%29), a party of Catholic Germans, were banned in mid-February for criticizing the new government. Government officials known to be Centre Party supporters were dismissed from their offices, and stormtroopers violently attacked party meetings in Westphalia.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#cite_note-3)
Six days before the scheduled election date, the German parliament building was set alight in the Reichstag fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire), allegedly by the Dutch Communist Marinus van der Lubbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_van_der_Lubbe). This event reduced the popularity of the KPD, and enabled Hitler to persuade President Hindenburg to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree) as an emergency decree according to Article 48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_%28Weimar_Constitution%29) of the Weimar Constitution. This emergency law removed many civil liberties and allowed the arrest of Ernst Thälmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Th%C3%A4lmann) and 4,000 leaders and members of the KPD[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#cite_note-4) shortly before the election, suppressing the Communist vote and consolidating the position of the Nazis. The KPD was "effectively outlawed from 28 February 1933", although it was not completely banned until the day after the election.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933#cite_note-5) While at that time not as heavily oppressed as the Communists, the Social Democrats were also restricted in their action


The wikipedia link didn't work so I cut and pasted

In the book The Bell Curve, the authors rated groups according to IQ. The highest average IQ group was Ashkenazi Jews, then East Asians, followed by Whites, Hispanics and African- Americans.

The question then became why?

My opinion only - I believe the differences are due to environment (nurture). The "nature/nurture" argument is, in my opinion, a false one. Nature, after all, is simply nurture writ large over hundreds of generations.

The group living in a temperate climate, for example, (whites) has a greater challenge to provide food and shelter than a group (Blacks) living in a tropical climate where food and shelter are relatively easier to obtain. Hence, the former group develops greater technology to survive. This leads to higher IQs over time.

There are many other factors/examples, all relying on environment (nurture).

Over many generations, the lower IQ group will ultimately fit in with the higher group if they share the same environment. African Americans, for example, have increased IQs when measured over time (and living in a temperate climate).

This issue is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion. Unfortunatley, the Nazis tainted the discussion so badly that it is still, in many circles, hard to have a non-heated discussion.

The Nazis, of course, believed, quite erroneously, that nature (genetics) determined "superiority".

intersting argument but it doesn't explain the Jews and whilst climate might explain some characteristics, skin, height it doesn't explain intelligence excepting that in harsh climates the lower intelligent part of the society doesn't survive. What does make a difference is the quality, not quantity of food

Another Dem reveals his racism...on the House floor.

45653

might as well say you don't like michelle she is married to a white man

Republican turned Democrat Charlie Crist has found the secret to being a good Dem (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/12/charlie_crist_obamas_race_part_of_reaction_to_2009 _hug.html), play the race card on the reaction to his 2009 hug of Obama.


"Sadly, I think another part of it was that he was a Democrat. But not just a Democrat, an African American," Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said on "The Colbert Report."

Uh yeah right. Personally I don't care if you hug Obama, hold his hand or kiss him smack on the lips. Republicans don't like your political embrace of Obama, you conveniently abandon the party for political expediency and you should expect some backlash, much like Alan Specter.

By the way, no one has complained that Tom Coburn has embraced Zero as a good friend, I think that's because he has principles and integrity unlike you. And your shameless race baiting is just more proof you're a lowlife who'll do anything to get elected. Get a spine Democrats and practice what you preach instead of stoking the fire.

So the Tea Party is racist, eh? Can you give us some examples?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pyuyd_tg0k

Uh, no, "I'm not thinking about them right now." And my favorite, "I think they're racists against women."

Obviously to be a good progressive foot soldier your brain must first be turned to mush.

All this type of thing does is demonstrate how certain groups in the community lack education.

You can pull exactly the same stunt with questioning people with right wing points of view.

It proves nothing except how embarrassing it can be if you have a extreme right or left view point.

Yes, you can get this sort of thing on either side but in this case they've been told by their leaders and prominent journalists for 4 years that the Tea Part
y is racist without any proof. That should trouble you but apparently it doesn't.

We conservatives don't institutionalize ignorance the way the left does, we tend to be much more rational in spite of ignorant stereotypes like this one and the pathetic notion that we're "flat-earthers" (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140216-kerry-mocks-climate-change-deniers-as-flat-earth-society.ece?nclick_check=1) for questioning allegedly "settled science" that keeps missing predictions and failing to produce supportive data.

In fact, I'd say libs are more likely to be racist, intolerant, "flat-earther" types (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2395697)than conservatives.

If all men are created equal, then you are as dumb as I am. RIGHT?

Equal in value and worth. I can't help it if your side doesn't think people are worthy of more than indoctrination into ignorance.

Tal irrespective of what you constitution says, men were only created equal before God, in all other respects various inequalities exist as is clearly demonstrated by your government each day.

I find it amazing that 50% of your population could consider astrology scientific, I expect this is the same 50% who live in poverty, the same 50% who wouldn't vote republican and the same 50% who would elect Obama a second time. But the statistics don't reflect this, so go figure a third of republicans consider astrology scientific, that is the same third who say climate change doesn't exist

"Yes you can say that sort of thing on either side but in this case they have been told by their leaders and prominent journalists for four years that the Tea Party is racist without any proof."




Isn't this precisely the problem? There is no institutionalized racism in most Western democratic nations. Anyway,none that any political organization is prepared to admit to. Such attitudes will never be found in any policy formulation.

As far as your country is concerned, the trick seems to be to portray the other side as having ingrown racist attitudes. That is to say. the institutionalized remnants of racism.

When you come to think of it the whole business of trying to portray the other side as racist is pretty pathetic.

tutt you have hit on it they are pathetic, in fact tragics. They hide behind their political correctness, not daring to describe a person in racist terms whilst being specific about race all the time. There can be nothing more racist than pointing out that an afro-american is an afro-american or an italian american is an italian american as if these are sub humans everyone must be made aware of

Isn't this precisely the problem? There is no institutionalized racism in most Western democratic nations. Anyway,none that any political organization is prepared to admit to. Such attitudes will never be found in any policy formulation.

I agreee there is no institutionalized racism.


As far as your country is concerned, the trick seems to be to portray the other side as having ingrown racist attitudes. That is to say. the institutionalized remnants of racism.

That's the M.O. of the left, not the right.


When you come to think of it the whole business of trying to portray the other side as racist is pretty pathetic.

Yup, and now the good folks at MSNBC are blaming the UAW vote loss on racism right on cue.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)


In American politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States), the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) by appealing to racism against African Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States#African_Americans).

Racism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States)

Appealing with what, dog whistles like "urban" and "golf"? The Southern Strategy is a thing of the past, just as racism would be if your side would stop calling us racists for no damn reason.

You really do need to get out of your barrio more.

You need to prove we're racists or shut up. Better yet, just move on to reality.

I don't have to prove anything nor does anyone who votes against you guys. I doubt seriously if I will follow your suggestion of shutting up, no matter how nasty and disrespectful you are yet again.

That's the reality you either deal with, or DON'T! Makes me no difference. Sure as hell doesn't change my opinion. Don't care if yours changes or NOT.

Alrighty then, seems your fine with perpetuating racial tension. That's sad.

I don't ignore what's happening in the rest of the country/world and pass it off as a liberal conspiracy.

I don't make sh*t up and pretend it's truth.

I don't make sh*t up and pretend it's truth.Yea, you sometimes do. :-)

So you like living in a fantasy world also? No, I don't make it up, I back it up.

So you like living in a fantasy world also?See, there's one right there.

make sh*t up and pretend it's truth

It's called a question, hence the question mark thingy.

Ah, the Fox News tactic: "...simply putting a question mark at the end of something, you can say *** anything"
The Question Mark - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/13/06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-13-2006/the-question-mark)

I'm not Fox news. I've been asking questions long before they came into existence, and the idea that I just make sh*t up and pass it off as truth, such as Obama's lie that the Central California drought is caused by climate change, or "golf" is a dog whistle, is indeed a fantasy. I don't need to make it up, the evidence abounds. Where's yours?

I've been asking questions long before they came into existence,I know, you totally missed the point he was making.

You're just making that up. As I was saying...

golf? what about cricket?

"That's the MO of the left, not the right."

Speech, isn't that you do here from time to time? Are you not falling into the same trap by playing the same cards?

Speech, isn't that you do here from time to time? Are you not falling into the same trap by playing the same cards?

I believe I suggested there is more racism on the left, based on actual (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/race-card-780484-6.html#post3619768) examples (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/tim-scott-responds-to-naacp-insult-reminds-me-and-others-of-what-not-to-do/) such as those. I don't impugn an entire segment of the population as racist for no reason (the point of the protester video) other than political gain (http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/14/liberal-super-pac-calling-republicans-racist-more-effective-than-criticizing-policy/) (or ever for that matter) as Democrats do (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/race-card-780484-6.html#post3620011) over (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/02/13/ed-schultz-slimes-grover-norquist-may-be-race-baiting-anti-obama-uni), and over (http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/20/obama-blames-low-approval-numbers-on-racism/), and over (http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24277-if-you-don-t-like-obamacare-you-are-raaaaacist-according-to-the-louisiana-democrat-chair), and over (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2012/08/30/chris-matthews-and-msnbc-now-claim-word-chicago-racist) again. If they're going to talk about it I'm going to call them on their hypocrisy.

Yes, you do a good job of point out how the Dems play that game. But the point I am making is that if and when you you accuse the Dems of being racist, then you are doing exactly the same thing.

It's all very well to point out how the dems have made race baiting a fine art. But is a different matter to accuse them of being racist.

The whole business is completely absurd.

an absurdity, but then isn't politics an absurdity, certainly obstructionist politics is an absurdity, one doesn't need to enter politics to do nothing, one meerly needs to avoid polling booths

I beg to differ, there is a difference between actual racism and manufactured nonsense (http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/14/liberal-super-pac-calling-republicans-racist-more-effective-than-criticizing-policy/). A congressman saying he doesn't like a black Supreme Court justice because he's married to a white woman is racist. Attacking blacks for the simple fact they're conservative is racist.

Should we allow this to continue without holding them accountable? How does it solve racial tensions if we allow it to go unchallenged? Is that how Dr. King went about it, by shutting up and sitting in his place?

You seem to be saying that when you accuse Dems of being racist you can provide the evidence- apparently you can.

However, when the Dems accuse the Repubs of being racist there is no evidence available because they are not racist.

Is this what you are saying?

Not exactly, I say the need to deal with this manufactured racism is at least as important as dealing with actual racism. In other words, we don't hate Obama because he's black so shut the hell up about it.

So why do you hate Obama? because his initiative cost you a few dollars? or was it your own obstructionism? Is your obstructionism based on the fact that the people who benefit most from the Obama initiative are not like you.. maybe you hate him because he has the ability to unite beyond racial barriers where you only divide

I don't hate Obama, I don't hate anyone. disagreement over policy does not constitute hate, racism or apathy toward those in need - points we've been making for 6 years. Your last Iine is too laughable to even consider.

I'm glad you got a laugh speech because I am able to laugh everyday at your attitudes. I have not suggested that your opposition to Obamacare is based in racism though it does beg the question sometimes, however there must be something driving the opposition to Obama himself, more than just he is of the opposite political persuasion, or that the great white hope couldn't unseat him

So the whole porkulus, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS, Obamacare, executive orders, environmental cronyism, printing money, intransigent Senate, incompetent incoherent foreign policy, etc. Isn't enough to oppose, it must be that he's black. Lol, you people are nuts.

The opposition to Obama is mostly about policy that has so far been held unaccountable to anyone. Having the media is a powerful weapon and his along with the media's abuse of power is nearing legendary.

It is not about race. Obamacare was a joke from the start and Obama really had nothing to do with it other then he wanted to pass "something". And those that pushed it through were telling the public you have to pass it to see what is in it.

That is a disaster from the get go. I understand the need to tweak something so it fits better into the real world but with ACA it has been much more then tweaking to where it isn't even close to what was promised and it never will be. There is no fix for it as it was written so poorly in the first place.

so repeal it when you get the chance, but get on with government in the mean time. All new initiatives need tweeking and reveiw and no doubt this is no different. If it hadn't passed the house it couldn't have become law so if the poli's didn't do their job kick them out. Now I think you have tried that solution and it didn't work. Obama has signed less executive orders than other Presidents and yet the fact he dared to sign one is at issue. At best all you have is poor judgement which is a strawman at best

Republicans, conservatives and the TParty don't have the votes to do anything but holler foul, and obstruct as we come up on the midterm elections and certainly don't represent the majority view. That could change in November, 2014, but I doubt it.

there is a problem Tal of when is a majority a minority and when is a minority a majority, bi-cameral government creates this nexus and you seem to have invented tri-cameral goverment which creates even greater problems when parties can't agree on a course of action

There are 360 MILLION people here to govern and making some happy always means some are not. Yes it makes progress slow, but it also gives some time to adjust or catch up.

And some will always holler. That's why we have elections every two years and that's just the process. No process of human governance on earth is perfect.

Yes we know that Tal, yours is not a peacable population dispite the appearances. I do think you make things a little more difficult than necessary because of the volatility of the politics but be thankful you do not have to solve the issues in the manner of the Ukraine and Thailand since this is where that volatility leads

Remember the guy who said he didn't like Clarence Thomas because he's married to a white woman? He has this little gem to say now...


A debate Tuesday over a bill to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected (http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/03/alabama_house_passes_stringent.html) turned to race after Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, compared her bill to Brown vs. the Board of Education.

But during the debate, Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said that his Republican colleagues would support abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men.


"Ninety-nine percent of the all of the white people in here are going to raise their hand that they are against abortion," he said. "On the other hand, 99 percent of the whites who are sitting in here now, if their daughter got pregnant by a black man, they are going to make their daughter have an abortion."

Where do you Dems find these gems?

Meanwhile, Dingy Harry, while taking a break from calling the Kochs un-American criminals from the Senate floor hinted that the defeat of Obama's Civil Rights nominee was based on racism. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/5/senate-blocks-obamas-civil-rights-nominee/) Yeah, maybe he wasn't "light skinned" enough for the 7 other Dems that voted no.

We obviously have this week's meme. Issa's treatment of Cummings was racist and "mean" according to Jesse Jackson.
(http://twitchy.com/2014/03/06/crude-wrong-racist-and-mean-rev-jesse-jackson-frowns-upon-darrell-issa/)
Ed Schultz: Everyone in South Carolina Hates Obama... Unless They're Black (http://www.truthrevolt.org//news/schultz-everyone-south-carolina-hates-obama-unless-theyre-black)

And it's come to this, being a victim of racism makes you fat (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2573749/Is-racism-making-FAT-Victims-prejudice-greater-risk-obesity.html).

Remember the guy who said he didn't like Clarence Thomas because he's married to a white woman? He has this little gem to say now...



Where do you Dems find these gems?

Meanwhile, Dingy Harry, while taking a break from calling the Kochs un-American criminals from the Senate floor hinted that the defeat of Obama's Civil Rights nominee was based on racism. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/5/senate-blocks-obamas-civil-rights-nominee/) Yeah, maybe he wasn't "light skinned" enough for the 7 other Dems that voted no.

7 Dems defected to defeat Debo Adegbile . Race was not the issue ;and Reid and the emperor know it . The one issue that killed the nomination was that Adegbile defended a man who executed police officer Daniel Faulkner .I'm sure he is a fine lawyer ,and under other circumstances may have been a good fit for the job. BUT ;even though Mumia Abu Jamal certainly deserved legal representation ;that doesn't mean his lawyer is entitled to a senior position in the Justice Dept for that defense.
Kudos to the Dems who crossed the aisle ...... Casey, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, Pryor, Walsh ,and Coons . Most of them of course are either from a Red state or a swing state . But Coons is from solid Blue Delaware ;and is not up for reelection. Best guess is that his state is close enough to Philly where the murder took place ,and his constituents remember .

And this week's meme continues...

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/tom-harkin-doj-civil-rights-nominee_n_4907866.html)Harkin: DOJ Civil Rights Nominee Would Have Been Confirmed If He Was White (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/tom-harkin-doj-civil-rights-nominee_n_4907866.html)


Well then, tell it to the Dems that voted him down. And so far my personal favorite for the week (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372525/texas-dem-under-fire-anti-abbott-rant-andrew-johnson), from about 100 miles south of me...


Texas politicians are recoiling after a prominent Lubbock Democrat accused Republican candidate for governor Greg Abbott of “piñata politics” in a bigoted tirade and allegedly disparaged Abbott’s Latina wife.

“Greg Abbott came into our house uninvited, wanting to somehow give the illusion that the Lubbock County Hispanic community is supportive,” Lubbock city councilman Victor Hernandez said after Abbott visited the West Texas town and held a campaign rally at a Mexican restaurant. “If you want to come into my house, the first thing you have to do is to see me — see me as a person, see me as a human being, see me as a fellow Texan.”

Hernandez, who chairs the local chapter Tejano Democrats, is furious about Abbott’s appeal to Hispanic voters in his city. Even though Abbott was met by a crowd of supporters at Jimenez Bakery and Restaurant last week, Hernandez branded the stop as “offensive” to Hispanics and “beyond any sense of decency.”

He criticized Abbott and Republican candidates for not clearing their visit with local Hispanic group


Obviously Abbott married his Latina wife 33 years ago so she could be a "prop" in his campaign for governor. What is it with you libs coming unhinged about or mocking conservative mixed families? Or do you just believe it's impossible for someone who isn't white to be both a conservative and a genuine minority? And since when do we need your permission to reach out? It's not YOUR house you bigoted thug.

Since approximately 60% of pregnancies blacks have are terminated through abortion. now.. the lefties apparently are bound and determined to raise those percentages significantly higher because thats not high enough for them.

So who is group that actually are the racists here... the Dems who want 100% of the blacks babies aborted... or the conservatives who want none aborted?

If you tried to force MOST people in any specific ethnic group to have abortions... it can and would be considered genocide. Unless of course a Liberal is behind it apparently.

You are as usual in error since most dems/libs/and reasonable republican agree the way to eliminate abortions is through education and contraception as well you know from other forums.

Rich and well to do females have gynecologists they visit regularly, and birth control options, poorer or less educated females do not. They also have insurance that poor people do not have. Educating one to their options and opportunities is the key to preventing abortions, given the fact if they really want one they will do it themselves, or turn to dangerous alternatives.

If your idea to PREVENT abortions by taking away, or not recognizing those very important factors of education, options, opportunities, and MEANS, then I totally reject both your premise, and methods, as erroneous, and ineffective. I have stated I am as against abortions as you are, except you make obstacles and I believe in solutions to make them NOT necessary.

City report: 55.8 percent of African-American babies aborted in NYC - Arlington Political Buzz | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/city-report-55-8-percent-of-african-american-babies-aborted-nyc)

But then Democrats really DO want MORE aborted than that...they are upset that more aren't being aborted...and that more can't easily get aborted which would only serve to increace those percentages.

THey have options....use protection, or abstain.

Education...they get a free education..if they choose to not make the most of it, thats on them...they are no less capible of learning than any other ethnic group.

Means.... Condoms are cheap....if they have money for $200+ Nikes and cell pones...they can afford birth control.

Opportunities....they have the same opportunities as everyone else. Speak proper english (few speak a second language) ebonics is street slang...not a language.and dress like a human and they would get jobs. Meaning your pants go around your waist...not your knees.

So who is group that actually are the racists here... the Dems who want 100% of the blacks babies aborted... or the conservatives who want none aborted?

Now, now, Rep Alvin Holmes-D of Alabama said 99% of white people would force their daughter to have an abortion if she got pregnant by a black man.

But yes, these Dems are right on top of everything (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/doj-sexual-assault-school-discipline-lgbt-rights-are-next-generation-civil) that "disproportionately affects" minorities EXCEPT abortion.

Ignoring the other 58%, 31,000 black females exercised their rights to an abortion. Of a 2 million Black population over all. Nowhere do you site how these abortions were done, where, or even the socio-economic status of those black woman so such a generic number as to be devoid of factual specifics.

Abortions are legal within the law and a choice within specific parameters whether you or I agree with them or NOT. If its not your baby, it's not or choice.

We all know the objective of the democrats are to reach 100% abortion rates in the minorities by any means possible.

Any minority group that votes democrat probibly deserves a 100% abortion rate anyway.

That's a highly subjective broad statement that has no basis in facts, and ridicules to boot..

Has every basis in fact... Democrats want free convenient abortions anytime anyone asks even for 12 year olds... no matter how long after conception occurred.


Free sterilization is cheaper... it only has to be done once... I support that... it saves those of us expected to pay for their laziness and unwillingness to use birth control.

If you have links to your facts I would gladly blow them apart as loony rantings. :)

I am often disturbed though by the conflict of under aged girls who have no guidance, support, or the love of family and undertake such actions and decisions alone. Its not easy on those wanting to help either.

So... I need links or my comments aren't facts...and the links would be discounted as bunk anyway, but if I was a liberal... anything I say would be considered irrefutable fact... and any request for proof would be considered racism, and any links posted would be considered irrefutable fact....even if they claim Alien abductions are real, and Bigfoot lives in Central Park?

Not by me it wouldn't. Everybody gets fact checked in my book!


Trust but verify :D

Ignoring the other 58%, 31,000 black females exercised their rights to an abortion. Of a 2 million Black population over all. Nowhere do you site how these abortions were done, where, or even the socio-economic status of those black woman so such a generic number as to be devoid of factual specifics.

Abortions are legal within the law and a choice within specific parameters whether you or I agree with them or NOT. If its not your baby, it's not or choice.

Case in point.

We all know the objective of the democrats are to reach 100% abortion rates in the minorities by any means possible.

Any minority group that votes democrat probibly deserves a 100% abortion rate anyway.


Can you cite this 100% figure?

Can you prove its wrong?

what is it you would like to prove wrong? the concept? or the statistic?

Can you prove its wrong?

Yes,

The burden of proof lies with the person making the statistically unfalsifiable claim.

Leaving that aside for the moment. All I need to do is find one Democrat, or state the possibility that one Democrat, doesn't support your contention.

This being the case then 100% of Democrates must be false.

THe fact that they want even more blacks to get abortions so thre are fewer of them around... being they already murder well over half of the babies they conceive now. SO they want to make it free and even easier to bump up those numbers as high as they possibly can... 100% is as high as they can go.

THe fact that they want even more blacks to get abortions so thre are fewer of them around... being they already murder well over half of the babies they conceive now. SO they want to make it free and even easier to bump up those numbers as high as they possibly can... 100% is as high as they can go.


OK. That's a different argument to the one you put forward.

OK. That's a different argument to the one you put forward.

No it isn't. It's a well known fact here... of course being on the other side of the planet... you wouldn't be aware of it. Can't say if you have any minority groups with already extraordinarily high abortion rates that have people pushing for making it easier and free which would only increase those numbers in Australia... that sort of information doesn't make its way here.

No it isn't. It's a well known fact here... of course being on the other side of the planet... you wouldn't be aware of it. Can't say if you have any minority groups with already extraordinarily high abortion rates that have people pushing for making it easier and free which would only increase those numbers in Australia... that sort of information doesn't make its way here.

Ok. How about we change the subject matter.

You did mention Australia. I will tell you what I know.

In Australia we only have one state that has abortion on demand. Abortion in Australia is controlled by individual states.

In Australia abortion is rarely a hot issue.

I am not sure about indigenous Australians. They may have a higher termination rate. I believe that overall abortion is slowly decreasing.

Having said that one would need to look at the facts and figures, especially in relation to particular age groups.

As I said, this is off the top of my head. Everyone is free to do the research and inform me. Saves me doing it.

Here the black abortion rate are more than double those of the next highest ethnic group. Which if memory serves me right are the hispanics. Both of these groups are statisticly proven to have low usage of condoms or other forms of birth control.

Just looking at the posts on this site... you can see the extraordinarily high rate of complete ignorance of the human reproductive system. Making Abortions free and as easier to get than cigarettes would only encourage more of that same behavior. You have to present an ID to buy cigarettes here... they want to give abortions to 14 year olds without the parents knowledge or consent. I read in the newspaper today that 42% of black women in the USA either have or have had an STD, it was in a left wing newspaper that had the article. THat actually surprised me it was that high.

Those numbers would go even higher.

Have to say smoothy I don't think the availability of abortion has anything to do with promiscurity, that is a cultural thing and seems to be a much higher rate in your country than in others, such as Australia, which may account for different abortion rates even though there are similarities in our societies. The one similarity we don't share is the population of coloured races so that may account for a greater rate in your country, but it is a long bow to suggest that abortion is made easy to get rid of coloured races. I think you just tend to do things to excess, whether it be guns, promiscurity or political corruption

but it is a long bow to suggest that abortion is made easy to get rid of coloured races.

I'm afraid the bow isn't as long as you might think. The founder of Planned Parenthood was an ardent Eugenicist.

Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project - National Historic Americans | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/margaret-sanger-s-negro-project)

Later in life she broke with the German eugenicists, but that was long after the organization was up and running.

Have to say smoothy I don't think the availability of abortion has anything to do with promiscurity, that is a cultural thing and seems to be a much higher rate in your country than in others, such as Australia, which may account for different abortion rates even though there are similarities in our societies. The one similarity we don't share is the population of coloured races so that may account for a greater rate in your country, but it is a long bow to suggest that abortion is made easy to get rid of coloured races. I think you just tend to do things to excess, whether it be guns, promiscurity or political corruption

Read Cdad's link to Sanger and learn more about the eugenics movement that was a big part of end of the 19th century thinking in American scientific and academia thinking. We like to believe that it was confined to Germany's barbaric policies ;but all over Europe and the US you can find laws regarding forced sterilizations.
Margaret Sanger ,founder of Planned Parenthood was a devoted disciple of eugenics and Malthusian solutions. Her motives for opening her clinics was clearly rooted in a racist application of these movements.

what you have written has nothing to do with teh statements I made and very little to do with the abortion debate. fact is this is the "me" society in action, you know the un-holy trinity, me, myself and I, I'm sure you know that very well

Unfortunately the abortion debate as well as the discussion on race has sunk to an excuse to keep people underserved, underpaid, and under represented, and hidden by innuendo, obstacles and political tricks. None of which is based in fact which is a testament to the distraction of division and entrenchment of the idea of who is worthy, and who is not. The legacy of power and money has become the goal and the destination.

That's your me, myself, and I, generation Clete, its us. Not the old or young but us railing against THEM to keep what we have and get more while the young and old languish as the victims of our thinking and actions, as we tell them what's best for them, and make rules that apply only to them, and affect only them. The very definition of institutional racism.

Sure sure Tal, and then we have stories like this coming from the generation your saying we are stealing from.

Rachel Canning Loses Effort to Make Parents Pay High School Tuition - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/rachel-canning-sues-parents-make-cover-school-expenses/story?id=22768908)

Many children of today have no respect for elders and have taken it upon their generation to be entitled. It is a generation that is spinning out of control very fast due to progressive education.

I won't judge a generation by the actions of a brat or her lawyer.

I won't judge a generation

This is a perfect synopsis of the Left Wing fallacy: judging groups instead of individuals. This fallacy lumps people such as Bill Cosby, Allen West, and Al Sharpton together because of the melanin content in their skin or Billy Graham, John Paul II, and Jim Jones because of their belief system. I'm not accusing you, Tal. This wasn't your point at all. You just happened to put the words together in the perfect order to let me make my point.

I think it's a much more complicated issue Cats, for individuals and groups, and you have to listen to both for their attitudes and concerns to be properly understood. Its too easy to dismiss what we may not agree with, or don't like the messengers. Or are just afraid of.

Read Cdad's link to Sanger and learn more about the eugenics movement that was a big part of end of the 19th century thinking in American scientific and academia thinking. We like to believe that it was confined to Germany's barbaric policies ;but all over Europe and the US you can find laws regarding forced sterilizations.
Margaret Sanger ,founder of Planned Parenthood was a devoted disciple of eugenics and Malthusian solutions. Her motives for opening her clinics was clearly rooted in a racist application of these movements.

It is important to keep in mind that it wasn't only scientific and academic thinking. Eugenics existed across all political divides at the time. It was generally seen by business, government and a large cross section of the population as sensible and necessary.

Another important point is the idea for that time period was Eugenics by force. If you were labeled of a particular type then you had no choice in the matter. What is also required is to judge these matters in terms of historical perspective.

Slavery was once accepted also along with Jim Crow in the south after slavery. Much of the thinking then is alive and well now despite the progress we have supposedly made.

It is important to keep in mind that it wasn't only scientific and academic thinking. Eugenics existed across all political divides at the time. It was generally seen by business, government and a large cross section of the population as sensible and necessary.

Another important point is the idea for that time period was Eugenics by force. If you were labeled of a particular type then you had no choice in the matter. What is also required is to judge these matters in terms of historical perspective.

and today it's an individual choice to kill a baby . With the knowledge we have now ;one can destroy that life if it is not the gender you want ,or if it doesn't have the DNA make up you prefer. I'd say eugenics is alive and well and entrenched in the progressive philosophy.

Not just the progressives but most females as Catholics have availed themselves of this choice also. What do you think gynecologist for the rich and well to do have been doing forever? Money and power have always given better choices and options and opportunities to those that can afford them.


Poor women, not so much. But then the GOP'ers know that already.

Not just the progressives but most females as Catholics have availed themselves of this choice also. What do you think gynecologist for the rich and well to do have been doing forever? Money and power have always given better choices and options and opportunities to those that can afford them.


Poor women, not so much. But then the GOP'ers know that already.

Did you just say that Catholic females avail themselves of abortion?

Did you just say that Catholic females avail themselves of abortion?

not only that ,he said most Catholic women .

must have his wires crossed somewhere eh, perhaps he confuses abortion with contraception

You mean Catholic woman never get D and C's? Of course how would you know since they never tell.

You mean Catholic woman never get D and C's? Of course how would you know since they never tell.

You made the claim. Back it up.

Abortions: Comparing Catholic and Protestant Women (http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/abortions-comparing-catholic-and-protestant-women/)


The abortion rate for Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; the rate for Protestants was 18 per 1,000 women, according to study author Rachel K. Jones.

Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime... : Obstetrics & Gynecology (http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2011/06000/Changes_in_Abortion_Rates_Between_2000_and_2008.14 .aspx)


AbstractOBJECTIVE: To estimate abortion rates among subpopulations of women in 2008, assess changes in subpopulation abortion rates since 2000, and estimate the lifetime incidence of abortion.
METHODS: We combined secondary data from several sources, including the 2008 Abortion Patient Survey, the Current Population Surveys for 2008 and 2009, and the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth, to estimate abortion rates by subgroup and lifetime incidence of abortion for U.S. women of reproductive age.
RESULTS: The abortion rate declined 8.0% between 2000 and 2008, from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 to 19.6 per 1,000. Decreases in abortion were experienced by most subgroups of women. One notable exception was poor women; this group accounted for 42.4% of abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 17.5% between 2000 and 2008 from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000. In addition to poor women, abortion rates were highest for women who were cohabiting (52.0 per 1,000), aged 20–24 (39.9 per 1,000), or non-Hispanic African American (40.2 per 1,000). If the 2008 abortion rate prevails, 30.0% of women will have an abortion by age 45.
CONCLUSION: Abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women, and restrictions on abortion disproportionately affect this population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

and today it's an individual choice to kill a baby . With the knowledge we have now ;one can destroy that life if it is not the gender you want ,or if it doesn't have the DNA make up you prefer.



Yes, I agree with this. It is a very sad state of affairs.



and today it's am individual choice to kill a baby with the knowledge we have now;one can can destroy life if it is not the gender you want, or it doesn't have the DNA make up you prefer. I'd say eugenics is alive and well and entrenched in the progressive philosophy.

Taken as a whole your statement is just an affirmation of the consequence. It is invalid reasoning.

CONCLUSION: Abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women, and restrictions on abortion
Margaret Sanger's dream triumphant . She was a racists who despised the poor and was searching for a way to prevent them from reproducing.

Margaret Sanger's dream triumphant . She was a racists who despised the poor and was searching for a way to prevent them from reproducing.

A lot of people were and did. I'm not disagreeing with that.

So why do you challenge my comments and not this one from Clete ?

but it is a long bow to suggest that abortion is made easy to get rid of coloured races.

So why do you challenge my comments and not this one from Clete ?

Because it is a long bow to draw. It gives the impression that eugenics is a policy of PP. If this is the case then within the organization there should be a policy stating this aim. Such documentation should be recoverable. It is the case that such documentation was recoverable from the early part of last century.

It is more likely the case that PP policies may well be contributing to eugenics. But this is completely different to saying that PP HAS a policy of eugenics.

If you can show me a policy of eugenics then I will agree with you, but otherwise dad's link and your previous statement is an affirmation of the consequence.

it was the stated goal of the founder and the entire reason she created the organization .

it was the stated goal of the founder and the entire reason she created the organization .

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is the stated goal of the organization today.

Many organizations and industries actively supported eugenics in the early part of last century. Does this mean that those organizations that still survive today still support eugenics? Of course not.

I think women's reproductive needs and rights have come a lot further in 50-70 years. The personal economic and racial aspects cannot be ignored, or dismissed as irrelevant.

the only thing that has changed is now it's called a right and a choice.

Are you suggesting we go back to when it wasn't a right, or a choice?

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2011/11/dirty-secret-north-carolina-forced-thousands-to-be-sterilized/


North Carolina's eugenics program lasted from 1929 to 1974 (it was disbanded in 1977), and was initially adopted as a way to control welfare spending on poor Whites. However, as the program progressed, Black women became targets. During North Carolina's eugenics program, 7,600 people were forcibly sterilized, 85 percent of them female and 40 percent of them non-white.
Many, like Riddick, didn't know they were sterilized until they wanted to have more children later in life.
NBC's Rock Center reports (http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-victims-speak-out-about-north-carolina-sterilization-program-which-targeted-women-young-girls-and-blacks):

It wouldn't be until Riddick was 19, married and wanting more children, that she'd learn she was incapable of having any more babies. A doctor in New York where she was living at the time told her that she'd been sterilized.
“Butchered. The doctor used that word… I didn't understand what she meant when she said I had been butchered,” Riddick said.
For the past eight years, North Carolina has been trying to right its horrible wrongs. Lawmakers have been working to compensate victims of the state's eugenics program, but so far, only 48 victims have been matched to their records.
This summer, the state held hearings trying to encourage more victims to come forward. Bolstered by the efforts of state politicians like State Representative Larry Womble, the victims of North Carolina's horrible sterilization are finally speaking out.
Despite the daunting task of finding and compensating all 7,600 victims, as Representative Womble pointed out, if the government is “powerful enough to perpetrate this on this society, they ought to be responsible, step up to the plate and compensate.”

Because it is a long bow to draw. It gives the impression that eugenics is a policy of PP. If this is the case then within the organization there should be a policy stating this aim. Such documentation should be recoverable. It is the case that such documentation was recoverable from the early part of last century.

It is more likely the case that PP policies may well be contributing to eugenics. But this is completely different to saying that PP HAS a policy of eugenics.

If you can show me a policy of eugenics then I will agree with you, but otherwise dad's link and your previous statement is an affirmation of the consequence.



I dont think it is such a long bow at all when you examine the history and connections from past to present. The words may have changed and been upgraded to fit a point of veiw but it doesnt mean they have disappeared into history. Planned parenthood was started with blacks and hispanics in mind.

The organization promoted the founding of birth control clinics, primarily for the Black and Latino population, and encouraged women to control their own fertility.

American Birth Control League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Birth_Control_League)

Other links that can be followed to bring us from past to present.

Eugenics in North Carolina (http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/NC/NC.html)

The Secret History of American Eugenics part 2 | Thee Monkee Armada Word (http://monkeearmada.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/the-secret-history-of-american-eugenics-part-2/)

Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_parenthood)

Are you suggesting we go back to when it wasn't a right, or a choice?
You already know my answer to that. I guess you think that a baby has no right to life ;that it's all at the will of the mother. It's not even a matter of father's choice . They have no rights in the decision either . 5th amendment due process ? Don't exist for the baby . A doctor can legally puncture it's head and suck it's brains out .

I think Tom we have long advanced to making better progress with process and procedures that depend on earlier detection and actions to eliminate completely the need for such late term abortions. Most abortions take place at 12 weeks, so why not cut that to 6,or 7? We already have the medical technology to achieve those ends and prevent most abortions already without demonizing or criticizing females about their own health choices and options.

Naw I don't think guys have a say in those choices, unless given a say by the female.

But if the mother chooses to bring the pregnancy to term then it is still the man's responsibility to provide for the child. I think in a case where the father wants the child and an abortion is done without consent ,then the father is a victim of the law.

Admit it ;what you are really telling me is that the child has no rights ,the father has no rights and that the woman ,due to their distinct biology ,has special and unequal rights . You consign men and children to 2nd class status.

the woman ,due to their distinct biology ,has special and unequal rights

Currently, you are correct. But you have to admit it's less messy than telling her kid to go to sleep in the back seat while she takes her SUV for a swim in the ocean.

But if the mother chooses to bring the pregnancy to term then it is still the man's responsibility to provide for the child. I think in a case where the father wants the child and an abortion is done without consent ,then the father is a victim of the law.

Admit it ;what you are really telling me is that the child has no rights ,the father has no rights and that the woman ,due to their distinct biology ,has special and unequal rights . You consign men and children to 2nd class status.

Men telling women what to do consigns woman to a second class status too. "Keep them bare foot and pregnant"? And poor kids and woman are already given second class citizen status by some MEN that are unwilling to support, and nurture them.

I dont think it is such a long bow at all when you examine the history and connections from past to present. The words may have changed and been upgraded to fit a point of veiw but it doesnt mean they have disappeared into history. Planned parenthood was started with blacks and hispanics in mind.

The organization promoted the founding of birth control clinics, primarily for the Black and Latino population, and encouraged women to control their own fertility.



Yes, fitting things to represent a point of view is the problem.

Men telling women what to do consigns woman to a second class status too. "Keep them bare foot and pregnant"? And poor kids and woman are already given second class citizen status by some MEN that are unwilling to support, and nurture them.

I'm with you on men unwilling to support their kids but that is not something we created. We aren't the ones encouraging moms to be independent and have a career (though now you say obamacare frees them from that, or that we discourage such), marriages that have nothing to do with a mom and a dad, that women don't need men, that women are helpless without government, or that children are disposable. or, not caring that abortion disproportionately affects minorities.

NYC: 80% of Abortions Were Minority Babies | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-80-abortions-were-minority-babies)

But barefoot and pregnant, second class? That's so Fifties. If you respected women you wouldn't make them dependent on government or blow off predators that prey on them a la Bob Filner and Gosnell.

not caring that abortion disproportionately affects minorities.

everything disproportionately affect minorities, it wasn't long ago we were debating whether the war on drugs disproportionately targeted minorities. The fact is too much attention is given to minorities and this is because they are very vocal about disadvantage, but disadvantage is the result of a society which doesn't think everyone should be equal in all respects, they mouth the platitudes but are happy to keep there focus away from such issues. Ask Tom whether he thinks there should be handouts to minorities or that they should get a higher minimum wage. Fact is many of us think they shouldn't get the handouts they do, that they should work harder at helping themselves.

Harshness Warning

Just for the fact that men DON'T support them or their kids is a case for independence and careers rather than be poor and demonized. Then they can make informed decisions in their own best interest, and not be put in desperate situations by predators or those that claim to they know what's best for them.

If a female already has one or two children, you have a problem when she decides a 3rd, or 4th is not in her best interest? I guess that link you provided doesn't account for circumstances that lead to decisions, and the choices minority females make in their own interest. You must think also that no one has rights unless its bestowed on them by some self righteous moral majority religion. That's not the case and neither is what black females do with their life choices either.

If you can't help, take your beliefs and stay out of the lives of others.

The problem with their choices about third, fourth, or fifth kids is that the Welfare Plantation pays them to have the kids, providing there isn't a father figure in the house. It was designed that way by LBJ to "keep them ... voting Democrat for two hundred years." (expletive deleted). It's been working great for fifty already.

you guys really are that cynical, no wonder you have problems

The problem with their choices about third, fourth, or fifth kids is that the Welfare Plantation pays them to have the kids, providing there isn't a father figure in the house. It was designed that way by LBJ to "keep them ... voting Democrat for two hundred years." (expletive deleted). It's been working great for fifty already.

Yeah the civil rights bill was just a cover up.

this is what you get for engeneering society

Isn't every nation young, or old, big or small, to some extent engineering their societies? Isn't that what fiscal policy is all about? I don't think you can just single out the US, and constantly focus on our challenges and forget your own like they don't exist. All of our fortunes are tied to each other to some extent or another.

Yes our fortunes are tied together and it seems we are destined to introduce the worst of your ideas. You think I focus just on you but in this forum you are so self obscessed you discuss nothing but yourselves as if nothing else exists. What we have managed to do is refine some of your ideas to take out the excesses forged by your political system and wedded these to our own ideas, so when we engineer society it is with a vastly different result. We had the foolishness of giving incentive for children to be born but the ones who took it away wern't the conservatives but those you would consider liberal. we saw a socialist government tie school attendence to welfare payments, I wonder how well that would go down with your politicians and we put our illegal immigrants in gulags, you should try it some time instead of reserving them for drug offenders

Its an ongoing process in both counties Clete as well as across the globe, and as history has shown us the weak rise and the mighty fall because nothing stays the same. Its all good when times are great but takes very little to change that economic dynamic.

I'm sure you are proud of your gulags to solve your immigration issues, but as they grow, the will suck your economy dry and create years of financial problems supporting those that not only cannot produce for you but simply have to be accommodated one way, or another.

That's okay, you will figure it out. As we figure out solutions for long term consistent positive growth.

You must think also that no one has rights unless its bestowed on them by some self righteous moral majority religion.

I believe the phrase is "endowed by our creator," and those would be life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Your side isn't too keen on honoring the right to life for the pre-born.


That's not the case and neither is what black females do with their life choices either.

Margaret Sanger nods in approval.


If you can't help, take your beliefs and stay out of the lives of others.

Says the side that wants to be in every aspect of our lives EXCEPT abortion.

P.S. What happened to the "preview" feature?

Equal protection under the law has been redefined as more people pursue THEIR happiness. The reasons for DENYING what the creator ENDOWS us falls group by group from what the founders originally outlawed. You ignore we started with just white guys with land, and now gay people are fighting to be married. It's far from over as more exercise their rights, and choices. Including how to manage their own lives without church intervention. So be it Washington, or Sanger, the process of changing the definitions to fit reality moves on.

While input from the right, and even far right is important it's not the goal, or the destination many want. I have always been against abortion, but that's my choice and as its legal, others have a right to their own choices, that the Creator endows upon us. Not just YOU!

PS, Preview is at the bottom of the GO ADVANCE page next to Submit Answer button. Maybe different in the VGO skin mode.

Equal protection under the law has been redefined as more people pursue THEIR happiness. The reasons for DENYING what the creator ENDOWS us falls group by group from what the founders originally outlawed. You ignore we started with just white guys with land, and now gay people are fighting to be married. It's far from over as more exercise their rights, and choices. Including how to manage their own lives without church intervention. So be it Washington, or Sanger, the process of changing the definitions to fit reality moves on.

While input from the right, and even far right is important it's not the goal, or the destination many want. I have always been against abortion, but that's my choice and as its legal, others have a right to their own choices, that the Creator endows upon us. Not just YOU!

And like Sanger you apprently nod in approval at the abortion holocaust among minorities.


PS, Preview is at the bottom of the GO ADVANCE page next to Submit Answer button. Maybe different in the VGO skin mode.

The button is there, it just stopped actually showing the preview on my tablet and PC a few days ago.

Its an ongoing process in both counties Clete as well as across the globe, and as history has shown us the weak rise and the mighty fall because nothing stays the same. Its all good when times are great but takes very little to change that economic dynamic.

I'm sure you are proud of your gulags to solve your immigration issues, but as they grow, the will suck your economy dry and create years of financial problems supporting those that not only cannot produce for you but simply have to be accommodated one way, or another.

That's okay, you will figure it out. As we figure out solutions for long term consistent positive growth.

No Tal we are not proud of our gulags, at least our non politicians are not proud of this solution and its outcomes, yes it is a financial burden which sucks funding from more worthwhile projects.

Good luck with your positive growth, might I suggest you arrest the positive growth in your prison industry as a place to start

We have been rearranging our priorities as of late as to who really should be sent to jail, and who shouldn't be. But the hardliners are slow to budge.

yes meanwhile we have been developing our truth in sentencing laws ensuring we are destined to duplicate your experiment

Yes... they play to legalize heroin, meth and cocaine as well as all their derivatives next. And legalize the illegals and give voting rights to everyone who shouldn't have them.

giving voting rights to everyone who lives there; what a revolutionary idea! and legalising drugs, well it's just a step on the prohibition trail, first, you criminalised alcohol, and conducted a war, then you legalised it, then you criminalised drugs, need I go on....perhaps this time you will learn the lessons of history

I bet Australia allows all the illigals from Malaysia and China (and everywhere else they are from) Vote there... ( sarcasm font enabled)

Incidentally... "living there" isn't the requirement to vote in almost every country in the world... being a citizen is.

Odd coming from a country and person that thinks private citizens should NOT be allowed to have guns..... but thinks legalizing drugs is a great idea.

How about opening your borders up to all those Illegals coming there....I know you aren't any happier about then doing that than most Americans are.

I bet Australia allows all the illigals from Malaysia and China (and everywhere else they are from) Vote there... ( sarcasm font enabled)

Incidentally... "living there" isn't the requirement to vote in almost every country in the world... being a citizen is.

Odd coming from a country and person that thinks private citizens should NOT be allowed to have guns..... but thinks legalizing drugs is a great idea.

How about opening your borders up to all those Illegals coming there....I know you aren't any happier about then doing that than most Americans are.


No we don't allow this, but this does not mean that it can't happen. Compared to your electoral system our system has a low degree of fraud. This is because Federal election and controlled by a centralized process. There is a continual cross-checking of information in order to detect different types of fraud. I think it works something like the detection of taxation fraud.

There are a number of different opinions regarding illegals coming to Australia. Nonetheless, the newly elected government has adopted a tough stance of illegals.

No we don't allow this, but this does not mean that it can't happen. Compared to your electoral system our system has a low degree of fraud. This is because Federal election and controlled by a centralized process. There is a continual cross-checking of information in order to detect different types of fraud. I think it works something like the detection of taxation fraud.

There are a number of different opinions regarding illegals coming to Australia. Nonetheless, the newly elected government has adopted a tough stance of illegals.


As they should...


The problem we have isn't related to the electoral system... it has to do with the democrats fighting against having to have voters be required to show proof of ID before they are allowed to vote at the polls. Which is actually regulated state by state. And they fight tooth and nail every time anyone tries to assure there is as little fraud as possible.

We don't have a problem with illegals and dead people in the Electoral college, we have it at the polls. That and the people that were being literal when they say vote early and vote often. I assume you know how our electoral colege system works.

As they should...


THe problem we have isn't related to eh electoral system... it has to do with the democrats fighting having to have votors be required to show proof of ID before they are allowed to vote.

We don't have a problem with illegals and dead people in the Electoral college, whe have it at the polls. That and the people that were being literal when they say vote early and vote often.

Our biggest problem in elections is probably people who vote more than once. However, instant computerized recording of someone who has just voted-linked to all polling stations will solve that problem

Our biggest problem in elections is probably people who vote more than once. However, instant computerized recording of someone who has just voted-linked to all polling stations will solve that problem

And something I among others believe should be implemented here as well. Who would argue against it, usless they support election fraud. THere have been a few prominent cases where people have been caught..one was an elected official, a woman from florida that voted in two states....I believe it happens a lot more often than is admitted.

And something I among others believe should be implemented here as well. Who would argue against it, usless they support election fraud.


Yes, I agree. Electoral fraud is the attempt to under democracy at whatever level it occurs. Our electoral system is pretty good by comparison to others. However, this does not mean that we shouldn't keep monitoring and making improvements where necessary. The Federal electoral system seems to embrace such a policy.

It doesn't take much fraud to destroy any sense of legitimacy in an election.

I think it played a big part in getting Obama elected. (remember ACORN).. and it certainly had a part in getting Al Frankin elected (the trunkload of "Forgotten" ballots in a Democrats trunk that SURPRISE were mostly Democrat votes), I just don't have the means to prove it. And if I did.. I don't have the power to do anything about it.

I bet Australia allows all the illigals from Malaysia and China (and everywhere else they are from) Vote there... ( sarcasm font enabled)

Incidentally... "living there" isn't the requirement to vote in almost every country in the world... being a citizen is.

Odd coming from a country and person that thinks private citizens should NOT be allowed to have guns..... but thinks legalizing drugs is a great idea.

How about opening your borders up to all those Illegals coming there....I know you aren't any happier about then doing that than most Americans are.

I'm sorry smoothy, didn't I have the sarcasm font engaged. No we have that great idea that you establish your bonafides before gaining citizenship something those "asylum seekers" have difficulty in doing. By the way, the "asylum seekers come from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, places where thare has been war, not China, Mayalasia or Indonesia. As to the gun thing, once again distance has deprived you of the facts, private citizens can own guns, they can't own assault weapons.

I think legalising drugs may change the dynamic. not that it is a great idea but one way of combatting the criminal activity associated with the drug traffic and by the way, I don't think our government will be legalising it anytime soon.

No we are not going to open our borders any more than you are going to do. In those immortal words of John Howard "we will decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come". We are not going to repeat the free for all policies you had last century because, simply put, we don't have the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants. You have to demonstrate you can contribute and few "asylum seekers" possess that ability

I actually think you are Less likely to do it than we are here.. at least for the next few years. We have incompetent boobs in charge for at least another couple years... that think they can rule by decree.

There are incompetent boobs in all governments, we recently got rid of a large number of them, but they are like weeds.

Ruling by decree seems to be in fashion these days, we have a government who announces what they are going to do without the ability to get their policies into law, sound familiar? so what's a government to do?

But I think our boobs are bigger than your boobs... Doesn't THAT sound so Hollywood.

sounds like the words of a song actually but then everytung is bigger in Taxas

I would like to get back to the nub of the issue. From the onset let me say that I am no fan of PP. However, my political persuasion is exactly the problem. Why? Because, it leads to the inevitability of my political views being flung to the left or the right.

As I said before, PP in all likelihood does not have a eugenics programme in place. In fact, no organization in this day and age would want to make such a claim. Any research in this area would likely turn up the fact that PP policies are actually contributing to a type of eugenics.This is completely different to saying that PP has a eugenics agenda. Once I put forward this possibility it seemed like a good chance for some to ignore, change or modify the topic.

The left wing is not prepared to consider this possibility because it would mean giving some ground to the right wing. The right wing will not consider this because it would mean giving some ground to the left wing. So what is the alternative? The alternative is simple-fling these view to the far right and far left.

Is there any particular reason why anyone can't see there is a real problem with your media? Please spare us the right wing and left wing rhetoric.

Is there any particular reason why anyone can't see there is a real problem with your media? Please spare us the right wing and left wing rhetoric.

You are absolutely correct. I don't see it as limited to "our" media; BBC vs. Sky News being an offshore example. Al-Jazeera being another (Al Jazeera Journalist Calls Out Network Bias (http://www.frumforum.com/al-jazeera-journalist-calls-out-network-bias/)). Many have even delved into the causes of the problem, citing '24 hour news cycle' and 'info-tainment' as the roots of the problem. The only solution available to me is multiple sources for news intake.

Its easy for facts to get muddled in politics and rhetoric. Multiple sources of news is almost a must, especially when researching what's reported and said during an election cycle and finding many contradictions, and exaggerations. PP has been vilified as an abortion mill and made a target, but in shutting down and restricting the abortions part, which is not its major service, you also shut down many other services like referrals for disease and treatments like breast cancer that a poorer population has need of.

Especially given the southern states that have the population of the most need and the weakest safety net and not coincidently the most uninsured. Forget the headlines and rhetoric, it's the data that sheds the most light, as filtered as it is sometimes.

And that "DATA"... more and more is subject to critisizm as more and more BS gets posted on the internet and other sources that is unproven and ungrounded. CBS got caught red handed with RatherGate where they fabricated "evidence" to support the story they wanted to push. How many more have not been found out.....the truth is lots more.

THe media is biased and corrupt everywhere... and as bad as I've seen it here... its even worse in Europe. As I've actually lived there and know that to be a fact... I have no reason to believe its any different anywhere else. Or seen proof that its NOT the same everywhere else.

Muddled facts could there be anything more muddled than PP. Given the rate of abortion I think the idea has failed unless you think that is more of a plan than an afterthought

You of all people have to know that you cannot play to the worst or lowest denominator when identifying a problem and formulating a solution. As long as the game is rigged to consolidate power in the hands of the few, and the many mill around in non participation, we all will dwell in stagnation and non production.

Hollering, screaming, and calling names is but a distraction and a deterrent to compromise, through debate.

Let me ask ... When Sandanista Bill DeBlasio and the emperor close down charter schools in the inner cities, that have proven to be a great benefit for the students who attend ,are they cow-towing to a special interest (the teacher's union ) ;or are they playing their own 'race card ' ? Or is it that when a choice has to be made between a special interest that supports the Dems ,and what's best for minority students ;the students get the shaft ?
What DeBlasio is doing to minority students is the same thing that George Wallace did to minority students when he stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama preventing minorities from entering .

As Thomas Sowell asks :

These schools have given thousands of low-income minority children their only shot at a decent education, which often means their only shot at a decent life. Last year 82% of the students at a charter school called Success Academy passed citywide mathematics exams, compared to 30% of the students in the city as a whole.
Why would anybody who has any concern at all about minority young people — or even common decency — want to destroy what progress has already been made?

Charter Schools: Where The Left Exposes Its Anti-Minority Bias - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/031014-692699-left-exposes-anti-minority-bias-in-charter-schools.htm#ixzz2vf2vMFEv)

Two sides to the tory here Tom, and this is a national issue about funding and serving more kids. I have written before about the millions of kids left behind because they didn't win a lottery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/nyregion/de-blasio-and-builder-of-charter-school-empire-do-battle.html


The advocacy group that organized the rally, Families for Excellent Schools, recently started a multimillion-dollar television ad campaign praising charter schools and calling on the mayor not to hold them back.


Her group is well funded and well paid, so why can't they get their own buildings and not displace current students who didn't win the lottery. I mean 6700 students helped and 1.1 million left behind?


In his campaign last year, Mr. de Blasio took aim at charter schools, saying they had a “destructive impact” on traditional schools. He has promised to charge rent to well-financed charter schools, which are privately run but publicly financed, for using public school buildings, and he has placed a moratorium on future requests for classroom space inside traditional district schools..........Ms. Moskowitz said she feared her clash with the mayor could scare off financial contributors anxious about the viability of charters. But she was unapologetic about her defense of her schools and attempts to keep adding more of them.


The typical privateers growth and profit plan, turning kids into a commodity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/nyregion/de-blasio-on-national-tv-is-forced-to-defend-education-policies.html?rref=education


Hours after facing tough questions on MSNBC, Mr. de Blasio made a surprise appearance at a meeting of a group of charter school executives who had been invited to City Hall, speaking for more than 45 minutes about his approach to education.

So framing the debate around 3 private/charter schools and not recognizing the 30 who were approved would be an omission of the facts. SPIN, to make the big money look better, while it burdens taxpayers. I can't believe you actually fall on the side of a rich corporation that doesn't pay rent. If only public schools could operate under the same condition.

too bad about the kids not winning the lottery . Why would you deny the many students that do ? Look at New Orleans . Over 70 % of the students are in charters . That is the future for education and will be until the teachers divorce themselves from their corrupt unions .
I'll say it again . You libs are good at throwing the word 'racist' around ,and refuse to see how your own misguided policies are even more so . We are the ones who are looking out for the welfare of the minority students and creating polices that have a proven performance. The only conclusion I can come up with is that progressives want to keep the minority students down and not competitive . The true goal of progressive agenda is to enslave minorities in a culture of dependency .

Teaching a few for big bucks is no excuse to funnel needed resources from those that cannot win the lottery. That's abandoning No Child left Behind (good idea but no resources behind it from a compassionate conservative, but implementation was entirely local with NO government backing).

Your idea of privatizing the school system for profit has a few holes in it as even you have conceded the broken business model. Surely there can be found a profit sharing formulae for the maintenance of buildings and serving more kids, by private and government cooperation. Why does education have to be so adversarial to work? Kids are not supposed to be a commodity but a priority despite the partisan rhetoric. Creating a revenue stream for privateers should not be the priority.

even you have conceded the broken business model I've conceded no such thing unless you are talking about the hopelessly broken public school systems. Stanford Study Says Charter School Children Outperform - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/stanford-university-study-says-charter-schools-improved.html)


Why does education have to be so adversarial to work?
That's a question to ask the teacher's unions . Who's interest are they serving 1st ?

Now come on, many teachers unions are working with administrations and local officials around the country. Their input is as valuable as profiteers I would say since so far the business model of schools charter, or public has mixed results. You seem to want an unlimited revenue stream of taxpayer money, which amount to taxpayer subsidies of private corporations.

But then you probably think it's a great idea for profiteers to pay no rent, nor contribute to the maintenance of the buildings they occupy while increasing class sizes of the public sections of the building. I don't, and 6700 kids does not outweigh the 1.1 million who are adversely affected. Buy your own building then and pay for the bus's and make big bucks.

You of all people have to know that you cannot play to the worst or lowest denominator when identifying a problem and formulating a solution. As long as the game is rigged to consolidate power in the hands of the few, and the many mill around in non participation, we all will dwell in stagnation and non production.

Hollering, screaming, and calling names is but a distraction and a deterrent to compromise, through debate.


Exactly, if the actual problem goes undetected then there is little chance of finding a solution.

I've conceded no such thing unless you are talking about the hopelessly broken public school systems. Stanford Study Says Charter School Children Outperform - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/stanford-university-study-says-charter-schools-improved.html)



"..equivalent to 36 additional days of learning maths.."

"...learned eight more days of reading a year than a pupil in a regular school..."

Does anyone know what these terms mean? I am assuming it is a tool for making a comparison.

got me ask the egg heads at Stanford .It's a prestigious research university that has churned out 58 Nobel laureates .
Stanford University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University)

got me ask the egg heads at StanfordYou offer a study as proof of something but you do not know what the study means?

The study means there are some charter schools that are better than others and the least performing get closed at a 20% rate (1 in 5). It doesn't say where those kids go, probably back to a public school, like the ones who lose the lottery for placements in the first place.

The study means there are some charter schools that are better than others and the least performing get closed at a 20% rate (1 in 5). It doesn't say where those kids go, probably back to a public school, like the ones who lose the lottery for placements in the first place.

The other alternative would be to take the best performing kids from the charter schools that are about to be closed and place them in the high performing charter schools. Survival of the fittest.

as I said ;the libs would deny these children an opportunity to excel.

Or find better ways to use public school resources, and find more revenue streams for the supporting neighborhoods and citizens. At the heart of the issue and often lost, is the very debilitating economic effects from not just the GFC, but the fiscal policies that have starved the circulation of real capital in many regions of this country.

Its NOT a coincidence that schools are failing as resources become scarce, where cities are also failing from a lack of resources. It's the basic cause and effect of rising costs and no way to raise revenue to keep up. Even in New York with all those rich types, ordinary people are beset by how to allocate the money. The wages of ordinary citizens has not kept up with the rising costs in the more expensive places in the world to live.

Or find better ways to use public school resources, and find more revenue streams for the supporting neighborhoods and citizens. At the heart of the issue and often lost, is the very debilitating economic effects from not just the GFC, but the fiscal policies that have starved the circulation of real capital in many regions of this country.

Its NOT a coincidence that schools are failing as resources become scarce, where cities are also failing from a lack of resources. It's the basic cause and effect of rising costs and no way to raise revenue to keep up. Even in New York with all those rich types, ordinary people are beset by how to allocate the money. The wages of ordinary citizens has not kept up with the rising costs in the more expensive places in the world to live.
BS we've seen your failed experiments in public education for years Give it up already .. We could line the floors of every school in the nation with gold tiles with all the money your experiments have squandered .

Tuttyd.......It is saying that in the charter schools that they looked at, the students received increased instructional time thought to be equal to having that many extra days of instruction.

There must be a disconnect here somewhere, we have had private schools as well as public schools since foundation and we don't have the experience of poor outcomes that you seem to experience, this is not to say that the performance of students in underpriviliged areas doesn't lag, but this is cultural and not a criticism of the school system. Funding is always an issue but a centralised system of funding removes local bias and ensures funds are directed where they should be.

Tuttyd.......It is saying that in the charter schools that they looked at, the students received increased instructional time thought to be equal to having that many extra days of instruction.

Thanks for that info.

BS we've seen your failed experiments in public education for years Give it up already .. We could line the floors of every school in the nation with gold tiles with all the money your experiments have squandered .

That's pretty good from the guys that held the doors open for the bank robbers, and then directed the posse in the opposite direction.

There has been a growing trend of disconnect with schools and education in some families. The lack of importance education is given is alarming. If the general public knew how much instructional time is lost to behavior redirection they would be amazed and dismayed.

Similar to charter schools, some school districts will have fundamental schools. They follow the same district, state, and federal requirements, but they hold their students and parents to a higher standard. They tend to have higher performance outcomes for that very reason. Parents sign-up to have their children go to these schools, and there is often a waiting list.

nice deflection

There has been a growing trend of disconnect with schools and education in some families. The lack of importance education is given is alarming. If the general public knew how much instructional time is lost to behavior redirection they would be amazed and dismayed.

That happens when you cut nurses, counselors, and teachers, and increase class size, had have a low parent participation rates.


Similar to charter schools, some school districts will have fundamental schools. They follow the same district, state, and federal requirements, but they hold their students and parents to a higher standard. They tend to have higher performance outcomes for that very reason. Parents sign-up to have their children go to these schools, and there is often a waiting list.

Often parents have as many needs to be addressed as their children do.

Often parents have as many needs to be addressed as their children do.

Schools are about educating children not educating parents. Admittently they do need parents to support important goals and objectives but they cannot modify parential behaviour. When we get back to ensuring students have good outcomes everyone will be happy

If that's what they were actually doing... there wouldn't be a problem. But they spend more time indocrinating than they do teaching... and it shows in the ever dropping education levels.

When I was in school...kids could have named the capitols of most countries along with the names of most countries, AND find them on a globe, not to mention every states capital. Today they are lucky to find the USA on a globe.

If that's what they were actually doing... there wouldn't be a problem. But they spend more time indocrinating than they do teaching... and it shows in the ever dropping education levels.

When I was in school...kids could have named the capitols of most countries along with the names of most countries, AND find them on a globe, not to mention every states capital. Today they are lucky to find the USA on a globe.

Yes education has changed everywhere, I remember when they introduced the new mathematics, I could barely understand what my children were talking about, let alone help them and yet parents are expected to help and as ciricullum changes parents have less ability to help and understand. What I do know though is our schools turn out a high percentage of kids with good understanding even if the parents can't get closely involved

Who else but the parents can effectively address behavior or learning problems? Or even distresses and disruptions at home?

Yes education has changed everywhere, I remember when they introduced the new mathematics, I could barely understand what my children were talking about, let alone help them and yet parents are expected to help and as ciricullum changes parents have less ability to help and understand. What I do know though is our schools turn out a high percentage of kids with good understanding even if the parents can't get closely involved

And this is a left wing publication...

Steven Shehori: Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on Map of America (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-shehori/poll-37-of-americans-unab_b_150933.html)

Its also a reprinted submission by a comedy writer from 2008, and marked as satire. You didn't engage the humor font.

The humor font is broken... might get fixed on the next upgrade.


Here's a British poll.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/young-americans-poor-in-geography/9427-2.html


Heres one from the National Geographic..the complete report is in a link in this page...its a PDF document.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html

a full 37 percent of American citizens are incapable of identifying their home country on a map of the United States.

That text was extracted from your article, it might be humour but I consider it a pathetic indictment of the misuse of language and a complete abdication of comprehension.

That text was extracted from your article, it might be humour but I consider it a pathetic indictment of the misuse of language and a complete abdication of comprehension.

THe first one was a joke... the second and third links were quite serious.

THe first one was by a very well known lefty publication on the left coast.

I also think its sad that despite billions (probibly Trillions) spent to line the pockets of teachers and unions the quality of education has continued to drop significantly. the last 30+ years.

Hmmm. The president 30 years ago was... REAGAN!! Unions have been declining since. So have wages.

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984)

.

Schools are about educating children not educating parents. Admittently they do need parents to support important goals and objectives but they cannot modify parential behaviour. When we get back to ensuring students have good outcomes everyone will be happy


The social programs of the left have encouraged the break up of the family unit .All this was a predictable outcome .I still say it was racism from the git go . When Johnson signed legislation supporting his Great Society he said “I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I'm going to address a few comments that are often raised when concerns about education arise.

Talaniman: Yes, you are exactly right that parents often have needs of their own that need to be addressed. Many families are nothing like those most of us have likely encountered when we were young. Just one case in point... a class of 18 second graders and 7 of them have a parent in jail. To top it off, it is seen as a badge of honor. The neighborhood where these second graders reside has quite a large number of half brothers and sisters as some parents move from one spouse, or partner, to another. Some children go home not knowing if mom will be drunk on the couch or even there. One little girl is repeatedly late because her mother didn't call her to wake her up. Mom is sleeping in the next room and calls the girl on her cell phone to tell her to get up and get ready for school. At Back-to-School night, out of the 18, 3 parents show up. A homework packet goes home every Monday with work that needs to be looked over, signed and returned. The minimal homework that is included is for extra practice. Routinely about 8 of those packets get done each week. An agenda goes home as one means of communication between classroom and home. It is to be initialed to know that it was seen. Some parents just initial everyday on the first of the week, most don't at all. One little boy comes in crying because he tried to get mom to look at it, but she told him to go away; she wasn't going to sign anything. When you do let a parent know what their child is doing, far too often the parent becomes belligerent. This is just a snapshot of one school in our district. Certainly not all classrooms are this way, nor are all schools, but you take what you get and do the best that you can. This is a large district... all the teachers attend the same professional trainings, they have the same curriculum, the schools have basically the same technology available to them, but you will see a vast difference in outcomes and that comes from behaviors which stem from home.

Class size is only part of the issue. Where I am, there has been a change in class sizes. However, behavior concerns have increased over the last several years. Too many children are parenting themselves. Parents do have their own issues, and they either don't know how to parent or they have no real interest in parenting. I can't tell you how many times I have heard from a child that they couldn't do an assignment because dad was either at work or on the computer. More and more parents are more hooked into the technology than they are to their children. Certainly more so than years back.

Paraclete: You are correct... schools shouldn't have to educate parents, but in reality they often do; if indirectly. They also often have to "parent" the children. Many times schools get the blame for not teaching things such as sex education, but then they also get the blame for teaching it and "promoting" promiscuity. Character development, which should come from home, is taught in many, many schools. Those are just two examples.

Parents don't have to know all the ways to help with schoowork, but a tremendous change would be seen if they knew how to parent... and if they made education important in their child's life. During a parent conference, I've had the parent of a 9 year old tell me that their child acted the same way at home and they didn't know what to do about it. So we talked about some things to put in place that would be consistent at both school and home. This was not the first time I've had a parent throw up their arms and shrug their shoulders, not knowing what to do... so they were doing nothing. The child was pretty much calling the shots. If this is happening at 8 or 9 years old, imagine what it will be like when they are 16 or 17? I give the parents credit for at least coming to a conference as many times you never can reach a parent.

Smoothy: I have no doubt that there are some who do their share of indoctrinating, but I would guess that this is more so on a higher level. The foundation starts in elementary school for student behavior and expectations. Study skills, responsibility, a love of learning, all start there.

You will always have some bad apples in any profession, including teaching. What has really changed over the last decade or so has been how society views education. Schools have become the scape goat for many of society's ills... no one wants to include parents into the mix of accountability. Certainly not politicians as parents are the voters.

Why do you think charter schools, fundamental schools, and often private schools often do well? The parents have to try to get into these schools, or pay for it in some cases... it is a given that the majority then likely hold education important enough to jump through the hopes. These schools can hold the children and parents more accountable, because if they don't measure up, if they don't follow the rules, they can be sent elsewhere... back to their local public school. Public schools can't send kids who don't behave back anywhere. For more and more parents, school is basically free babysitting. Sadly, it sometimes feels that way when you have less time for teaching, because you are having to spend more time with redirecting.

Money will help some schools, no question there. However, I would much rather have a class of 30, in a run down building, with few text books if the children were well behaved, and parents valued education than a class of 15, in a new facility, with plenty of technology, but 5 of the students were out of control and the parents couldn't be bothered.

Imagine going into your office each day and you are responsible for making sure that 20 of your co-workers know what they need to know and get their jobs done. You have 3 who are consistently out of control... disrupting your presentations... getting up to go talk to someone... rolling on the floor... and you have to wait for them to get back in order before you can continue so the others can listen effectively and learn what they need to know. When all of the co-workers don't understand parts of what was expected of them, your boss wants to know why you didn't do your job. It doesn't matter that some of the co-workers wouldn't follow the rules or expectations. You don't get to send them elsewhere so that you can focus on the workers who are listening.

Many teachers are getting burned out. They are tired of working their tails off, often taking work home at night and on weekends, planning lessons, creating activities to support their lessons, keeping up on the documentation, etc. and then taking the blame. They beat their heads against the wall and feel that they make little headway. Yet... they carry on, do their best with what they are given, and take it. Don't even get me started on all of the prescribed testing!

Thankfully, most parents know the value of education.....unfortunately, too many do not and it shows in numerous ways that effect education.

Such a disservice to our children, and yet, it will likely take a lost generation to realize it. Teachers know it, they see the reality, they live it everyday... but of course, few ask for their professional input.

an interesting treatise, but the fundamental problem is teaching standards have to be enforced. burntout teachers don't turn out good students and parents are not to blame for under resourced teachers. you want to say standards have fallen in the last 30 years, well take a look at your politicians, I would say standards have fallen there too. What has happened in the last thirty years? the boogie man has been slain, the threat which created the problem has just blown away on the wind and people have realised how they we lied to and that brilliant future just isn't there. I remember being told years ago; we had to teach you something so we taught you that, and it applies in every endeavour. We don't have the latest information, method etc to teach the young and so we teach them bullsh#t and when they find out, they are shattered because what they thought was truth was in fact a lie

Society has lost respect for teachers and the result is educations standards have dropped and the problem has become generational

When the parents main goal is the attempt to appear wealthy then other things suffer.

THe problem with educational standards dropping in the USA at least has nothing to do with respect for teachers... their publicly whining for more and more money while most other people are making less and less... and most make less than the teachers themselves make... has everythign to do with the loss of respect.

THey have been begging for more and more money claiming the quality of education will suffer if they don't get it. We they got it, over and over and yet every time the quality of education keeps going downward.

Its because they waste time teaching kids how admirible it is to have two dadies or two momies... teaching 8 year olds how to use condoms... instead of teaching them the three R's. (known as reading writing and arithmetic) for the non-americans... its because kids used to mispronounce them . Readin, ritin, and rithmatic.


Because of the teaching unions its almopst impossible to fire a teacher who sucks at their job... unless they are on video impregnating a student... and even then its not a slam dunk.

Because of the teaching
unions its almopst impossible to fire a teacher... unless they are on video impregnating a student... and even then its not a slam dunk.

Joel Klein vs. New York City teachers : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill)

heard it all before Unions are not all powerful, they get in the way of progress, but they are an excuse, not a reason.

Don't know what it is like there. but where I come from the standard to get into a teaching course at university is the lowest of all professions and yet dispite this our kids get a reasonable education, I'm just not sure their knowledge outside of the basics is relevant to the real world. Maybe your teachers are just educated idiots turned out by a system that is education for money based. teachers can only teach what they know, right?

Education without opportunity is useless. 4/5/6 applicants for every job means many without opportunity.

I though education was supposed to create opportunity by teaching people to think, what you are talking about is having a path laid out, noone is entitled to that

without education...limited opportunity . So I ask again... You have a program where the students who are selected are acheiving at a higher level than they would in the public system. Why would any caring compassionate person who is looking out for these students best interest close the schools down and return these students to the failed system ?

What if you cared about all the kids not just a few, and it was a few in a particular school who were getting better help than the special needs students who needed more? I mean who advocates for the many? I am sure you have heard De Blasio say he wants more resources for all his kids to address the needs of those lottery losers.

The particular charter school in question doesn't want to pay the rent, but wants to expand in the current location, at the expense of the special need children already there that cannot be served. I mean this corporation of 22 state wide schools can run adds in her favor, but can't pay rent.

What's wrong with this picture?

What if you cared about all the kids not just a few
So you screw the few ? Where is the sense in that ?

I am sure you have heard De Blasio say he wants more resources for all his kids to address the needs of those lottery losers.

The resources he has is all he has right now . Again how does he or the general student body benefit by him closing them ? Answer ;they don't .

You are living in the past . The future of education is not in a 20th century central planning structure . The future is in private /public cooperation . Let the politicians provide the structures ;that's fine . It's a good investment of taxpayer's money . But it is already a fact that the current government managed systems are a failure . Time for you progressives to move on ...to progress . Look to New Orleans if you want to see where the future of education is . Children are graduating there at a higher rate than the rest of the state.

Before Katrina, New Orleans public schools were plagued by corruption, financial mismanagement, FBI probes, and poor academic performance. They were consistently among the worst schools in the state. For example, in 2005 Orleans Parish ranked 67 out of 68 Louisiana parishes for student achievement. 70% and 74% of 8th graders weren't proficient in Math or English, respectively. Furthermore, 77% of students were attending failing schools. This year New Orleans RSD schools were first in student growth, increasing 6 percentage points in the number of students meeting the state proficiency goal. From 2000 to 2013 New Orleans schools have closed the student performance gap from 26 percentage points to just 6 percentage points. Additionally, since the charter school revolution in New Orleans the number of students attending failing schools has fallen to 32% and ACT scores are improving faster than state and national scores. Lastly, the percentage of students who entered 9th grade together and graduated in 4 years, known as the cohort graduation rate, has increased from 57% in 2008 to 78% in 2012.
What has accounted for the success of charter schools? According to Veronica Brooks, Policy Director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools,“There is nothing magical about being a charter school. What is important are the innovations charters are focusing on.” One of the most important innovations is site-based autonomy. Mickey Landry, Executive Director of the Choice Foundation in New Orleans, says site-based autonomy is simply the ability to manage school operations on-site. For Brooks, site-based autonomy is “all about letting schools be autonomous yet accountable. It is less about input and more about outcome.” Specifically, it allows for control of the budget, meaning more freedom to make decisions about the allocation of resources. Additionally, site-based autonomy gives individual schools greater authority over the hiring and firing of teachers. With greater control of the budget, charter schools are able to apply resources to their most critical needs. For example, if the most critical need is infrastructure, a greater portion of the budget can go towards infrastructure. This contrasts greatly with traditional public school districts where schools are told what to do from a central office. Often, a central office may develop a Professional Development Plan containing initiatives like “Curb School Violence” and apply it to all schools, overlooking the diversity and differing needs among schools. It is a one-size-fits-all approach and often fails to address the unique needs of individual schools.
Freedom Drives Success in New Orleans Charter School Revolution | The Pelican Post (http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2013/06/11/freedom-drives-success-in-new-orleans-charter-school-revolution/)

The particular charter school in question doesn't want to pay the rent, but wants to expand in the current location, at the expense of the special need children already there that cannot be served. I mean this corporation of 22 state wide schools can run adds in her favor, but can't pay rent.

What's wrong with this picture? The children are still being educated in the NYC public education system . They are not private schools . Why should they pay rent ?

BTW ;we are not talking about a particular charter school ....Sandanista Bob wants to shut them all down .Why ? To kow-tow and suck up to the teacher's unions ? Or is it racism ?

"We're seeing the tail end of the unions' argument over whether the largest occupation in the U.S. should be the only occupation where no one gets promoted or paid based on how good a job they do." (Steve Brill ;author of 'Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools')

You had to quote one of my favorite firebrand authors. Reread the ending. Also fact check your own rhetoric.

Paraclete... most teachers are not under resourced, and effective teachers can teach even without the latest technology or textbooks when they have students who know how to behave and parental support for education. Education will be lost when you have consistently disruptive students... there is no way around it.

Don't buy into the need for the latest and greatest in methods or programs. Teachers who have been teaching for a good period will find that the programs are often not far off something they have seen before. You'll have new catch phrases and buzzwords, but the basics are still the basics. I call it "old wine, new bottle". Schools will often jump on the bandwagon when other districts go in a certain direction, only to change the program yet again within a few years when something new becomes popular.

Smoothy... I'm not sure where you have seen 8 year olds being taught how to use condoms. It certainly would not be the norm. Growth and development often comes in fifth grade. I personally do not hear teachers whining to make more money. Would it be nice... sure, it would be for anyone. But I know of no teachers who have money as a major factor in their jobs. Quite the opposite... most teachers know going into the job that they won't make a tremendous amount, and that it takes years of teaching before they will even get to what is considered an average pay.

You won't see a change until you see a change in families and society. The focus on scripted teaching and a multitude of testing will not result in better outcomes. It will certainly result in more children growing up to dislike school, with fewer social skills, and less ability for indepth thinking.

Again, charter schools, and others like them, sometimes do better because their student population is more likely to come from families who value education and make it a priority. When parents care, students are more inclined to care as well. Add to this, the schools are also more likely to allow teachers to actually spend more time teaching.

One student I had was on a waiting list for a fundamental school. Her mother, who was a frequent volunteer in the classroom, asked for my thoughts on moving her midyear when a spot opened up. I told her that as a parent, I would make the move. She would be following the same curriculum, have the same testing, have the same technology available to her... the difference would be that she would have fewer disruptions in the classroom and thus be able to learn more of what was taught.

It won't matter what race someone is, how much teachers get paid, or the income of a student's family. When you have teachers who are given the freedom to do what they were trained to do, and more students with families who parent their children and provide educational support, then you will see rising outcomes across the board.