jjamie12

It's NOT an either/or!!! If you can't afford to buy something, you shouldn't buy it. End of story.

Do you know anything about him other than what you've seen on Youtube? Edit: Because I don't know anything at all, other than 2 minutes of parts of speeches that he'd given in a 20+ year history with Barack Obama.

Deleted because it doesn't further the discussion.

It doesn't matter what you think they should be empowered from. These girls probably feel much different about this issue than you do, Tom, and that is what empowerment is all about. You can't tell them what to feel empowered about. It comes from them, and I don't doubt for a second that they believe what they say, and that they FEEL empowered. If they feel it, by definition, they are empowered.

Yeah, I know. I just heard Ludacris' new single "Nappy Headed Rutgers Ballers" on the radio this morning. It is gonna be a #1!

I'm going to give this one more try. You said: And I responded: Now, you've said: First of all, Kucinich is not 'my boy'. Second, those 'facts' have nothing to do with the context in which Kucinich was brought up. You said something ridiculous, namely: "Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!". I called you on it by giving one example of millions of people who respond to arguments without the typical name-calling. Your original statement is just plaing wrong. Third, the reason that this is typical of the level of debate around here is that when called on something silly you said, you spin it around and start talking about Dennis Kucinich's record as the mayor of Cleveland, which had absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand. So, yeah, you're lowering the level of debate about this particular topic. Are you serious? I thought for sure that you were a 'market-based solution' kind of guy (or gal, I don't know) Our whole American way of life is based on the fact that, in general, the most talented people will advance the farthest and make the most money. This isn't even up for debate, is it? Of course it doesn't 'guarantee' success, there are plenty of people who aren't as talented as others and make it further than they should, Ken Lay (he was obviously not talented enough to be CEO, was he?)being a great example of that. Of course it doesn't disprove the point, either. I'm not suggesting that raising pay would eliminate ALL bad super's, same as sky-high CEO pay doesn't eliminate ALL bad CEO's. I'm simply saying that this may be one way in which you could eliminate most of the bad super's, along with the Board's ability to have wide discretion in firing power, as proposed in the first post of mine. This is the crux of the market-based economy. If the above isn't true, then why do people make different amounts of money? For whatever reason, you just don't seem to get what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. Everything you've said above, I agree with. That doesn't change the fact that this super was, obviously, not very talented. One way in which to get more talented people to become super's (and, as a consequence, eliminate more and more of the incompentent super's) is to raise the pay of super's. It is basic economics, no? Higher pay will lead to increased competition which will lead to higher competence. Just think about it. I think you own your own business, right? (I thought I read that from awhile back) What if you were looking for someone to work for you, and every person you hired, for whatever reason, just wasn't competent enough to do the job you were hiring them for. You go through this, say, 6 times over the course of 2 years. Wouldn't your next step be to raise the pay you were offering for this particular job in order to attract better candidates? Why would it be different for educators? Doesn't the fact that he lost the respect of the people he was supposedly leading lead you to believe that he doesn't have a talent for leadership? That is the first thing that I think. The following statements in quotes are your questions to me, followed by my answers. "I can see where you wouldn't get the reference." I didn't understand what the 'beasts of burden' meant and where that came from. "How about answering some simple questions" OK. "What qualifies you to sit in judgment of this situation such that you can make a definitive statement that simply adding money to this equation will solve all problems?" The same thing that qualifies you to blindly dismiss adding money to the situation in your previous posts. In short, it is an opinion, same as yours. Also, I NEVER said that "adding money to this equation will solve all problems" -- please don't put words in my mouth. I said very clearly this: "In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example" Notice that I didn't say that it was my idea, or that this would solve all problems, or that this is the only possible solution... just that someone could make a case that should be listened to, not just blindly dismissed. "And, how do you "know" that will work?" I don't. How do you 'know' it wouldn't? You are the one dismissing opinions around here, not me. You seem to be advocating market-based solutions to the school problem. Hey, MY suggestion was market based, too, how about that? "Why is this the only thing you have offered as a solution?" Because I was responding to a post of yours in which you were denigrating the idea that adding money to the situation would be fruitless and dumb. Specifically, I was responding to post #9 in this thread (8 too, but mostly 9). "Why are you suggesting that "talent" has a direct relationship to money?" Really? You DON'T think so?

You said: To which I responded: I could have added that someone calling for intelligent debate while in the same post making a statement like the above would be highly entertaining if it weren't so typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country. I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. Let me try again. It isn't about how much money this particular super makes. If we decided, tomorrow, to pay superintendants, say, $500k a year, and give the school board wide discretion to fire their super, you would see a marked improvement in super performance, after a period of time. Just watch how many very talented managers from other walks of life decide to get into education because of the great pay, and, consequently, increase the talent pool in education. The super in question is doing his job as well as he can, presumably. He very clearly doesn't have much of a talent for it. This was an obviously bad decision. I honestly don't know what this means.

And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story... In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example: It is not that the Super doesn't have enough money to make a good choice, it's that the kind of Super that you will get for the money you pay will be more likely to make bad choices than someone who becomes a Super in an environment where a school Super makes, as an example, 5 times what they make now. If you want to get better Super's, pay them alot of money, give the school board latitude to fire them, and watch competitive forces draw the talented people into the school system. It could be argued that this Super is incompetent, and the reason for the incompetence is the lack of talented alternatives to this 'bad' super.

How would you determine the size of the voucher payments then? In your earlier example, you cited the sum total of education spending in one school district being transferred to another school district of your choice. In practice, most of the money for school funding comes from property taxes (in most states), so how would the voucher payments not be contingent on your level of property taxes? Beyond that, how is this helping the education system? The 'good' schools can take only so many students. What about the rest of the students? They will still be stuck in poor schools, just like today. It is not a demand problem, it is a supply problem. With this type of product, however, you can't just ramp up production in a factory somewhere in Toledo and crank out new schools...

If you look at what I said carefully, you'll see that I said, very clearly, that a higher funded school isn't always the best school. However, if you look at the worst schools, you'll notice that those are the ones that are funded at the lowest levels. I agree, it isn't all about the money. The best schools don't ALWAYS have the most money, but the worst schools, in general, have the least.

I'm no fan of the NEA, but they hate the idea of vouchers because it would take the most money away from the districts that need it the most. While it is true that you don't necessarily have great schools when you have high funding; show me the worst schools, and I'll show you the schools with the least funding.

Except its not that easy. You can't ramp up production to meet the demand, fellas. For example, everybody wants to go to the best school, but everybody can't go to the best school. It has a certain capacity. How do you determine who gets to go to that school? How do you determine who gets to go to the next best school? And the next? And the next? What about rural school districts? What if there is only one school within a reasonable distance to your house? How does that work? What about how the tax dollars are assessed? Most people are paying taxes to already be in those good school districts. If I live in a cheaper property tax area, how can I ever hope to get into one of the 'better' schools? School choice doesn't solve the problem. It might make it better, but I'm not sure.

As is the same with anything in a capitalist society, you get what you pay for.

It's amazing to me that this is what you got out of that article. I think it is an interesting thing to think about. I think that the premise of the editorial is true - that the people in favor of this war mostly expected the Iraqi people to embrace democracy based on the Iraqi people being Iraqis. It turns out that maybe this WAS a little naive. It seems (again, seems) that, at this point, the people there consider themselves Shia or Sunni or from a particular region or city or group well before they consider themselves Iraqi. It is interesting to think about... However, doesn't it seem kind of strange that there was such a large turnout for a national election when people don't identify themselves 'nationally'? What is different between them and Great Britain? Do most people in Scotland consider themselves British or Scot?

Should the US do anything about Global Warming?

What about three elections in a place that hasn't had an election in years... Isn't that success? Enormous success? You could debate it, but most likely it is... Have they ever had an election prior to this? I mean, of course, an 'election' in which 100% of the people in Iraq don't vote for Saddam Hussein...

OK. What are they? I'm trying to get an understanding of your position before I agree or disagree with you.

Are there any limits to this statement in your position?

I lived in Belgium for two years, and brought my dog to all sorts of places that you can't in the States. It was great. We didn't have any problems, and I can't even think of a single time where there was a problem with a dog "doing their business" in the bars or restaurants.

No kidding. And, I think, if you read the article, it clearly says: "It's all about the tutelage they get from the time they're in college on. I saw that with Dameyune Craig. He was told, 'If your first read isn't there, take off and run.' Do you think that anyone ever told Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to do that? Again, it's about the tutelage they get." And, why don't Peyton or Brady take off running? Because they can't run. Vick (and in this article, Dameyune Craig can, too) can. What Gandy is saying is that they are being taught things that, over the long haul are counter-productive. They are taught that because of their ATHLETIC ABILITY. Not their skin color.

How's that working out for the Falcons, and, by extension, Michael Vick's career? If you can't see why that is "wrong", I don't know what to tell you... Michael Vick is the poster child for this "wrong-ness".

I think this is spot-on. It makes things easier in the short-term (like TEN can get lucky a few games and win 5 in a row) but, long-term, this is probably hurting VY. If he can't consistently get the ball out on-time, with accuracy, to the correct receiver, he'll be nothing more than the tease that Vick has been. Sure, he'll win some games with his legs, but his team will (most likely) not be anything special.

Did you read the article? It didn't say a single thing about black qb's getting abused by fans because they were black. Not once. Read the article.

Are you guys insane? Did you actually read the article? It didn't say that Vick wasn't getting a fair shake because he's black... it didn't even suggest that! Here is what the article says: He goes on to say: If you guys would actually take the time to READ the article, you might learn something. This is not some guy claiming that NFL fans are easier on white QB's than black. This is an interesting take from an NFL player who has experience in this. He's telling us that certain QB's are taught different things because of their different abilities, and that this sort of teaching is wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen AD 'advocate' the $1,200 (or whatever $$ amount it is) payment to Alaskans. I'm sure he takes the money. As he should. Anytime someone gets any sort of rebate from the government, they should take it... It is OUR money, afterall. Similarly, I think that there is a reasonable debate to be had whether or not Social Security actually does 'benefit' everyone. A very strong case can be made that we would all be better off if the government let us keep our money so that we could invest it on our own. Any diversified investment over our working lives turns out to be better than Social Security. So... who really has our (the collective our) best interest at heart in this conversation? You or AD? I'm not really sure I know the answer to that. However, I do know that AD's feeling that many government programs designed to help people actually do the opposite; this isn't hypocrisy, it's an opinion.