OCinBuffalo

Still waiting for you to respond to the game show thing. Hey, you drew the comparison, now you have to deal with it. Again, I never said "black culture". In fact, I specifically said "you are lying to yourself if you think it is limited to non-whites(ahem, Jerry Springer)." The youth are not to blame for the culture....they can't control the behavior of the adults around them.

1. Do you agree with the short-termism premise? 2. Do you agree that it's due to volatility caused by short term trading? 3. How do we fix it? Is there something IT might do?

We can find it everywhere, especially so-called "music". As I said, that's pedestrian. No, what makes Oprah worse it that the "here's some free money for doing nothing but showing up at my show, when you should be at work" approach attempts to legitimize the culture. You cannot legitimize the current music industry's product. The difference between a game show, and Oprah: generally you have to know something in order to get money from a game show. You don't have to know anything to get money from Oprah.

What is the difference between handing out college tuition, and handing out cash? What is the difference between inspiring others to improve themselves, and pandering to the basest emotions of dopey housewives? Culture. Hell Trump has a better shot at being remembered than Oprah does. Much depends on what he does when he's about to die. Last I heard the network was failing miserably. Look I don't really pay attention to things like this, so if I am wrong, so be it. And, I wouldn't bet against Oprah staying down for very long...as there's always going back to getting ratings by making more people win the lottery.

First of all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrP-dKOIQMM Second: I asked Levi and honest question: I have no idea if you know what Normative means, there overly sensitive boy. It wasn't directed at you personally. I have wasted pages of entire threads because I made the assumption that, for example, somebody would know the difference between structural and frictional unemployment, only to find out at the end that they have no idea. Hence, the "are we going to have to spend 3 pages on this" comment. Get it? Third: Don't be an idiot.

Gore's Retrenchment Nothing like taking a real problem, and attaching a non-problem to it, and then claiming that the solution to all was what you had in mind all along. Gore knows he's lost, and this is the last ditch, phony effort to save his sorry ass. Talking in terms of capitalism, after trying to impose socialism, and trying to set up a new "carbon" commodity market that would basically be a f'ing private tax on...capital? Phony. Yes, there is too much short-term investing going on. Day trading is culprit, and so it all the automation. I don't know enough to say exactly how to fix it, but I am sure I could figure something out if engaged. The bottom line is If you make day trading less profitable, you will see a reduction in volatility. But, what does that have to do with the environment? Nothing. Companies will only have to deal with meeting ridiculous metrics...if those metrics are allowed to persist, morons. Yes, amazingly, the companies that do green things will perform better in an environment you create that measures performance based on doing green things. Nice circular reasoning there. My entire current existence has been predicated on securing venture capital. I have never, ever, been asked about "sustainability" by any VC. "Investors care about sustainability"? Where? In Al Gore's capital management firm? Who else? I want a list of names. Investment bankers and VC don't give 2 schits about anything other than: 1. Your burn rate 2. The number of months until you reach break even....because that means you will reach profitability, and that means their exit is now viable A "stranded asset" only becomes such if we allow Gore's stupidity to go unchecked. Gore: "Look, I can create a problem, then I can solve it!. Excelsior!" Thanks assclown. I don't need new problems, and I don't need you taking perfectly good assets off my books. Great, so not only are we solving problems we don't have, you want us to predicate their solutions on f'ing price controls, there, Jimmy Carter? That's it. I'm done with this. I could go on but I've proven the point.

Neither does "it will work because it's my idea". Putting 2 white kids into class of 28 black ones...was somebody's "awesome" idea, wasn't it? How about this: you allow each family to decide which school they want to attend. You give them a piece of paper that basically represents the state funding for that kid...we could call it...a voucher. You also allow competing schools to be formed in any district. You could call them...charter schools. I think you should look into taking these ideas to the politicians, as they might just work. Rather than wasting resources shipping kids for hours, and taking away from homework time, you introduce competition. Nothing makes things better like competition.

Ding Ding Ding! You are hysterically correct, sir. Religion. And, what makes a Jordanian a Jordanian..or an Iraqi and Iraqi, other than the British telling them that's what they were? It's funny because it's true. I understand Iranians are Iranians, but seriously, there's more of a distinction between people from New York and Pennsylvania than there is between Jordanians and Palestinians. All of this is wonderful historical fluff however, and I don't care. What I want to know is what it will take for this issue to go away? What if we got the UN to agree to pay every single Jewish and Palestinian family $10k immediately, however, if they start any more trouble with each other, I get paid 2x my salary to go over and PT(haze) each of the trouble makers, for a year, and everything I do to them goes on youtube? I guarantee humor. The money would be worth it just to end the whining, get the jews to stop throwing money at our politicians, and like I said, I guarantee humor. Would that work?

It is also now correlated, at least, that leaving the poor kids in their own school, and focusing on changing the culture there, is the most effective way to produce results. This is not about rich and poor. This is about ****ty culture vs. successful culture. This study is simply empirical evidence that confirms common sense.

Way to miss most of it! This has nothing to do with jobs, and certainly not Canadian jobs. Let's do this right. Since this is 100% about politics, let's keep score: House +1 House Reps for passing a bill that mostly takes away Obama's painfully obvious "do nothing Congress" strategy. +2 House Reps for passing a bill that they can use in November, that is in line with their constituencies values and is a net + in terms of approval. This is how you score independents. -5 House Dems for being suckered into voting against a jobs bill, and a tax holiday to boot. The number of people who want to prevent the pipeline is less than 25% of the people who want decreased gas prices and the jobs. This is the real story here. The Republicans now have a major attack they can use on every Democrat currently in the house, that can also be used to defend against every Democrat who will run against them. Senate (much remains to be seen, but for now) +1 Senate Reps for now being able to say "hey it's not us, it's Harry Reid, this is why we need a Republican Senate. +1 For Harry Reid, because now he has all the power -5 For Senate Dems, because they will face a tough decision: take the same hit that the House Dems will now, or, risk rebelling against Reid and Obama. There's no way all of these guys fall on the sword for Obama. They know they may still be able to win in November(there are 22 Dems defending seats). But, what chance does Obama have? Chances are they feel defending their own job is more important than defending Obamas. This is a recipe for chaos for them, and they know it. If it comes to a vote, it passes. Reid is the wildcard here. He may yet find a way to poison pill this thing. Obama -5 For getting his bluff called, and being outmaneuvered publicly +1 For getting some response from the Congress on his legislative agenda -4 For putting the Senate Dems in what could easily be an impossible position -10 For trying to emulate Harry Truman, and not coming up with his own original political strategy. Is nothing Obama does his idea? Why does he keep going back 60 years for ideas? The problem with them is: Reps have had 60 years to learn why they worked, and how to beat them.

hehe....I am the absolute worst person to ask about integration. A while back I was trolling some turd here, and I told a trumped up story, that also hooked Buftex btw. Anyway, the truth is: I was integrated into an elementary school in Buffalo when I was 7. The story was that, since I was a "smart kid", my performance, and the girl they sent with me, would encourage the other kids to do better. It's like these idiots have never been to public school. WTF did they think putting 2 white kids in a class of 28 black kids was going to accomplish? Honestly? (edit: and, for Buftex, the truth is I beat up 2 kids with a chair, not the whole class and the teacher. But, the truth sounds less psychotic, and therefore isn't as useful a tool for trolling self-righteous liberals.) So, speaking from personal experience: new schools suck in general, I went on to have 7, and even more if you know that the fix is in. It was impossible not to know what my "role" was in my school in Buffalo, and everybody else knew as well. The first day one kid asked me "so you gonna make me smarter, white boy?". I fail to see how putting 2 black kids from the city into a class of 28 white kids would be any less unsettling for them. Little kids are a-holes as a rule. If we are going to do any social engineering, we better damn well have a better plan than what I and many others had to endure. The only thing I retain from the trumped up story: at least Republicans don't expect 7 year olds to implement their policies for them. Even given all of this, I would be willing to try anything that somebody can CLEARLY outline as a solution. Anything is better than doing what we are doing, spending what we are already spending, and expecting different results.

Yeah, I didn't see your comment. When I did, I had already written what I did, so I said F it and posted it anyway. My only concern: do you think he knows what "normative sense" means? Or, are we going to have to spend 3 pages on that?

Perhaps it starts with: not being lazy and ignorant themselves. I know a teacher that has been quite effective, as in recognized nationally, in her role of not allowing that culture to exist in her city school, "this is the last place you go before jail" classroom. Believe me, if I had to deal with her in a classroom setting, she would win. I would not be able to maintain a crappy set of values and behave poorly, as she would annoy me to death. I would literally die of annoyance, but with a serene feeling of being loved and respected...yuck. The last thing I would hear would be: "make good choices". I can't stand to listen to her for more than 15 minutes at a time when she gets rolling. It's like Tony Robbins3.Very few people in this world could defeat me in a test of wills, but I know she would win. But, her biggest complaint? Not the kids, she loves working with the kids. No. Her biggest complaint is the other teachers. They refuse to learn from her best practices. They refuse to even try them, and they undermine her at every turn. In my world, nothing gets you fired faster than willful ignorance and unwillingness to constantly improve your skill set. In their world, it's the standard.

No, I am saying that "potential" racism, or, some require that we say "probable" racism, detracts from the real issue: a terrible set of values justifying an even worse set of behaviors produces a loser culture. This awful culture bears far and away more responsibility for bad results than anything anyone else does. But, you let the bad actors off the hook if you are actually a racist. Then the focus is on you for being a bad person, instead of the bad behavior. If we are serious about fixing problems, it must start with defining them properly. In this case, we have to stop treating education in terms of a single "funding dial", and pretending that if we want to turn it up all the way, that makes us a better person. We need to understand that the "more $ for schools" mantra has hardly anything to do with results for students, and the country, anymore. If somebody wants to get serious about fixing the schools, then they need to stop talking about $, and start talking about fixing the culture, and removing the "urban" culture, immediately. But, if we allow silliness or a counter-productive agenda to get in the way of that, then we aren't serious people, and will be treated as such. Just ask how the Global Warming/Socialist agenda is working out for the environmentalists. It would be interesting to take a poll and see how many of them would like a do-over from 2005. The reason I can do a better Dave than Dave is the same reason I can do a better BishopHedd than BishopHedd. In both cases I don't have the burden of clinging to stupid/antiquated beliefs getting in the way of me making an effective argument.

Clearly you aren't familiar with the consulting profession. The comparison you are referring to exists in your mind only. If you can't see what I am talking about, and why, that is your problem. Re-read what I wrote, and understand it this time.

Where did I draw that comparison? I only spoke in terms of values-->results, not methods and machinations. Did you miss that? Read it again and see. Why is the same black guy more likely to be successful as a result of being in the Army, rather than not? Again, results, not "saluting". If it is possible for a group which is comprised of 30% of the most backward white people you will ever meet to be successful....then it is possible for any organization or group to be successful, however comprised. It all depends on: the organization's values, beliefs and traditions = their culture, and of course, leadership. I wonder if it is possible for a group comprised totally of Alaskans to be successful? Who would lead them? You, Darin and Sarah Palin?

Here's how the internet works: People pay money for ads on pages. So, the more people you can drive to the page, the more money you make. Every day, companies like yahoo depend on click traffic to make all their money, since the search engine aspect of the business has been claimed by Google. Hence, you now see Yahoo getting into content, like sports and news, instead of staying in the search engine business. Yahoo does't care if it's content it good, it only cares if it drives clicks. Therefore, the only way for us to curb their bad behavior... IS NOT TO LINK TO ARTICLES THAT ARE CRAP AND TELL PEOPLE TO CLICK ON THEM! That is, unless you work for Yahoo.

Sometimes I wonder if we: 1. Are paying for the UN to give all the insignificant countries a chance to be: significant. or 2. Are paying for the UN to give all the insignificant countries a chance to be: significant. Funny how that sentence means 2 completely different things, huh? Either way, we will veto this nonsense. Global Warming couldn't be a more dead issue politically. Apparently nobody has told the one-world government socialists, I mean, the environmentalists. Sorry, I always get them confused. Of course, that may fall under #2 above, and is therefore intentional.

No, he really doesn't. And, neither do his supporters. They don't "believe" the way Clinton's did. They simply look like liars. Perhaps it's just me, but, you can go see for yourself. Google The War Room. If you don't know who the sucker is in 15 minutes, you are the sucker. The only thing that can be worse is if you delude yourself into believing somebody else is the sucker. That's what I see when I watch this lady. She clearly subscribes to the Charlie Sheen definition of "winning".

The title is just what popped into my head(and BOHICA stands for bend over here it comes again) and it's somewhat true, because this thread is about what is wrong with our schools, especially our urban ones. Well, what is wrong with our schools is what is wrong with our major cities as well. Basically, it's time to talk root cause = culture. To wit: This article, read up. It's interesting that they used the word "culture" in the study isn't it? I have been using the same characterization, and drawing the same, very important, distinctions whenever these issues arise, here and elsewhere. Now for the "better than DaveInElma" part: The culture of "inner city", "urban", whatever.... The culture largely sucks. You can, and must, separate race from culture, as anyone who has been in the military can attest. Few would argue against the effectiveness of the military's culture. Many can easily argue against the effectiveness of this supposed "urban" culture. Where the Army's culture is productive and therefore inherently not only self-sustaining, but also capable of exponential growth, the "urban" culture is the opposite, and must be fed by external sources(largely suburban teenagers and later, suburban liberal guilt), if it doesn't completely destroy itself first. This "urban" culture is predicated on taking, rather than making, and you are lying to yourself if you think it is limited to non-whites(ahem, Jerry Springer). There are many different ways to contrast taking and making. Sure we can all talk about welfare, but that's pedestrian and lacks insight. Rather, consider the guy who calls people "marks" and looks to take things from them in the short term, rather than make long term friends and business relationships. In the long term, the first guy almost certainly fails, as there will always be a younger, smarter, quicker guy to take his place. However the latter choice creates security and structure, and is therefore the definition of wealth. Wealth can be passed on and increased. Learning how to run a scam keeps you stuck where you are, eventually the scams you know own you, because they are the only things you know, and nobody cares. Look at even the most successful beneficiaries of this "urban" culture: all they have is money, not wealth. As the PPP Financial Sector Jedi Council will tell you, there is a huge difference, and that money will probably be blown in less then 2 generations. Some of these beneficiaries have even admitted it = Chris Rock: "Bill Gates would jump out of building if he woke up and found out he only had Oprah's money". The cracks are there and easily visible: Oprah herself is well on her way to blowing her money this generation. Her entire ethos lacks dignity and inherent value, is predicated on pandering to the basest of emotions, and therefore it is doomed. As simple as I can make it: Carnegie vs. Oprah. Both amassed great fortunes. One can never be forgotten. The other already has been. The difference is culture. The simple fact is that there is absolutely 0 reasons why this "urban" culture should be accepted or even tolerated by anyone. Neither should any of the behavior that has been derived from it. It is of absolutely no use to anyone. It holds no great answers, poses no great questions. There is nothing to be learned from it. Contrast this with, for example, Middle Age Italian culture, which was also completely immoral and self-aggrandizing. At least there were many useful contributions to humanity, and we are still learning from it, which is why it isn't dead. In contrast, we have seen 100s of less useful major cultures pass from this world without a second thought. This one is completely useless. Why then, are any of you so scared to destroy it? Afraid to be called a racist? Bull. Again, think about the Army, and the fabled "disproportionate number of black people in it", but then think about how many hicks from the sticks are in it as well, and then think about how successful it is. Then conclude, properly, that race is not behavior, and therefore, it is just as racist to accept this crappy culture as though it is inherent to a race, as it is not to on those terms. Either way, you are setting sub-standard behavioral expectations on a whole bunch of people you don't know. This culture has no place, anyplace, least of all in our schools. It's high time that an academic produced something useful(which is why we pay them). Now it's for the politicians to apply it(which is why we pay them).

This is what they don't seem to get, do they? It's a matter of amplification. Piddle and Diddle can pee and wee back and forth and the fact is that 90% of America isn't paying attention. But, the leftist media, because ANY Republicanbad signal in the massive NOISE of Obamabad, sounds a lot louder than it actually is, to ears straining to hear it, thinks it's important. Meanwhile, in about 6 months, when the naval air horn that is Solyndra is spun up, they are going to be looking significantly dumber than Piddle or Diddle when they try to counter with their kazoo.

This all goes back to the lesson that was learned from George Stephanopolous brazenly looking Mike Wallace in the eye and declaring "Gov. Clinton has no character problem. Bill Clinton has passed his character test throughout his life and this campaign"...and the fact that too many Democrats think they can pull that off. The objective is to say such an obvious lie, but so passionately, that the truth becomes anathema. I watched that live, and I remember it like it was yesterday. It was a brazen lie. I knew it, and so did Wallace. But, it was delivered with such eloquence, and, with what appeared to be sincerity. I felt willing to let it slide, as Stephanopolus wanted to believe it so much, that he transposed the sincerity of his belief onto the lie. He did such a good job with it, that there was little Wallace could do to save the interview, and, little I could do to retain my objectivity. Democrats, and a few Republicans, have been trying to reproduce that effect ever since. However, it requires 3 things: 1. Stehanopolous-level of ability 2. Sincerity of wishing to believe 3. The object the lie is intended to help must be worthy of its' effect. These are why Wasserman-Shultz FAILs here. She is fooling herself if she thinks she is able to do this. MANY Democrats have made the same mistake recently. They simply aren't very good at their jobs: as though we need more examples to convince us. She may have the sincerity of her wishes. But the real killer is: Obama is not worth it. The lack of 1 and 3 kills it dead. When Stephanopolous was done with that interview, the Clinton character issues were done until Lewinsky. How many of you think unemployment, regardless of where it is a year from now, is not permanently stuck on Obama now? Nobody wants to believe positive lies about Obama, because truth be told, we may like the guy, but we know he's no leader. He's the officer that we find a reason to send home, without embarrassing him or ourselves.

Are they black women?

Look, it's gone beyond the pale when we have Democrats like Bob Beckel talking about the Feds going in and taking over Detroit, by force if necessary, because it's dragging down the rest of the country(and his party, which he conveniently left out). When even he is saying stuff like that, you know just how far we have come. As much as I disagree with any Federal organization doing such a thing, I also have to admit that this may be the only viable way to fix the problem. LBJ is perhaps the worst President we have had in terms of his long-term effect on the urban poor. The state of the entire rust belt is all the evidence we need.

Yes, as apparently Obama's command of history doesn't include that fact that every other country in the world's factories and infrastructure was leveled in 40s, and most wasn't rebuilt until the late 60s. Nah, it was all FDR's New Deal programs that....oh wait, didn't FDR's own advisers have to force him to kill the WPA, because they could recognize that the government competing with business for labor on a massive scale was a terrible, tax-base destroying idea, even if he couldn't? They knew then that "shovel-ready" was BS. They knew that it was counterproductive. How the hell can you tax business, and raise revenue, if most of the new jobs you create work for the government? All their grandiose spending plans were dependent on raising taxes, but the WPA was killing them, and so, they killed it...BEFORE WW2. Why are we having to re-learn these lessons? For the same reason that Obama thinks the 50s and 60s boom was due to government activity: willful ignorance of history. Perhaps somebody should assign Obama Eisenhower biography homework, as in: "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom." Notice I didn't even have to talk WW2 to kill this, and I'm still right.