A DaveInElma Thread...but much better than he can do it

[OCinBuffalo]

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).

[DC Tom]

You can, and must, separate race from culture, as anyone who has been in the military can attest.

 

What DIE will never understand.

[3rdnlng]

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).

 

 

Well stated.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Comparing civilian life to the military is absurd ontill we start throwing people in jail for breaking curfew, being out of uniform, and failing to salute a officer.

[Alaska Darin]

Comparing civilian life to the military is absurd ontill we start throwing people in jail for breaking curfew, being out of uniform, and failing to salute a officer.

The real absurdity is how much higher the rate of incarceration is on the civilian side.

[OCinBuffalo]

Comparing civilian life to the military is absurd ontill we start throwing people in jail for breaking curfew, being out of uniform, and failing to salute a officer.

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?

Edited December 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[LeviF]

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?

Best militia ever. JiA yells at everyone and goes MIA to hunt. Darin yells at JiA and corrects all of his grammar mistakes in the most condescending way possible while telling him to get a haircut. Everyone hits on Sarah Palin.

[Jim in Anchorage]

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?

Sure any organization could as successful as the army if they could suspend the employees constitutional rights. What company do you work for that could say you will go to Irag tommorrow for 2 years? Or would you prefer jail?

It really is a lame comparison.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

 

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?

That would be the state of ALaska. Successful in my book.

[3rdnlng]

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).

 

Something about your title bothers me. You are actually saying you can be a better Dave than Dave himself? Some here might think that a dubious distinction.

[Frit0 Bandit0]

OC,

That was insightful and I would agree that's on mark ....+/- 3

[LeviF]

Something about your title bothers me. You are actually saying you can be a better Dave than Dave himself? Some here might think that a dubious distinction.

I think he means "better" in a normative sense.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sure any organization could as successful as the army if they could suspend the employees constitutional rights. What company do you work for that could say you will go to Irag tommorrow for 2 years? Or would you prefer jail?

It really is a lame comparison.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

The schools? What the heck are they suppose to do about lazy, ignorant culture?

[BiggieScooby]

I grew up around a lot of middle class and upper middle class families, I think all in all the higher caliber of student brings up your effort level. The more competitive your environment the more one will try to succeed.

 

I am a big proponent of eliminating failing schools and integrating kids from poorer areas from Kindergarten through the 12th grade. I did a case study with Syracuse that proved integration was the most successful solution.

[OCinBuffalo]

Something about your title bothers me. You are actually saying you can be a better Dave than Dave himself? Some here might think that a dubious distinction.

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.

[LeviF]

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.

So what you're saying is, "better in a normative sense, 3rdnlng."

[OCinBuffalo]

The schools? What the heck are they suppose to do about lazy, ignorant culture?

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.

Edited December 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[BiggieScooby]

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.

Would you advocate closing down failing schools and integrating these children into successful mainly surburban schools?

[OCinBuffalo]

So what you're saying is, "better in a normative sense, 3rdnlng."

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?