Public education is a socialist monopoly

[NobleSavage]

I can criticize him because he is an Austrian/Libertarian economist at George Mason University, a noted Austrian school of economics school, if that makes sense. I caution you to not use Austrian or libertarian economics references, like George Mason, Auburn University, New York University or the CATO Institute.

The Austrian school of economics is a heterodoxical school of economics that is far out of the mainstream. They believe that collecting any economic data is futile, that if the data contradicts their theories, and not too surprisingly all data contradicts their theories, this means that the data set is corrupted, usually by unknown and unknowable market forces.
...

Hey SimpleDon, you might find this interesting. A professor at George Mason University explains why he is NOT an Austrian Economist: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because if those who are smart enough to dislike socialism get lectured every time they mistakenly use it to refer to redistributionism, then those who have a blind faith in it should not make the same mistake they lecture others for.

What I think you are missing is that you are childishly guarding a hoard of marbles that really have no particular value. We are social animals and we will naturally socialize and collectivize. You idea is selfish and also self isolative...which is dangerous in this world. You should think on this a little more.

My argument here is "Use the term correctly." It is also "If you're going to lecture others when they use the term incorrectly then you should lead by example."

It's amazing how much negativity this generates in response.

You should think on this a little more.

 

[Togo]

I’m not talking about your life Athena; I’m talking about strategies to combat racism.
...
And if you find a pocket of racism where it's possible that all your peers are racist it’s most likely going to be poor, inbreed, folks, in a trailer park or a few old dudes, at a stale country club, who will die in a few years.

That would suggest that your strategy to combat racism is that no action is needed. Is that right?

Actually it hasn't. That why so many white people need so desperately to be able to call black people racists with absolute legitimacy. It's a label they see as unimpeachable in its damnation of a person's character.

Why are black people so desperate to claim it’s impossible for them to be racist?

It's not just black people, it's anyone who cares about racism. The reason is that the racism that people actually care about is how minorities are treated, not what people think of them. Black people don't have enough power over the treatment of black people to treat them in a racist fashion. They're still participating in the country through structures and institutions and norms set up for white people.

It is not about how people feel about blacks. No one gives a flying ^&%"! what people think about blacks. A majority of the country has claimed to be well disposed towards blacks since the 1960s. A majority of the country has claimed that discrimination against blacks no longer exists in their area/district/whatever since the 1960s. We know that, in the 1960s, black people haven't been treated well. So we abandoned any idea of trying to change people's attitudes towards black people, and focused on instead on how they are actually treated, because that's all that matters. And they're still being treated badly. Better than before, sure, but there's still a long way to go.

The other reason I think it’s lost its power is because The US is so diverse now that the entire topic kind of becomes ridiculous. I saw a lot of eye rolling from non-black minorities when Ferguson erupted. I live in an area that mostly votes conservative Republican. I work out at the local gym and on any given day I’ll see Blacks, Asians, Indians, Arabs, Latinos, etc. My neighbor is from India, my dentist is from Iran, my massage therapist is from Russia, and there is a wonderful black family down the road. Oh, yeah, don’t forget about the lesbian couple that votes Republican (I know because I volunteer on local campaigns). And this is an area that would be traditionally called “white suburbia” in the middle of the Midwest.

All of which would be wonderful evidence if we were talking about people's attitudes and feelings. But we're not.

As a political issue racism is mostly dead IMO (except for perhaps local elections.)

Yeah, I'm sitting in another continent reading about how American police in Baltimore still can't bring themselves to treat people with darker skins as real people, because the issue is entirely dead.

You are not getting the subtlety of what I mean by "ignore". Imagine a group of people talking at a bar and one guy starts off on a racist rant. If everyone ignores him and continues talking about other things, like sports, and then KEEPS IGNORONG him when he tries to get back into the conversation – that is going to be powerful.

Not in my experience.

I've got better things to do today than get into a discussion about institutional and structural racism. Which is exactly how people are goanna feel if you try to make a political issue about it: time to change the channel.

??? Racism is about how people are treated. It sounds like you want to limit discussion to identifying racist individuals - but openly racist individuals were never the problem. Why do you want to limit the discussion to what you regard as a closed issue?

but the battle cry of racism, the black monopoly of it, and the black franchise of it, are over. Done. We need to talk about racism and discrimination of all people and give examples of it in other countries

Speaking as someone from one of those other countries, it would be ever so much better and more convincing if you were to deal with US racism first.

I guess I'm not getting your point. Why on earth, apart from reasons of personal comfort and convenience, should we ignore racism in the US?

 

[fromderinside]

...and the Faux news hit pieces you use aren't biased.....

First, the video was NOT attributed anywhere to Fox News.
Second, here it is also on YouTube as posted by someone else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

When Leftists have no way to rationally rebut points clearly made, as in this case, from the doofus himself in his own words, they attack the source.
This is the Fallacy of Ad Hominem. Try addressing the comments of the Democrat Doofus, not whoever may have broadcast the message.

[/B]I'm sensing another Starman BS move.

There you go again, attacking me, after attacking Fox News.

Isn't it amusing that Leftists everywhere have only ONE major news network to lambaste for not carrying Obama's water.
ABC, toes the liberal line.
CBS, toes the liberal line.
NBC "
CNN "
The New York Times ORIGINATES the extreme left-wing liberal line.
On and on goes the list of left-wing mouthpieces. IF ONLY... IF ONLY Fox News would toe the Liberal Line with all your other mouthpieces,

Your BS. Have a big plate of it.

Interesting.

... and here I thought as a former journalism major and onetime newsman that our

... creed regards journalism as a public trust, and emphasizes accuracy, fairness and the independence of journalism. from: https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2009/05/19/a-new-journalists-creed/

You have a different, a nom objective political view of journalism (note the phrases and words I've bolded in your diatribe), outlook which signals your bias up front. At least you're truthful in that.
The video was lifted from the FAUX hit piece I referenced from figures you included in your diatribe. All elements from that hit piece you place prominently in your representation.

I'm clear in what I write. When I'm political I so indicate. When I choose quotes its to fill in the difference between what I read and what is represented by the poster so 'truths' such as you spread.

FOX actually describes itself as Fair and Balanced referring to all its news and commentary. FOX balances news with commentary because it views all news reports a liberally biased. Whereas such as, NBC news, CBS news, Aljazerra, New York Times, segregate their news which follow broadly understood standards for reporting from their entertainment and politics.

Some of those with an ax to grind, usually with little interest in either fairness or balance, choose such slogans as Fox uses (they've been sued and its patently obvious that term describes nothing pertinent to Fox News stories, but rather the slogan is used to cover their agendas. (Material from Fox News: http://press.foxnews.com/corporate-info/ rationalWiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced ; Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/aboutus/ ; NBC News, CBS News, Time, Newsweek: http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/archives/portfolio/books/book49.html ; New York Times http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nformation-and-sources-in-news-coverage/?_r=0 ;

If you read the material you might learn something problems with the garbage you choose to post. Plerase note there are warts in the material because it is verified material. This is not an attack on Fox. It is an advisory for Starman on what is and is not news.

From my point of view the image you posted reflects your approach.


View attachment 3071

My BS alert stands. Your BS index is increased.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think we're being had and arguing with a bot.

I was thinking a sock, but when you get right down to the final outcome, it really is 6 of one and a half dozen of another

 

[fromderinside]

That would suggest that your strategy to combat racism is that no action is needed. Is that right?

....

All of which would be wonderful evidence if we were talking about people's attitudes and feelings. But we're not.

Yeah, I'm sitting in another continent reading about how American police in Baltimore still can't bring themselves to treat people with darker skins as real people, because the issue is entirely dead.

Not in my experience.

??? Racism is about how people are treated. It sounds like you want to limit discussion to identifying racist individuals - but openly racist individuals were never the problem. Why do you want to limit the discussion to what you regard as a closed issue?

Speaking as someone from one of those other countries, it would be ever so much better and more convincing if you were to deal with US racism first.

I guess I'm not getting your point. Why on earth, apart from reasons of personal comfort and convenience, should we ignore racism in the US?

You're a self professed psychology specialist who should know better than to argue statistics about personal feelings on hot button issues. No relationship to reality is likely.

 

[ronburgundy]

More data showing negative correlation between spending and educational results.
Bad news for liberals. Far worse news for children they brainwash and abuse.
The correlation coefficient is -.381.

View attachment 3078

"More data showing a negative correlation"?????

As I explained and you predictably ignored, your prior "data" and graph showed zero correlation between these variables despite your false claim that they showed a negative correlation (I wouldn't expect a Fox News watcher to know the difference).
So, the graph contradicts your other "data". Which do you believe? I tell you which rational people believe, neither because they are both meaningless. I gave several reasons why your first graph was meaningless and some of those apply here, but this one has additional factors. First, the -.38 coefficient is completely a by product of 4 outlier data points, those in the lower right quadrant which violates the principle of multivariate heteroscedasticity, which is an assumption that must be met to perform a valid test of correlation. That basically means that the variance in SAT scores is not equal across the full range of the other variable (in this case dollars). Put another way, those 4 data points are multivariate outliers that don't follow the pattern of all the other data points. Remove just those data points and you get a random blob producing a coefficient of essentially 0.00.

IOW, there is something peculiar about those 4 schools or districts that does not hold for most of the districts with those SAT scores. They are a few unusual districts spending double per pupil compared not only to most districts but to most districts with similar SAT scores to them. Proper statistical procedure would correct for or remove these distorting outliers and wind up showing no correlation, just like you other graph.

However, even then the graph is meaningless regarding any effect of spending on scores. Different schools and districts in different states have different policies on who takes the SAT. For example, Maine ranks 49th in SAT scores, but they have 95% of graduating seniors take the SAT, whereas North Dakota ranks 2nd in SAT scores but only 2% take the test. (The "participation" column shows the % of students who take the SAT) The state-to-state correlation between average SAT scores and the % of students who take the test around -.80, meaning that regional variation in SAT scores is mostly just a proxy for whether the worst performing students with no intent to go to college are forced to take the SAT anyway. It has nothing to do with how well that State's students overall are prepared for college or have been taught in K-12.

BTW, the States that spend the most per pupil also are the States that force most students (including the worst performing) to take the SAT, which lowers their State average, masking the true impact of greater spending. As this paper shows, proper analyses (which you won't find at Fox or CATO) that control for % of students in each State taking the test, show a significant positive correlation between spending and SAT scores. Also, a better measure than SAT is the NAEP standardized test that is administered to all students in 4th and 8th grade (thus you don't have the confound of % taking the test). The correlation between this test and per pupil spending is about +.45 (see Figure #4 at the end of the paper). The positive relationship exists at both 4th and 8th grade and in both math and reading. Also, the relationship gets even stronger if you look at funding coming from local revenue sources rather the the Fed, because Fed dollars tend to be targeted towards the % of kids in poverty or with disabilities. For obvious reasons, they tend to score lower no matter how well the State is educating its kids overall.

In sum, while public education is essentially socialism, everything else you have claimed in this thread is wrong, and your "evidence" is poorly analyzed and meaningless. More public money per student produces better learning. Socialism works when applied to education.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And I'm telling you what worked in 1970 isn’t goanna work today.

You don't think racism is passed down generationally?

Sure. That is why I used the word "inbred". Don't you see the generational and poverty issues involved?

If a child is told 2+2=5 and never corrected that he will magically know the right answer if you just ignore him saying five every problem is put before him?

You are not getting the subtlety of what I mean by "ignore". Imagine a group of people talking at a bar and one guy starts off on a racist rant. If everyone ignores him and continues talking about other things, like sports, and then KEEPS IGNORONG him when he tries to get back into the conversation – that is going to be powerful. If instead someone decides to call him a "racist" he will take pride in the label and go off on reverse racism, AA, or whatever. It gives him and the other racists the glue necessary to stick together.

And what of institutional, and structural racism.

I've got better things to do today than get into a discussion about institutional and structural racism. Which is exactly how people are goanna feel if you try to make a political issue about it: time to change the channel.

And how does one know what racism is if no one every explains it? How does one learn how to fight it or even that they should if they never see it acknowledged?

I'm not saying flush it down the memory hole. I'm not saying don't teach about it in school, but the battle cry of racism, the black monopoly of it, and the black franchise of it, are over. Done. We need to talk about racism and discrimination of all people and give examples of it in other countries – mostly because we have so many people from other countries living in the US now. Seeing as how our birth rate is below replacement level and our population is growing from immigration, yeah things need to change. Hell, things HAVE changed.

So you think that people are taking to the streets for no good reason?

Are you talking about Ferguson? I live in St. Louis and it's near by. My liberal Democratic political group talked about it quite a bit. Our conclusions of the problem were: 1) poverty of that area 2) poor schools in that area, and 3) police militarization.

Tell me, do you think the majority of white folks polled by Gallup in the 60s who said black people already had equality and quite possibly privilege were right then?

No, of course not. However, it's 55 years later, things HAVE changed. My original point was that "The cavalry doesn't want to give up the horse", not, "we no longer need a military."

You say things have changed, but the practices that brought about that change, specifically from the 70s won't work anymore. You know this how?

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

Age Doesn’t Matter

The pervasive narrative about racial change is that it occurs through generations — old racists die out, and new, young, progressive people take their place. This narrative is dubious. Age tells us far less about an individual’s likelihood of expressing racist sentiments than factors like education, geography and race. The data below visualize the percentage of whites in each age group espousing the explicitly racist idea that blacks are not hardworking or intelligent, as well as the percentage who say that blacks face little or no discrimination. Finally, I include the percentage of whites in each age group who say they have “never” felt admiration for blacks. The youngest whites (17-34) are only modestly less likely than the oldest (65+) to say that blacks are lazy (3.6 point difference) or unintelligent (1.5 point difference), but they are also less likely to perceive discrimination against blacks (6.3 point difference) and far less likely to say that have felt admiration for blacks. Compared to the generation immediately before them (white aged 35-49) the youngest whites are slightly more likely to say blacks are lazy (2.4 points) and unintelligent (4.3). In sum, it’s clear that age has little effect on the likelihood that whites hold racially-biased feelings about blacks.



It’s possible that these attitudes are simply driven by an individual’s pessimism. Maybe they feel that all people, white and black, are unintelligent. But this does not exculpate young whites. Spencer Piston, a professor at the Campbell Institute at Syracuse University, examined how young whites ranked the intelligence and work ethic of whites to blacks. He finds that 51 percent of whites between the ages of 17 and 34 rate blacks as lazier than whites, and 43 percent say blacks are less intelligent. These numbers aren’t statistically different from older whites. On issues related to structural racism, it is incredibly clear that young whites aren’t very different from their parents. Indeed, the most significant change that has occurred is an increasing conservatism among young blacks. The data show that most young Americans are racial conservatives – they believe, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” We might call them the Bill O’Reilly Generation.

Race and racism are complicated

Click the link for more

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/americas-racism-problem-far-complicated-think/

 

[fromderinside]

"More data showing a negative correlation"?????

As I explained and you predictably ignored, your prior "data" and graph showed zero correlation between these variables despite your false claim that they showed a negative correlation (I wouldn't expect a Fox News watcher to know the difference).
So, the graph contradicts your other "data". Which do you believe? I tell you which rational people believe, neither because they are both meaningless. I gave several reasons why your first graph was meaningless and some of those apply here, but this one has additional factors. First, the -.38 coefficient is completely a by product of 4 outlier data points, those in the lower right quadrant which violates the principle of multivariate heteroscedasticity, which is an assumption that must be met to perform a valid test of correlation.

Vox populi vox dei. Simply circle the two areas on the graph to illustrate the problem with the data, then refer him to bolded text.

 

[NobleSavage]

Athena, if age doesn't mater than your efforts have really been failing worse that I thought. If younger people are getting more racist then maybe you need to reevaluate especially now that more people than ever have college degrees? When I say race as a national political issue doesn't have traction, that is just from looking at the poll data and issues that are important to most Americans.

 

[fromderinside]

Athena, if age doesn't mater than your efforts have really been failing worse that I thought. If younger people are getting more racist then maybe you need to reevaluate especially now that more people than ever have college degrees? When I say race as a national political issue doesn't have traction, that is just from looking at the poll data and issues that are important to most Americans.

Like I said to Togo don't believe statistics from hot button issue polls. Statistical Fantasy Land. One needn't even mention Rings of Saturn effects. Its really just Fantasy Land.

 

[NobleSavage]

Togo: Well, we have a different perspective. Try not to judge the US to much by what you see on TV.

 

[NobleSavage]

Athena, if age doesn't mater than your efforts have really been failing worse that I thought. If younger people are getting more racist then maybe you need to reevaluate especially now that more people than ever have college degrees? When I say race as a national political issue doesn't have traction, that is just from looking at the poll data and issues that are important to most Americans.

Like I said to Togo don't believe statistics from hot button issue polls. Statistical Fantasy Land. One needn't even mention Rings of Saturn effects. Its really just Fantasy Land.

I don't. Most racists are old fogies that will die off before they change their belief. Or, it's most likely rural poverty. Try having a riot when you live in the country. You can't even get the news media to show up!

 

[fromderinside]

Like I said to Togo don't believe statistics from hot button issue polls. Statistical Fantasy Land. One needn't even mention Rings of Saturn effects. Its really just Fantasy Land.

I don't. Most racists are old fogies that will die off before they change their belief. Or, it's most likely rural poverty. Try having a riot when you live in the country. You can't even get the news media to show up!

So you're going to call scared racist. OK have it your way.

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't. Most racists are old fogies that will die off before they change their belief. Or, it's most likely rural poverty. Try having a riot when you live in the country. You can't even get the news media to show up!

So you're going to call scared racist. OK have it your way.

???

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, looks like this thread has derailed into the Potomac. I'm calling it, the time is 2:16 PM.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Athena, if age doesn't mater than your efforts have really been failing worse that I thought. If younger people are getting more racist then maybe you need to reevaluate especially now that more people than ever have college degrees? When I say race as a national political issue doesn't have traction, that is just from looking at the poll data and issues that are important to most Americans.

I have long said the eternal harping on discrimination when the average person can see it's not real would cause backlash. I guess that's been proven.

 

[Starman]

Okay, looks like this thread has derailed into the Potomac.

Wait, you didn't proclaim yourself "winner".

1. Ignore the facts presented.
2. Lie, spin, and distort.
3. Call non-Leftists "stupid".
4. Derail the entire thread.
5. Declare yourself the "winner."

Ignore things like, oh this, while real spending went the other direction... for 40 years.....

 

[fromderinside]

Wait, you didn't proclaim yourself "winner".

1. Ignore the facts presented.
2. Lie, spin, and distort.
3. Call non-Leftists "stupid".
4. Derail the entire thread.
5. Declare yourself the "winner."

Wait, you didn't show education is either socialist or a monopoly.

Alternatively
1. Present bogus 'facts'
2. Lie, lie, lie
3. Call everybody and everything they post other than yourself either leftest, liar, or communist
4. Start strawman thread
5. Just keep putting out bogus 'facts' until everybody else goes home.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Athena, if age doesn't mater than your efforts have really been failing worse that I thought. If younger people are getting more racist then maybe you need to reevaluate especially now that more people than ever have college degrees? When I say race as a national political issue doesn't have traction, that is just from looking at the poll data and issues that are important to most Americans.

I have long said the eternal harping on discrimination when the average person can see it's not real would cause backlash. I guess that's been proven.

Yeah Loren, ignoring discrimination is real good for stopping it.

You don't want to hear about discrimination, then get out here with the rest of us and work to stop it.