Se afișează postările cu eticheta foraje. Afișați toate postările
Se afișează postările cu eticheta foraje. Afișați toate postările
vineri, 11 februarie 2011
Scooter Libby
For all of the Bill Clinton fans/Anti Bush people, who are upset or even disgusted with Bush's decision to (partially)pardon Libby, I have something for you.. Here is a link to every one of Clinton's (full) pardons while he was in office. If you are a rational free thinking human being there is no way you can "have no problems" with Clinton's (full) pardons and still have violent disgust for Bush's (partial) pardoning of Libby. If you find that after reading the list that you still don't agree with Bush's pardoning of Libby then you are a hypocrite and only riding party lines. That means you are not a free thinker and therefore irrational.. Which means you either lean too far to the right or to the left... In other words, you are likely the kind of person who agrees with everything your party says without any independent thought of your own.. This brings us back to the concept of illegeracy.. We will get to that later..
Desegregation
by Andrew J. Coulson
Andrew J. Coulson is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and author of Market Education: The Unknown History. He blogs at Cato-at-Liberty.org.
In a landmark opinion issued Thursday morning, the United States Supreme Court struck down race–based student assignment programs in the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., public–school districts. Defenders of racial–assignment policies may not realize it for years, but this ruling could be the best thing to happen to the education of minority children since the court struck down segregated schooling in 1954.
Both districts had argued that assigning students to schools based on race is necessary, at least on occasion, to ensure diverse student bodies and improve minority–student achievement. But the court's majority found that they failed to make that case — that the harm done by these programs is "undeniable," while the need for them is "unclear."
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts cited an earlier Supreme Court finding that "government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classifications promote notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility." He also invoked the court's seminal Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which overturned segregated schooling and "required school districts to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis."
The Seattle and Jefferson County districts, Roberts wrote, simply hadn't proved that their race–based policies were necessary to achieve their stated goals, or that they had seriously considered alternative policies.
That last point makes the court's decision monumentally important — for it draws attention to other, perhaps better, ways of promoting diversity and improving minority students' achievement.
In the immediate wake of the Brown ruling, the NAACP and others championed voluntary school–choice programs as a viable avenue toward improved integration. Many civil–rights leaders have forgotten choice in the half–century since, but it has retained the interest of scholars and activists. And their verdict is in: Choice works.
On every goal championed by advocates of race–based school assignment, private schools and parental–choice programs that ease access to them have a strong positive record — bringing residential and classroom integration and improving minority–student outcomes.
Duke University economist Thomas Nechyba has found that our conventional, district–based public–school system worsens residential segregation: By tying schools to students' addresses, it encourages the wealthy to "choose" their schools by opting to live in upscale neighborhoods. And his research strongly suggests that a school–choice program that made both private and public schools affordable to all families would greatly reduce the residential segregation that today's public–schooling arrangements have caused.
A central goal of compulsory integration polices has been to achieve racial balance at the school level. But Harvard's Civil Rights Project has observed that public schools are little more racially integrated today than they were before such policies were introduced.
And even schools with racially balanced enrollments don't necessarily have meaningful integration. It is quite common for students to self–segregate by race within schools, having comparatively little social interaction. Ohio State University sociologist James Moody has observed that "simple exposure does not promote integration," so schools that appear integrated "by the numbers" may not have meaningfully integrated hallways, lunchrooms, or even classrooms.
A decade ago, professor Jay Greene (now at the University of Arkansas) had a brilliant idea to test for truly meaningful integration: look at lunchrooms. With colleague Nicole Mellow, Greene photographed lunchrooms in public and private schools in several cities. They found that students are most likely to choose to sit with children of other races in private, not public, schools.
A recent study by Greg Forster of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation similarly finds that "private schools are actually less segregated than public schools when examined at the classroom level; and that private schools participating in voucher programs … are much less segregated than public schools."
So what about educational outcomes for minority students? Here again, the most significant benefits to private schooling tend to be enjoyed by African–American students, both in achievement and graduation rates:
University of Chicago economist Derek Neal has found that black students at inner–city Catholic schools are far more likely to complete high school, be accepted to college and complete college than similar students who attend public schools.
Reviewing the outcomes of school–choice programs in several cities, Harvard political scientist Paul Peterson found that academic achievement gains from private–school attendance are greatest among black students.
All this evidence was available before the court's recent ruling; most civil–rights activists have ignored it because they were committed to pursuing integration by force. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down such programs, these activists — and sympathetic policymakers — should take the court's hint and seek alternatives for advancing the education of minority children. If they do, they'll find school choice.
Andrew J. Coulson is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and author of Market Education: The Unknown History. He blogs at Cato-at-Liberty.org.
In a landmark opinion issued Thursday morning, the United States Supreme Court struck down race–based student assignment programs in the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., public–school districts. Defenders of racial–assignment policies may not realize it for years, but this ruling could be the best thing to happen to the education of minority children since the court struck down segregated schooling in 1954.
Both districts had argued that assigning students to schools based on race is necessary, at least on occasion, to ensure diverse student bodies and improve minority–student achievement. But the court's majority found that they failed to make that case — that the harm done by these programs is "undeniable," while the need for them is "unclear."
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts cited an earlier Supreme Court finding that "government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classifications promote notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility." He also invoked the court's seminal Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which overturned segregated schooling and "required school districts to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis."
The Seattle and Jefferson County districts, Roberts wrote, simply hadn't proved that their race–based policies were necessary to achieve their stated goals, or that they had seriously considered alternative policies.
That last point makes the court's decision monumentally important — for it draws attention to other, perhaps better, ways of promoting diversity and improving minority students' achievement.
In the immediate wake of the Brown ruling, the NAACP and others championed voluntary school–choice programs as a viable avenue toward improved integration. Many civil–rights leaders have forgotten choice in the half–century since, but it has retained the interest of scholars and activists. And their verdict is in: Choice works.
On every goal championed by advocates of race–based school assignment, private schools and parental–choice programs that ease access to them have a strong positive record — bringing residential and classroom integration and improving minority–student outcomes.
Duke University economist Thomas Nechyba has found that our conventional, district–based public–school system worsens residential segregation: By tying schools to students' addresses, it encourages the wealthy to "choose" their schools by opting to live in upscale neighborhoods. And his research strongly suggests that a school–choice program that made both private and public schools affordable to all families would greatly reduce the residential segregation that today's public–schooling arrangements have caused.
A central goal of compulsory integration polices has been to achieve racial balance at the school level. But Harvard's Civil Rights Project has observed that public schools are little more racially integrated today than they were before such policies were introduced.
And even schools with racially balanced enrollments don't necessarily have meaningful integration. It is quite common for students to self–segregate by race within schools, having comparatively little social interaction. Ohio State University sociologist James Moody has observed that "simple exposure does not promote integration," so schools that appear integrated "by the numbers" may not have meaningfully integrated hallways, lunchrooms, or even classrooms.
A decade ago, professor Jay Greene (now at the University of Arkansas) had a brilliant idea to test for truly meaningful integration: look at lunchrooms. With colleague Nicole Mellow, Greene photographed lunchrooms in public and private schools in several cities. They found that students are most likely to choose to sit with children of other races in private, not public, schools.
A recent study by Greg Forster of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation similarly finds that "private schools are actually less segregated than public schools when examined at the classroom level; and that private schools participating in voucher programs … are much less segregated than public schools."
So what about educational outcomes for minority students? Here again, the most significant benefits to private schooling tend to be enjoyed by African–American students, both in achievement and graduation rates:
University of Chicago economist Derek Neal has found that black students at inner–city Catholic schools are far more likely to complete high school, be accepted to college and complete college than similar students who attend public schools.
Reviewing the outcomes of school–choice programs in several cities, Harvard political scientist Paul Peterson found that academic achievement gains from private–school attendance are greatest among black students.
All this evidence was available before the court's recent ruling; most civil–rights activists have ignored it because they were committed to pursuing integration by force. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down such programs, these activists — and sympathetic policymakers — should take the court's hint and seek alternatives for advancing the education of minority children. If they do, they'll find school choice.
Reader Scott sent this........
Reader Scott sent this........
Scott had this to say.............discuss......
I believe Luttrell and those with similar views represent the flip side of the Taliban coin. They are America's Taliban: ultra conservative, xenophobic, national/tribalistic, quick to violence and threats of violence with a black and white, good verses evil simplistic world view.
I believe that societal change is an exponential process. For most of human history we have plotted quietly along the gentle grade of the curve. The new arrival of global instantaneous communication, combined with prior milestones such as the development of the nuclear bomb and a willingness to use it, the AK-47, oil and combustion based economies, the birth of the 6.6 billionth person (to name a few just off the top of my head) indicate we have arrived at the mountain, the walking is over and its time to get out the climbing gear. To deign it is to deign the shear granite face before you.
If Jesus lived to be 75 he would have seen the population change from (very roughly) 200 million to 300 million. If I live to be 75, I will have seen the population change from 4 billion to 9 billion.
That's a change of 5,000,000,000 verses 100,000,000, 50 to 1. In addition to the thousands of nuclear bombs and millions of AK-47's, my world has 30 times the number of people as Jesus's.
The old dogmas and narrow views which got us this far, are no longer sufficient. To react with anger and ignorance to change and problems before us is to try to climb a mountain with hate and intolerance.
Here, put on this harness and tie into this rope, I know a better way.
I believe that societal change is an exponential process. For most of human history we have plotted quietly along the gentle grade of the curve. The new arrival of global instantaneous communication, combined with prior milestones such as the development of the nuclear bomb and a willingness to use it, the AK-47, oil and combustion based economies, the birth of the 6.6 billionth person (to name a few just off the top of my head) indicate we have arrived at the mountain, the walking is over and its time to get out the climbing gear. To deign it is to deign the shear granite face before you.
If Jesus lived to be 75 he would have seen the population change from (very roughly) 200 million to 300 million. If I live to be 75, I will have seen the population change from 4 billion to 9 billion.
That's a change of 5,000,000,000 verses 100,000,000, 50 to 1. In addition to the thousands of nuclear bombs and millions of AK-47's, my world has 30 times the number of people as Jesus's.
The old dogmas and narrow views which got us this far, are no longer sufficient. To react with anger and ignorance to change and problems before us is to try to climb a mountain with hate and intolerance.
Here, put on this harness and tie into this rope, I know a better way.
Interesting. Meanwhile, C. T. says, "Box 8 is all the way up there?.... Guy............We're running that shit, bro........."
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)