tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post285083013411596012..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Do charter schools most help whites?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69581367093784516812013-10-18T16:53:35.659-07:002013-10-18T16:53:35.659-07:00Education Realist said...
It seems to me that the ... Education Realist said...<br />It seems to me that the only reason to go to Ivy League school is to be the best at the most difficult tasks, like doing research in medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. Or writing history books. Or, if you wanna be a teacher, teaching at the college level with top students. <br /><br /><br />Good lord, you're wrong from so many different perspectives.<br /><br /><br />No, YOU are wrong in that you have MISSED his entire point of what he was in fact actually saying.<br /><br />YOU DONT NEED to go to an Ivy League school per se, to actually become a certified K-12 teacher.<br /><br />Also, you seem to mainly focus on high school whereas the bulk of his argument focused on 1-8th grade.<br /><br />Harvard to teach 4th grade? The student then is better off attending state school.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />First, many kids go to Harvard because they are legacies and it's where they find mates.<br /><br /><br />This is less than 15% of the total number currently at Ivy Leagues. A much labored upon stereotype that everyone at an Ivie is a legacy.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Third, high school teachers in content subjects major in something other than education. <br /><br /><br />AGAIN, his POINT was that you dont have to go to an Ivie to become certified in elementary education.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Fourth, teaching is intellectually challenging the same way that being a good cop is intellectually challenging. People who don't care for academia but are quite smart often find teaching interesting. High school teachers are chosen from the top half of college graduates, despite the hype pretending otherwise.<br /><br /><br /><br />BS in that you can ONLY become a fully certified teacher if you attend an Ivy League University. Are you actually implying that a state school can't certify tomorrow's teachers?<br /><br />Also, as point of fact, the vast majority of public school teachers do NOT graduate from Ivy League schools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41711483240312923212013-10-17T20:14:43.889-07:002013-10-17T20:14:43.889-07:00"Anonymous said...
@Enrique Cardova
One mor..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />@Enrique Cardova<br /><br />One more thing. I think you might be confused between immigrants and descendants of immigrants."<br /><br />Mr. Cardova is confused about a great many things. The world is a confusing place to the man who knows little. Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38709725982651662692013-10-17T20:13:02.430-07:002013-10-17T20:13:02.430-07:00"Enrique Cardova said...
Has nothing to do w..."Enrique Cardova said...<br /><br />Has nothing to do with being smarter but rather debunking several of your bogus claims."<br /><br />You have debunked nothing.<br /><br />"Still waiting for you to show these blacks who never give to charity or why credible scientific data is false "bullshit". What's taking you so long?""<br /><br />You're now lying about what you said. I never said that blacks gave nothing to charity - I said they gave less than do whites. If you think otherwise, prove it. As for "credible scientific data", all you did was mention the name of one particular geneticist who thinks that race does not exist. I mentioned the names of two others (including a Nobelist in a relevant field) who think that it does. Answer them, not me. Anyway, race self-evidently exists. Race is no different a biological category than is family. Do families not exist? By the way, Charles Darwin also though that race was a valid biological category. Is your single professor brighter than Charles Darwin? Are you?<br /><br />"As for the Balkans, if you had any inkling of even basic world news you would know that the EU has provided such subsidies under its Structural Funds programs and Common Agricultural Policy."<br /><br />"Subsidies" are not the same as "massive subsidies". And, anyway, the Balkans is a lot better off economically than almost all of Africa and most of meso-America, and always has been.<br /><br />"And speaking of inklings, what's taking you so long in providing credible support for your earlier claims?"<br /><br />You have addressed none of mine - you just ignore anything anyone brings up that is inconvenient to your specious arguments.<br /><br />Stick to talking about topics you known something about; let us know when you find one.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78666005332175531562013-10-17T14:28:58.878-07:002013-10-17T14:28:58.878-07:00@Enrique Cardova
One more thing. I think you migh...@Enrique Cardova<br /><br />One more thing. I think you might be confused between immigrants and descendants of immigrants. You see the USA with a population of 305 million or so people. Over 200 million of which are "white". So naturally one would believe more Euros came here than non-Euros. <br /><br />But you have to remember that we are talking immigrants. Most Euros are the children, grand children, great grand children, etc. of all those who came over a 400 year period. So to some people they look around and see all those pale faces and think a lot more Europeans immigrated to the USA than non-Euros. But with the great wave of post 1965 immigration, non-Euro immigration numbers are now at or greater than Euro numbers even though there are still a majority of Europeans in the USA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61710920652214300762013-10-17T14:24:34.732-07:002013-10-17T14:24:34.732-07:00Between 1880 and 1920 more than 4.1 million Italia...<i>Between 1880 and 1920 more than 4.1 million Italians entered the US. No other ethnic group in the American history sent so many immigrants in such a short time." --Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity ...By Roger Daniels 2007: 188 </i><br /><br />I do not disagree that 4 million Italians came during that time. But I also acknowledge that total Italian immigration over our entire history amounts to a little over 5 million.<br /><br />Let me spell it out. The JFK figures on immigration numbers from 1607 to 1958 were quoted and footnoted in the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/State-Emergency-Invasion-Conquest-America-ebook/dp/B000V78V08" rel="nofollow"><i>"State of Emergency</i></a> by Patrick Buchanan. See pages 242-243. <br /><br />Based upon those figures, a little over 5 million Italians came here from 1607 to 1958. So what has happened since? Well since the 1965 Immigration Act we have had about 50 million immigrants, the vast majority of which are non-European. Why? Well since 1960, life has been pretty decent in Italy and the other parts of Europe that had sent us the lion's share of immigrants during our early days. So overall European immigration has not changed significantly from the time JFK compiled his figures. <br /><br />I completely disagree with Roger Daniels' assertion that the 4 million Italians in 40 years set a record. I will show below why.<br /><br /><i>Your measurement indices are somewhat shaky and you give no credible source only your own guesstimate, which seems also shaky. Mexican immigration is not extraordinary as to speed or volume. It is surpassed by Italian immigration as to who entered the most over the shortest period.</i><br /><br />I am disappointed that I could not find my original numbers on mexicans. But I will still present this which proves you are wrong. According to the <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/" rel="nofollow">Pew Hispanic Center,</a> there are over 33.5 million Mexicans in America. Of which 35% are foreign born. So that would mean those 35 percent, or 11 million, are immigrants. I have seen other figures in the past suggesting that 50% of Mexicans are foreign born. But since I can't find it now, I will have to submit the 35 percent figure. <br /><br />Now 11 million Mexican immigrants seems to be a greater number than 4 million Italian immigrants, doesn't it? Remember the Italian figure of 4 million occurred over a 40 year time frame. I am going to go out on a limb and say the 11 million Mexicans are on a 40 year or less time frame. Anything much longer than that and many of them will have died of old age. So I believe the Pew Center's figures refute your quote from from Roger Daniels.<br /><br /><i>Why do you leave out other white immigrants besides Brits, Germans and Italians? Isn't it a bit of sleight of hand- so as to make the Mexican numbers look excessively huge? A massive number of OTHER white Euros ALSO came to the US, By leaving them out you are also clearly trying to pump up the Mexican bogeyman as "abnormal"..</i><br /><br />Keep in mind Europeans are different even though non-Europeans think we look alike. This is similar I guess to how Americans conflate Mexicans with Salvadorans, Cubans and other Latinos. So if you would like to group whites as one group, you would probably need to lump in other Latinos with Mexicans.<br /><br />Mexicans are an ethnic group just like Germans or Greeks. So I was only trying to point out that they are the most numerous ethnic group in regards to immigration to the USA, which is true.<br /><br />I chose the 3 Euro categories because prior to Mexican mass immigration, they were the most numerous immigrants. By showing that the Mexican numbers are greater than Germans and Italians and British combined, I was trying to show you that Mexican immigration is indeed highly unusual. Now granted the figures I could find at Pew will reduce my Mexican numbers down from 16 million to 11 million. But 11 million still means as many Mexicans have immigrated here as all the Germans and Italians in our history. That is still pretty ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30973289274025704912013-10-17T10:29:19.824-07:002013-10-17T10:29:19.824-07:00"You simply don't know what you are talki...<i>"You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups."</i><br /><br />LOL<br /><br />Nobody with actual prior experience with blacks would ever believe that.<br /><br />Blacks may give a higher percentage of their incomes to their local <b>church</b> or televangelist where the pastor will be out driving a Cadillac or Rolls Royce. This is evidenced by the huge uptick in "prosperity preachin'" as started by con-artists like the Reverend Ike and continued by others like Bishop Eddie Long or Creflo Dollar.Camlostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43848521418592703932013-10-17T01:10:04.630-07:002013-10-17T01:10:04.630-07:00As such, I do admit that your Mexicans of 2013 hav...<b> As such, I do admit that your Mexicans of 2013 have more formal education than Thomas Edison.</b><br />Fair enough.<br /><br /><b>So obviously the Poles of 1910, whom you compared unfavorably to the Mexicans of 2013, were, by your own admission, not dependent upon the gubment (your term). </b><br />I didn't compare the Poles unfavorably per se. I questioned the claim that there is no significant difference between Poles of 1910 and Mexicans today. There is a world of difference, and as demonstrated already, the claim is false.<br /><br />And didn't say Mexicans were not dependent on the gubment. I asked-quote "How many Poles WERE on gubment assistance in 1910 versus Mexicans?" You first broached the question to insinuate that Mexican income is somehow uniquely dependent on government assistance, compared to Poles 1910. If so, what data do you proffer in support of your insinuation? And I again ask- how do you answer your own question? <br /><br /><br /><b> So why are the high achieving Mexicans of 2013 so dependent upon the government today?</b><br />To what extent are high achieving Mexicans dependent on government assistance? Based on what parameters and data? <br /><br /><b>The mass exodus of Mexicans is not normal</b><br />Fair enough- you are asking why so many Mexicans are leaving their homeland to go north. You have to define what "normal" is. In the 19th and 20th century Europe sent tens of millions of migrants to the US in search of land and jobs. To what extent is that immigration "normal" and why would similar Mexican movement be "abnormal"? <br /><br /><br /><b> a rough guestimate would be that there are approximately 17 million Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, in the USA.<br />This means more Mexicans have come to the USA as immigrants in the past 3 decades or so as all the combined Germans, Italians and British who ever came here in the first 350 years of English settlement.</b><br /><br />Your measurement indices are somewhat shaky and you give no credible source only your own guesstimate, which seems also shaky. Mexican immigration is not extraordinary as to speed or volume. It is surpassed by Italian immigration as to who entered the most over the shortest period. Italians show the most immigration over the shortest period. Here is what one scholar actually says.:<br /><i>Between 1880 and 1920 more than 4.1 million Italians entered the US. No other ethnic group in the American history sent so many immigrants in such a short time." --Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity ...By Roger Daniels 2007: 188</i> <br /><br />ANd your statistics seem strangely selective. Why do you leave out other white immigrants besides Brits, Germans and Italians? Isn't it a bit of sleight of hand- so as to make the Mexican numbers look excessively huge? A massive number of OTHER white Euros ALSO came to the US, By leaving them out you are also clearly trying to pump up the Mexican bogeyman as "abnormal"..Enrique Cardovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13839425428715778572013-10-16T23:58:58.316-07:002013-10-16T23:58:58.316-07:00Has nothing to do with being smarter but rather de...Has nothing to do with being smarter but rather debunking several of your bogus claims. Still waiting for you to show these blacks who never give to charity or why credible scientific data is false "bullshit". What's taking you so long?<br /><br />As for the Balkans, if you had any inkling of even basic world news you would know that the EU has provided such subsidies under its Structural Funds programs and Common Agricultural Policy. <br /><br />ANd speaking of inklings, what's taking you so long in providing credible support for your earlier claims?Enrique Cardovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86519035531474246292013-10-16T23:50:15.005-07:002013-10-16T23:50:15.005-07:00OK, but do you realize that you are debunking your...<b>OK, but do you realize that you are debunking your own assertion above. You originally said:</b><br /><br />No. I am not that anon. I was just a reader who caught your comment that claimed Mexicans in 2013 had higher education and wealth than Poles in 1913.<br /><br />So my comment is to be taken in context of only your statement that I quoted. As such, I do admit that your Mexicans of 2013 have more formal education than Thomas Edison.<br /><br /><b>But that's the problem with your claim. You have provided little credible to back it up. How many Poles WERE on gubment assistant in 1910 versus Mexicans? You have provided nothing credible to answer your own question. And in 1910, very few Americans were on public assistance, Pole, Mexican or whatever.. </b><br /><br />I don't see a problem with this statement. You obviously are informed enough to pick up the fact that the USA did not have a welfare state in 1910. So obviously the Poles of 1910, whom you compared unfavorably to the Mexicans of 2013, were, by your own admission, not dependent upon the gubment (your term). So why are the high achieving Mexicans of 2013 so dependent upon the government today?<br /><br /><b>Actually the exodus of Mexicans is nothing unusual for a population with many immigrants, </b><br /><br />I am confused by your statement. Are you saying Mexico has a lot of immigrants? I don't think they do. For a New World nation they haven't seemed to open the welcome mat to outsiders. Yes they have immigrants. But the lion's share of their population are Mestizos and Indios. <br /><br />The mass exodus of Mexicans is not normal. We are discussing a New World nation, approximately the same age as the USA and Canada, with a great climate, access to oceans, natural resources etc., which in modern times has had a significant portion of her population leave.<br /><br />To put the Mexican exodus into perspective, <br /><br />From JFK's immigration pamphlet written around 1959, here are the <a href="http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-myth-america-is-nation-of-immigrants.html" rel="nofollow">figures </a>he used showing immigration to America from Jamestown Colony (1607) to 1958. The top 3 groups, Germans, Italians and British, amount to around 16 million combined over 350 years.<br /><br />Currently we have approximately 50 million hispanics in the USA. According to the Pew Center, about 70 percent of US hispanics are Mexican. <br /><br />Also according to Pew, about half of all hispanics in the USA are immigrants themselves.<br /><br />So a rough guestimate would be that there are approximately 17 million Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, in the USA.<br /><br />This means more Mexicans have come to the USA as immigrants in the past 3 decades or so as all the combined Germans, Italians and British who ever came here in the first 350 years of English settlement.<br /><br />I'd say that doesn't sound like a normal amount of immigration. The fact that it is coming from a New World nation in 2013 is troubling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18882373222306619112013-10-16T22:36:39.567-07:002013-10-16T22:36:39.567-07:00"Enrique Cardova said..
""The elit..."Enrique Cardova said..<br /><br />""The elites believed that magic American or British or French dust would turn the Third World into industrious, money-generating First Worlders.""<br /><br />ANd in some cases it has. But the magic dust has also failed to turn several white nations into industrious, money-generating First Worlders as the massive subsidies going to white Balkan areas, or continued turmoil/failure over the years in various of such areas attest."<br /><br />What "massive subsidies" given to white Balkan areas? Who ever gave massive subsidies to white Balkan areas?<br /><br />You are not smart enough to pull off this "I'm smarter than everyone else here" schtick, and it shows. It really shows. You're just making stuff up, and gassing on about a bunch of stuff of which you have no inkling.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13956311500467474802013-10-16T22:33:21.535-07:002013-10-16T22:33:21.535-07:00Anon956says:
Actually US Hispanics of today would...Anon956says:<br /><br /><b>Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education than Thomas Edison </b><br /><br />OK, but do you realize that you are debunking your own assertion above. You originally said:<br /><br /><i>everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.</i><br /><br />But in that you now say the Hispanic immigrants today would have higher incomes, you have in essence falsified your own initial claim.<br /><br /><br /><b>As for income, how many Poles in 1910 were on government assistance? I guess all that education hasn't really helped the Mexicans of 2013.</b><br />But that's the problem with your claim. You have provided little credible to back it up. How many Poles WERE on gubment assistant in 1910 versus Mexicans? You have provided nothing credible to answer your own question. And in 1910, very few Americans were on public assistance, Pole, Mexican or whatever.. <br /><br /><br /><b>The main thing one should look at is that Mexico and the Mexicans have had 103 years to develop since 1910, and what have they created? The exodus of so many Mexicans over the last thirty years tells us not much. </b><br /><br />Actually the exodus of Mexicans is nothing unusual for a population with many immigrants, and does not tell us much vis a vis Poles. Some return to Mexico, others stay on. And in fact, Mexicans have progressed significantly in the US economy- from early employment as predominantly farm and railway labor to holding mostly urban occupations. They are very different from 1910. As such they have seen substantial increases in income over the years. Just the process of urbanization renders your claim false. See Sowell (1981) Ethnic America, 245-270Enrique Cardovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28752406908142680042013-10-16T22:31:16.833-07:002013-10-16T22:31:16.833-07:00"Enrique Cardova said...
I already gave the ..."Enrique Cardova said...<br /><br />I already gave the hard data and names of scientists in the link above,"<br /><br />No, you didn't. You linked to a jpeg, abstracted from a book, that listed three citations to works by one man.<br /><br />"......and if I gave more the blog would be filled with more links debunking your claims yet again. But since you asked, let me repeat the link, which you oh so conveniently avoided, and add a few more."<br /><br />Yeah, a few more - all to the same guy. That is not "credible scientists" (plural) - it is one scientist who may or may not be credible. Here are two geneticists who DO believe the concept of race to be a biological reality: Neil Risch of Stanford University, and James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, and winner of the 1962 Nobel prize in physiology/medicine. Are they not credible? Anyway, you are already down two-to-one.<br /><br />"You says its all untrue "bullshiit" and "false assertion" but credible scientists as noted below show your claims are false. You really do not know what you are talking about."<br /><br />Your claims are indeed bullshit, and you clearly do not know what you are talking bout.<br /><br />""Black people don't give to charities.""<br /><br />The very information you proffer above shows the original statement is false."<br /><br />The claim that black people don't give to charities was not my claim - it was someone elses. I was replying to your assertion that they give more to charity than do whites. The fact that you do not now defend THAT statement indicates to me that you knew it was wrong at the time, and that you got caught out on it. I defy you to show me statistics showing that blacks give more to charities on a per capita basis than do whites. You can't.<br /><br />For somebody with an air of superiority, you should really be right more often.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58105522893168805172013-10-16T22:01:08.111-07:002013-10-16T22:01:08.111-07:00Mr Anon says:
What "credible scientists"...Mr Anon says:<br /><b>What "credible scientists"? Name them. What "hard data"? Show it</b><br /><br />I already gave the hard data and names of scientists in the link above, and if I gave more the blog would be filled with more links debunking your claims yet again. But since you asked, let me repeat the link, which you oh so conveniently avoided, and add a few more. You says its all untrue "bullshiit" and "false assertion" but credible scientists as noted below show your claims are false. You really do not know what you are talking about. <br /><br />original<br />http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2597/templetonracedebunk2003.jpg<br /><br />Add:<br />1)<br />http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/239/templeton1humanracesinf.jpg<br /><br />2)<br />http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2731/templeton2humanracesinf.jpg<br /><br /><br /><b> "Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communitites of Color" and it is about "Identity-based Philanthropy", i.e. - giving to your own. That's a very different thing than overall charitable giving</b><br /><br />^^But even if the above is true, it still debunks the claim. You say:<br /><br /><b>Black people don't give to charities.</b><br /><br />The very information you proffer above shows the original statement is false. Enrique Cardovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90853114643250071262013-10-16T21:56:11.590-07:002013-10-16T21:56:11.590-07:00Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER e...<i>Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education and incomes than 1910 Poles.</i><br /><br />Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education than Thomas Edison, but that doesn't amount to much in 2013. In 1910 most people did not have much more than a few years of instruction to become literate and numerate.<br /><br />As for income, how many Poles in 1910 were on government assistance? I guess all that education hasn't really helped the Mexicans of 2013.<br /><br />The main thing one should look at is that Mexico and the Mexicans have had 103 years to develop since 1910, and what have they created? The exodus of so many Mexicans over the last thirty years tells us not much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40779808245042859032013-10-16T20:17:40.361-07:002013-10-16T20:17:40.361-07:00"Enrique Cardova said...
""Matthew..."Enrique Cardova said...<br /><br />""Matthew sez:<br /><br />But billionaires mostly give their money to schools at the very bottom (because it makes them look compassionate), and to the schools at the very top that their own children and grandchildren attend.""<br /><br />Only they don't."<br /><br />Only they do, as you - in your highly confused paragraph - tacitly assume.<br /><br />"Enrique Cardova said...<br /><br />Credible scientists using hard data show that there is no such thing as BIOLOGICAL race in the sense of the rigorous threshold used to differentiate subspecies among mammals."<br /><br />What "credible scientists"? Name them. What "hard data"? Show it. What is the "rigorous threshhold" used to differentiate sub-species? I don't think you know what you are talking about here. You have done nothing but make a bald, blatantly false assertion which - like everything you write - is total bullshit.<br /><br />"You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups.<br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-blacks-donors idUSTRE81M1WI20120223"<br /><br />Whereas, in your case, I suspect that you do know what you are talking about here, but you are just lying. A web search of this report turns up numerous references to the reuters article you linked to, but little mention of the original report. The actual report is entitled "Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communitites of Color" and it is about "Identity-based Philanthropy", i.e. - giving to your own. That's a very different thing than overall charitable giving.<br /><br />Yes, I have no doubt that blacks give more to explicity black causes than do whites to explicity white causes. This does NOT make the case you wish it to seem to make. But I guess that was your purpose in mentioning it.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11351060031921487402013-10-16T17:16:37.570-07:002013-10-16T17:16:37.570-07:00Peter says:
But HBD aware people often fail to com...Peter says:<br /><b>But HBD aware people often fail to come to grips with the issue that now that we have strip-mined the lower classes of most of the intelligent hard-working people, what are we supposed to do with the left overs? The idea that the right combination of economic incentives will get them off their asses is probably nonsense since they lack the planning skills and cognitive capacity to respond to economic incentives according to the standard textbook. </b><br /><br />No we haven't "strip-mined" the lower classes of most of the intelligent, hard-working people. This statement has no basis in reality. But lets go with it for a moment. Why should HBDers be concerned? After all, if the most ambitious and intelligent move out of the lower classes isn't that a good HBD thing- a just, deserved separation, with the higher IQ reaping the rewards?<br /><br />NOTA says:<br /><b>Haiti.. probably would see some significant improvement if they had a functional enough society to avoid cholera and malnutrition and get everyone some schooling</b><br />Maybe, but cholera and malnutrition were very well represented amoong whites in various eras- like the white Irish and white southerners in the United States (Sowell 1981, 2005). And such maladies are also well represented in modern white nations such as some in the Balkans. As recently as 1994, Albania suffered a cholera epidemic, and in the early 1990s was virtually destitute- facing widespread malnutrition and economic collapse. It took the Italians, who shipped in tens of thousands of tons of basic food items throughout Albania to save the country. See "Operation Pelican" aid mission.<br /><br /><b>But the available gains from improving them are probably pretty small, because the kids in those schools are already at least attending some kind of school, getting some kind of exposure to books and reading and smart teachers who want them to learn something. </b><br />Actually the factors listed above present a basis for making large improvements. ANd that has occurred historically with both white and black schools over time. Such improvements do not occur overnight. WWI US Army intelligence tests for example show Jews scoring dismally despite centuries of Jewish advantages in learning and literacy, and Jewish immigrants having relatively high levels of literacy.<br /><br /><b> It would be a *really* good for the country if we knew how to make that better, and that creates a lot of incentive to claim to know how, even if you don't. </b><br />Actually we do know how to make it better, including doing such things as removing racist barriers, promoting equality before the law (not really accomplished in America until the 1970s), promoting economies encouraging work and saving, and reducing government interference, confiscatory policies and disincentives. The removal of white Jim Crow blockades and barriers for example was a boon to black Americans, enabling an acceleration of income and education gains- aided by an expanding economy that raised all boats in the post WW2 era. Corrections in internal factors- just as the white Irish slowly reined in their violence, crimiality and substance abuse are also part of the package. In past eras blacks actually did better on such internal factors than before the welfare state implemented by white liberals gained sway. <br /><br />And numerous policies implemented by said white liberals, supposedly "specially for blacks" are actually designed to help WHITE people. The main beneficiaries of "Affirmative Action" for example are white women.<br />http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1413<br /><br /><br />Pat says:<br /><b> Black people don't give to charities. </b><br />You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups.<br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-blacks-donors-idUSTRE81M1WI20120223Enrique Cardovahttp://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76820889775317307422013-10-16T15:06:14.378-07:002013-10-16T15:06:14.378-07:00Maya said:
Hey, just want to mention that virtual...Maya said:<br /><br /><b>Hey, just want to mention that virtually ALL schools require their students to always turn in homework, be on time, dress decently and present themselves in a respectful, orderly fashion which includes the right kind of body language. <br /><br />The difference between the charters and the public schools is that the charter schools can kick out those who don't comply. Charter schools are allowed to enforce discipline. Public schools can't do anything about rowdy students who refuse to do any work at all.</b><br /><br />If there were a huge unmet need for decent workers in moderately low-skill jobs, charters for lower-IQ students which could do this would actually make a significant difference. For some low-skill jobs, there is a shortage of workers who are natively fluent in English, show up on time, are willing to work overtime, and not on drugs. <br /><br />Schools, with societal support, can teach pretty much anybody with an IQ over 70 or 75 to read, and to show up, and not sass the boss or customers, and to stay off drugs. For people with IQs between about 85 and 95, learning those things makes the difference between being employable and not.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389602137217799305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24474482801457942292013-10-16T11:51:39.973-07:002013-10-16T11:51:39.973-07:00Anon sez:
First, there is no such thing as race. ...Anon sez:<br /><b><br />First, there is no such thing as race. Now, there may be the reality of races but being aware of it is evil. </b><br /><br />Credible scientists using hard data show that there is no such thing as BIOLOGICAL race in the sense of the rigorous threshold used to differentiate subspecies among mammals. But as far as race as a social construct, you can have as many "races" and "constructs" as you want including a "Jewish race", "Aryan race" or even... "Swedids"..<br />http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2597/templetonracedebunk2003.jpg<br /><br />countenance says:<br /><b>ven though they're not supposed to have any sort of selective admission criteria, charters do find ways around it, mainly by selecting for motivated students by making the application process tedious and time consuming for the parents. That said, charters are skimming off the "top," not taking anyone from the basement.<br /><br />KIPP also spends a lot of resources. </b><br /><br />Indeed. And white people have figured out just what Realist says on his blog. They can use charters to not only boost test scores of their kids but to also put some distance between themselves and unloved "minorities" or bureaucrats. The notion of charters as "giveaways" to "undeserving" minorotees is just another installment of the right-wing propaganda narrative.. As Realist notes:<br /><br />--------------------------------------------<br />Look at the history of most progressive charters and you’ll find they are initiated by white people who fit into one or more of the following categories:<br /><br /> -- Unnerved by the high percentage of low-achieving, low-income kids at their neighborhood school.<br /> -- Unwilling to risk the lottery system for the good schools in their district.<br /> -- Unable to afford private school, or a house in a homogenous suburb.<br /> -- Unsure their kids are going to be able to compete with the top kids in their neighborhood school (particularly in high school)<br /> -- Unhappy with the public school’s treatment of their idiosyncratic little snowflake.<br />-------------------------------------<br /><br />^^ANd the above includes whites who use charters to escape hard-nosed Asian competition.Enrique Cardovahttp://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23678769268994280512013-10-16T11:21:40.713-07:002013-10-16T11:21:40.713-07:00http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/comet-camille-pag...http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/comet-camille-paglia-comes-to-au-and-talks-gender/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84887101480338639992013-10-16T10:44:33.065-07:002013-10-16T10:44:33.065-07:00Sailer says:
I've long argued that the elite c...Sailer says:<br /><b>I've long argued that the elite consensus on the proper goal for K-12 education -- to raise black and Hispanic performance by roughly one standard deviation while preventing whites and Asians from improving (which is what it would take to Close the Gap) -- is obviously wrong</b><br /><br />But this claim seems a bit shaky. Elites know that the same "get tough" or more intensive methods will ALSO raise White and Asian scores. And that has been the case. More emphasis on test scores will also boost the prestige and profile of high academically performing individuals from certain groups such as white Jews or Asians- thus solidifying certain elite access patterns. White elites also support such measures because they know they will help THEIR children against Asian competition. They are not doing it out of pious concern for blacks. The notion that elites are "hurting" whites and Asians per above is dubious- its what they want the naive to believe.<br /><br />Matthew sez:<br /><b>But billionaires mostly give their money to schools at the very bottom (because it makes them look compassionate), and to the schools at the very top that their own children and grandchildren attend.</b><br />Only they don't. What billionaires give to schools at the very bottom is chump change in aggregate- but that chump change makes them look good and compassionate. Keep in mind that what they give is often supplemented by the taxpayer- in the form of school buildings, facilities, insurance and other costs. WHen Gates gives money to schools, he does not have to pay for school buildings or utilities for example. His "small schools initiative" for example used existing infrastructure.<br /><br /><br />Whiskey sez:<br /><b>Asking the White middle and working class to sacrifice their kids futures for the sake of racial equality is a non-starter... </b><br />^^Yes and white elites are not asking for any such "sacrifice." The same "back to basics" test prep focus that raises black scores helps raise WHITE scores even more. White elites enjoy looking compassionate, but the bottom line is that they aren't giving anything away to black people.<br /><br /><b>The elites believed that magic American or British or French dust would turn the Third World into industrious, money-generating First Worlders. </b><br />ANd in some cases it has. But the magic dust has also failed to turn several white nations into industrious, money-generating First Worlders as the massive subsidies going to white Balkan areas, or continued turmoil/failure over the years in various of such areas attest.<br /><br /><b>Through education and schooling because everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.</b><br />Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education and incomes than 1910 Poles.<br /><br /><br />Education Realist said:<br /><b>And I think Steve already discussed my post on Diverse Schools, which is how charters do benefit whites: http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-parental-diversity-dilemma/</b><br /><br />Indeed. And it was always expected that charter schools would benefit whites. Only the naive HBD faithful belieive that "elites" are "hurting" white people via things like charter schools. And you raise excellent points on the decreasing relevance of IvyLeaguism, or schooling and teaching- much more realistic and accurate than the simplistic "racial reductionism" so prevalent in some quarters.Enrique Cardovahttp://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58430330467372204592013-10-16T09:56:37.106-07:002013-10-16T09:56:37.106-07:00Why has there never been a black Batman?
One poss...Why has there never been a black Batman?<br /><br />One possible answer:<br />Why has there never been a black philanthropist?<br /><br />Batman is filthy rich but he risks it all for public service. Does that sound like Jay-Z or Kayne West? In the movies Bruce Wayne is always holding charity balls. Black people don't give to charities. <br /><br />On "Chasing Classic Cars" last night a man gave his $27 Million dollar Ferrari to charity. Is anyone surprised to learn that he was white?<br /><br />Similarly blacks are just not smart enough to play the master criminals that Batman opposes. A black Joker would lack credibility. Blacks makes sense as street thugs - they have plenty of menace but who would believe a black man would hatch all those intricate plots? That's why we have also never had an intricate 'bank heist' movie where the robbers were all black.<br /><br />We have recently learned about the 'Warrior Gene'. I wonder if we will soon find an "Eleemosynary Gene" too.<br /><br />AlbertosaurusPat Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477950851915567863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43303939945616162692013-10-16T09:33:55.855-07:002013-10-16T09:33:55.855-07:00If government is the source of power and if conser...If government is the source of power and if conservatives reject government, it means they are rejecting power. <br /><br />Conservatives have given up on everything that are the concentrated sources of power: elite academia, culture and entertainment, big cities, and government. <br />They are pro-business but the most successful businessmen are products of elite academia and rely on close ties with government, which is why even Wall Street Journal now hates the Tea Party. <br /><br />Can a party have a future with hillbillies and guns? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75797382064512000412013-10-16T08:57:08.978-07:002013-10-16T08:57:08.978-07:00To a large extent, this is all about diminishing r...To a large extent, this is all about diminishing returns. In a world where a substantial number of people are malnourished or never see a book or the inside of a school growing up, a huge amount of their bad outcomes in life really are environmental. Someplace like Haiti has a low average IQ and little achievement, but probably would see some significant improvement if they had a functional enough society to avoid cholera and malnutrition and get everyone some schooling. <br /><br />But in the US, this is probably not much of a problem. There are lousy ghetto schools that ought to be improved, and that probably aren't being improved because of political and racial issues. But the available gains from improving them are probably pretty small, because the kids in those schools are already at least attending some kind of school, getting some kind of exposure to books and reading and smart teachers who want them to learn something. You're not taking some half-starved parasite-ridden unlettered peasant out of his mud hut, feeding and deworming him, and sending him to school. That gives you a big gain. Instead, you're talking about going from a badly run school to a better one, or from lousy but sufficient nutrition to better quality nutrition (like making sure poor kids get a decent breakfast and lunch every school day). <br /><br />And the reason this is so hard to accept is because black kids, in particular, are visibly failing. As a group, they don't do very well in school or on tests, and that seems to continue in college and jobs and life choices. It would be a *really* good for the country if we knew how to make that better, and that creates a lot of incentive to claim to know how, even if you don't. For all the complaints about spending money and affirmative action and ebonics and urban schools and midnight basketball and all the rest, if any of it delivered on its promises, it would be worth ten times its cost. NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34030068030569350172013-10-16T08:32:48.157-07:002013-10-16T08:32:48.157-07:00Wyoming 319,672 7,607 3,411 45%
Iowa 1,689,811 58,...Wyoming 319,672 7,607 3,411 45%<br />Iowa 1,689,811 58,987 21,902 37%<br />North Dakota 492,918 71,607 25,970 36%<br />Michigan 4,391,882 214,075 74,536 35%<br />Arizona 2,805,158 155,430 53,115 34%<br />Alaska 388,436 9,790 3,296 34%<br />New Mexico 913,612 13,215 4,315 33%<br />Oklahoma 1,786,664 66,837 21,153 32%<br />Minnesota 3,007,618 128,418 39,433 31%<br />Pennsylvania 6,215,891 123,999 37,616 30%<br />Vermont 356,643 10,494 3,158 30%<br />Hawaii 742,002 27,637 8,262 30%<br />Kentucky 2,038,143 72,485 21,562 30%<br />South Carolina 2,085,991 83,597 24,601 29%<br />Wisconsin 2,989,657 60,737 17,661 29%<br />top leaders in mid wage states. New Mexico doing well in this but still high poverty issues, it would be great if New Mexico increase in mid level jobs since we finally have a Mexican/White State that doesn't just add poverty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72945650159594942642013-10-16T08:03:49.286-07:002013-10-16T08:03:49.286-07:00At the bottom, Rhode Island is the only state that...At the bottom, Rhode Island is the only state that’s lost middle-wage jobs the last few years. Coincidentally, it’s also seen a decline in high-wage jobs, meaning all of its job growth has been in occupations that pay $13.83 or lower.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Mississippi (10%) and New York (13%) have the lowest share of new mid-wage jobs among states that have seen job increases.<br /><br />Generally, states with higher cost of living are at the bottom in mid-wage job growth, with the exception of Mississippi. (It’s worth noting 80% of new jobs in Mississippi have been low-wage).<br />Its not Detroit that going the way of hell in a hand basket but the whole state of Mississippi, low cost of living but the worst job creation terms of wages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com