Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a concept.... How about not producing children when you can't afford them. Bringing babies into the world to live in proverty is one of the most selfish things you can do and the only ones to blame is the parents or unwed mother in many cases.
It's because we don't have Universal Health Care yet, which would hopefully include baby creation protection for free, b.c as we say "the more babies , the longa the lines"
The average selfish guy walks around now a days wanting to use Trojans, and Trojans only.. If a brotha ain't got no money, he can't afford the trojans, thus he'd rather use no condom at all than put that ****ty other brand latex on his equipment.
Thus we have unwanted pregnancies b.c people are too poor to afford the high cost of trojans, and there is just not good health care in this country yet!
I still say that the majority of black folks in these low/no income inner city neighborhoods who have the mental capacity, ability, inclination and initiative to get out of this situation have done so. Those who come along who have the ability to get out will continue to do so. The majority who remain do not have the ability to compete in school, for jobs or on the job.
Illegitimacy and poor parenting are but two of the social pathologies associated with low IQ. Studies have shown that people with low IQ are at extreme risk for poor life outcomes and social pathologies including illegitimacy, poor parenting skills, poor academic performance, crime, incarceration, poverty, etc.
Society and the labor market will never be able to utilize all of its low IQ individuals. There will always be certain segments of society that will have to be provided for by the rest of society. That is the whole reason behind Obama's philosophy of spreading the wealth, wealth redistribution, universal healthcare and education and all of the other social programs.
The only argument between the conservatives and liberals is to what degree or standard of living should these non-producers be carried and how much will it cost the rest of society.
- Reel
The non-producers on Wall Street have destroyed this country, as any fool can plainly see.
Blithering on about the "sins" of people who neither created nor maintain the ghetto situation that causes lower scores on readindg tests(aka IQ tests) is counter-productive and unpatriotic.
The argument between " conservatives" and "liberals" is whether pure unadulterated hate will be the guiding principle we live by.
I'm not necessarily talking about physicallly leaving an area that one may consider adequate. I'm talking about leaving poverty. I do not include the people you speak of i.e. nurses, doctors, college students, etc in the category of non-producers. Your focus here is too narrow.
- Reel
I am talking about the poverty, I am talking about the high crime poverty striken areas. I am talking about the same inner city neighborhood where Derrion Albert the honer student was beaten to death, the same neighborhood where the 17 yr girl lost her eye in the gang fight she got pulled into. The same neighborhood that the students that killed the honor student just the other day had more arrested for a riot in the lunchroom. This is the same school and neighborhood that the article was talking about. So you say that the people in this exact neighborhood have low IQ's, and when I pointed out the fact that you were incorrect, and even gave examples, you say you are not talking about the exact area that is being discussed. So, if you are not talking about the area that the article was talking about, the areas that are considered poor black crime ridden neighborhoods, then please tell which areas you are talking about?
I still say that the majority of black folks in these low/no income inner city neighborhoods who have the mental capacity, ability, inclination and initiative to get out of this situation have done so. Those who come along who have the ability to get out will continue to do so. The majority who remain do not have the ability to compete in school, for jobs or on the job.
Illegitimacy and poor parenting are but two of the social pathologies associated with low IQ. Studies have shown that people with low IQ are at extreme risk for poor life outcomes and social pathologies including illegitimacy, poor parenting skills, poor academic performance, crime, incarceration, poverty, etc.
- Reel
You have made this argument a few times before. However, this argument is, at best, overly simplistic. You mention that the majority of those with the inclination (and high enough IQ) to rise above these horrible conditions do. Are there research studies that you can cite that buffer your position?
America is not a meritocratic system; it is a stratified one. And, it is nice to believe that everyone with the ability an inclination to work hard will achieve. Yet, in a stratified system, those at the lowest rungs of the ladder face significantly more obstacles to attaining their goals than do those at the middle or top rungs. As a consequence, many at the lower rungs of the ladder do not easily "break" the cycle of poverty due to the obstacles they face. The sources of these obstacles are multivariate. However, it is overly simplistic to attribute the sole source to low IQ. In fact, in doing so you underestimate the impact of our stratified system.
I, of course, would be more convinced of your argument if you can produce credible empirical research that backs up your claim.
The vast majority of kids from all races and all economic backgrounds grows up to be perfectly fine people. You went to school with them, you work with them, today you sit next to them in church or whatever. The vast majority of parents from all races and economic backgrounds have exactly the same interests in and frustrations with their kids, and they end up raising perfectly fine adults. All the differences are at the margin, and among other things, the margin includes the racism that is implicit in a belief that black kids will have to work to get out of their situation, while (as if there were no such thing as inner-city Asian gangs) Asians get a pass because of all those mom-and-pop's and dry cleaners, while white kids simply aren't expected to be in any sort of situation at all. The same behaviors are observed in low-income and low-opportunity communities all over the world. The type of people living in them doesn't matter. Whoever lives there will behave like that. There is no sense at all in lecturing people or trying to degrade their cultures. You want to make a difference? Go back and read the article in the OP. What is that guy doing but putting the notion of opportunity into a community that didn't know much about it? How could you do something like that? How could we do it as a society? Answering those questions and then acting on those answers will take us a lot further than all the self-excusing lectures in the world...
Wow, as if I thought the far right would not get any more crazy. Is is possible that just maybe, oh, just maybe...there is an underlying economic inequality caused by...I don't know...over 200 years of racial inequality in this nation.
Public schools are not the culprit. Rather, the whole issue of wealth is at hand as well. Poorer communities typically have higher crime rates. There are a whole myriad of reasons. Lack of overall services for the youth, higher unemployment rates, poor mental health facilities, a cycle of crime to survive, as well as many others.
Smaller, more individually focused schools, as well as more collaboration with institutions of higher learning would bode well. Also, cheaper healthcare to reduce the burden of costs. Parents would thus have more time with thier children. Better public housing would also help things quite a bit. If we follow a mixed income model in the inner cities, this would greatly improve the inner city.
Look, at the root of it, it's that years of racism led to the current economic inequality we have today.
/\ And this here is the problem in a nutshell
"I'm Black, so everyone and everything is against me and I midas well keep on keeping on"
Now, on a purley economic level, you're 100% correct. However, the types of crimes you're seeing displayed in the article have nothing to do w/ poverty and everything to do with a culture that nurtures Black victimhood and anger. We've allowed a political and media appratus to develop in this country that's sole objective is to feed posion to the youth of Black America that their skin color is a death sentance, and that the world around them's sole objective is to deny their dreams, despite the color of the president.
I don't believe these kids are lost cuases, nor do I believe being poor or a minority makes you any less prone to talent or success. What they need is more investment in their emotions, talents, strengths and gifts, like every child. But the dems won't do that, because they'd lose votes.
It's because we don't have Universal Health Care yet, which would hopefully include baby creation protection for free, b.c as we say "the more babies , the longa the lines"
The average selfish guy walks around now a days wanting to use Trojans, and Trojans only.. If a brotha ain't got no money, he can't afford the trojans, thus he'd rather use no condom at all than put that ****ty other brand latex on his equipment.
Thus we have unwanted pregnancies b.c people are too poor to afford the high cost of trojans, and there is just not good health care in this country yet!
We don't need Obama care to get birth control to the hood. I'm a real believer in not throwing good money after bad but neighborhood clinics dispensing free birth control IMO would be a wise investment.
People are going to have sex. I don't like welfare but I do believe we can spare a few billion for contraception.
We don't need Obama care to get birth control to the hood. I'm a real believer in not throwing good money after bad but neighborhood clinics dispensing free birth control IMO would be a wise investment.
People are going to have sex. I don't like welfare but I do believe we can spare a few billion for contraception.
In a lot of these neighborhoods there is free condoms. The neighborhood that the article is speaking about, the kids can get free condoms at the school, the 2 free clinics in the neighborhood, and at planned parenthood.
I disagree. The question here is how to explain the difference between the kid who was killed (black, honors student son of a single Mom) and the animals that killed him (also black). Much harder to answer. Lumping it to "200 years of racial inequality" is intellectually dishonest and does not allow for any reasonable progress in terms of public policy.
These people are called "exceptions". Why is it that there are not as many honor students as in suburban areas? There are people in every facet of society that are exceptional. The "rule" is that the median income is lower, unemployment is higher. What you are doing is akin to saying that EVERYBODY should be able to get into Harvard because one person did. Obviously, the laws of averages don't work like that. Public policy should be based on rectifying the trend.
As for public schools, again, playing the ideological card is counterproductive. The public schools in the worst areas are like death traps. The original push for vouchers came from inner city parents no longer willing to accept the local public death trap. Instead, the question is over those specific schools.
They don't have to be. I went to a public high school in the San Bernardino, CA. I live in an upper middle income area outside of Riverside, CA. San Bernadino has some of the highest homocide rates in the nation.My school attracted several middle and upper middle income students from the region due to its IB program (one the highest regarded of such in SoCal). The school itself is used as a model of how mixed income schools in lower socio-economic areas can work.
Vouchers are not a bad idea, however, caution should be used. Several LA charter schools actually did worse than their public counterparts.
In all cases, the formula that is needed is the same: good programs, small classes, extensive after school help, and after school diversions.
The cycles are of course perpetuated by a number of factors, particularly past legacy of institutional racism. However, self-inflicted behavior and an unwillingness to distinguish between good parents and kids and the thugs are as important. Explaining everything using ""200-400 years of racism," while a nice vent, unfortunately does not move us anywhere nearer to resolutions! These take much deeper research to link cause to effect and problem to policy. We need reality, people to get their hands dirty, brutal honesty, listeners, observers. We don;t need flighty elitists dreaming of utopia, resumes, or becoming patrons saints to the poor.
Is not just a nice vent. It is the cycle of poverty and wealth. If your great-grandparents owned a home, they gave it to your grandparents. Your grandparents either sold said home, or, lived in said home. Either way that property increased your family wealth. Your parents either sold your grandparents home or lived in said home. See? acquired wealth. If your great grandparents were slaves, your grandparents unable to buy a home, and your parents discriminated against...well...that means that several generations were unable to accrue said wealth.
The bold implies a pathology of sorts. This is a slippery slope. Simply taking such a superficial stance is, well, wrong to say the least. Brutal honesty means that we have to look at the root problem. Saying "don't be bad" doesn't look at the root problem. Rather it can foster a culture in which people simply assume a set of behaviors based on solely race.
Again, it's not about utopian ideals. It's about the real world. It's far more relevant than your stance.
Smaller schools? These are way down the priority list. Instead, a holisitic solution is needed, including policies that ultimately place success/failure on the shoulders of parents and students. These can be no other way.
There is a higher percentage of single parents in the inner city. Thus, the workload is higher. Meaning more outside help is needed. Thus, smaller schools with better support is needed. Simply transposing your idea of life to the actuality of the situation (which is what it looks like you are doing) shows a lack of understanding of the situation.
Cheaper healthcare? What? Stick to the topic. Most of the urban poor are off the health care grid. ENough with failed Dem propaganda!
Healthcare costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this nation. Studies also indicate that a vast majority of homeless people, who are concentrated in the inner cities, suffer from mental illness. Simply put, we neglect the health of the poor.
Collaborations with higher education? LOL!! What an elitist! Since when has Yale cared about New Haven? USC about South Central? UCB about Oakland/Richmond? Columbia about Harlem? Emory about Atlanta? Penn about Philly? They have been places to add lines on resumes and to assuage guilt. What these schools should do is pay corporate taxes and move their programs from inner city candy and subsidies to enabling these population to find their own solutions.
Actually, UCB, USC have VERY aggressive programs for recruitment into their universities from the inner city. I worked with UCSB's EOP (educational opportunity program). UCSD for example has a charter middle and high school devoted to lower income families in San Diego. More town/gown cooperation is needed. USC has some of the best financing for low income students. More programs like this should be implemented.
Public housing--in some fashion this can work, but again, with conditions far more aggressive than they have been.
What do you mean? What conditions?
45 years of failure since 1964. One would think that the Dems would have been clued in by now.
Clearly Republicans didn't do so well either. It's not a partisian issue. It's about people's lives. If you look at it on only party lines, then you are missing the point. From what it seems like, you did miss the point.
Here's a concept.... How about not producing children when you can't afford them. Bringing babies into the world to live in proverty is one of the most selfish things you can do and the only ones to blame is the parents or unwed mother in many cases.
We don't provide good enough sex education in the inner city. We know that abstinence only education, which is provided in many regions, doesn't work. Also, why can't poor people have children? The majority of people don't have HUGE families in the US anymore. Even the poor. So should we just do a eugenics type program?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Silly
. What they need is more investment in their emotions, talents, strengths and gifts, like every child. But the dems won't do that, because they'd lose votes.
