This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Weed Patch

Obama's meeting with Republicans, Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad, Bin Laden's global warming rant or anything at all. Have at it.

97 comments:

Liberal POV said...

Socialism and Capitalism

Would my conservative friends here define?

Compare the now capatialist Chinese with limited human rights to say Canada, Norway, Sweden with social safety nets and broad freedom and human rights.

Better yet define it any way you like.

I ask this because conservative through the word socialism around so much , I wonder if they know the meaning.

Does our current capatialist system need reform after the recent train wreck of CEOs and wall street bankers getting bonuses while the corporations the managed were failing?

Honest Debate said...

When did China move from Communism to Capitalism?

Liberal POV said...

HD

Ok the US media calls it a market economy with individual ownership.

Feel free to correct the above if you know a better term but please define what you consider Socialism and what is Capitalism?

Would China or Vietnam with a Communism party still be considered Communist ( as we traditionally think of communist) with a market economy?

bridle said...

What's the conservative take on South Carolina's Lt. Gov. Bauer??
Does he have the guts to say what all y'all are really thinking, or is there something wrong with what he said?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Thanks for the link. I see nothing wrong with what he said and I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Did you see something wrong?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

There is an update on the KSM thread. Make sure you read it.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

If you did see something wrong with what the Lt. Governor said, please tell me what is was. I can't imagine why anyone would disagree. Maybe I missed something.

bridle said...

It would be the part where he says you shouldn't feed children because, like stray animals, they will only reproduce. And the part where he seems to think that providing free lunches is what brings down test scores. And the part where he says more people are voting for a living than working for a living but at the same time people are not engaged enough in government. (What the hell does that mean?)
And the part where you take food away from a kid whose parents don't attend teacher conferences.
You are OK with all that?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

"It would be the part where he says you shouldn't feed children because, like stray animals, they will only reproduce."

He said no such thing. I guess that's why you didn't use quotes.

"And the part where he seems to think that providing free lunches is what brings down test scores."

Really, that's what you got out of: "I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina," adding, "You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period."?

I would like to see the graph but the correlation rings true to me. A correlation is not a cause. I'll see if I can find the graph after I feed 65 hungry horses in the snow.

I'm not sure what he meant by the voting thing either so I can't agree or disagree.

"And the part where you take food away from a kid whose parents don't attend teacher conferences."

Whoa there champ! Where did he suggest taking food away? He just said don't make it free. What kind of parent would not give there child lunch money? If they could not afford it, what kind of parent would not attend a PTA meeting so their kid could eat free? What kind of person has kids in the first place if they can't afford to feed them?

bridle said...

HD said "What kind of parent would not give there child lunch money?"
In the public school system there are kids with, drug addicted parents, alcoholic parents, schizophrenic parents and just plain bums. Does that mean their kids deserve to go hungry?

HD said -"What kind of person has kids in the first place if they can't afford to feed them?"
In my experience, the kind of people who have kids they can't take care of, are the kind of people who attended "abstinence only" schools and never learned about birth control.

HD said "what kind of parent would not attend a PTA meeting so their kid could eat free?"
A single mother who works a minimum wage job and will lose it if she takes more time off.

As for what Bauer said -
“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better,” Bauer said.
What exactly in your opinion did Bauer mean by the above quote?

guy faulkes said...

Bauer was making the same point that I have many times. He is indicating that those that have voted themselves bread and circuses have little to no incentive to ever try to improve themselves. The difference is that he is trying to force parents to participate in their children's education by making them come to PTA meetings in order to get free lunches. This will work for some people, but not for the professional breeders that have children in order to increase their benefits.

I know of one woman that has four children by four different men. She has almost no contact with her children, her mother cares for them, and receives none of the government subsidy for the children to do so. In my opinion, each child was the result of an attempt to get more money from the government.

Baurer is also indicating that those caught in the liberal poverty entitlement trap, used to provide a voting block, will never escape. Their parents were in it, they are in it, their grandchildren will be in it. Once you have bread and circuses, why work?

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"I know of one woman that has four children by four different men. She has almost no contact with her children, her mother cares for them, and receives none of the government subsidy for the children to do so. In my opinion, each child was the result of an attempt to get more money from the government. "

Here she is the welfare Cadillac mom recieving hundreds of taxpayer dollars each month that Republicans use to distract from the billions going to corporate welfare each month.
How well does this woman represent the millions recieving asistance 80% children?

did you support sex education in public schools before the woman had children?
Did you support the mother's right to an abortion? Did you support Head Start when the mother was a child? Did you support better school funding when this mother was in school?
What is your responsibilty as a voter?

bridle said...

Nice story about the "breeders" voting themselves bread and circuses but in fact those are the class of people least likely to vote.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

I will address your last post (6:14 PM, you might post again before I get done) in a minute but our discourse to this point is very illustrative of my take on honest debate. You are just an example not a target. I intend no malice. I hope you think about what I'm going to say. For the moment forget the merits of the argument and focus on the honesty of the debate.

You wrote: "...he says you shouldn't feed children because, like stray animals, they will only reproduce." The problem is he didn't say that, his Grandmother did. In truth she didn't say it either, you changed the word animals to children. I'm not being picky, I'm going somewhere. Stick with me. If you would have said "I take this to mean" or "to me he's saying" after accurately quoting him then we could have an honest debate on the subject. You didn't, so the debate can't be honest.

You equate requiring parents to attend PTA meetings in exchange for free lunches to taking away food. It's not a valid comparison. It's not honest debate.

The problem is with your premise, your starting point. It is entirely logical in your mind to assume conservatives have no problem with children going hungry. It's appalling. What kind of monster could let a child go hungry? To you it's a given, it's an easy question, answer: conservatives. From that foundation you build a house of hate. I reject your premise.

To me, the issue here should be what's best for the children. How is it possible to come agreement if you believe I don't care about children? Why should I even enter into a debate that's so dishonest?

This happens all the time. Conservatives have let themselves be defined by liberals and the definition is false, the debate is not honest and society suffers because of it. I don't mind if you call me an idiot or anything you want. It's not good form but who cares? As long as you don't call names you believe you are not being gratuitously rude...but it's not the name calling. It's your heartfelt belief that Conservative don't give a wit about their fellow man that is despicable.

guy faulkes said...

did you support sex education in public schools before the woman had children? Yes, including abstinence. I do not support paying the mother for not providing care for her children. I support putting her in prison at hard labor for child abuse, followed by sterilizing her for defrauding the public and child abuse.

Did you support the mother's right to an abortion? No, she has no right to murder her children. She also had no desire to as she only had them to increase her government subsidy.

Did you support Head Start when the mother was a child? Yes

Did you support better school funding when this mother was in school? She had the same opportunity for education as did everyone else. She learned to be a parasite on society from her parents who were the also enslaved by entitlements. The taxpayers ended up paying for these kids twice. Liberal social enslavement in order to increase their political power is to blame.

What is your responsibilty as a voter? My responsibility as a voter is to get rid of this social enslavement policy.

Bridle, ACORN's efforts prove your link to be wrong. They even enable the dead to vote.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Alrighty then, I've got a fresh glass of cabernet and the dishes are done so on to your next post.

"In the public school system there are kids with, drug addicted parents, alcoholic parents, schizophrenic parents and just plain bums. Does that mean their kids deserve to go hungry?"

You have just made Bauer's argument for drug testing parents of free lunch recipients.

"In my experience, the kind of people who have kids they can't take care of, are the kind of people who attended "abstinence only" schools and never learned about birth control."

Your serious, aren't you? Abstinence works every single time to prevent pregnancy. Why is that a bad message? How many women have sex with no idea whatsoever they might get pregnant? How many men have no idea sex makes babies? It's ludicrous. I'm sure it's happened but it's very very rare.

"A single mother who works a minimum wage job and will lose it if she takes more time off."

More time off? Think about that instead of just saying it. People are not all helpless victims. A single mother goes to her employer and request time to go to a PTA meeting. If she is a good employee what kind of heartless monster would deny her? Oh yea, a Republican. It's just not credible. Be responsible. Improve yourself and become irreplaceable. Don't take time off irresponsibly. Be a role model for your child. Your boss will love you. If not, get a different boss or become your own. It's America.

The grandmother thing: I and Guy (I love that phrase) have answered that pretty well already. I will add that's it's an analogy not a comparison. If you want more bad behavior, reward it.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle you wrote: "In my experience, the kind of people who have kids they can't take care of, are the kind of people who attended "abstinence only" schools and never learned about birth control."

Please elaborate on your "experience". How many people do you know that had sex and were dumbfounded at the result?

bridle said...

My experience in how ignorance begets unwanted pregnancies came when I tutored kids in the public school system.

bridle said...

Your argument about what Bauer meant when he quoted his grandmother is quibbling.
Please explain why he quoted his grandmother in that context if he was not comparing children to stray animals.

HD said -"You equate requiring parents to attend PTA meetings in exchange for free lunches to taking away food. It's not a valid comparison."
If you take away a kid's free lunch voucher, you are taking food away from many kids. I have paid for kid's lunches myself, when the parents were late filling out paperwork.

HD said"You have just made Bauer's argument for drug testing parents of free lunch recipients."
And then what, make their kids go hungry?

HD said "To me, the issue here should be what's best for the children."
Explain how making kids go hungry is best for the kids.

I would like to think that you really care about other people, but really, what's your solution to the problem of kids, who in dreadful poverty, with horrible parents, are going hungry?

bridle said...

HD - "The grandmother thing: I and Guy (I love that phrase) have answered that pretty well already. I will add that's it's an analogy not a comparison.
Look up the definition of an analogy.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, the problem with your argument is that you say Bauer would be taking anything away from the kids. He is not. He is merely requiring the parents to earn the lunches by living up to a small part of their responsibility. If the parents refuse to do it, it would be them taking away from their children.

Lets take this a step farther. We should require that a person qualify with a gun before he could obtain a driver's license or ride public transportation. He would have to demonstrate his proficiency in using his right to keep and bear arms to obtain his privileges. The result would be a reduction in crime because criminals would know everyone knew how to defend themselves, whether they chose to or not. They would not want to take a chance on mugging anyone.

Liberal POV said...

bridle

Great comments here.

Please continue to take on the conservative myths and misinformation.
I do believe these people have some decency if they ever see the problems.

I don't think many of those posting here ever heard the phrase "ponerse en los zapatos de otro" "Walk a mile in another man's shoes (proverb)"

guy faulkes said...

POV, how do you reconcile Brown's comments that we need to use tax dollars to stop terrorists not defend them and his resounding victory over the liberal that used your platitudes for her campaign. It would appear most people agree with Brown and us.

Maybe you need to walk a mile in the shoes of a victim of your terrorist heroes.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Mobs can often be in the majority.
Wasn't Christ's crucifixion to satisfy a mob? The Roman's could care less what Christ did and found him innocent.

The Jewish high priests and elders of the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of blasphemy, arriving at the decision to put him to death. But first they needed Rome to approve of their death sentence, so Jesus was taken to Pilate, the Roman governor in Judea. Although Pilate found him innocent, unable to find or even contrive a reason to condemn Jesus, he feared the crowds and let them decide Jesus' fate. Stirred by the Jewish chief priests, the crowds declared, "Crucify him!"

http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/crucifixionstor.htm

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

I reject your premise that kids will go hungry if parents are required to go to PTA meetings or be drug tested. Mr. Bauers' ideas are compassionate. Get parents involved rather that trying to be their parents. Find out if parents are buying crack instead of food. What good is it to say "Here you go little Billy, have lunch then get on the bus and go back to the crack house"? You said you've bought lunch for kids, so have I and when I was a kid and forgot my lunch money I never went hungry.

Why do you think if government doesn't buy lunch, kids will go hungry? It's ludicrous. It's about as silly as the idea that if kids are taught in school to wait to have sex that they will get pregnant.

Honest Debate said...

"Please explain why he quoted his grandmother in that context if he was not comparing children to stray animals." -Bridle

I've already explained what I think he meant: "If you want more bad behavior, reward it." It's a fact of life and an apt analogy.

BTW, thanks for the vocabulary lesson genius but there is a difference between an analogy and a comparison.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

I have been looking for the bar graph Mr. Bauer cited. I cannot find it anywhere. I'll keep looking.

Here's what strikes me as odd, the information exist and either he's right or wrong. Numbers are numbers. With all of the fuss, why is it that the information is so hard to find? It seems to me, if he is wrong, that information could be used as a weapon against him. People want his head. Why is there no one checking to see if he was accurate? Does truth matter in this debate? If he has correctly identified a correlation and has ideas to improve the situation then why not honestly debate them instead of ignoring the facts.

I'll keep looking.

Honest Debate said...

I have emailed Douglas Alexander at the South Carolina Department of Education. If he replies I will post it.

Reader said...

http://www.schooldigger.com/go/SC/schoolrank.aspx?pagetype=bottom10

HD, don't know what you are looking for exactly, but maybe this will lead you a little closer.

I'm now going to find out how to post links like you guys.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks Reader! That's half of what I was looking for, maybe the rest is in there too somewhere. It's a start.

If you want to do the clickable link thing go back in the archives to the first "Weed Patch". It was November 9, 2009. I explained how in a post to Bridle. Don't sweat it though, your links are usually worth copying and pasting.

Sarkazein said...

More of the great climate scientist's research turns out to be reading a magazine article and copying a students paper.
The current cold weather conditions and all the leaked bogus science is from Up Above, publicly chastising Al Gore for being a greedy charlatan.

Sarkazein said...

The tub of goo gets the corporate welfare he whines about others getting.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

I know you want to get into Al bashing but want to comment on anythong on the thread?

Socialism and Capitalism lessons?

South Carolina Lt Gov.Bauer comments?

School Lunch Programs?

Mob Mentality?

Was Christ crucifixified because of mob action?

guy faulkes said...

POV, if you can't debate an issue, you can always change the subject. All your topics have been debunked. If only you could spell and use complete sentences. You cannot even use your La La La La La technique effectively.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"POV, if you can't debate an issue, you can always change the subject. All your topics have been debunked. If only you could spell and use complete sentences. You cannot even use your La La La La La technique effectively."

This must mean you have no debating points left.

Did you want to pick back up on one of the subjects below?

Socialism and Capitalism lessons?

South Carolina Lt Gov.Bauer comments?

School Lunch Programs?

Mob Mentality?

Was Christ crucifixified because of mob action?

bridle said...

HD said"It's about as silly as the idea that if kids are taught in school to wait to have sex that they will get pregnant."

Ask Bristol Palin how great that worked for her.

HD said there is a difference between an analogy and a comparison.
What is it?

HD said "If you want more bad behavior, reward it."
You mean that giving kids free lunches is rewarding their bad parents. OK - so what's your solution to the problem of hungry kids in school?

bridle said...

HD said "If he has correctly identified a correlation and has ideas to improve the situation then why not honestly debate them instead of ignoring the facts."
Of course there is a correlation between free lunches and low test scores!! Both are consequences of poverty!
It's like saying there is a correlation between taking insulin and having high blood sugar. Both are consequences of having diabetes.You don't cure the high blood sugar by going off insulin and you don't get higher test scores by making kids go without food! You do it by helping people escape poverty.
He had no ideas that would deal with the problem of poverty. Evidently neither do you.

Sarkazein said...

"I know you want to get into Al bashing but want to comment on anythong on the thread?"POV

Fashion?

Liberal POV said...

Bridle

What our friends here don't seem to understand is no political legislation will eliminate proverty, but the conservatives have plenty of ideas and legislation to increase proverty, misery, ignorance, drug addiction, crime and prison population.

bridle said...

LPOV - Do they think these problems will go away if no one tries to deal with them? Some programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been extremely successful in alleviating poverty. Why would we want to go back to those bad old days before there was a social safety net?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

So Bristol Palin had no idea sex would make her pregnant? Why drag her into this? Your compassion for teen pregnancies is lacking to say the least.

If you don't know the difference between an analogy and a comparison, look is up. It's a bit nuanced but your smart. Don't take my word for it ask Bridle. The definition you provided for analogy did not say "comparison".

Parents that have government pay for their children's lunch and drink the money they save are exhibiting bad behavior. Parents that are not involved with their kids education and can't be bother to attend a PTA meeting are bad parents. What's so hard to understand?

Yes there is a correlation. That's all I said. That's all Bauer said. Why the fuss? Why did you accuse Bauer of saying free lunches caused poor test scores?

I disagree very strongly with your claim that poor people are stupid.

"Of course there is a correlation between free lunches and low test scores!! Both are consequences of poverty!"

I think the correlation is between uninvolved parents and low test scores. There are plenty of rich kids who have low test scores. There are plenty of poor kids with high test scores. The same is true of rich and poor schools.

As to the poverty, you choose how much money you make.

Liberal POV said...

Bridle

My own take is we need a much stronger commitment to a social safety net similar to Canada.

Look at what we as Americans spend on fear related items, gated communities, cost of insurance, security alarms, car alarms, fences, security services, police, prisons, weapons.
Look and the cost of misery in a failed society, catastrophic drug addiction, depression, crime, corruption and wasted lives.
These fools worrying about one more tax cut when the house is on fire.
We need universal health care, solid commitment to public schools, prison and drug law reform, immigration reform, reform of our current failed capitalist system ( like Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt did), living wage and make work programs to rebuild a new modern infrastructure.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, do you have no comment on the fact that if parents have to participate in their childrens education in order for their children to receive free lunches and refuse to do so, then it is the parents that are depriving their children of lunches? After all, it is not unreasonable for there to be a minimum requirement for any kind of public assistance.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Bridle, do you have no comment on the fact that if parents have to participate in their childrens education in order for their children to receive free lunches and refuse to do so, then it is the parents that are depriving their children of lunches?"

Could this be the same parent that spent the grocery money on drugs or maybe it was on gas looking for work, or they have to travel from Roan Mtn to Blowing Rock for a job and the child is in school in Roan Mtn.

Sarkazein said...

Obama rattles the saber in the Arab world.

POV had a name for Leaders who had not fought in a war or served in the military, yet threatened other than
PEACE NOW.

guy faulkes said...

Could this be the same parent that spent the grocery money on drugs or maybe it was on gas looking for work, or they have to travel from Roan Mtn to Blowing Rock for a job and the child is in school in Roan Mtn.

Where you work does not limit your responsibilities to your child. Nor does it preclude you from taking part in his education.

As for the drug using parents, if they are doing what you suggest, then they have no business keeping control of their children. Take the children and put them in homes where the liberal entitlement slavery polices will not encourage them toward deviant behavior. They would be better off in a loving home that teaches self reliance.

There is absolutely no reason that minimum requirements should not have to be met to receive public assistance. Participation in your child s education should be one of them.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"As for the drug using parents, if they are doing what you suggest, then they have no business keeping control of their children. Take the children and put them in homes where the liberal entitlement slavery polices will not encourage them toward deviant behavior. They would be better off in a loving home that teaches self reliance."

How do you prove what's happening in the home? Do you want the police to set up surveillance cameras on American families? Police state?

Due to funding restrictions social service workers have a work load about double what they can follow up on.

Some cases I do agree with you but drug use in this country is epidemic at all levels of our sick society.
Do you have any suggestions for that?

Honest Debate said...

"How do you prove what's happening in the home?" -LiberalPOV

By requiring parents of free lunch recipients to be drug tested. Keep up Lib, was that not plain?

Reader said...

Lib, you always make an excuse, for people who make wrong choices. Why is that? Seems one would learn from a mistake and not repeat it. You do have an imagination.

Good to see you are okay Sark.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"By requiring parents of free lunch recipients to be drug tested. Keep up Lib, was that not plain?"

The poor no longer get the freedom protected in the US Constitution? You support a police state?

Please explain what Freedom in America means to you?

Honest Debate said...

"Please explain what Freedom in America means to you?"- LiberalPOV

The freedom to buy my own lunch and the moral obligation to give something in return to someone who buys it for me.

Liberal POV said...

HD

It would appear you and other posters here want to make it a crime to be poor.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

It would appear you want a free lunch. There are no free lunches.

Liberal POV said...

HD

You want children in American to go hungrey and the Bill of Rights to not apply to the poor?

This is the New Conservative Republican Party Infulenced by the Tea Party movement?

I'm amazed at how little you know. No I don't believe you have any answers to the problems facing the world.

guy faulkes said...

POV, by what convoluted logic did you arrive at your last statement? You owe HD and conservatives everywhere an apology.

Honest Debate said...

"You want children in American to go hungrey and the Bill of Rights to not apply to the poor?" -LiberalPOV

You almost got it. I want hungry children to go to Hungary so they can feed them without my money. It's not true that I don't want the Bill of rights to apply to poor children, just black children.

I also enjoy killing kittens. I bury them up to their neck and run over them with a lawn mower.

There is not enough torture in this world.

I didn't think this way before I started listening to Rush and watching Foxnews.

Honest Debate said...

For those of you in Rio Linda, the above comment was facetious satire.

Liberal POV said...

HD and Guy

These are question for you to clarify the nonsense you posted earlier. This is an opportunity t tell what you really think and the kind of people you really are. Your earlier comments suggest crazy nonsense. My questions are to do just that, show your positions and earlier comments as nonsense.
To have the parents who cannot afford school lunches to take a drug test is humiliating and very unconstitutional. The next thing you will want to remove their voting rights.
To make children go hungry because they have poor parents or bad parents is nonsense.

Honest Debate said...

The next thing you will want to remove their voting rights." -LiberalPOV

There is no right to vote, it's a privilege.

"To have the parents who cannot afford school lunches to take a drug test is humiliating and very unconstitutional."

I agree but when the taxpayers foot the bill all bets are off.

Why do you assume that if parents get free lunch for their children it means they can't afford it?

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Why do you assume that if parents get free lunch for their children it means they can't afford it?"

It may not but that's administration not policy.

Honest Debate said...

"...that's administration not policy."

No Lib, it's the point.

Honest Debate said...

I heard back from the SC Dept. of Education.

Mr. Alexander,

I am sure you have heard about Andre Bauer's comments regarding a bar graph that shows a correlation between low test scores and free/reduced lunches. I have been unable to find that graph on the internet but suspect that information is on the S.C Department of Education site. I got close with "State Scores by Demographic" but could not understand the data and was overwhelmed with the user's guide.

Can you point me in the right direction? Better yet, can you tell me if he was accurate. Politics aside, I just want to know if he's right and no one seems to be looking at the numbers to find out.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
Gregg Smith

Mr. Smith:

Doug forwarded your e-mail to me. Not sure where Lt. Gov. Bauer's graph came from, but for as long as standardized tests have been around, there have been direct correlations between family income and student test scores. Doesn't matter what test you're looking at (SAT, ACT, PACT, PASS, NAEP, AP, HSAP, EOCEP), students who come from high-poverty families score significantly lower than kids from more affluent families.

You can find data to support this by looking at demographic breakouts from any test given in virutally any public school in any state. On our web site, go to this link and look in the "Testing and Results" section.

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Accountability/Data-Management-and-Analysis/QuickDataPortal.html

Hope this helps.

Jim Foster
Director of Communications
South Carolina Department of Education

Liberal POV said...

HD

With reguards to the letter good work on your part.

What do you conclude from the response?

Honest Debate said...

Thanks Lib,

The first thing I must point out is I'm surprised that people (Bridle in particular) showed no curiosity or effort to find out if Bauer's statement was true. They chose to hang him instead.

However, I'm not satisfied that I got the complete answer. There is no question, as Mr. Foster said and showed, that there is a correlation between poverty and low test scores. It's a safe assumption that those in poverty are the ones on the free/reduced lunch program. It follows that the correlation Bauer claimed is true. I don't doubt if you made a bar graph with the data it would be as Mr. Bauer described.

There's more to say when we start talking about causation. If you'll give me an hour or so I intend to get back. I've have some pressing needs at the moment.

Liberal POV said...

HD

" There is no question, as Mr. Foster said and showed, that there is a correlation between poverty and low test scores. It's a safe assumption that those in poverty are the ones on the free/reduced lunch program."

We are in agreement to this point.

Honest Debate said...

Here's where it gets dicey. This is my opinion Lib, I'm sure you will disagree to some extent. Poverty is non-specific. To me the relevant question is, can the recipients afford to pay for their kids lunch? When I was a kid lunch cost 55 cents, I don't know what it is today. I'll guess $2, but it's a guess. that would be $40 a month. That should be close. It's very easy to spend $40 a month on beer, cable TV, texting or pot. One can eat at McDonalds as opposed to buying groceries with coupons. Going to the movies once a week cost more than $40/month.

My point is it's not anyone's business how a family chooses to spend their money. Once Government is involved it becomes our business. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans all agree government should be responsible with our tax dollars. Do we really want to micro manage family budgets? How is it possible not to if our tax dollars are to be spent responsibly? It's not, so there's that. A logistical nightmare spurred by governmental good intentions.

Enabling families to spend $40/month on pot (that's a low budget for good pot) if it's happening would be antithetical to good governance. We, as tax payers have a right to know. Bauer's plan makes sense. It is at the very least worth debating...honestly.

The other question is, what causes poverty? Could it be that it's a choice? Is it possible that parents who choose to spend money on pot instead of lunch for their children would not be good enough parents to push their children to excel? Would they be less inclined to make sure the kids are doing their homework? Yes. Are those questions relevant to how government spends our money? Yes.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Don't get distracted by my question regarding poverty: "Could it be that it's a choice?"

I believe it is but that's a different debate and I shouldn't have entered it into this one.

guy faulkes said...

Having come from poverty, I can tell you exactly why children in this situation generally score lower than the children of more affluent families.

Many children from poverty stricken families come form a long line of people that live through entitlement programs. There have been no positive role models going all the way back to their great grandparents. When these people discovered they could vote themselves bread and circuses, that was the end of their independence. All they had to do was submit to being a political slave for liberals and they can live without working. The parents raise their children to do as they do. As the parents do not value education, neither do the children.

There are also a significant number of people in poverty because while they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach. Things like affirmative action have thought them to consider themselves as second class citizens that need help to make it so they do not apply themselves. In order to succeed, you have to both desire to do so and to believe you can.

The third reason is the ridiculous refusal to let children use the concept of education vouchers. There is no reason to make a child that wants to learn go to a school that is crime ridden and where the teachers are only there to draw a paycheck. This is simply a different kind of segregation.

Bauer was simply trying to beak the cycle of parental indifference to their children's education. Children would still get free lunches. The only difference would be that the parents would be taught to start living up to their responsibilities. As this would ultimately lead to other challenges to the left's keeping the poor politically enslaved, it is no wonder our liberal friends oppose the idea so much.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I read your post and you have large amounts of truth mixed with large amounts of myths and right wing lies.


"Many children from poverty stricken families come form a long line of people that live through entitlement programs."

True:

"Many children from poverty stricken families come form a family that's on entitlement programs for the first time.

True

" There have been no positive role models going all the way back to their great grandparents."

"True" What can be done to provide positive role models? There needs to be a government program to assist these at risk children.

" When these people discovered they could vote themselves bread and circuses, that was the end of their independence. All they had to do was submit to being a political slave for liberals and they can live without working"

Right wing Lie:

" The parents raise their children to do as they do. As the parents do not value education, neither do the children. "

Often True and a need for strong role models smaller classes and better public education, art in the school systems.

"There are also a significant number of people in poverty because while they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach."

Very true: Public education should be funded for sixteen years not twelve.

" Things like affirmative action have thought them to consider themselves as second class citizens that need help to make it so they do not apply themselves."

Right wing lie: Affirmative action has made it possible for thousands to receive an education and break the bonds on poverty and not just people of color. Those you just mentioned in your comment " (they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach") are the very people affirmative action programs can help break the bonds of poverty.

"In order to succeed, you have to both desire to do so and to believe you can."

True: This is call HOPE, I think their was a recent book by a politician called" The Audacity of Hope"

"The third reason is the ridiculous refusal to let children use the concept of education vouchers. "

False: Democracy is based on a great public education system. The more private education expands the more Democracy declines.

"There is no reason to make a child that wants to learn go to a school that is crime ridden and where the teachers are only there to draw a paycheck. "

True: The more we increase education vouchers the more we will see public schools decline.

"Trying to break the cycle of parental indifference to their children's education."

This is a worthy goal and incentives other than making the child go hungry should be supported.

Honest Debate said...

I realize Bridle has disappeared since he lost the argument. It turns out abstinence education works. He'll never come back now.

guy faulkes said...

POV, what do you base your opinions on? I lived though this situation. I know the truth. You mouth talking points.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"I lived though this situation. I know the truth."

What does this mean??

What supports such statements as below??

" When these people discovered they could vote themselves bread and circuses, that was the end of their independence. All they had to do was submit to being a political slave for liberals and they can live without working"


" Things like affirmative action have thought them to consider themselves as second class citizens that need help to make it so they do not apply themselves."

Right wing lie: Affirmative action has made it possible for thousands to receive an education and break the bonds on poverty and not just people of color. Those you just mentioned in your comment " (they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach") are the very people affirmative action programs can help break the bonds of poverty.

"The third reason is the ridiculous refusal to let children use the concept of education vouchers. "

False: Democracy is based on a great public education system. The more private education expands the more Democracy declines.

"There is no reason to make a child that wants to learn go to a school that is crime ridden and where the teachers are only there to draw a paycheck. "

True: The more we increase education vouchers the more we will see public schools decline.

"Trying to break the cycle of parental indifference to their children's education."

This is a worthy goal and incentives other than making the child go hungry should be supported.

guy faulkes said...

I have been over my personal history concerning education, poverty, and the new slavery of entitlement programs. There is no reason to go over it again and bore people that do pay attention. If you cannot retain the information, go back and read the posts.

I will answer one question. I have lived through this situation means I escaped the entitlement slavery that captured many in my extended family. I know from personal experience the truth of what I said. You,, on the other hand, are repeating platitudes.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"You,, on the other hand, are repeating platitudes."

You're right Guy my writing abilities , spelling and grammar show I never faced the struggle you did.

I had a huge silver spoon how could I know what I'm talking about?

Honest Debate said...

"You're right Guy my writing abilities , spelling and grammar show I never faced the struggle you did." -LiberalPOV


Perfect! I assume you are being facetious. So you blame your writing abilities, spelling and grammar on who? Or what? Were your parents too poor to tell you to study? Are the only people with impeccable grammar the ones who were born with a "silver spoon" like George Bush? Why do you and Bridle think poor people are stupid?

Honest Debate said...

Poverty does not cause stupidity. It's the other way around.

guy faulkes said...

Poverty does not cause stupidity. It's the other way around. - HD

Well said. Add to this laziness, lack of pride, and the fact our liberal friends have set up a system to keep people in poverty in order obtain their votes by using their bread and circuses entitlement programs.

Honest Debate said...

Guy,

Your comment makes me wonder, where's the shame? These people are proud. I know a guy that just got on disability and he is perfectly capable of working. He's proud as punch to tell you about it.

Liberal POV said...

Honest Debate????


You forgot to debate the following:

What does this mean??

What supports such statements as below??

" When these people discovered they could vote themselves bread and circuses, that was the end of their independence. All they had to do was submit to being a political slave for liberals and they can live without working"


" Things like affirmative action have thought them to consider themselves as second class citizens that need help to make it so they do not apply themselves."

Right wing lie: Affirmative action has made it possible for thousands to receive an education and break the bonds on poverty and not just people of color. Those you just mentioned in your comment " (they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach") are the very people affirmative action programs can help break the bonds of poverty.

"The third reason is the ridiculous refusal to let children use the concept of education vouchers. "

False: Democracy is based on a great public education system. The more private education expands the more Democracy declines.

"There is no reason to make a child that wants to learn go to a school that is crime ridden and where the teachers are only there to draw a paycheck. "

True: The more we increase education vouchers the more we will see public schools decline.

"Trying to break the cycle of parental indifference to their children's education."

This is a worthy goal and incentives other than making the child go hungry should be supported.

February 2, 2010 4:43 PM

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Your spelling is fine. Ditto grammar (for the most part). However, I have no idea what you are asking.

Liberal POV said...

HD

The above were Guy's misinformation and myths.

Did you want to support any of the myths with actual facts and data?

guy faulkes said...

POV, how many times are you going to post the same drivel? Everyone but you understood what I had to say. You probably do also, but chose not to admit it. We have heard La La La La La from you enough. You had your say. Not many or any believe it.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Did you want to support any of the myths with actual facts and data or sing La La La La La like a small child?

guy faulkes said...

POV, I told you my facts were my own experiences. I asked you to list your experiences or supply facts that would disprove them. You have done neither. You have only used platitudes and talking points.

Focus. You really do need remedial reading lessons.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"POV, I told you my facts were my own experiences. "

What you mean is your own opinions and your opinions don't become facts or data to present as valid debating points when making comments as follows.

Guy's opinion despite data to the contrary:

" When these people discovered they could vote themselves bread and circuses, that was the end of their independence. All they had to do was submit to being a political slave for liberals and they can live without working"


" Things like affirmative action have thought them to consider themselves as second class citizens that need help to make it so they do not apply themselves."

Truth:
Affirmative action has made it possible for thousands to receive an education and break the bonds on poverty and not just people of color. Those you just mentioned in your comment " (they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach") are the very people affirmative action programs can help break the bonds of poverty.

Guy's opinion despite data to the contrary:

"The third reason is the ridiculous refusal to let children use the concept of education vouchers. "

POV's opinion:

Democracy is based on a great public education system. The more private education expands the more Democracy declines.

Guy's opinion despite data to the contrary:

"There is no reason to make a child that wants to learn go to a school that is crime ridden and where the teachers are only there to draw a paycheck. "

POV's opinion

The more we increase education vouchers the more we will see public schools decline.

Guy's opinion :

"Trying to break the cycle of parental indifference to their children's education."
POV's opinion:
This is a worthy goal and incentives other than making the child go hungry should be supported.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"POV, I told you my facts were my own experiences. "

What you mean is your own opinions and your opinions don't become facts or data to present as valid debating points when making comments as follows.

Guy's opinion despite data to the contrary:

" When these people discovered they could vote themselves bread and circuses, that was the end of their independence. All they had to do was submit to being a political slave for liberals and they can live without working"


" Things like affirmative action have thought them to consider themselves as second class citizens that need help to make it so they do not apply themselves."

Truth:
Affirmative action has made it possible for thousands to receive an education and break the bonds on poverty and not just people of color. Those you just mentioned in your comment " (they will work, they do not know the value of education and think that improving themselves is out of their reach") are the very people affirmative action programs can help break the bonds of poverty.

Guy's opinion despite data to the contrary:

"The third reason is the ridiculous refusal to let children use the concept of education vouchers. "

POV's opinion:

Democracy is based on a great public education system. The more private education expands the more Democracy declines.

Guy's opinion despite data to the contrary:

"There is no reason to make a child that wants to learn go to a school that is crime ridden and where the teachers are only there to draw a paycheck. "

POV's opinion

The more we increase education vouchers the more we will see public schools decline.

Guy's opinion :

"Trying to break the cycle of parental indifference to their children's education."
POV's opinion:
This is a worthy goal and incentives other than making the child go hungry should be supported.

guy faulkes said...

Wrong, POV. When you experience something, it is a fact. not an opinion. You have no such experience nor can you provide a link to anyone else that has had experiences to support your claims.

You actually believe a crime ridden public school that does not educate its students should be kept open. Amazing. You do not support allowing those students that want to escape this travesty and get an education the means to do so. Despicable.

I guess this is not that surprising as you do not want to allow people to bring themselves up, but instead want to force everyone down.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"You actually believe a crime ridden public school that does not educate its students should be kept open."

No, I want to see it fixed. If all the kids who's parents have education, political power and wealth leave public schools nothing will get corrected.

guy faulkes said...

"No, I want to see it fixed. If all the kids who's parents have education, political power and wealth leave public schools nothing will get corrected." - POV

Fine, fix the school and the students might return. Until then it is criminal not to give vouchers so that a serious student can pursue his or her education at an adequate school. If the parents in question had wealth or political power, they could put their children in private schools without needing a voucher. Making students remain in an environment that keeps them from getting an education is despicable.

It is interesting that you seem to admit the government will never fix something like a substandard school and that parents would have to do it themselves, probably over the objections of the government. At the same time you want the government that can't run an effective school to run health care. Amazing.

Honest Debate said...

Guy and LiberalPOV,

Your discussion reminds me of Joe Clark. There was a movie entitled "Lean On Me" based on his experience. He was played by Morgan Freeman. It's a great movie.

Please take the time to watch this interview with the real Joe Clark. It's worthwhile.

Part 1

Part 2

Liberal POV said...

HD

Thanks for posting.

Great public schools need to be the center piece of a demoracy and a free society.

I may steal his line "The Stuff that Makes Tomatoes Grow" You, Guy and Sark may see that again.

I will watch part 2 later.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks for watching it lib, part 2 is even better. I watched it again this morning, it gives me chills.

Here's my favorite scene from the movie.

Honest Debate said...

I should issue a content warning for the above clip. There's some rough language.

guy faulkes said...

I saw the movie. If I remember correctly, a principle took it on himself to improve his school over the objections of the government. He did such things as lock students in a building which would have resulted in their deaths if the building had caught fire.

However, I can understand his frustration with a school system that did nothing to control violence or to provide adequate education for its students and his willingness to go to extreme measures to try to correct the situation.

The movie is a good example of two things. One is that the government will not fix schools as POV wants. It takes an individual effort by private people to do so and this is so difficult it almost never happens. The other is that the voucher system is an instant means for you to get your child into an adequate school so he can escape violence and actually learn something.

If all public schools are adequate and safe or can be "fixed", pray tell me which of D.C."s fine public schools do the Obama girls attend. Why should tax paying parents not be able to use the voucher system in order to give their children a tenth of the advantages of the President's children?

guy faulkes said...

POV, feel free to use the "stuff that makes tomatoes grow" line. You have never made an original comment on a post, so it dos not matter which talking point you use.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I don't make post I can't support with facts and data.

guy faulkes said...

Then who is it that has been making all these posts and stealing the name POV? No post made under this name is ever supported with facts or data.