The NY Times recently reported on a new attempt to call attention to an old problem:
Proficiency of Black Students Is Found to Be Far Lower Than Expected
By TRIP GABRIEL
An achievement gap separating black from white students has long been documented — a social divide extremely vexing to policy makers and the target of one blast of school reform after another.
But a new report focusing on black males suggests that the picture is even bleaker than generally known.
Even bleaker? I am inclined to believe it, but I can't tell from this study. Let's cut to the press release for the Great Black Hype:
New Report on Black Male Achievement in America Reveals 'National Catastrophe'
Urban School Group Calls for White House Initiative
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 Young black males in America are in a state of crisis. So says a new report by the Council of the Great City Schools that presents stark data on the differences between black and white academic and social achievement from the cradle to adulthood, describing "comprehensive challenges" facing African-American males nationwide and in the major cities.
"Black males continue to perform lower than their peers throughout the country on almost every indicator," says the groundbreaking report titled A Call for Change: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools.
Let's focus on the assertion that "Black males continue to perform lower than their peers", with emphasis on the word "peers". The study very plausibly notes a number of extra-curricular factors that would seem to disadvantage blacks. Such factors include educational attainment of the parents, income of the parents, health insurance status, and whether the child is being raised by one parent or two.
However, almost no attempt is made to explicitly control for these variables. Instead, the group releasing the study (which advocates for big city public schools) hypes the raw differences between white and black results and calls for more money. Back to the Times:
Although the outlines of the problem and many specifics have been previously reported, the group hopes that including so much of what it calls “jaw-dropping data” in one place will spark a new sense of national urgency.
...The report urges convening a White House conference, encouraging Congress to appropriate more money for schools and establishing networks of black mentors.
Let me pick out one set of nnumbers from the report to illustrate my objection. On page 67, fig. 2.31 we learn that on the NAEP 8th grade math test the mean score for white boys was 293 and for blacks, 255. That is a gross achievement gap of 38 points.
Page 69 provides the only attempt to adjust for sociological differences, by dividing the students into what I will call "poor" and "non-poor" on the basis of their eligibility for free or subsidized school lunches. Now we have two more achievement gaps upon which to reflect.
Among non-poor white males,the mean math score was 298; for non-poor black males it was 277, an achievement gap of 22.
Among poor white males the mean score was 265; for poor black males the score was 253, a gap of 12.
Folks with a mathematical bent will quickly grasp that their must be proportionally a lot more "poor" black males than poor white boys since the aggregated white score is much closer to the "non-poor" number and the black score is much closer to the "poor" number. My quick math yields a result I don't fully trust - to explain the aggregated black score of 255, 92% of the black males must be in the "poor" pool (that seems high, but the numbers are what they are). For whites, about 15% are in the "poor" pool.
Consequently, the unadjusted achievement gap amounts to comparing poor black kids with non-poor white kids, with unsurprising results. The authors might have fairly identified a crisis among poor whites, who clearly show an achievement gap relative to their non-poor counterparts.
Now, the Times does acknowledge that, as does the press release, just after the hype. From the Times:
Only 12 percent of black fourth-grade boys are proficient in reading, compared with 38 percent of white boys, and only 12 percent of black eighth-grade boys are proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white boys.
Poverty alone does not seem to explain the differences: poor white boys do just as well as African-American boys who do not live in poverty, measured by whether they qualify for subsidized school lunches.
[An aside - for 4th grade reading and math and 8th grade reading, the poor white boys outperformed the non-poor black boys; by my dumb uck, I unwittingly picked the one example that contradicted their poverty point.]
Now, what about "poverty alone does not seem to explain the differences"? Does anyone really think that eligibility for a subsidized school lunch program is a perfect proxy for poverty? The press release includes this variable:
In readiness to learn, black children were twice as likely to live in a household where no parent had fulltime or year round employment in 2008.
The study had a longer list of grim statistics:
• Between 2003 and 2007, Black mothers had infant mortality rates at least twice as high as White mothers.
• In 2008, Black children ages 17 and under were nearly 50 percent more likely to be without private or government health insurance than White children.
• In 2008, Black children ages 18 and under were three times more likely to live in single-parent households than White children. Nearly two-thirds of all Black children lived in a single–parent household.
• In 2008, Black children were twice as likely as White children to live in a household where no parent had full-time or year-round employment.
• In 2008, one-third of Black children had a parent with a high school diploma, 24 percent had a parent with at least some college experience, and less than 15 percent had a parent who held a bachelor’s degree.
• In 2007, one out of every three Black children lived in poverty compared with one out of every ten White children.
I'll bet that eligibility for subsidized lunches is a flawed proxy for parental educational attainment, employment status or two-parent households. Yet early on we were told that black males were underperforming their "peers". No attempt was made in this study to determine whether the white and black students really are peers after controlling for the variables the authors themselves identified.
My guess, based on vague recollections of other things I have read, is that in a well-designed statistical study that attempted to control for these other variables race would still emerge as a staistically significant predictive factor. But that is a guess - the authors of this study should have done just that work.
And we ought to care - if we dicovered that children raised by an unemployed mom with a high school degree and no health insurance underperform by the same amount regardless of race, than we may be talking about a different problem than the achievement gap of black males.
And if the problem is different, the solution may be different as well. Maybe more money for big-city schools is not the answer. But the authors don't want to go there.
BONUS CONUNDRUM: What I found most interesting here is that among Hispanics, the boys trounce the girls on math, which (as all guys know) is the natural order (the Hispanic girls make it back on the reading, natch). However, that is not true among black males, who lag the ladies in both reading and math.
One might guess that black boys and girls are raised in similar economic and family circumstances, so this anomaly really does suggest something else is going on.
I covered this back in '94
Posted by: Charles Murray | November 12, 2010 at 07:32 AM
Easy, they disproportionately live in Blue Hells.
====================
Posted by: On the Plantation. | November 12, 2010 at 08:13 AM
Well, the boys do, anyway. Where's that guy who used to give us reports from Gangsta Land. He might have a clue.
==========
Posted by: At the club. | November 12, 2010 at 08:20 AM
Nearly two-thirds of all Black children lived in a single–parent household.
What should we do about this?
Posted by: Extraneus | November 12, 2010 at 08:27 AM
"so this anomaly really does suggest something else is going on"
How about natural selection in a shrinking universe? Census data from Chicago (home of the spectacularly successful Chicago Annenberg Challenge) illustrates the success of Black Flight from Blue Hell. In just eight years, 11.35% of the black population of Chicago has managed to slip the proglodyte shackles and flee. They are fleeing at a substantially greater rate than the general population (5.9%) and more of the population in flight have children (under 5 drop is 7.06%).
We'll have to wait for complete census data to determine whether an assertion that the more successful fled at a greater rate than the less successful but the supposition is reasonable. If parents' SES is a valid marker for kids performance and successful parents are making the intelligent choice of getting the hell out of Dodge, then the scores of those remaining can be expected to continue to drop.
BTW - that 7.06% drop in under 5 represents 3,000 kindergartners who don't need teachers this year because they don't exist. Will Chicago get rid of 150 kindergarten teachers this year as an appropriate response to reality?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 12, 2010 at 08:29 AM
"• In 2008, Black children were twice as likely as White children to live in a household where no parent had full-time or year-round employment."
So the liberal politician tries to solve this by destroying private industry jobs so fewer people have full or year around employment.
Posted by: Pagar | November 12, 2010 at 08:40 AM
A few years ago in Baltimore some middle class black parents hired a Johns Hopkins professor to explain the achievement gap between their children and their white peers, especially the poorer white kids. One finding was the difference in parental styles between black and white middle class parents. The white parents spent much more time talking with their kids, which built their literacy, than the black parents who spent more time talking at their kids, which didn't. I wonder if the old "children should be seen and not heard" maxim is still the norm in a far greater number of black homes than in whites?
Another difference between black and white middle class parents was their differing view of who's responsible for their kids' education. The whites saw being involved with the school/teacher as part of their responsibility, while the black parents saw their responsibility as confined to delivering their children to school on time, fed, and ready to learn.
Bringing in Bill Cosby as Parenting Czar might actually make a difference.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 12, 2010 at 08:45 AM
The more kids on school lunch (and breakfast, and dinner) programs, the better for libs. It's a shame this also hurts the kids' grades.
Posted by: Extraneus | November 12, 2010 at 08:48 AM
That appears on this studie's list of Frequently Unasked Questions.
Just to note one direction the authors emphatically *don't* want to go - back in 2004 black ministers in Massachusetts were opposed to gay marriage. Their fear seemed to be that it would re-brand marriage as "a gay thing" and further discourage aspiring rappa gang-banga wanna-bes from doing the right thing and putting a ring on it.
As to whether that fear is realistic, how the heck would I know? And I don't know why our social policy should be guided by the prospective homophobia of a particular minority.
That said, the ministers on the front lines think it would be yet another obstacle to raising the marriage rate and reducing the illegitimacy rate. But we needn't expect big city Democrats to call for a study of that any time soon, or ever.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | November 12, 2010 at 08:53 AM
That's just a little reverberating echo of an emanation of a penumbra, TM. No decent Benthamite, secure in his knowledge of the greater good should ever pay attention to such things. Why, it might shake the very foundations of the Endarkenment and call into question the perspicacity of the empiricists.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 12, 2010 at 09:08 AM
TM:
Does anyone really think that eligibility for a subsidized school lunch program is a perfect proxy for poverty?
Last year during unemployment,we qualified for and participated in the subsidized school lunch program. We weren't in "poverty",but having a monthly income of $0.00 made it,um,advisable to participate.
When I finally landed a job,mrs hit and run called the school district to have us removed from the program.
The altogether charming woman on the other end of the line was flabbergasted. Removed from the program? But why? No one ever does that!
But my husband has a job now,and we certainly don't need to be on the program.
Well,if you want off the program,there's six pages of forms you will have to fill out.
OK,tell me where to find them and we'll do so and fax them to you.
You know,you can just wait until the end of the school year and not register for it next year. That would save you and me a lot of work. No one checks up on these things and it would just be easier for everyone.
But we don't need the subsidy and it would be a waste of money for us to receive it.
But you don't understand. By being on the program the school district gets the money. And even better,if you aren't using it,the school district gets to....well,I've said too much already. Why don't you think about it and call back next week if you still want to.....
Please take us off thankyouverymuchhaveagoodday.
Did I mention that hit and run jr got "Best Mathematician" in his grade last year?
Poverty Rocks!
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 09:11 AM
An assessment of the job performance of one black student:
It's "OTB" Time: One-Term Barack
Posted by: PD | November 12, 2010 at 09:22 AM
I don't often correct typos,but this one can't be ignored:
*f*unemployment
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 09:22 AM
O/T: I've been trying to locate the source of data on Janet's favorite large domed Senator not running in 2012 and have only come up with the LUN.
Here's the AoS comment that piqued my interest: *Hotair has a link that shows Webb may not stand for re election in the Senate.*
I doubt he will, honestly. He is an accidental senator. He won because Allen made an ass out of himself and imploded. And he still barely won in a huge D year. His approval ratings aren't that good (frankly they never have been) and he has no money & doesn't enjoy fundraising. (well, in fairness, no one *enjoys* fundraising, but Webb basically just declines to do it)
Who replaces him on the D side will be the interesting question.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 12, 2010 at 09:30 AM
Minus 20 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 12, 2010 at 09:36 AM
My bil lives is SW GA where most public schools are majority black. His middle class children and their middle class black and white friends never asked to receive free lunches, but have always received them. I bet once a school is a certain % black (or poor white), it's too much trouble to differentiate, so it's free lunches for all.
Speaking of differentiating, this thread is a good time to revisit Uncle Jeremiah Wright's CSPAN-carried 2008 speech to the Detroit NAACP "Different but Not Deficient" in which we learn that European-American children are logical left-brained learners, while African- American children are creative right-brain learners.
Posted by: DebinNC | November 12, 2010 at 09:37 AM
I'll bet that eligibility for subsidized lunches is a flawed proxy for parental educational attainment, employment status or two-parent households.
Considering the anti-poverty triad of staying in school, not getting married early, and not having kids before you can support them, I'm not sure what you're objecting to.
Posted by: DerHahn | November 12, 2010 at 09:38 AM
Did you see this Captain that I Luned on the other thread, an editorial version of epic fail, against someone who is the Midwest version of the Momma Grizzley brigade
As for Webb, I never much cared for him, since his Salieri like grudge against North, which DoT has expanded on, to his almost pathological attachment to the party that disdains Veterans and working class folks of the Scot-Irish persuasion
Posted by: narciso | November 12, 2010 at 09:46 AM
NRO has a piece from Inhofe telling us all how wonderful
corruptionearmarks are.That guy's spent 24 years in Congress. Isn't it time he do something else? Fly fishing is a nice hobby, I hear.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 12, 2010 at 09:57 AM
Narc are you talking about that Heather Higgins blast at Bachmann? I couldn't figure out WTF her point was.
Btw narc, you were talking about the Weekly Standard taking shots at COD. In the issue before the election Fred Barnes had a very pro article on Christine. I realize he's not the only writer they have but he receives prominent placement because of his reputation.
Jim Webb's obnoxious response to GWB's inquiry about how his son in the military was told me all I needed to know about his lack of class,
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM
"Gack" as Bill the Cat, would say, now seeing
as he has been a one man steamroller against the AGW bete noire, I'm willing to give him
a little leeway, but that's kind of embarassing
Posted by: narciso | November 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM
--I covered this back in '94
Posted by: Charles Murray | November 12, 2010 at 07:32 AM--
Heh. As I was reading TM's post I was thinking to myself; paging Charles Murray.
I'll never forget Thomas Sowell thanking his lucky stars that he grew up in segregated America when black families were still intact and extra effort was expected of black youth to succeed, rather than the victimization ghettos of the last 40-50 years.
Not that he liked or endorsed Jim Crow but that the prevailing welfare and victim culture in most black neighborhhods is even more corrosive and harmful to blacks than the blatant racism was.
Do gooders like LBJ managed to what the KKK couldn't.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Hey, I have an idea that might bring those damn grades up to the white kid level. How about we issue school vouchers to innner city black kids or poor white kids who want to be able to attend private or religious schools and get a more uplifting education of value. We could start in Washington DC since it has a large inner city black population and lots and lots of private and religious schools of note. This way the Obama administration throught the Department of Education could monitor the results. What y'all think? Sounds reasonable and it could save on those latent incarceration costs.
In fact, it sounds so good I'm going to text the POTUS myself and see what he thinks.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Check with Lawrence Summers on the math stuff.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 12, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Yeah Ignatz...In some ways Katrina was a blessing to families that were forced out of that "Blue Hell" that Rick B. mentioned. There is a better life...but some people just don't know.
Posted by: Janet the tea-vangelist! | November 12, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Not our problem to solve ... if the system is not holding these boys down then its their problem along with their parent/s ...
Again NOT A JOB for the US Government ...
Posted by: Jeff | November 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Speaking of politicized, look at the panel, Time Magazine has put together to pick it's
person of the Year, even the infinte number of monkeys attempting Hamlet would be a better choice
Posted by: narciso | November 12, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Damn narc; that was jaw-dropping even with extremely low expectations. Mega McCans had two surprisingly good suggestions before she showed she's still her father's girl with a tasteless shot at COD. Daisy Khan supporting Bloomberg; there was one from out of nowhere. With Time seeing that Newsweak plans on joining farces with buzzkill Tina Brown, they obviously needed to come up with something completely inane to show their cred in cluelessness. Mission accomplished.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM
DoT:
Minus 20 at Raz today.
Fun with Raz numbers...
Tommorrow will likely mark the 50th time that Obama will have enjoyed Strongly Disapprove nubmers greater than or equal to his Total Approve numbers. And if not tomorrow,then soon. Very soon.
In exactly two weeks,the number of days that Obama has been in negative territory in the Raz index will reach 500.
On December 21st -- just in time for Christmas -- Obama will have spent three quarters of his presidency in negative territory in the Raz index.
'Tis the season.
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 10:40 AM
OT - I'm off to mail a JOM pkg to Soylent. Again, if anyone wants to send a specific present to Soylent for the Christmas/Chanukah season the time is now. Chanukah begins Dec. 1st this year. Early Dec. I'm planning on mailing out a couple of Christmas pkgs...already getting stuff for them.
Any questions you can email me at theshagams at gmail dot com or contact Jane for all the contact info for Matt or I.
Posted by: Janet the tea-vangelist! | November 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM
In exactly two weeks,the number of days that Obama has been in negative territory in the Raz index will reach 500.
That's Friday,November 26th,by the way. And you know what Friday,November 26th is,don't you?
Black Friday.
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM
LUN for Kimberley Strassel laying out the case against earmarks that Repukes ignore at their peril. This isn't a difficult issue and why McConnell is being so clueless embarrasses me for cutting him slack in the past.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM
I would be interested in the subset of children who live with both biological parents, who are married to each other.
Posted by: cathyf | November 12, 2010 at 10:52 AM
We Blacks can whine and cry "racism" all we want but this report on the state our young black men so sad but SO TRUE!! Look around our communities,my Black brothers and sisters!! The proof is beating us in the face,they're hanging on the corners,they are not going to school,and they're so rude and disrespectful!
We as a Black race are reaping what we have sown. since we don't plant the seed of the IMPORTANCE OF AN EDUCATION IN OUR CHILDREN'S HEAD we are breeding a vicious,brain-dead generation of youth.
WE CAN TRY AND DENY THAT THIS PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST OR SAY "ITS RACISM" SO DON'T SAY SOMETHING TO DOWN THE BLACK RACE,SAYING OR DOING THOSE TWO THINGS DO NOT MAKE THE PROBLEM AWAY. ITS GETTING WORSE!! WE AS A BLACK RACE HAVE TO FACE THE TRUTH AND QUIT BLAMING EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY ELSE!!!
Posted by: edward | November 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM
ot, but at least the Brazilians are open about their politicians.....
Posted by: matt | November 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM
OT Drudge has been noting the revolt against the TSA screening.
A friend sent me this email which one almost wishes were true:
. Subject: Israeli Security Answer
FINALLY — A great alternative to body scanners at airports . . .
The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy and radiation concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.
It’s a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you. They see this as a win-win for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It also would eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. Justice would be swift. Case closed!
You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system . . . "Attention standby passengers — we now have a seat available on flight number XXXX. Shalom!"
Posted by: Clarice | November 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM
This has cracked me up about five times already this morning.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 12, 2010 at 11:25 AM
I love that idea, Clarice!!! Shalom.
Janet, I searched my email this morning and seem to have lost the one that contained your address. Would you mind resending it to me? Thanks.
Posted by: centralcal | November 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Clarice-
Were you hearing any of this racket coming from the hill?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Clarice, that was great. Has anyone been to the airports lately? Are they really subjecting members of all religions to these searches or just Christians, Jews etc? I find it hard to believe that CAIR is allowing this in the US with out a fight?
Posted by: Pagar | November 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Has anyone been to the airports lately?
I traveled through Dulles about a week ago. While their inspection is the strictest of all the airports through which I've flown (they always find something!) I've not seen the intrusive body searches mentioned. Nor anyone pulled out of the lines, for that matter.
And (very) belated Happy Birthday, PDinMotor-City!
Posted by: DrJ | November 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM
I do a slow burn every time I go through security. The TSA is an almost complete waste of money and one of the things for which I can never forgive GW Bush.
Never have so many been so inconvenienced and humiliated by so few.
Posted by: matt | November 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM
We need more like you,edward.
On December 21st -- just in time for Christmas -- Obama will have spent three quarters of his presidency in negative territory in the Raz index.
Sure can see where Hit,Jr. gets his math skilz!
Posted by: caro | November 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I go Clear. They're back after a reorganization but I haven't flown out of Orlando yet to see how well it is working. The old Clear worked very good and was non-intrusive. You save up to 20 minutes going through security especially if you have a flight during congested operations at a large airport like Orlando. Orlando is very difficult because of Disney and the attractions - every other person is pushing a stroller and has to unload the kid, the diaper bags, the food bags, fold the stroller, etc. Takes a while to get through. But with Clear you're pre-cleared - just hand over the Clear ID, do the fingertip drill get the retina scan and you're on your way. Kids under 12 need no additional ID.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM
caro:
Sure can see where Hit,Jr. gets his math skilz!
Heh. My math skilz are pretty much limited to being good with spreadsheets.
But to go on about hit and run jr ... particularly forDrJ ... his birthday was this week and mrs hit and run took him to Toys R Us to spend the money my parents gave him.
Guess what I got,dad!
Legos? -No.
A plane? -No.
Something Star Wars? -No.
Something about football?
No,dad a science kit! It's got a microscope,telescope,test tubes,petri dishes,all sorts of stuff. Dad,you wanna do science?
In a minute,I just got home from work and I need to change.
A few minutes later...Wanna do science now?
In a little bit,I had a long day at work and need to sit down for a bit.
How 'bout now?
Hang on,it's almost time for dinner.
How 'bout now?
Ok,son whatcha got........
Well. He played football for the first time this year. He loved it,but let's just say that most of the other kids have been playing it for a couple of years and they're bigger than he is. After one particular practice -- in which he was routinely finding himself lying on his back after each play -- he is sitting in the backseat of the car and says,"Mommy,you know what? I wasn't built for football. I was built for science."
That still has me laughing.
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 12:13 PM
"I would be interested in the subset of children who live with both biological parents, who are married to each other."
That's silly. It's illegal for children to marry each other.
Posted by: sbw | November 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Wow, I beat TM by 24 hours with my LUN yesterday.(OK it *was* the NYT and TM usually spares us.) As I asked, Where is Eric Holder, the cowardly AG, on this national concern? The article did indeed skirt the nuclear family aspect, and the good folk in Baltimore said *money* was not the answer.
Paging Arne Duncan!
Thomas Sowell for president!
(Dibs on Sowell)
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fhM-R45a44g/SfI6oCf_rZI/AAAAAAAABrQ/vUAGR7_Ekbk/s400/1+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+a+carmen+miranda+glam.bmp
OT - FLOTUS needs better designers for her future (Hah!) visits to mosques.
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:17 PM
I do a slow burn every time I go through security.
Me too. I really hate the ordeal, particularly at Dulles. It is always crowded, people are cranky, TSA is brusque, and I don't care for the airport itself.
Sadly a cross-country train is not an option.
Posted by: DrJ | November 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM
OK -Punchline ruined...
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:19 PM
hit,
My guy loves science, everything from dinosaurs, reptiles (we live in Florida and snakes, gators and bobcats are neighbors),electronics (those snap on circuit boards) and Legos. Legos are science - engineering science but science. They develop cognitive and problem solving skills by resulting in buillding things that work (for a kid). His favorite activity is to take random pieces of various Legos and build his own spacecraft, car or boat. Ingenuity, adaptation and curiosity are the main atrributes of all great entrepreneurial geeks and he is on the right track to have his own 4 day expo at the Muscone in San Francisco each year:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM
FLOTUS needs help for her future mosque visits.
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:21 PM
"the group hopes that ... 'jaw-dropping data' ... will spark a new sense of national urgency."
For whom? If so many flavors of paternalism have not yet worked, perhaps enabling failure is not the most effective option.
Providing opportunity is in the national interest. Making them take the opportunity is not our business. Education about the consequence of not taking the opportunity is helpful, but ought to stop short of putting pictures of blackened lungs on cigarette packages.
Posted by: sbw | November 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Yep, Inhofe has been a stalwart in the climate wars, so I'm gonna ignore his peccadillos about earmarks.
Granted, he lucked into it; as a Senator from a fossil fuel state he had to be opposing the demonization of carbon. He could be looking very foolish now if the CO2 myth had been true, but it ain't.
==============
Posted by: This next Congress will hang the EPA out to dry on energy. | November 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Nearly two-thirds of all Black children lived in a single–parent household.
Just a few short years ago up here in CT the Hartford Public School System (which is mostly minority students) was having a huge problem with the first day of school. The absenteeism rate for the first day was around 60% (well-that's what I remember - it could be off a bit, but it was a HUGE number). And it wasn't just the first day - it was the first week, and into the second week. The District started complaining because the state standardized testing starts after about a month and they felt they were at a disadvantage because of the number of missing students.
My point is, the parents of the kids, whether from a single-parent home (which, I suspect, is the much bigger group), or one with two parents, just didn't take enough interest to get the kids to school. Imagine the impact on the kids when the parents couldn't give a crap whether or not the kid is in school. I suspect that this is another offshoot of the breakdown of the nuclear family within urban centers.
Posted by: Specter | November 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Clarice, keep 'em coming. That was the biggest laugh of the day, and I do subscribe to the Vaudeville Prescription to Health newsletter. (A little song, a little dance, a little Seltzer,etc.)
"putting pictures of blackened lungs on cigarette packages."
What will the government nannies put on crack and other dope? When will second-hand smoke from marijuana become ripe for scorn and shunning?
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Janet stayed up late last night to enable me to post the Carmen Miranda mosque attire. Had FLOTUS had such glamour, she would not have embarrassed us in the fashion eyes of the entire world!.
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:31 PM
JiB - Deutsches Museum in Munich. Yum!
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM
remember when movie stars didn't all look like prepubescent boys?
Posted by: Clarice | November 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM
hit, The wolverine fancies herself a budding scientist. Right now it's paleontologist. I think she and Hit Jr might make beautiful music together.
Posted by: Clarice | November 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Great post edward.
Clarice @ 11:21 is great!!
...& Frau, what can I say?....Choosing Carmen Miranda over Jayne Cobb is a little sketchy!
A woman that wears fruit hats vs. this -
Posted by: Janet the tea-vangelist! | November 12, 2010 at 01:08 PM
I was wondering what happened to my hat...
Posted by: Specter | November 12, 2010 at 01:09 PM
I was wondering what happened to my hat...
LOL Specter! Hahahah...here's the quote - "Man walks down the street in a hat like that, you know he's not afraid of anything." Wash, in "The Message".
Posted by: Janet the tea-vangelist! | November 12, 2010 at 01:13 PM
"The TSA is an almost complete waste of money and one of the things for which I can never forgive GW Bush."
I knew CAIR would have a Plan. TSA probably has no objections.
"CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck."
"In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”
It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.”
Millions of Christians and Jews can be subjected to all kinds of things in the name of security, but Moslims just pat them selves down. This country has gone insane.
Posted by: Pagar | November 12, 2010 at 01:18 PM
All you need to know about the state of education in the US today.
Cal middle school orders boy to remove American flag from bicycle citing racial tensions.
Posted by: Pagar | November 12, 2010 at 01:29 PM
The point about earmarks that McConnell and Inhofe make is that they don't want to turn over spending in their districts to administration officials/bureaucrats.
Posted by: glasater | November 12, 2010 at 01:32 PM
I was actually nervous going thru security this morning. I was afraid I didn't have the proper things in the proper places and all that stuff. (Plastic bags, no liquids, license here, not license there) but they were very nice which does nothing but remind me I am getting old and they probably expect it.
(I'm in the Orlando airport with a 2 hour lay-over). In wanted to see Disney World from the plane because I've never been, but I couldn't.
Oh
"What should we do about this?"
Mitch daniels has suggested we get over social issues for the forceable future and concentrate on the economy.
Jim demint recently disagreed with that, which initially disappointed me because I always assume people are talking about the gays. But he specifically referred to this statistic, and I have to say I agreed with his point, which was, as long as we have all these single family households with failing kids entitlements are going to cost too much.
Posted by: Jane (get off the couch - come save the country) | November 12, 2010 at 01:40 PM
There is no avoiding the fact that the principal gift of the Mahometans to the world in the past century has been an incalculable economic and personal burden imposed on air travel.
But hell, they invented the compass, right? Oh, wait...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | November 12, 2010 at 01:44 PM
"That's silly. It's illegal for children to marry each other."
Some in CA are counting the days.
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 01:45 PM
Janet, the photos of FLOTUS at the mosque are more haunting than visions of Rahm in the Congrssional shower.
Posted by: Frau Leherin a.D. | November 12, 2010 at 01:47 PM
The point about earmarks that McConnell and Inhofe make is that they don't want to turn over spending in their districts to administration officials/bureaucrats.
BS. What they want to do is protect pork barrel corruption.
Congress has the authority of the purse. They simply refuse to use it except to line their own pockets.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 12, 2010 at 01:53 PM
Earmarks are bribes. I will actively work against anyone who votes for them,
Posted by: Jane (get off the couch - come save the country) | November 12, 2010 at 01:55 PM
"remember when movie stars didn't all look like prepubescent boys?"
Clarice just this week I was looking through a bunch of recently released Rat Pack photos (someone here posted the link...Daddy maybe).
Anyway a number of pics featured Marilyn Monroe in casual party settings just smoking and joking with her friends. I was struck by how "normal" she looked in regular clothes and without airbrushing. By current standards, she was downright fat.
Of course in my early teenage boy years, the iconic picture of her on the red velvet blanket that I stole somewhere (which my mother found hidden in my room when I went away to college...but that's another story) that is burned in my memory suggests she was just about perfect...
But I ramble.
Posted by: Old Lurker | November 12, 2010 at 02:01 PM
Jack:
His favorite activity is to take random pieces of various Legos and build his own spacecraft, car or boat.
Yup. And the amount of time and detail that he puts into his lego creations -- and the half hour long explanations of what each piece does and why and how is . . . exhaustive. Whoa. I almost said exhausting. That wouldn't be nice.
Clarice:
The wolverine fancies herself a budding scientist. Right now it's paleontologist. I think she and Hit Jr might make beautiful music together.
When I told hit and run jr to say the words out loud: "I've got dibs on the Wolverine",he was a bit confused. I assured him it was in his best interest,but couldn't tell him why at this point.
sbw:
That's silly. It's illegal for children to marry each other.
I couldn't tell hit and run jr why he was calling dibs on the Wolverine because he has indicated in the past a strong intent to one day marry . . . princess hit and run.
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 02:14 PM
12-11-10
Baghdad
brief notes:
Webb the Red is a TRAITOR.
Clarice's airport screening reminds me of this "best-ever" VW Polo commercial: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNOpDOVpixA
When discussing Mrs Poseur In Chief, I always consult:
http://moo-couch.blogspot.com/
(Perhaps I originally got the link here!)
TSA - "Thousands Standing Around" "good thing Ried did not shove the explosives up his anus. . ." h/t Thomas P.M. Barnett: MOST STRONGLY RECOMMENDED: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html
BTW - did I mention, Webb the Red is a TRAITOR.
Take good care,
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy Daze | November 12, 2010 at 02:17 PM
Could we call this tangentially related, as opposed to utterly off topic?
Yo Tarheels:
North Carolina made it into the Top Ten! We beat out 425 competitors in the Most Cerrymandered District playoffs. But we probably didn't need anyone to tell us the results of that contest, did we?
I'm pleased to report that the NC legislature just flipped to red and that our Governor is not empowered to veto its redistricting plans. I wish I could report that NC has committed itself to actuarial redistricting, but I've been reliably informed that won't come up for another 10 years.
In fact, we managed to put two districts in the Top Ten; I just posted my sentimental favorite in order to leave room for a Championship win the Chicago Way:
Everyone else can check the LUN for their home state's results in this category as well as the competition for "Most Blatantly Illegal Noncontiguous Congressional Districts." Don't worry, NC, we show up there too, but Florida's performance in both match ups was so awesome, it just put everyone else to shame.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 02:21 PM
Saw that JMH.
I went on about NC gerrymandering http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/08/how-we-spent-our-summer-of-recovery.html?cid=6a00d83451b2aa69e2013486942ee2970c#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e2013486942ee2970c>back in August...
And not to be nitpicky but Zombie said that NC-6 is hollowed out by your sentimental favorite - NC-12 - but failed to mention that NC-13 is equally to blame for cutting me off from the rest of my brothers and sisters in NC-6 up here in the upper pennisula of the district as we are...
Posted by: hit and run | November 12, 2010 at 02:39 PM
Have a great trip Jane, Caro and all of JOM who will be on the cruise.
Didn't want anyone to think I'm pro earmarks--I'm certainly not! But I don't want some faceless bureaucrat doing Obama's bidding in spending money however they please. That's got to stop.
Posted by: glasater | November 12, 2010 at 02:45 PM
hit:
District 12 is just a memory for me. I vote with Yadkinville and Boone, so cheer up!
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 02:50 PM
But I don't want some faceless bureaucrat doing Obama's bidding in spending money however they please. That's got to stop.
Congress doesn't have to let them. There are endless realms of possibility between dictating funds be spent in particular ways to favor particular constituents, and simply handing the executive a bag of money.
Most (all?) require Congress to do more work, though.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 12, 2010 at 02:50 PM
glasater:
The whole "Executive Branch earmarks" is just a Mitch McConnell boondoggle, trying to create an equivalence where none exists to protect the pork side of the putative equation. There's virtually no link between Presidential slush funds and Congressional earmarks, and no balancing act to be performed.
I thought that executive earmarks might actually be a useful formulation -- till I saw what McConnell was actually trying to use it for.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 02:59 PM
The photo of FLOTUS doing the crotch grab turns out to be a demonstration of the new TSA patdown procedure for non-Muslim women.
Posted by: harrjf | November 12, 2010 at 03:02 PM
So executive earmarks are OK?
Posted by: glasater | November 12, 2010 at 03:09 PM
I thought that executive earmarks might actually be a useful formulation -- till I saw what McConnell was actually trying to use it for.
Guess I don't get what McConnell "was trying to use it for."
Posted by: glasater | November 12, 2010 at 03:24 PM
Glasater, what are "executive earmarks"?
Betcha the cash still came from a House appropriation bill.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | November 12, 2010 at 03:25 PM
((The photo of FLOTUS doing the crotch grab turns out to be a demonstration of the new TSA patdown procedure for non-Muslim women.))
Bwahahahha... TSA was a "Bush" issue.
Posted by: Stephanie | November 12, 2010 at 03:28 PM
glasater:
"So executive earmarks are OK?"
No, they're not OK, they just don't exist.
Congressmen, not the Prez, add earmarks to their legislation. They also give the Executive Branch ginormous amounts of money to use, at its sole -- and often unexamined -- discretion, because Congress doesn't require the Prez to account for it. McConnell is trying to sell earmarks as a way of balancing Congressional and Executive spending prerogatives, when Congress can modify or put a halt to either one or both anytime it can collect enough honest legislators to do so.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 03:28 PM
JMH -- you know, of course, that Chicago has mastered the whole gerrymandering concept so well that it's not just used for voting. The famous act by which O'Hare Field is "within" the Chicago city limits is that they annexed the 8 lanes of the Kennedy Expressway that's between the city and the airport.
Posted by: cathyf | November 12, 2010 at 03:35 PM
OK kids--I finally "get it":)
And many thanks. I did read Jeff Flakes op-ed column in the Wapo, also.
Posted by: glasater | November 12, 2010 at 03:41 PM
But a new report focusing on black males suggests that the picture is even bleaker than generally known
In Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve", they foretold that any difference in ability, by any group, would be unacceptable, so it would be pushed under the rug.
I guess the rug was too small.
Posted by: Neo | November 12, 2010 at 03:55 PM
Three policies of Democrats that absolutely screw over black males.
1) minimum wage hikes...restricts access to the job market.
2) teacher's unions capitulation on K-12 reform.
3) Social Security...black males live a shorter life and have -4% return on dollars they pay into social security.
Posted by: Army of Davids | November 12, 2010 at 04:07 PM
"Waiting for Superman"
A documentary on the US K-12 public schools. It will break your heart.
And cause you to see teacher's unions very differently.
Posted by: Army of Davids | November 12, 2010 at 04:12 PM
On the audacity front, while McConnell protests that earmarks are absolutely essential to counterbalance Executive Branch spending, he simultaneously argues that earmarks represent a pittance in the larger scheme of things.
The latter has the virtue of being true, but it's equally cynical, IMO. It's not the $$, it's the corruption. It's Congressmen bribing each other and their own constituents for votes.
It's corruption so pervasive that Harry Reid didn't even bother to pretend he wasn't buying off Nebraska, Louisiana & Florida et al, with kickbacks and exemptions to Obamacare. It's Legislators who shamelessly wrote in application guidelines for grants and loans which guaranteed that only their own pet institutions would qualify for targeted funding.
Republicans will be voting on an earmark ban in secret though, if McConnell has his way! When asked if he supports a moratorium, McConnell answers that he's voted for one before -- without mentioning that he would have been forced to vote no in public last time around. I have no doubt that he's afraid he can't control his caucus without being able to play, or hold, the earmark card.
Earmarks corrupt the legislative process, the laws that result, and thus the very rule of law itself.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 04:13 PM
cathyf:
I had completely forgotten hearing about that. It's a side of gerrymandering that goes pretty much unnoticed, isn't it? And yet it's surely been going on a lot longer than the race based and or demographic shuffling that so many of us associate with it.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 04:21 PM
Speaking of gerrymandering districts in North Carolina:
The recent book ">http://www.amazon.com/How-States-Got-Their-Shapes/dp/0061431389"> How The States Got Their Shapes was an enjoyable read.
On the section on North Carolina, describing how the very bottom left section of the state was officially demarcated, author says that instead of continuing along the watershed (the dividing line between if the rain water flowed west over the mountains or flowed east over the mountains, (the criteria that the surveyors were using in that late 1700's survey) that instead they got about 60 miles due north of a Pub they were aware of, and so being exhausted they simply said screw it, drew a plumbline due south, and got to the bar the quickest way possible before closing time.
Author says there may be other explanations, but this one is the one that made most sense to me. I'll drink to that!
Posted by: daddy | November 12, 2010 at 04:41 PM
Well, to be fair, it wasn't just the 8 lanes of interstate, but also the median. Which now has an L line running over it. So if you count the newstand in the L station, and winos sleeping in the corner (before the cops roust them out), then the "Kennedy Expressway" "neighborhood" has both commerce and residents!
Posted by: cathyf | November 12, 2010 at 04:47 PM
daddy:
The "bottom left section"? You're a pilot, right? LOL. I saw a televised version of "How the states got their shapes" on one of the history/science/geo channels I watch, and it really was interesting.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 08:09 PM
JMH,
If I did not say that exactly correct, let me try again.
Way off to the left, the western side of ">http://geology.com/county-map/north-carolina.shtml"> Cherokee County, the border abeam Tennessee runs almost straight downward for 60 miles or so. That's the bottom left section I was talking about.
Posted by: daddy | November 12, 2010 at 11:51 PM
daddy:
I was just teasing, but it actually does help to see it on the map. The plumb line shows up pretty clearly doesn't it? I love that kind of stuff -- I'm sort of a map/topo/aerial junkie.
Posted by: JM Hanes | November 12, 2010 at 11:58 PM
A mom finds it difficult to leave her child at home alone. It is also essential for her to
earn money. Then what will she do? There is a good solution to this problem. She can easily
give time to her child by participating in a home based work project with an authentic
organization. Old people or diseased people also find it as a good opportunity. Home
business can be difficult as well as challenging. But it is really beneficial for many
people.
single moms
Posted by: singlemom | November 13, 2010 at 03:58 AM