The NY Times has a guest piece on "No Rich Child Left Behind". The gist - income is now a better predictor of success in school than race.
No kidding - David Brooks was fretting about "The Hereditary Meriticracy" years ago. Also unsurprising - Brooks referred to cultural inheritances with no mention of a possible genetic component to health, good lucks, high energy, intelligence, and other traits that might have led to the high incomes of the parents and been passed to the kids. The current author maintains that discipline.
I like this, from the intro:
Students growing up in richer families have better grades and higher standardized test scores, on average, than poorer students; they also have higher rates of participation in extracurricular activities and school leadership positions, higher graduation rates and higher rates of college enrollment and completion.
Whether you think it deeply unjust, lamentable but inevitable, or obvious and unproblematic, this is hardly news.
Paul Krugman is surely in the "deeply unjust" camp, yet I have no doubt he and his wife read regularly to their child.
If not the usual suspects, what’s going on? It boils down to this: The academic gap is widening because rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students. This difference in preparation persists through elementary and high school.
...
High-income families are increasingly focusing their resources — their money, time and knowledge of what it takes to be successful in school — on their children’s cognitive development and educational success. They are doing this because educational success is much more important than it used to be, even for the rich.
With a college degree insufficient to ensure a high-income job, or even a job as a barista, parents are now investing more time and money in their children’s cognitive development from the earliest ages. It may seem self-evident that parents with more resources are able to invest more — more of both money and of what Mr. Putnam calls “‘Goodnight Moon’ time” — in their children’s development. But even though middle-class and poor families are also increasing the time and money they invest in their children, they are not doing so as quickly or as deeply as the rich.
Why can't these evil one percenters just sail yachts and swill martinis?
Tom - Krugman has been married twice, but doesn't have any children.
(Those who think that character can be, in part, inherited will be pleased.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | April 29, 2013 at 08:25 AM
Paul ROBIN Krugman has been married twice, both times to women named Robin...hmm...?
What ever's wrong with Krugman is no small thing.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 08:28 AM
Isn't income a better predictor of success than race in close to everything, and not just school? Everything else being equal, someone with money behind him is going to have an advantage over someone who doesn't.
Posted by: steve | April 29, 2013 at 08:37 AM
Good grief. There's a high correlation between the most reliable measure of adult success (income) with the most reliable measure of their children's success (school performance). So what we're saying is: successful parents have successful children? Who'd a thunk it?
And this bit is priceless:
Do liberals think they can siphon off some modest percentage of societal wealth, apply it to a government program, and perform at a comparable level to those at the top of the income ladder applying themselves to (at least what should be) their top priority? Maybe if they were willing to actually parent those kids, they'd have a chance to compete. I'm not sure what kind of "invest"ing they're talking about, but am willing to bet it'd be non- or counterproductive.The truly funny thing is, if they were willing to hire some Jesuits to run their schools, they could probably improve results and save money at the same time. But that would be bad.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 29, 2013 at 09:04 AM
This is a perfect example of ideology-framing of "root cause" analysis that was a topic on an earlier thread.
My programming is rusty and mishmash of languages, but it looks sort of like this:
Get data
Find statistical correlations
StartLoop
Do you like the implications?
If yes, go to EndLoop
Else,
Get more data
Find some more correlations
Goback to Startloop
End loop
Demand more government action
Demand more taxes
Demand more research funding
It's science-y!
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 09:17 AM
Alice, you forgot the most important loop:
Do Until *NoPrivateSector
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2013 at 09:37 AM
Brava, Alice. I suppose some Cloward-Piven types in academia are concocting a plan to remove children from successful parents and put them in govt funded day care centers to insure equal results.
Posted by: Clarice | April 29, 2013 at 09:37 AM
Well said, AliceH.
Too much data, not enough personal responsibility.
Posted by: sbwaters | April 29, 2013 at 09:40 AM
"but improving the quality of our parenting and of our children’s earliest environments may be even more important."
Do we ask Gosnell when that "earliest" environment begins?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 09:46 AM
Clarice, why do you think they so oppose home schooling?
And remember the big fuss in France when there was an effort to ban homework, because it gave students who had more involved/educated parents an advantage?
These people really do take "Brave New World" (even more than "!984") as an instruction manual.
Posted by: James D. | April 29, 2013 at 09:47 AM
What is everybody doing for National Honesty Day?
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/04/citizens-demand-congress-investigate-obama.html?m=1
Only one shopping day left.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 09:52 AM
Maybe the children of the poor should be given to any well off families that would take them. Worked out for Moses, but not the family that took him in.
Posted by: PaulV | April 29, 2013 at 09:58 AM
"not enough personal responsibility"
SBW,
If you are referring to those not in the 1%, I would argue "definitely not so". Krugman cites a steady improvement within the 99% cohort. His hypothesis is built around a supposed disparity in the rate of improvement by Sunny Boy/Girl. The factors which he is assuredly hiding are fertility rates and mother's age at the birth of Sunny Boy/Girl. A superior educational performance by an only child born to a 26 yo mother of substantial means should elicit yawns.
If Krugman were an economist, rather than a polemicist, he would note the probability of a sharp devaluation of credentials due to oversupply and rue the wasted investment in time, money and effort by Sunny Boy/Girls mom for a sharply diminishing return.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Exposing and laughing at the Progressive architects of public education is an alternative worth considering. Rather than fear the control the left covets over the minds of the youngest generation, pointing a finger at the utter stupidity and vacuousness of their scholastic indoctrination system should bring it tumbling down in humiliation. Or at the least, administer a mighty blow to its foundation.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-28/greatest-weapon-against-tyranny-very-serious-people-laughter
Posted by: OldTimer | April 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM
--Do Until *NoPrivateSector--
ah, yes. We'll include that enhancement in the core release.
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Children of the Coin?
Posted by: matt | April 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Interesting timing. This observation actually goes back to 1966 and a federal report that sociologist James Coleman hijacked away from its intended purpose. The Coleman Report matters because it gets used starting in the 70s to argue for a reorientation of schools away from academics because an academic focus will always be inequitable. This becomes what is called the Effective Schools Movement, conveniently leaving out is about making the focus social and emotional learning instead.
Now Coleman is being used again by the Obama Administration without saying so to try to argue that an academic focus violates civil rights laws. Thus legally necessitating the shift that has already been put into effect in the actual language of those NCLB waivers and Race to the Top and Justice's also creative interpretation of federal disabilities laws.
Over the weekend I discovered that in 1988 Coleman started pushing a linkage between Social Capital and Gary Becker's Human Capital Theory. Making me wonder if the Coleman Report's points were not intended to actually make that link back in the 60s when both were at Chicago.
The Third Way political theorists like Anthony Giddens have been heavily pushing Social Capital and Human Capital to get at the more traditional forms of capital. In what is called a sociological view of the economy. And it's description fits with what I have tracked as distributive capitalism or Capitalism 3.0. It's definitely the UN and OECD's and the WB's political and eco vision for the 21st century. Thus assuring the continued need for the services of those overpaid and no taxes bureaucrats.
Since the NYT is actually involved formally with pushing certain education ideas, this timing on pushing Coleman once again without saying so is telling. Fits right into what I had already outlined next.
But this is today's. Just came over to take a break. With this topic not much of a break. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/desiring-a-radical-dialectic-change-in-social-reality-necessitates-enduring-misunderstandings/
Maybe we should talk about the weather.
Posted by: rse | April 29, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Narcisco, rse and sbw; Mo, Larry and Curly.
Posted by: Clarice | April 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Recall Rse, that Russian associate of Summers, who seems to selling that folderall, also part of the 'privatization' scam
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM
"Children of the Coin?"
Matt,
I believe "Child of the Coin" is more apt. The Chicoms are shuddering from the effects of their extermination program so it's not a limited problem. It appears Chinese Sunny Boys are behaving as one might expect a spoiled child to behave and refusing to sustain the parents who focused all energy on the single roll of the dice allowed.
Funny how that has always worked out.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Rick,
Since you're here, do you know about how large the population of China will be once the current oldsters die off and the one-child policy kids are running the place?
Posted by: DrJ | April 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM
It's not the money, it's the parents.
Posted by: Nellie W | April 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM
'effective schools' is certainly a Vizzinism, affective might be something different.
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM
I referred in the previous thread Kayyem's wisdom re Miranda and not second guessing ' the best of all possible investigations'
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Via The Jawa Report
"In what could be a breakthrough in understanding how Tamerlan Tsarnaev – himself a skilled boxer – became radicalised and turned to violence, Moscow's respected newspaper Novaya Gazeta revealed his links with William Plotnikov, who was killed last July by security forces in the troubled southern Russian republic of Dagestan.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/canadian-boxer-had-links-to-boston-bomber-20130429-2io3k.html
Apologies if this has been linked already
Posted by: Rocco | April 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM
I had heard of Plotnikov, but this Nidal character is new to me.
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Perfect, Alice.
I love the euphemism "invest in." How much have we invested in the federal Department of Education, and what have we got in return?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM
narciso-I remember because of how the ed labs fits in. It's interesting because about a month ago I found an interview with Broad making a point about what a union activist his father was.
I see our sock puppeter has returned. Anyone who has met me knows that Curly would be an apt description.
Posted by: rse | April 29, 2013 at 11:42 AM
When your favorite fictional character is Diana Moon Glompers, you have a problem.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Huxley is much more their model, or to use a modern reference point Dr. Cocteau of San Angeles* (Demolition Man)
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Dr. J,
The Chicom Peasant Extermination Program came into force in '72-73 (interesting correlation with the Nine Ninny decision to legalize infanticide). A brief Bing around the net turns up this UN estimate from 2010:
2020: 1,387,792,000
2030: 1,393,076,000
2040: 1,360,906,000
2050: 1,295,604,000
2060: 1,211,538,000
2070: 1,125,903,000
2080: 1,048,132,000
2090: 984,547,000
2100: 941,042,000
China is actually entering the third bearing generation of extermination and beginning to note the "failure to breed" problem common with only children.
I wouldn't put any trust in the UN estimate but I won't hazard a SWAG as to whether the Chinese fertility rate among Chinese only children will track the suicidal European and American rates.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM
A Dr. Twemlow, makes excuses for the Brothers;
“That is a normal, dissociative response,” he said, adding that the younger brother, whose movements were more public, had most likely “denied and compartmentalized what he had just done.”
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Ben Carson's Mom couldn't read and look what happened to him...
Posted by: glasater | April 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM
You'd think Holder would put in a good word, sarc;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/29/State-Dept-Blocking-Lawyers-Fromk-Representing-Benghazi-Whistle-blowers?utm_source=BreitbartNews&utm_medium=facebook
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Rick-how convenient then to get the US, Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong now educating their youth in a manner consistent with Chinese state approved philosophy and practices. If you cannot prevail on the merits, voluntary disarmament works.
For us not so much.
Posted by: rse | April 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM
This is beyond Vizzini;
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERSTORM_CHRISTIE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-29-07-57-18
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM
OT-- small and large gun manufcturers leave Connecticut asap-- 3000 Ct Jobs head out the door-- (that means 8,000-10000 total, including the jobs they support at subcontractos, vendors and people the employees use.) I'm sure danny Malloy will hire some new state employees to pick up the slack-- what's that Ct's broke? Oooooh... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/gun-manufacturers-start-leaving-states-that-passed-new-gun-control-laws/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM
The indispensable Paul Samuelson:
It's all here.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM
DoT-- I saw that Samuelson piece. all true of course... and that proves Paul Samuelson can.... DO ARITHMATIC.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Connecticut used to be the arsenal of the Republic. What a shame.
LUN for an article in the WaPo that seems to have flown under the radar. Apparently, the US has been running rampant in the drug war in Mexico. Drones targeting cartel members, wiretaps, elint, and the CIA is at the center of it all. Apparently, the Mexican government was alerted to the exact whereabouts of the top 25 drug lords in order to arrest them by the CIA.
This is sounding like the bad old days more and more.
Very scary stuff when one considers that the flood of drugs has never been slowed.
Posted by: matt | April 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Rick,
Thanks for the table. No, I don't put a lot of confidence in the precise numbers, but it looks like China will stay at about a billion people, give or take, for some time.
Posted by: DrJ | April 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM
T'ain't about the flow of drugs. It's about who gets to rule Mexico.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM
'Paul' samuelson... Ugh... flashback to my college economics study days... Mr. Robert Samuelson today does the arithmatic about entitlements.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM
One of the nice things about JOM is that those who read the comments actually, you know, think about those comments.
So spoofing trolls are impotent -- Inconsequential and they know it.
Posted by: sbwaters | April 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM
The Israeli Knesset has come up with a simple way to discourage illegal immigration--prevent those immigrants from transferring funds out of the country.http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Unavoidable-measures-311298
Posted by: Clarice | April 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM
The "anxious" middle class votes for the "best candidate that can win" only to become even more anxious after their best candidate wins.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Please excuse my misidentifying Robert Samuelson.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM
The "anxious" middle class votes for the "best candidate that can win"
For whom should they vote? Can you give us a name for 2008 or 2012?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 29, 2013 at 01:00 PM
Samuelson's article is mostly right on, except I think he's got the order wrong of the causes. The one he lists last ought to be first, as it drives everything else:
Fourth, that lifestyle choices — to marry, have children or divorce — would expand individual freedom without inflicting adverse social consequences. Wrong. Family breakdown has deepened poverty and worsened children’s prospects. About 30 percent of children live with either one parent or no parent; on average, their life chances are poorer than those in two-parent households.
We don't have enough children (and we can thank another "choice" for contributing to that), and every year a larger and larger percentage of the ones we do have are born into situations that make their success less likely (or, worse, makes them ultimately a net cost to society rather than a contributor).
Everything else proceeds from that. Without a population that at a minimum replenishes itself every generation, you can't have economic growth. And without stable families where children can learn how to be functioning adults and decent citizens, you ultimately can't have any kind of workable society at all.
Which is pretty much where we're headed now.
Posted by: James D. | April 29, 2013 at 01:03 PM
China is actually entering the third bearing generation of extermination and beginning to note the "failure to breed" problem common with only children.
We enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner at my sister's house. We were all family except for a Chinese couple (he's a medical student) with their newborn daughter, who came as guests of my niece. They said this would be the only child they would be permitted to have; if the wife gave birth to another one while in this country the child would not be allowed to enter China. Here they were, surrounded by us innumerable brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins--none of which that child's children will ever have. It was very sad to contemplate.
They are creating a new subspecies of human being, and my guess is it will lead to enormous human misery.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 29, 2013 at 01:08 PM
DrJ,
Consider what a graph of the median age of the Chinese population would look like over the time period. Mann would kill for a hockey stick like that. Then consider the complete absence of a "social safety net" for the vast majority of the Chinese population and the "Chinese economic miracle" begins to look a lot like the "Chinese House of Horrors".
The falling fertility rate in the US is the factor driving our brain dead oligarchy to push the Peasant Import Bill with such vigor. "Moar Peasants" is the only answer their extraordinarily limited intellects are able to envision.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 29, 2013 at 01:08 PM
"and that proves Paul Samuelson can.... DO ARITHMATIC."
But can he spell it? :)
And, yes, that was Robert. Sadly, as brilliant as Paul was, I doubt he would have written that column, he being a big believer in Keynes, athe Great Society, etc. in other words, great at math, not so good at arithmetic.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 29, 2013 at 01:11 PM
But of course:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 29, 2013 at 01:13 PM
"They are creating a new subspecies of human being, and my guess is it will lead to enormous human misery."
I've heard that the only children get spoiled, and that there's a high rate of obesity and, yes, parricide.
Sadly, I also heard that the Chinese woman killed in Boston was an only child.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 29, 2013 at 01:14 PM
It's the European model, influenced by the unfortunately still around 'scribblers' of the Club of Rome.
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 01:19 PM
DoT, that's not remotely surprising.
Aside from the racism and hatred of America that's par for the course at Holder's DoJ (and the Zero Administration generally), it's also a lot easier to be on the lookout for nonexistent acts than it is to investigate actual crimes.
(still can't post with a LUN, by the way. Cleared the cache, using Chrome with no add-ons, and still no luck)
Posted by: James D. | April 29, 2013 at 01:22 PM
Kodak Death Watch:
Posted by: DrJ | April 29, 2013 at 01:23 PM
Paul Samuelson's ArithmEtic-- Paul was a classically trained economist, but when you're getting your PhD at Harvard while Galbraith is fixing prices for... everything... then it's hard not to see the world through Keynesian eyes. I give economists of his era a pass, anyone younger who stays Keynesian after the 1970s and Milton Friedman's monetarist lessons, is either wilfully ignorant or a political hack (see Krugman)
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 01:23 PM
You'd think Holder would put in a good word, sarc
I wonder how DiGenova likes the chinless wonder now.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 01:26 PM
RickB-- the ChiComs' intentions are clear, they want to hold population at about 1B (as many ethnic Han people as possible) while increasing national income/wealth, so as to increase per capita income/wealth, and keep the lid on any social disruption. Problem is, as you point out, is the aging component and no national 'social security' transfer payments from younger workers 20 years from now to maintain the retired and elderly. My guess is,starting 2030 or so, the ChiComs tell the elderly to start walking west towards the Gobi... stop when? the ChiComs will 'let them know.'
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 01:30 PM
Attorney General Eric Holder is warning Americans not to discriminate against Muslims in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings.
Why does he need to say this? There have been no significant acts of discrimination in the past. And the MFM is doing their best to obscure the Islamic identity of the bombers.
Why it's almost like Stedman has an agenda against normal Americans.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 01:36 PM
NK,
The real problem is there doesn't seem to be a "natural check" to the accelerating decline in fertility rates in the West. China is skipping the wealth accumulation step and jumping right to the "national suicide" outcome.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 29, 2013 at 01:36 PM
The other factor in China is the disparity between male and female births. There is a 20-30% difference in the number of male vs female births at present which has been going on for some time. That women are a large part of the workforce is also delaying child bearing.
This will affect regional demographics for the next century and even the stability of the Han majority. Social engineering is hard.
Posted by: matt | April 29, 2013 at 01:37 PM
They have their best candidate and that is who they should vote for.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 01:40 PM
Matt/RickB-- all true (especially the ethnic Han part)-- which means there is a chasm between ChiCom aspirations and demographic realities. Social engineering is indeed hard, and usually ends poorly-- this time it may end in disaster for the nonmuslim world.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Why is Holder against "backlash?" That's a common Obama practice?
Posted by: MarkO | April 29, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Good grief. There's a high correlation between the most reliable measure of adult success (income) with the most reliable measure of their children's success (school performance). So what we're saying is: successful parents have successful children? Who'd a thunk it?
And IQ is highly correlated with school success. So smart parents have smart kids, who then go on to do well in school and be successful.
Again, this is emotionally difficult for liberals; deep down they know it to be true, but it contradicts all their other narratives, and leads to uncomfortable empirical observations. So they (with help from people like Krugman) pretend it isn't true.
Who wouldn't pay to watch a Krugman-Charles Murray knock-down drag-out debate?
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2013 at 01:48 PM
Right now, I would trade JOM Posting problems for my Getting The #)*&!*& Mower Started problems, in a heartbeat. And believe me, my heart is really flying after the workout I just had.
I really don't understand it. Sometimes it starts first try. Sometimes second try. Then all of sudden it just won't start no matter what I do.
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 01:49 PM
AliceH-- spark plug?
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 01:50 PM
Somewhat OT trivia: who are the only two sitting Supreme Court Justices whose first language was not English?
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2013 at 01:52 PM
Well Scarborough sideswiped him, and he only obliquelt used facts, sparingly, Murray would pummel him into a paste, all the while he would be insisting 'it's a flesh wound'
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 01:52 PM
Alice, it could be a lot of things but have you checked the spark plug? They can get fouled pretty easily and are easy to clean off. Plus they can be taken off and on with vice grips if you're careful, although a plug socket is the preferred way.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 01:53 PM
AliceH, spark plug and/or rust on the magneto. Although the more modern mowers have cheap carborators that #@@##! out early.
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2013 at 01:53 PM
NK typed quicker and stuck to the essentials
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 01:54 PM
narc provides images of Fearless Fosdick Scarborough being shot in the head but proceeding without a blink
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 01:56 PM
Porch, the
dumbasswise Latina and Scalia?Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 01:57 PM
Those would be my guesses as well.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 01:58 PM
Social engineering is hard.
Not if you're entirely isolated from the consequences of it, it's not. Then it's just like a big game of Sim City.
If you screw up, oh, well, you can just try again later. To our so-called leaders, the real live citizens whose lives are disrupted (or destroyed) are of no more consequence than the digital people in the computer game.
Posted by: James D. | April 29, 2013 at 01:58 PM
Thanks, all.
I'll check the spark plug. In a minute.
Not sure I quite grasp how that could be the source of intermittent problems, though.
I don't know what a magneto is, but I'll figure it out and check that too.
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 01:59 PM
Well that was referring to Krugman, in a recent argument clinic, the latter reminded the gnome, that he had argued for a real estate bubble, back in 2002.
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 01:59 PM
Porch, trick question. the Latina and Thomas.
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2013 at 01:59 PM
Henry will win this challenge.
Today's small engine carbs are garbage. The only thing worse is the quality of fuel. How long has the mower sat?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 01:59 PM
AliceH, try "howthingswork.com" for explanations of these doohickeys. ;)
Posted by: henry | April 29, 2013 at 02:00 PM
Groan:
"Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a gathering in Cleveland that childcare for all should be the next 'pillar' of American government and 'the president comes close in his budget when he says ‘preschool for all’ because we have a situation of children learning, parents earning.' 'I need your help on this because we talked about - Social Security a pillar of economic stability for America’s families,' Pelosi said at the City Club of Cleveland on April 15. 'Medicare and Medicaid another pillar of health security.'"
Posted by: DoT on iPad | April 29, 2013 at 02:01 PM
Not sure I quite grasp how that could be the source of intermittent problems, though.
The deposits that build up on the plug are aided by high humidity to keep a spark from arcing across the gap; in dryer conditions not so much.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 29, 2013 at 02:05 PM
Gasoline Mowers-- I may be a Blue State pansy without a rifle, but Gasoline Mowers I do know-- I've got the best lawn on my droughty Ct. street to prove it. Every autumn I burn off the last of the gasoline inthe mower tank and LAWFULLY empty the fillcan before the winter. Using the same fuelcan gasoline the following spring is a bad idea. The gasoline may have chemically broken down depending on the amount of air/moisture penetration-- and depending where you live, there may have been freezing. The intermitent starting made me think of the spark plug rather than fuel-- but empying the tank and buying new fuel may also be a good idea.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 02:06 PM
Thomas' family didn't speak standard English(Gullah, I think) and neither did the Latina's.
Posted by: Clarice | April 29, 2013 at 02:08 PM
I had to buy Paul Samuelson's book for Economics 1 in 1970. The tool accepted the official growth rate put out by the Soviets and wrote that they would soon have larger GDP than the US. Idiot.
Posted by: PaulV | April 29, 2013 at 02:11 PM
O'Connor is giving Souter a run for her money, isn't she'
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 02:12 PM
Alex Jones has got to the GOP!!
http://www.gotnewswire.com/news/fox-feds-are-buyingup-ammo-to-starve-civilian-gun-owners
I hate the smell of a conspiracy...
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 02:12 PM
--How long has the mower sat?--
I take it in to be serviced (oil change, blades sharpened etc.) every year at the start of the mowing season.
Mowed the whole yard last week -- probably started it 6 times in that round. Mowed 1/3 of the yard today - started up twice no problem.
It's a 3 year old Lawnboy self-propelled push mower 4-stroke engine.
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 02:13 PM
The ammo link might suck. Story on Fox next.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 02:14 PM
AliceH, I'd suggest you check the air filter too. Those usually are a foam block (often soaked in oil). They can plug from inattention and prevent air ultimately from entering the combustion chamber.
If I were a betting man I'd bet on the spark plug.
Posted by: DrJ | April 29, 2013 at 02:15 PM
Was last week the first it was used this season, after the service? New gas, as in less than a month old?
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 02:18 PM
If the service guys replaced the filters and spark plug-- Im down to defective replacement plug-- or-- henry's crapped out 4-stroke carb theory.
Posted by: NK | April 29, 2013 at 02:20 PM
TK - yes, last week was first use this year. Gas was minutes old.
This happened last year and the year before, folks. It starts most of the time, until it doesn't, but then it does again. So far, CH's moisture/humidity theory is the only one making sense to me.
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 02:21 PM
"Mowed 1/3 of the yard today - started up twice no problem."
Hard to start while the engine is hot only?
Sorry for all the questions but this is how I roll.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 29, 2013 at 02:24 PM
Porch, trick question. the Latina and Thomas.
henry wins. Bet you the Thomas haters would never, ever guess. He is a native Gullah speaker.
I wonder, prior to Thomas, who the last Justice to qualify? Was there one?
Posted by: Porchlight | April 29, 2013 at 02:25 PM
--Hard to start while the engine is hot only?--
I'd have to say it occurs more frequently, but not by any means exclusively, when I'm restarting it.
And on that note, I'm going to try again. If it works, I'm not running back in to let y'all know, so assume no news is good news.
Posted by: AliceH | April 29, 2013 at 02:29 PM
Now I remember where I saw this Dalgutov character, it was on a post from the Chechen site, from Last July, which is interestingly around the time that Dzokhar was twitting up a storm, commenting about his visit to D.C,
Posted by: narciso | April 29, 2013 at 02:31 PM