September 29, 2011

Solyndra and The Borrowed Generation

With his Solyndra green energy project getting some bad press, billionaire oil man George Kaiser is looking for some good press by publicizing his $4 billion philanthropy. In Forbes, we see the very model of the modern major donor:
His experience taught him that “rich, smart parents tend to have rich, smart kids–not because it’s genetic but because they can create a home environment and sensory stimulation that lower-income kids often don’t get,” he says. “If you are born into poverty, the chances are good that your children will be born into poverty.” The solution: “The solution: “Find a way to give poor kids the same cognitive stimulus that rich kids receive and they should end up with the same tools for success.” 
... Oklahoma, like a lot of places in America, has universal preschool, but it begins only at age 4, at which point many poor kids are so far behind their rich peers that they’ll never catch up. 
... Educare is Kaiser’s favorite project. No matter how rich you are, it’s unlikely your children went to a preschool as grand as these. It starts with beautifully designed, light-filled buildings erected in the poorest parts of town. Classrooms and play areas are filled with the highest-quality educational toys, books, games, puzzles. Rooms average 15 kids and 3 teachers, who often have graduate degrees in early childhood education. They focus on increasing kids’ cognitive abilities through sensory stimulation and “serve-and-return” interaction–a child does something and you do something back. They even visit students’ homes to make sure they’re being brought up in a healthy environment. 
Parents are encouraged to keep them there all day–from as early as 7 a.m. to as late as 6 p.m.–in order to achieve the best results.

How much do 3-year-olds need to sleep at night? Eleven hours? So, if you are supposed to have your child at Educare at 7 a.m. and pick him up at 6 p.m. -- for "best results" -- that means you'll only have two waking hours per day (5 a.m. to 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., presumably) to ruin him with your no account ghetto ways.

That is the theory, right? To take poor black women's children away from them for almost every waking hour and have them raised by expert professionals? It might work ...

Then, again, doesn't it seem just as likely that decades from now there will be huge lawsuits over "a conspiracy to commit cultural genocide" (which will then become the preferred explanation for continuing black dysfunction), with the taxpayers shelling out multibillion dollar payout settlements to survivors?

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Spending additional resources on kids will benefit them, but it will probably only be a marginal return on investment.

Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

... Oklahoma, like a lot of places in America, has universal preschool, but it begins only at age 4, at which point many poor kids are so far behind their rich peers that they’ll never catch up.

Mr. President, we must not allow a fingerpainting gap!

I am Lugash.

Anonymous said...

Your point about the necessary amount of sleep is interesting. I expect that the parents of these warehoused preschoolers will keep them awake after picking them up. All the cognitive benefits of modern "scientific" pre-school will erode due to sleep deprivation. http://www.nurtureshock.com/

Xenophon Hendrix said...

This reminds me of the Carolina Abecedarian Project. Wikipedia's writeup is good.

rightsaidfred said...

“rich, smart parents tend to have rich, smart kids–not because it’s genetic but because they can create a home environment and sensory stimulation that lower-income kids often don’t get,” he says.

This, from a billionaire, who supposedly made his money by being smarter than everyone else?

Anonymous said...

I doubt it'll ever get to that point, Steve. We can barely deliver the mail anymore, let alone set up massive early-childhood interventionist programs. Good for billionaires like this for trying something, anything. At the very least it could result in some good data down the line.

Anonymous said...

Those giant lawsuits have already materialized in Australia and neighboring Canada over native boarding schools. They have proved costly, and have created whole new sectors in the 'reparations' industry.

As for results, it's like trying to keep a punctured tire from deflating. As long as it's hooked to a functioning air pump, you can maintain the illusion that everything is working fine. Once the pump is taken away, as it eventually must be.....

Chicago said...

Seems the same old ideas keep getting re-invented over and over again. This scheme sounds like it was dreamed up by a well meaning seventeen year old. This should lay to rest the popular notion that those who've made fortunes in business are somehow more savvy and astute in general than anybody else. Once out of their area of expertise, businessmen are just as liable to be dopey and idiotic as the average person, sometimes more so. For once, maybe try showering some money on some white kids; the results would be better.
Is Bill Gates still out there in search of the African Einstein?

Allison said...

It can't work.

It's cargo cult education: mimic all of the surface level trappings and behaviors of an intellectually and emotionally rich preschool, and we'll have an intellectually and emotionally rich preschool!

Except no, you can't make what works for the top 2 1/2% of a population work for the remaining 97 1/2% just like that.

How many people with phds in early childhood education are you going to have? With an adult for every 4 kids in the preschool, and certainly those adults not working 11-13 hour days, you'd need about 1 adult for every 2 kids.

Gee, you'd need every woman who gave birth to a child to have a phd in early childhood ed to make that ratio work. They won't all be above average then. No, instead, you'll be taking the same women whose kids you put into daycare and making them the daycare providers.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Kaiser will be as good in harvesting black mental energy as in harvesting dollars from suckers, favors from politicians, and green energy from solar panels.

Anonymous said...

This story shows philanthropy is a cover to do greedy things that some rich people do. He defrauded a nation but then says all the PC things to show he's a good guy. Thus, the media and government are less likely to go after him.

"I may be greedy but I built this lavish school for negro kids and say all the PC things."

Anonymous said...

Black kids raised 24/7 under white supervision may surely do better than under what generally passes for black parenting and culture.
But, a child can be raised only so high depending on his natural skills.
There aren't many Mexers in NFL or NBA. Suppose we teach Mexer kids football and basketball from an early age. They'll certainly learn to play better, but they still won't be NCAA, let alone NBA/NFL, material.

So, if Kaiser's point is 'black kids can be improved', that is true. But it's not true that they can be made equal, anymore than non-blacks can be made equal of blacks in sports. China trains its athletes from kiddie stage, but I didn't see any Chinese finalists in most track and field.

Anonymous said...

Steve,
you are correct, of course.

I would love to have some insight in to what is going on in the minds of these billionaires like Kaiser and Gates who think that they can close the gap by providing enrichment to children who are born poor.

I mean, it is a noble and humanitarian belief that gaps in adult IQ are the product of environment and not of genetics.

But the evidence is so crystal clear against Kaiser's program.

Can you explain what is really going on in the minds of the billionaires that dedicate their money to this ultimately hopeless goal?

Anonymous said...

Steve,
you are correct, of course.

I would love to have some insight in to what is going on in the minds of these billionaires like Kaiser and Gates who think that they can close the gap by providing enrichment to children who are born poor.

I mean, it is a noble and humanitarian belief that gaps in adult IQ are the product of environment and not of genetics.

But the evidence is so crystal clear against Kaiser's program.

Can you explain what is really going on in the minds of the billionaires that dedicate their money to this ultimately hopeless goal?

DCS said...

See "Stolen Aboriginal Generation" circa 1883-1969 for the next chapter.

outlaw josey wales said...

It is simply impermissible to think that smart parents tend to have smart children. We think nothing of musician parents having musically talented kids, or athletic families having athletic children (the Manning's), but heaven forbid we admit that intelligence is heritable.

Why is it okay to admit that some are just inherently physically gifted, but not intellectually?

Anonymous said...

I think this emphasis on dealing with black children has more to do with fear than high-minded concern for their intellect.
What white people fear most is black physicality and aggression. Even adult white teachers cannot handle highschool black kids--or even middle school black kids who can be plenty tough and rowdy.

But libs are supposed to love blacks, which is the centerpiece of liberal virtues. There is nothing nobler than 'I love the Noble Negro'. But many black adults or older youths are not loveable or easy to handle. So, liberals prefer to work with black kids. Kids are nicer and even if not nice, easier to handle. Even though we don't allow corporal punishment in schools, much of discipline is about 'who is bigger and stronger', especially in a democratic society like the US where there is no stigma attached to younger person beating up an older person(which in some cultures would be grounds for having the kid killed as punishment).
White teachers are bigger than young black kids. And even Mike Tyson might have been cute and cuddly when 5 yrs old. But older black kids can be scary.

So, libs feel maybe if they 'tame' black kids from an early age, they'll be less scary. They'll be more 'domesticated'.
So, I think a lot of this 'help the negro kids' stuff more about 'taming' them than teaching them. Wolves can be tamed too, but they have to be started at an earlier age and with greater intensity.

Bostonian said...

The country cannot afford to do this for all poor children, and if it somehow did, it would have dysgenic effects, encouraging the poor to have more children. Quoting the article:

"The facility becomes a kind of community center for the students’ families, including parenting and career training, medical care and even cooking classes. “This is really my support system,” says one mom. (Some, unfortunately, get the wrong idea: “It makes you want to have more kids,” says another parent, already the mother of six.)"

Georgia Resident said...

Just ignore the fact that they already tried the "extensive stimulation" approach with Milwaukee Project, and failed to produce any lasting gains in IQ (which probably indicates that it produced no real gains in intelligence).

The simple fact is that while a few individuals with high intelligence but little stimulation may underperform their potential, an individual's intelligence cannot be fundamentally increased by spending lots of money on fancy new facilities. If that were true, the US, which spends far more per pupil than Poland, would beat that country hands down in PISA scores. Instead, we get beaten by Poland because they have a relatively high average national IQ and very few NAMs.

Anonymous said...

Getting some bad press? Not on CNN, MSNBC, ect.

Anonymous said...

Then, again, doesn't it seem just as likely that decades from now there will be huge lawsuits over "a conspiracy to commit cultural genocide"
well duh steve, that's how the left keeps itself in perpetual motion.
Banks are redlining avoiding minorities who can't afford mortgages!
changes to:
Banks are predatory lending by giving loans to minorities that cannot afford them!

The biggest, most destructive loop is:
Increase immigration - leads to alienation leads to more calls for more diversity

Anonymous said...

BTw, i did a search for diversity and: 'About 188,000,000 results (0.21 seconds)"
I remember in 1988 during Fraternity rush, our house (all white, needless to say, as all were and this at a competitive big 10 school) we used the term ' diversity' to describe us to rushees.. and it was a not much used word back then..

Anonymous said...

OT but this is prime material for SWPL, (just for the picture alone)
http://www.generalassemb.ly/blog/making-something-people-love-developing-a-brand-with-personality-and-much-more

Anonymous said...

"It starts with beautifully designed, light-filled buildings..."

Nobody's been designing beautiful buildings for decades. Anywhere. Architecture is dead.

sounds reasonable said...

Remember in the '80's some used up black college athletes sued their universities for letting them graduate as illiterates? I don't think those were too successful.

Simon in London said...

Kaiser:
"His experience taught him that “rich, smart parents tend to have rich, smart kids–not because it’s genetic..."

Hilarious.

Given that we sent our son to a crappy nursery (preschool) from 6 months to age 4, leave him to watch TV most of the time he's at home, and are generally pretty poor parents, I take it he'll turn out with a sub-normal IQ? My Oxford degree and PhD or my wife's Masters in Economics clearly have no bearing here, since they only evidence *our* IQs, which of course have no genetic influence on *his* IQ. Right?

rjp said...

Let's see give women 5 or so years of working while they build up their baby stable, then watch them all fire or quit and lay back on the dole.

Geoff Matthews said...

In this projects defense, it isn't a boarding school, so you can't claim the children were taken away.
However, the claim that mothers were tricked into bringing their children will carry water, if people are still inclined to humor the racial agitators.

josh said...

So all these hardworking, dedicated, intelligent, well-trained, (and well paid)white women are busting their assess to make the lil negro children be smarter. So where does that leave the white children;I mean those few whose daddeis rea not mil- and billionaires? Rich:High IQ & Top Notch education. Blacks:Not so high IQ & Top Notch education. Whites:Middling IQ & Middling Ho Hum education. Rich win,with whites and blacks (hopefull,say the J-oops,the leftists,)tied.

L said...

I think we'll look back on that final paragraph you wrote, Steve, and say, "Wow, he was prescient." The racial shake-down business probably isn't going to die out.

beowulf said...

but it will probably only be a marginal return on investment.

Actually its one of the most cost-effective uses of taxpayer money. Even the most gold-plated preschool is cheaper than building a jail (think impulse control, not IQ). Quoting James Heckman:
We argue that, on productivity grounds, it makes sense to invest in young children from disadvantaged environments. Substantial evidence shows that these children are more likely to commit crime, have out-of-wedlock births, and drop out of school. Early interventions that partially remediate the effects of adverse environments can reverse some of the harm of disadvantage and have a high economic return.
They benefit not only the children themselves, but also their children, as well as society at large. Investing in disadvantaged young children is a rare public policy with no equity-efficiency tradeoff.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.560&rep=rep1&type=pdf

beowulf said...

"That is the theory, right? To take poor black women's children away from them for almost every waking hour and have them raised by expert professionals? It might work..."

Just to be sure, public boarding schools (like the one in DC) would better guarantee minimal parental influence.
Started in 1998, the school is called SEED. It's the nation's first urban public boarding school.
Ninety one percent of the students finish high school, and 95 percent go on to college. It's a charter school that's getting national attention. Admission is by lottery, open to any family in the district willing to take a chance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/21/60minutes/main6506911.shtml

Anonymous said...

"Can you explain what is really going on in the minds of the billionaires that dedicate their money to this ultimately hopeless goal?"

First, they are probably status whoring. Second, if they did spend the money on white children, then their own children would face a greater threat to maintaining their wealth and position.

"Substantial evidence shows that these children are more likely to commit crime, have out-of-wedlock births, and drop out of school."

That is probably because behavior is heritable and these women who want to be single moms are selecting alpha.

Anonymous said...

For God's sakes Steve, two words:

Rural Oklahoma

AKA:

Those poor white rednecks you've been promoting about for the last 3 years as the most likely improve

Mark Tully said...

Why not fix the culture that creates bad parents instead of teaching their children that you can suck at parenting and someone else will fix the mistakes?

Anonymous said...

Kaiser is playing to a crowd that lives in a bubble of social proof -- and group think.

He's also trying to climb Maslov's pyramid -- and stand up there with the other do-betterers and preen.

The money spent is but a social tithe -- necessary to keep the image burnished.

RKU said...

This story shows philanthropy is a cover to do greedy things that some rich people do. He defrauded a nation but then says all the PC things to show he's a good guy. Thus, the media and government are less likely to go after him.

Exactly. It's just like that Zuckerberg fellow donating $100M to the poor black schools of Newark, New Jersey a couple of weeks before the premiere of the movie alleging he'd stolen the idea for his company and swindled all of his partners out of their shares.

I've heard that when Marie Antoinette was being walked up the scaffold, she insisted she'd been misquoted and had actually announced she'd be donating 100 nice cakes to the Parisian poor. Didn't change anything...

rec1man said...

There are several studies that show head start to be a failure.
This is a more expensive variety of head start

The only methods that led to IQ gain in blacks were behavioral

ABA - Applied behavior analysis
and
Direct Instruction

Both instill compliance, drill, IQ sorting and mastery is needed before promotion to the next grade

Anonymous said...

“rich, smart parents tend to have rich, smart kids–not because it’s genetic .. "



The "rich" part is certainly not genetic. It does "tend" to be a lot easier to be a rich kid if dad is making millions of dollars per year. In fact it's downright impossible not to be a rich kid in that scenario.

Anonymous said...

forget the blacks, this is just creeping Liberal power grab for all children in order to subject them to political and religious (new age) indoctrination. They will start with the easy to dupe minorities to setup these institutions and iron out the process and will then drag everybody else's children into it.

David Davenport said...

Actually its one of the most cost-effective uses of taxpayer money. Even the most gold-plated preschool is cheaper than building a jail (think impulse control, not IQ).

Abortions are cheaper than that.

Anonymous said...

This story shows philanthropy is a cover to do greedy things that some rich people do. He defrauded a nation but then says all the PC things to show he's a good guy.
al capone used to run a soup kitchen.

For a modern example, see Bruce Ratner/Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn a developer who manipulated 'affordable housing' (never built) and created minority activist organizations to protest in favor of him.
result? hundreds of millions in state subsidies, and 22 acres - much via emniment domain in the heart of Brooklyn - an area with 750K condos - declared 'blighted' and turned over to him.

Eric said...

Actually its one of the most cost-effective uses of taxpayer money.

Or maybe not. You quickly reach the point of diminishing returns with education spending, and we're far past it.

Even the most gold-plated preschool is cheaper than building a jail (think impulse control, not IQ).

Assuming there's some actual correlation. How much does it cost to build a preschool and a jail? Educators want us all to believe what they're doing has a huge benefit, and consequently should be funded more lavishly. I don't see any evidence. Look at Head Start - hundreds of millions wasted with no measurable benefit.

NOTA said...

The best explanation is some combination of signaling ("see what a virtuous and enlightened guy I am?") and naively accepting the received wisdom of his culture in an area he knows little about.

What would it look like if you designed programs for children of the underclass based on a more realistic view of HBD? I visualize a massive operation whose purpose is to find the few really bright kids in those environments and get them the hell out, alongside large-scale public education whose purpose is to use rote learning to get the kids to learn the minimal requirements of being part of a technological civilization (I'm thinking reading and basic math), along with a lot of work on habits and skills that let you keep a job and stay out of trouble with the law, and some level of trade school or something for those who can benefit from it.

CJ said...

This isn't rural Oklahoma, it's the bad part of 16% black Tulsa. Of course the children are black, and of course Kaiser, whose parents were Jews from Germany, is a big supporter of Barack Obama. If you want to see what the places and their clients look like, just Google images for Educare Tulsa. If that's too hard, here's a direct link to a slobbering New York Times article:

Bridging Gaps Early On in Oklahoma

BTW, this guy graduated from Harvard in the 1960s and ran a successful oil and gas company for decades. He understands perfectly well that wind and solar green energy is a crock of shit.

Maya said...

I spent five years of my life in a Soviet government pre-school (most kids started school at age 7) from 7:30am til 6:00pm. My grandmother was a teacher at a boarding Soviet preschool where kids went home only on the weekends. Here, in the American inner city, I work at an extended day elementary school with a preschool. Here's what I know from personal experience as a child and a teacher and from my grandmother's tales: The most decisive influence is that of the custodial guardian. Even if they see her only on weekends and vacations, young children know that mommy (or granny) is always right and that her ways are the most correct. That doesn't change even if the custodial guardian is abusive and neglectful. The child might like going to preschool in order to escape home life, but mommy's ways are still admired and imitated.
These do gooders will accomplish very little until they put some pressure on the parents. How about some financial penalties for welfare beneficiaries whose kids show up to school without completed homework or without school supplies? Perhaps we could disconnect the state provided cell phones for a weekend each time the parent doesn't return a teacher's call. These people aren't held accountable for anything, and they have a surreal sense of entitlement.

europeasant said...

Seems to me,to make it big in America,you need to know the right people.Third world nation just around the corner!

Maya said...

Wait. You think these kids get to sleep for 11 hours? Steve... Their parents aren't normal parents like you.
When I freak out at 1:00am because the 7th version of my differentiated lesson plan requires more markers for the illiterate 3rd graders and run to the 24-hour supermarket, kids of all ages are there with their moms, shopping for chips, beer and mascara.
These people don't feed their kids vegetables, don't read or talk to them and don't take them to a doctor for check ups. Why would you think they put their children to bed at a reasonable hours?

ATBOTL said...

We all know that this won't have any long term effect on the children's educational project.

On the bright side, the money won't be spent on Soros style subversion.

Anonymous said...

Affluent white liberals get the best of both worlds: they win plaudits and praise for promoting racial equality and integration, but they also live in safe gated communities away from blacks. Poor white conservatives get the worst of both worlds: they get blamed for 'racism' and 'bigotry' for resisting integration, but they have no means of moving out of blackening areas and are victimized by black crime.

Affluent liberals take credit for what poor white conservatives must suffer.

Maya said...

Eric,
What educators do IS important. It allows people to concentrate on their jobs while someone else supervises their kids' educational progress. Sure, you could do it yourself just like you could give yourself haircuts, administer shots to your family and fix your own car. None of it is very difficult to learn. However, a society functions better if people specialize.

Most teachers I know don't want more funds allocated to education. You are confusing us with upper administration (because that's how they get paid). Teachers yell about funds because they aren't allowed to even hint that the problem might lay with the kids and their families. What most teachers want is a different distribution of funds as well as a different work environment.
I can do my job in any old room with a chalk board and a set of textbooks. Heck, I'll buy all the creative supplies since I'm used to it already. You can take away my smart board, but can you, please, hire someone to supervise the detention room? (Can we have a detention room?) Hire 10 of these people; I'll take a pay cut. Also, I deserve every second of my vacation time and more. However, if we could take all the special kids out of the regular classrooms, group students by ability, end social promotion, allow failing grades and put violent criminals somewhere else, I don't think I'd need two and a half months to recover. Two weeks would probably suffice.

In conclusion, you are right. Schools aren't magic. They are just places where kids go to learn stuff. Just showing up won't change anyone's life, won't make up for shitty parenting or fix mental issues/emotional trauma/violent nature. And, as you said, having access to quality education (as ALL Americans do) won't stand in the way of one's dream of ending up in jail.

However, schools are still important and educators aren't the enemy. I'd say we are the biggest victims of this politically correct bullshit. Have you ever been locked in a room with 30 kids who are at 8 different grade levels, some completely illiterate, more than a few initiating fights right in front of you (or through you) and several with severe disabilities and emotional issues? Imagine those kids ignoring you because their parents don't care what they do, the school doesn't allow any disciplinary actions other than calling the parents, the children know that they will pass no matter what and any peep from you about the kids' behavior is interpreted as prejudice. Imagine being required to make a lesson plan for every level of ability, learning style and disability, every day all the while knowing that the kids will probably not even attempt the work because they know they don't have to. Then, imagine knowing that you'll be blamed for the test scores while you bribe the kids with candy to stay awake, at least, during the high stakes tests. (Half of them will still fall asleep and hand in their test booklets without attempting several sections.)This problem goes way beyond the education sector.

ben tillman said...

The solution: “The solution: “Find a way to give poor kids the same cognitive stimulus that rich kids receive and they should end up with the same tools for success.”

Even if it were possible, it still wouldn't be "the" solution. "The" solution would be to prevent poor parents from having children. Much easier and less expensive and just as moral as making us ssacrifice for them.

ben tillman said...

I mean, it is a noble and humanitarian belief that gaps in adult IQ are the product of environment and not of genetics.

It's neither noble nor humanitarian. In fact, it's misanthropic. It inevitably leads to a humanity that is poorer and stupider.

ben tillman said...

"Can you explain what is really going on in the minds of the billionaires that dedicate their money to this ultimately hopeless goal?"

First, they are probably status whoring. Second, if they did spend the money on white children, then their own children would face a greater threat to maintaining their wealth and position.


Please. Those White children share the genetic structures of White billionaires' children. They're not competitors. From an evolutionary perspective, the welfare of those other White children is far more important to the billionaires than is the welfare of the billionaires' own children.

Lucille said...

Please. Those White children share the genetic structures of White billionaires' children. They're not competitors.

Because they share similar genetics, and thereby similar abilities, they are more likely to be the competition. The high-status CEO isn't competing with a guy who is only capable of flipping burgers; his competition is people with similar abilities.

Anonymous said...

Given that we sent our son to a crappy nursery (preschool) from 6 months to age 4, leave him to watch TV most of the time he's at home, and are generally pretty poor parents, I take it he'll turn out with a sub-normal IQ?
no but there's a chance he'll turn out and ADD slacker pothead with a high iq.
This is the other extreme of liberal blank slate - that genes determine everything.

Claverhouse said...

Maya said:


How about some financial penalties for welfare beneficiaries whose kids show up to school without completed homework or without school supplies?


What will be the equivalent penalties for richer parents whose children do the same ? Or do they get off scot-free ?


Perhaps we could disconnect the state provided cell phones for a weekend each time the parent doesn't return a teacher's call.

Ditto. Plus if any 'state' issues free cell-phones to the populace and pays for the calls, that's charming. Strange, but charming.

Claverhouse said...

BTW, off-topic, but considering the previous number of Steve's posts on the subject...

I've no idea as to the stature of the New York Daily News, but in an article on the Fire Department scam, notice the quiz; it offers three answers.

Are you surprised the judge ruled that the FDNY discriminated?

Yes, the FDNY was trying its best to recruit diverse applicants

No, the FDNY has too few minorities.

I don't know what I think.


By liberally controlling the discourse into channelled approved thought-patterns, they are entirely able to ignore reactionary opinions, such as This has nothing to do with fighting fires.


Speaking of which...

Perhaps the most controversial testimony came from the deposition of Sherry Kavaler, former assistant commissioner for human resources, about how white candidates with troubled pasts benefit from the influence of family connections in the screening process.

"You would have lieutenants and captains [contacting] the chief of department: This is the son of so and so ... He's a good guy," Kavaler said. "He beat his wife but his wife took him back so he shouldn't be considered a wife beater.

"You're dealing with a lot of Irishmen who are drunks and they get into bar fights ... This is boys being boys, that type of thing."


One might almost come away with the perception that those whites are all wife-beating drunks...


I don't know what I think.




http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/01/2011-10-01_fdny_all_about_who_you_know_judge_finds_bravest_discriminate.html

Kylie said...

"These people don't feed their kids vegetables, don't read or talk to them and don't take them to a doctor for check ups. Why would you think they put their children to bed at a reasonable hours?"

And they don't feed them much of anything at all if they can sell their food stamps on the black market and use the proceeds to buy drugs. One mother took the stamps and went on a days-long binge, leaving only an open package of uncooked hotdogs out on the counter for her 4 kids to eat.

They don't bother getting free clothes with vouchers so the children can wear item that fit. I once saw a toddler clad in only a diaper running around outside in the cold in January. I knew an 8 y/o kid whose mother got child support (I saw the paperwork) but the child had no bed and only baby clothes to wear.

I knew another mother who got a child support check every month--even though the child was being raised by the father's side of the family.

I could go on and on. And I only lived in that neighborhood for three years.

But no, the answer is not taking the kids away from the irresponsible parents for the majority of their waking hours. The answer is to penalize the parents for poor parenting. They know better, they just won't bother because they know the money, the vouchers and other freebies and the white libs' sympathy will keep on coming no matter how badly they behave (and in some case, will even increase the worse they behave).

Anonymous said...

Gee, you'd need every woman who gave birth to a child to have a phd in early childhood ed to make that ratio work. They won't all be above average then. No, instead, you'll be taking the same women whose kids you put into daycare and making them the daycare providers.

Beautiful!!

So, the PhD. chicks' kids will be raised by illiterate 3rd worlders while the children of illiterate 3rd worlders will be raised by the PhD. chicks.

And it still won't change the outcomes!!

Deranged commitment to ideology.

How about women just raise their own kids in the general case?

Rembrance of Things Past said...

iStever #2: Given that we sent our son to a crappy nursery (preschool) from 6 months to age 4, leave him to watch TV most of the time he's at home, and are generally pretty poor parents, I take it he'll turn out with a sub-normal IQ?

iStever #1, quoting the article: Some, unfortunately, get the wrong idea: “It makes you want to have more kids,” says another parent, already the mother of six.

One son.

Versus six, and wants even more.

Sigh.

Anonymous said...

I would love to have some insight in to what is going on in the minds of these billionaires like Kaiser and Gates who think that they can close the gap by providing enrichment to children who are born poor.


The thing is that these kinds of projects actually are large enough studied closely enough to prove that they don't work. The better and more carefully designed and faithfully executed and documented, the more damning the evidence of the failure.

There was a huge study called the Women's health Initiative. It was going to be the end all be all to prove that giving women hormones was safe and reduced cancer and heart disease, and fractures. It proved the opposite and had to be cancelled when the results started coming in because it endangered the subjects' health such that it no longer met the guidelines for using human subjects.

The benefits of these programs is very short lived. Yes, you can teach 3 year olds the alphabet, and no, many losers won't bother to do that on their own, but by 3rd grade no one cares if you learned the alphabet when you were 1 or 7. All that matters in 3rd grade is whether you are at 3rd grade level. Whether you were watching Sponge Bob or in a $20K a year preschool is not going to matter.

Anonymous said...

"But no, the answer is not taking the kids away from the irresponsible parents for the majority of their waking hours. The answer is to penalize the parents for poor parenting."

That isn't the answer either because the kids have the genes to perpetuate the problem. The answer is birth control.

Anonymous said...

Whether you were watching Sponge Bob or in a $20K a year preschool is not going to matter.

While I agree with the point that you were trying to make, in the future, you might want to pick an example other than "SpongeBob":


Study: ‘SpongeBob’ Hurts Gratification-Delay Skills
By Christopher Shea
September 15, 2011, 4:19 PM ET
blogs.wsj.com

...Watching just nine minutes of “SpongeBob SquarePants” hurt the ability of four-year-olds to to delay gratification, compared with watching an educational cartoon or spending the time drawing, a new study finds...

Maya said...

Claverhouse said:
"What will be the equivalent penalties for richer parents whose children do the same ? Or do they get off scot-free ?"

What do you mean "scot-free"? They are independent adults and it's no one's business how they conduct their private lives. The welfare queens are not independent adults. If the state agrees to wash their grown asses, it can choose what type of a diaper it puts on them.

Sadly, however, the government holds respectable citizens on a shorter leash than it does the irresponsible trash. In the lower middle class suburb where I grew up, if a mother slapped her child or left an 11-year old alone, social services removed the kids from that house until further notice. Ten unexcused school absences resulted in a court date.
In the inner city where I currently live and work, parents openly smack their kids around, little kids wander the streets and children miss months of school without explanation. One of my student's mom is a hooker. She gets him back every time she gets out of jail. A bunch of parents come to school smelling of weed on a regular bases. A bunch of my retarded and FAS students are siblings because their moms are drunks and crack heads. A respectable woman would be investigated, but the animals get rewarded with welfare and disability checks for the kids that they abuse.

Oh, and I'm glad you find state provided cell phones charming. The welfare mothers don't. They bitch about these phones not being iphones.

Maya said...

"That isn't the answer either because the kids have the genes to perpetuate the problem. The answer is birth control."

How about granting conjugal visits privileges only to those who are sterilized?

Anonymous said...

I've no idea as to the stature of the New York Daily News,
owned by mort zukerman - typical jewish elite views- pro israel to the extreme, pro multiculti..

also there is a sub-story - The jewish elite in ny - long triumphent- are trying to eliminate any last vestiage of white ethnic power blocks - the wasps are long gone except some aging old money (the new money has neither the money power or ethnic cohesion) - the other blocks are Staten Island italians & middle class businesses (usually stuff like scrap metal) and FDNY - bloomberg and his elite friends (Zuckerman, for example) have been working like mad to make FDNY and NYPD white minority - Bloomy already suceeded w/ the latter - and you can see thugs and fat short black women in uniform everywhere. I will not be surprised when i am asked for a bribe.

the other think he has been doing is turning over middle class property to rich developers- coincidence or not they are always jewish - he did this in brooklyn (twice) and queens (willetspoint) the last piece of the puzzle is FDNY

ben tillman said...

Because they share similar genetics, and thereby similar abilities, they are more likely to be the competition. The high-status CEO isn't competing with a guy who is only capable of flipping burgers; his competition is people with similar abilities.

Talk about missing the point!

D Howser said...

At the hearings today, the implication was that DOE did not perform good due diligence. That was a totally erroneous assumption. This has nothing to do with good or bad due diligence. What this is about is that in a 2008 meeting: Lachlan Seward, Matt Rogers & Steve Spinner pointed to a piece of paper and, essentially, said: "these are our friends, they will get money. These are their competitors and our lobbyists competitors, they will not get money." All so-called due-diligence thereafter was purposely non-existant or steered towards those friends and against those competitors. I was there!

D Howser said...

At the hearings today, the implication was that DOE did not perform good due diligence. That was a totally erroneous assumption. This has nothing to do with good or bad due diligence. What this is about is that in a 2008 meeting: Lachlan Seward, Matt Rogers & Steve Spinner pointed to a piece of paper and, essentially, said: "these are our friends, they will get money. These are their competitors and our lobbyists competitors, they will not get money." All so-called due-diligence thereafter was purposely non-existant or steered towards those friends and against those competitors. I was there!