School Choice

The Baltimore Riots: A Case for School Choice?

Public schools fail the inner city youth

|

Baltimore
Youtube

Would school choice reforms prevent or reduce future unrest in cities like Baltimore by improving the plight of poor minority teenagers? Some are making that case. Here was Charles Krauthammer on Fox News last night, according to National Review:

"There are essentially two problems. . . . One is single parenthood, and the other is the worst schools on earth,"? said Krauthammer on Tuesday's Special Report. "Of the first, we have no idea how to solve that. Of the second, we do. If you can'?t improve the schools, give the kids a choice to go to better schools. The parents begged to have that opportunity, but the teachers' unions won't allow it and thus the Democrats won't. If you want to do something, let them choose their schools." 

This idea has merit. The traditional public school system fails inner city youth in two major ways—both of which reinforce the kind of problems on display in Baltimore.

First, inner city schools are just plain awful. As Terry Jeffrey pointed out in Townhall, the most recent information shows that the Baltimore school district spends about $18,000 per student and only achieves a reading proficiency rate of 16 percent for eighth graders. That's a lot of money wasted in pursuit of terrible result. When public schools can't even teach the vast majority of Baltimore's most vulnerable kids to read, the traditional education system is condemning them from a very young age to dim college and career prospects.

Second, the public school system increasingly turns mildly troubled young people into criminals thanks to a depressing trend of overcriminalization. Safety paranoia led administrators down the dark path of zero tolerance; classroom misbehavior that once would have resulted in detention now triggers a call to the cops, arrest, and expulsion. It's really no wonder black teens and 20-somethings distrust the police—consider the representative case of Kayleb Moon-Robinson, a black 11-year-old in Virginia who incurred disorderly conduct and felony assault charges for causing a bit of mischief. In a sane education system, teachers would work with Kayleb to improve his behavior, not strap him in handcuffs. And inner city streets are filled with teens who were arrested and expelled when they should have been counselled and reformed. This is almost the perfect system for creating a society of displaced, impoverished, lawless young people.

School choice would mitigate these problems by liberating poor minorities trapped in a cycle of failure. Still, there are limits to what any single reform could accomplish. Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, told me that he expects school choice would certainly help, "but there are limits to what schools can fix."

"An almost iron law is that once you account for all sorts of things impacting kids outside of school—family income, culture, etc.—the effect of schools themselves are relatively small," he said in email to Reason. "So yes, a system of school choice would almost certainly provide a better education for many people for a lot less money, but it wouldn't solve deeper problems like poor nutrition or unstable families."

McCluskey noted that the drug war, which brings police into constant contact with non-violent offenders, accounts for a large share of the problem.

But that's really just an argument for implementing both reforms. When families have the freedom to send their kids to better schools—and when those kids have the freedom to make mistakes without going to prison—we'll have less rioting.

Advertisement

NEXT: David Simon on How Civil Rights Were Destroyed in Baltimore And Why He Might Vote For One of the Men Responsible Anyway

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ot: more PC ridiculousness

    http://www.abc6onyourside.com/…..UEii4HD_qA

    1. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… http://www.work-cash.com

  2. But choice means there is the right choice and the wrong choice, and what if parents choose wrongly?

    1. School choice is just a code word for tax payers footing the bill for religious indoctrination. Public schools sent humans to the moon. Public schools graduated most of the top business leaders of today. Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Mike Duke, etc.. went to public schools.

      The real problem lies not with the schools, but the parents.

      1. This has nothing to do with you wanting the money for your solar power subsidy. Nope, nothing at all.

        1. what is a low IQ idiot like you getting on about?

      2. Uh-huh. Sure. Seems entirely logical. Absolute power over the curriculum, compulsory attendance, kids under their total control for eight hours a day/36 weeks out of the year… zero culpability.

        Yeah, we’ll go with that.

        1. how many of those kids actual show up for school? How many of those kids parents go over their kids homework nightly? How many of those parents are involved with the school via the PTA, etc…? How many of those parents kick the drug dealers off their streets?

          Very few.

          1. Slurping on Teacher’s Union tubesteak … how do you type while doing that?

      3. School choice is just a code word for tax payers footing the bill for religious indoctrination.

        He’s onto us!

        1. God knows that’s my top priority in life. It’s the only reason I’m here. A subtle ploy to sway the non-believers.

        2. Damn!

          /swiftly stashes rosary under desk

          1. You blood-sucking papists are ok. It’s the leaderless Baptists who are raising h-e-double-toothpicks with authority.

            1. It is ALL of ye un-believers who stubbornly, willfully, sinfully REFUSE to bow down and WORSHIP The Great Government Almighty! Worship with me now…
              Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

              Government loves me, This I know,
              For the Government tells me so,
              Little ones to GAWD belong,
              We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
              Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
              Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
              And gives me all that I might need!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              DEA, CIA, KGB,
              Our protectors, they will be,
              FBI, TSA, and FDA,
              With us, astride us, in every way!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

        3. perhaps if you educated yourself a bit on why we have public education you could actually contribute something to the discussion. But, alas, you are too stupid to read. Go back to Faux News and pretend you understand the world.

          1. Educate yourself? I am almost certain you do not have the courage to read this book.

            http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/de…..223pdf.pdf

            An actual, you know, study on the results of coerced public “education”.

        4. perhaps if you educated yourself a bit on why we have public education you could actually contribute something to the discussion. But, alas, you are too stupid to read. Go back to Faux News and pretend you understand the world.

          1. and yet somehow we are able to determine you only press the “Submit” button once to post a comment …

      4. And yet public school costs per student keep rising without any corresponding increase in quality.

        Sure, parents can be the problem, but it’s silly and uninformed to believe that the public school model can’t be challenged, especially as to the dismal performance of urban public schools.

        1. It’s funny to me when people say that “parents are the problem” to deflect the responsibility from failing schools given that the problem has become multi-generational.

          1. We’re at, what, sixty years of institutionalized failure? My father may have liked Aerosmith and even seen a concert back in his young buck days, but at some point the blame for this has to pass on to whomever is encouraging it now.

            1. It’s all about goalposts. How do you define “failure?” You typically define it as a certain number of students scoring below a certain arbitrary number on a test. We’ve decided it is in our interests to make that number very high and thus create a moral panic about “failing schools.”

              1. Yes. Let’s take as a base assumption that every other developed county with a high public school literacy rate is irrelevant, because if they can’t read then they probably can’t count either, so how would they know?

                1. The reason America has lower test scores than European countries is that we have low scoring minority groups. White American students score higher than theirs. Again, goalposts.

                  1. No, no, no-NO-no-NO, that isn’t how it’s done. You make the wild-arsed assertions in

                    1. Squirrel ATE my COMMENT.

                      They’re out there, people. And they’re hungry.

                    2. HEY!!! I resemble that remark! We rodents should stick together, Hamster!

              2. First, do you have any evidence that modern testing standards are higher than those in the past?

                Second, do we really want to stagnate education standards even as the skills required to hold a given level of employment steadily increase?

                1. Here’s the PISA data showing that White American students outscore every European country but Finland:

                  http://web.archive.org/web/201…..ss001c.png

                  First, do you have any evidence that modern testing standards are higher than those in the past?

                  Test scores on the NAEP are virtually unchanged from the 1960s, there was no panic about “failing schools” back then. It’s something we did.

                  Second, do we really want to stagnate education standards even as the skills required to hold a given level of employment steadily increase?

                  Does a lawyer require more skills than a he did in 1970? How about a businessman? Even doctors, I don’t think they require any better “skills” than they did in 1970. It requires a college degree to get jobs that didn’t used to require it, that’s not because the jobs are harder but because the bargaining power of the working class has declined.

                  1. Test scores on the NAEP are virtually unchanged from the 1960s, there was no panic about “failing schools” back then. It’s something we did.

                    What, take notice that the schools suck? Yes, we did.

                    Here’s the PISA data showing that White American students outscore every European country but Finland:

                    That’s nice. That analyses one little thing, and averages it, so the high scorers bury the low scorers.

                    It requires a college degree to get jobs that didn’t used to require it, that’s not because the jobs are harder but because the bargaining power of the working class has declined.

                    Bullshit alert. “The working class” never had “bargaining power”.

                    White American students score higher than theirs.

                    You haven’t demonstrated this you lying racist sack of shit. Europeans have plenty of minorities btw.

                    1. What is wrong with the data?(other than it not reflecting your priors)

                    2. It doesn’t actually demonstrate your point, or make inner-city schools less shitty, or charters less able to fix them.

                  2. And Jews (especially Ashkenazi Jews) outscore the whites, and the far East Asians outscore the whites. But it’s RACIST to notice these things! The only admissible theory it that’s it’s “The Man” keeping me down. So we are not allowed to look towards real fixes!

                    I agree with you about too many degrees needed to do anything these days. You are going to have to be a licensed proctacologist to scratch your own butt-hole… Lots of delicate tissues down there, you know!

              3. We’ve decided it is in our interests to make that number very high and thus create a moral panic about “failing schools.”

                WTF are you talking about?

          2. public schools are so bad, my education only makes me six figures a year. I bet if i could have gotten ass raped by priests i could have been making eight figures at least.

            1. I see. You’re a troll.

            2. End the public school system and there will plenty of alternatives to church based education, Jimmy. Or, give every kid a voucher to spend at the school of his choice and there’ll be plenty of different types of schools from which to choose. You do believe in diversity, don’t you?

              1. Can someone get Steve Smith in here to show Smithy was ass raping is all about? You can’t leave this to the parents. I guess a parish priest will do in a pinch.

      5. Uh, no – public schools did not send humans to the moon.

        *Private colleges* did.

        1. It’s the typical progressive argument: anything good that happens can be attributed to progressives; anything bad that happens can be attributed to someone else.

          1. @see double you:

            you wrote a typical low IQ drone response. you have nothing to offer so insult. BTW: i am hardly a progressive, you “Libertarian leaning” Republican dumb fuck.

            1. Mary?

        2. sorry low information drone, but the vast majority of people who worked on the apollo program, including the astronauts themselves attended public schools k-12, and then most attended public universities. Funny how facts get in the way of your fantasies, huh?

          where do you drones come from?

          1. Jim

            Did public school teach you to end a sentence with a preposition? Try:
            “From where do you drones come?”

      6. School choice is just a code word for tax payers footing the bill for religious indoctrination.

        Funny, that’s also what “public school” is a code word for.

        1. not sure what public schools you went to but mine did not preach religion. We did learn about various religions in history class if memory serves me right.

          1. Obama is Gawd All-mighteee!!! Get with the program. You must be a racist

      7. Public schools graduated most of the top business leaders of today.

        They’ve also graduated serial killers, rapists, and other assorted evildoers. Or do only good things that are tenuously related to the existence of compulsory education count?

        1. Adam Lanza went to public school!!!

          1. As recently as December 2012!

          2. ….and shot a bunch of people there.

            OH! You meant….sorry….never mind…

            /too soon

          3. You know who else went to a public school…

      8. Did all those guys go to shitty inner city public schools? I went to public school in a wealthy suburb, I guess I owe my (mild) success to the public school system in general, and not the fact that my parents could afford to choose to move to a wealthy suburb with decent public schools. Therefore, no need to afford inner city youth the same choices I did.

        1. Len

          Thing is your school likely spent less on you than Baltimore City:
          link to story

          1. No, but I am sure that public schools are the most effective and efficient way to spend money on education!

            /sarc

            1. the nonstop failure of for profit k-12 schools should tell you dipshits something, but i guess you are too stupid to understand reality.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..2-schools/

              1. Jim

                I’m more a fan of home schooling. It costs less and the results are far better. And eliminates using force as the means of funding.

              2. Unlike the unqualified success of public schools, of course.

                Besides, the vast majority of private schools are non-profit.

                Please lay out, in detail, your plan for fixing public schools that doesn’t involve choice for students and parents.

      9. Public schools sent humans to the moon.

        Wernher von Braun attended an elite private boarding school in Prussia.

        Just an fyi, Smithy.

        1. You know who else went to school in Prussia?

          1. Otto von Bismarck?

          2. Kaiser Wilhelm und Baron von Richtoven

        2. Wernher von Braun obviously did everything for the Apollo program by himself. It’s true. He even built all the Saturn V rockets by himself at night. He, not Neil Armstrong took the first step on the moon too.

          1. Obviously there was of course SEIU engineers who were clearly and obviously far superior to von Braun. /derp

            There were other astronauts that walked on the moon. Buzz Aldrin and Alan Shepard come to mind without research. Looking it up there were a dozen that did it and more waiting in the wings. While not anyone could have done this they were somewhat replaceable/interchangeable. Without von Braun the US doesn’t make it to the moon.

      10. For most of them it’s just a consequence of their ideology(few are really religious), where the “free market” is always better than the government, it’s as obvious as gravity to them. They never bother to explain how exactly privately owned schools will do better, but they don’t need to, it’s a religious belief immune to any contrary argument.

        1. That wasn’t nearly provocative enough. It’s like you aren’t even trying.

        2. STFU Merican.

        3. i know. it is not like the private for profit k-12 schools are failing pretty much everywhere they are tried. But what does reality mean anyhow?

          1. Jim:

            Take any Baltimore City high school, including City and Poly, and compare them to area private high schools such as Calvert Hall, Loyola, McDonogh, and Gilman.

      11. “School choice is just a code word for tax payers footing the bill for religious indoctrination.”

        This is some Grade-A derp there.

        Hey Jim, the state of Minnesota, you know, the number one education state year after year after year, has what’s called open enrollment. Parents can choose to send their kids to any school in the state. That means that my friend Steve, who is raising his granddaughter, was able to pull her out of the Minneapolis public school district and send her to St. Anthony’s public high school. Now I know this is going to confuse you, because of the St. in St. Anthony, so let me help you here. St. Anthony is the name of a suburb; it’s a town not a church, so it’s high school is secular and is required to conform to that whole separation of church and state thing. People in Minneapolis have been pulling their kids out of Minneapolis public schools and sending them to charter school, which are not religious and suburban schools for years now.

        Did I mention that Minnesota is ranked number one in education?

        Dirpity-Derp!

      12. And in what world are the Public Schools NOT conducting religious (i.e. Based on faith, not observable facts) indoctrination? Mind, I’m not a Christian and barely a Deist, but Climate Change, Evolution (as it is taught by Ed school drones), the goodness of Woodrow Wilson, and similar items of common instruction are articles of faith rather than provable fact. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives gain a great advantage by not admiting that their belief system is a religion, but it is.

        Indeed, public schools may be the most egregious example of “establishment of religion” currently extant, and a voucher system would level the playing field.

        Which the LIRPs, naturally, would HATE.

      13. I’d rather my mobey go to Catholic schools than the dnc union political money machine.

      14. Exactly.

      15. School choice is just a code word for tax payers footing the bill for religious indoctrination.

        If parents want their kids to be religiously indoctrinated, that should be their choice. After all, tax payers, with and without kids, have no reason to prefer mandatory government indoctrination to voluntary religious indoctrination.

        Public schools graduated most of the top business leaders of today.

        They also graduated most murderers of today. That’s because they graduated most adults of today.

    2. Has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with choice.
      It has everything to do with a certain segment of the population with a MASSIVE sense of entitlement. This has been propagated since the 1960s as “society owes us everything, therefore we can do whatever we want because its owed to us”.

      1. I don’t think I agree with you. I have, very briefly, collected government benefits of one type or another. The process is, at best, tiresome and from there rapidly descends to degrading. Inner city poor are lined up, pushed around, amd inquired into on a daily basis by peoole loudly telling them it’s “for their good”. Treat me that way for very long, and then let some of your State Stooges murder someone like me in a way that clearly breaks all the supposed rules, and I might be running amok too.

        And I don’t think this is an accident. I think it s deliberate, at least on the part of some of the Progressive Establishment. They are training The Mob, becuase they forsee needing to use it soon.

  3. Are we ready to do away with compulsory attendance yet?

    1. Oh, HoD, don’t be silly. We can’t stop imprisoning these kids entirely!

      1. How else will we farm them to prison and government custody?!

  4. One is single parenthood…. Of the first, we have no idea how to solve that.

    I don’t know, ending the drug war which has resulted in millions of parents being torn away from their families for years and prevented them from ever having a decent job (a felony on your record?!? FOR SHAME!!!) might be a good start.

    1. Of course, Krauthammer has a hard-on for the War on Drugs so he’ll never consider that it might have negative effects on society.

    2. It seems as if every talking head is desperately casting about for a magic bullet or two that completely avoids this most obvious problem.

      1. It’s absolutely maddening. Both the Democratic and Republican talking heads manage to completely obfuscate the actual underlying MAJOR issues that has lead to broken homes, chronic underemployment and poverty, crappy relations with law enforcement agencies, etc.

        Why has nobody come out (strongly) against the War on Drugs? Pretty much everybody everywhere agrees it’s a loser, yet we continue to throw untold billions at it, allow the DEA to run roughshod over our rights, tolerate horrible abuses of asset forfeiture laws, etc.

        1. Talking about sunsetting the War on Drugs is equivalent to throwing down the gauntlet in front of the law enforcement industrial complex.

          1. It isn’t just the Law complex (“just”!). So much of the authority of the State, which the establishments of both parties depend upon, is founded on the idiot idea that the State gets to tell people what they may ingest.

    3. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Drug War exacerbated the problem, but it’s a pre-existing problem.

      The Drug War isn’t forcing men and women to have children out of wedlock.

      1. What the fuck does being married have ANYTHING to do with having a mother and father in your life? I’ll tell you: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING.

        Keep your fucking marriage license if you think it adds something sacred to your life; don’t assume people need it to be in loving relationships.

        1. I’m still trying to figure out why having the government and God’s permission slip on your romantic relationship has anything to do with your kids’ grades.

          Is it like Sims, where the handwritten note of God and Obama gives future children a moodlet buff when they study the Mental skill?

          1. You two jokers must be intellectuals –

            “Only an intellectual would believe something like that; ordinary people have too much sense.” – George Orwell

            1. Now George Orwell doesn’t like me. Eddie says so. My life is over! I’ll never be Homecoming Queen! *sobs*

          2. Whether you figure out why or not, it does make a difference in the grades.

          3. Maybe we could step back from the reflexive GKC criticism a bit? Strip away the word “marriage” for the purposes of argument and I’m pretty sure part of his point still stands. Two-parent households overwhelming translates into more successful kids. I agree we don’t need some government imprimatur. I also don’t know if single-parent households are a problem that predominantly pre-exist the WoD or are significantly derived from the WoD. But I also don’t see how the WoD is forcing men and women to crank out kids outside of a committed, two-parent relationship and all the benefits such a situation bestows upon the child’s development.

            1. Well, now that you’ve labeled my entire position as “reflexive” and thus merely a disingenuous opportunity to argue with Eddie, we can all just focus on that.

              Thanks. You’re a pal.

              1. I didn’t mean to be a dick about it, man. Maybe I was putting words in Eddie’s mouth. I just wanted to focus on the issue of the role of two-parents households and the effect on kids as opposed to Eddie becoming a lightning rod and us going off on a church tangent.

                Re-reading yours and bassjoe’s initial comments and I think we were actually trying to do the same thing.

                *offers up compensatory fishbowl of beer*

                1. We were (or, well… me, anyway). I have no firm opinions about public school failure being “caused” by the WoD/WoT/WoP. I do find reason to disagree on whether a child’s educational success is thwarted in a two-parent household based on the parents not being “properly” married.

                  Although, now, I’m not certain Eddie was making that point deliberately. It looks as if he may have delineated the world into “properly married two-parent households” and “illegitimate bastards who find their father on Maury”. And then WTFery ensued.

                  I accept your beer and offer boobies of appeasement all around.

            2. But I also don’t see how the WoD is forcing men and women to crank out kids outside of a committed, two-parent relationship

              No, that’s what the means-tested welfare apparatus is for.

              1. Touche’.

            3. Marriage means commitment. Kids see that they matter. The proof is all around us.

        2. “Keep your fucking marriage license”

          A government marriage license is at best a nuisance; a worst it’s an impermissible interference with marriage.

          Nice try seeking to pin govt-issued marriage licenses on me.

          1. People have been getting married, and forcing the secular authorities to recognize their marriages, long before marriage licenses were thought of.

          2. Nice try seeking to pin govt-issued marriage licenses on me.

            *gapes disbelievingly*

            You’ve made it quite clear that you believe US law should be stricter than Catholic doctrine in dissolving marriage licenses, that marriage licenses should be required to adopt children, and that gays should not have access to marriage licenses.

            I’m not sure how you’re now claiming that you view a state definition of marriage is impermissible interference.

            1. I’m not sure how you’re now claiming that you view a state definition of marriage is impermissible interference.

              Because [rising intonation] it is Convenient…

            2. Marriage predates the state. And according to the consensus until about 2 or 3 decades ago, marriage was sex-binary.

              If you think that the Truth is that marriage can be unisex, but this truth was suppressed until 2 or 3 decades ago, you’re a conspiracy theorist so fanatical that the UFO crowd thinks you’re weird.

              If an orphan or an abandoned child is in the government pipeline, then qualified opposite-sex married couples are entitled to cut in line ahead of single people and extramarital cohabitants (including same-sex couples) when it comes to adoption.

              No amount of invective can change these truths. And the fact that opponents of the above propositions think that invective and misrepresentation are their best arguments fairly well illustrates the poverty of their position.

              Of course, you can call me a self-hating single person for putting myself behind the opposite-sex-married couples with regard to adoption. You can call me anti-Joan-Crawford for wanting her to wait behind the regular married couples before adoption.

              But I don’t see how you can say I’m singling out teh gayz worse than other singles.

              1. State marriage licenses is a separate issue from what purported marriages the state should recognize.

                1. As a reminder, marriage licenses are required prior to marriage by secular laws, on penalty of fines for (generally) the officiant.

                  Marriage, in its true definition, can survive without such licensing laws.

                  1. State marriage licenses is a separate issue from what purported marriages the state should recognize.

                    The government deciding who is and isn’t married is a separate issue from the government deciding which marriage it does and doesn’t recognize?

                    Also your entire post before that was a red herring full of what you would characterize as “invective” were it directed at you. Just in case you’re totally self-unaware.

                    1. Marriage license laws require that the secular authorities approve a marriage before the marriage is solemnized. In their more extreme form, these laws said the government would *only* recognize a licensed marriage, not a church marriage. This was a big conflict in Europe.

                      In the USA, fortunately, we’re not that extreme – the marriage license basically serves revenue-raising and recordkeeping purposes, and in many states, if you don’t have a license, they’ll recognize your marriage anyway, but they’ll fine the officiant for failing to report the marriage.

                      Without licensing, the secular state would *still* have to decide who’s married and who isn’t. This situation already obtains in the states which recognize common-law marriage.

                    2. Why would the stricter European model even come up in this context? We’re mostly Americans talking about the American, record-keeping model, and when we discuss licensing we’re talking about whether the state accepts or does not accept a marriage to be valid.

                      Eddie: I’m allergic to eggs
                      Jesse: No you aren’t you had eggs for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day this week.
                      Eddie: Don’t be silly, I was talking about frogs eggs, I’m allergic to frog’s eggs.
                      Jesse: Gee Eddie, not sure why you were talking about frog’s eggs when Hamster was asking if she should pick up a dozen at the grocery store.

                    3. Jesse: “You’ve made it quite clear that you believe US law should be stricter than Catholic doctrine in dissolving marriage licenses, that marriage licenses should be required to adopt children, and that gays should not have access to marriage licenses.”

                      Me: “Actually, I think marriage licenses are at best a necessary evil – can we get past this distraction and discuss the definition of marriage and which kinds of purported marriages the state is authorized to recognize?

                      Jesse: “That sounds interesting, but I’d rather discuss frog eggs and other fun stuff rather than respond directly to your concerns.”

                    4. “that marriage licenses should be required to adopt children”

                      Really? I believe that? I thought that, as in my 5:25 post, I said that single people (including people cohabiting with partners of the same sex) should wait in line behind opposite-sex married couples when it comes to adopting children in the government’s adoption pipeline.

                      And of course, if a man and a woman are legitimately married, then the government should recognize that marriage for all purposes, including adoption, regardless of whether they have a license or not.

                      My position must be unassailable if the only responses people on the other side can come up with involve straw-manning like this.

                    5. Your ability to prevaricate your way through an argument continues to impress. And you continue to be enormously un-self-aware as you claim that I’m not addressing your substantive issues while you’ve managed to hide behind a totally decontextualized definition of licensing in Europe to avoid addressing the one thing I’ve said in this entire thread.

                    6. My one consolation, when people like yourself on H&R throw silly insults at me, is that you are all basically Girondins.

                      When the Jacobins of the SSM movement realize that you support the free-association rights of businesses, they will release invective against you will make the rhetoric you use against me look like a gentle summer shower.

                      And unlike myself and the people on my side, your SJW opponents won’t be content to simply disagree with you, they will demonize you as a self-hating gay person and call you names beyond anything Jerry Falwell would say against you.

                      I know that it’s wrong to feel Schadenfreude, but you’re making it harder and harder to resist it.

                    7. So you’re not going to address the fact that you’ve posted 7 times to dodge a basic assertion of fact about your position and have hidden lamely behind a definition of “licensing” that is not common currency on this board?

                      I suppose it’s interesting but you’d rather talk about gentle summer showers?

                    8. Suck it (metaphorically), I replied to posts which accused me of supporting licensing.

                      You can’t have it both ways, if you’re going to accuse me of imposing Catholic views of marriage, you can’t very well say out of the other side of your mouth that I support the secular government licensing marriage, a view which is *not* Catholic and which the Catholic Church frequently fought against.

                      Sorry if I tried to resist your attempts to pin a position on my which I didn’t hold.

                    9. “a definition of “licensing” that is not common currency on this board?”

                      How is *your* retardation and cluelessness is *my* fault?

                    10. Mate, you’re the one that summed up licensing in the US as:

                      In the USA, fortunately, we’re not that extreme – the marriage license basically serves revenue-raising and recordkeeping purposes, and in many states, if you don’t have a license, they’ll recognize your marriage anyway, but they’ll fine the officiant for failing to report the marriage.

                      I’m just agreeing with your definition and the definition that most American commenters are going to be familiar with.

                      If I have a problem with retardation and cluelessness, you seem to share it.

                    11. You can’t have it both ways, if you’re going to accuse me of imposing Catholic views of marriage, you can’t very well say out of the other side of your mouth that I support the secular government licensing marriage, a view which is *not* Catholic and which the Catholic Church frequently fought against.

                      You still haven’t answered my question directly, and you’ve previously disabused me of the belief that you want to impose catholic views of marriage on the state, so I didn’t actually “accuse” you of that here.

                      No, as a matter of fact, I would not, and I’ve explained before several times that in one key sense I *don’t* want a secular state like like the U.S. to recognize Catholic marriage doctrine. Specifically, the so-called Pauline Privilege allows divorce and remarriage on religious grounds in certain rare circumstances:

                      [link]

                      …but I don’t believe a secular state, which practices neutrality among religions, should recognize the Pauline Privilege. Anyone wishing to use this privilege should move to a Catholic country, not stay in the U.S.

                      In short, I would have American law be *stricter* against divorce than Catholic law is.

                      If you support stricter divorce laws, you must support a legal registry of marriages, which is (as you stated) the purpose of licensing in the US (besides of course revenue seeking). Did I miss something?

                    12. “If you support stricter divorce laws, you must support a legal registry of marriages, which is (as you stated) the purpose of licensing in the US (besides of course revenue seeking). Did I miss something?”

                      You brought up the licensing laws which require a license from the secular state before you can marry and (at minimum) impose fines on an officiant who celebrates an unlicensed marriage.

                      Believe it or not, marriage survived for centuries before the secular state started requiring licenses.

                      I’m going to do what you refuse to do with me and assume you’re debating in good faith. But don’t push it.

                    13. But if you’re going to go around saying I must support a registry backed up by fines for officiants, you’re just jerking off and I don’t feel any need to keep responding to your ridiculous assertions.

                    14. But don’t push it.

                      Ah, well, I’d hate to think that I was somehow twisting words to suit my ends. I’ll believe mistake before malice and suggest that you may be under using licensing in a more specific way than other commenters are here. We can always toss out an insta-poll in the PM Links tomorrow.

                      I believe the commenters are generally using “licensing” to mean state recognition/definition of marriage, and not the act of handing out a license. “the state says it’s ok for me to drive” rather than “a DMV agent has handed me a card” kind of distinction.

                      It is entirely possible that I’m incorrect and your definition is the one that people prefer here. Instapolls are fun, no?

                    15. Look, my whole point is that I don’t think H&R posters, in general, have an accurate conception of marriage licensing.

                      I’ve been trying to explain how, as I understand it, licensing works. I had hoped that my explanations would have made clear, at the very least, how I defined the term (and how I think the state defines the term).

                      Licensing happens to be a central point in the marriage debate, so misuse of the term, in my view, has actual consequences – people like myself who believe marriage to be a pre-state institution are accused of wanting the state to define marriage.

                    16. Now, I actually don’t like people being offended by what I say, but I have at least this consolation – when you’ve tried explaining to a roomful of SJWs how you support the right of for-profit businesses to choose their customers and employees, the abuse you get will make you really nostalgic for ol’ Eddie.

                    17. Sigh. It’s possible, though if your way prevailed, you could end up like Scott Lively watching country after country debate laws to execute “repeat” homosexual offenders and go “Oh shit, I didn’t mean for it to go that far.”

                      I’ve read a decent amount of history, Eddie, and while you say that I’m the Girondins to the SJW’s Jacobins, I don’t look back trials, job purges, beatings, entrapments, violent police raids, arrests, executions, and concentration camps with misty-eyed nostalgia.

                    18. I wasn’t aware that either of us was into concentration camps and so forth.

                      And as to the countries which still imprison or execute people for sodomy – this isn’t a new trend, though I don’t know that it’s been carried out as frequently as one might think.

                      In any case, if we confine ourselves to U.S. history, it’s hard to find a whole lot of examples of people being executed for sodomy, and since my position is strictly “reactionary” (as in, getting rid of recently-enacted bad laws), then I should at worst be accused of wanting to go back to, say, the 50s (picking the most demonized decade I could think of from the prog point of view).

                      I had to look up Mr. Lively, and if Wikipedia is accurate, this particular Protestant activist supported anti-gay laws in Uganda, including censorship laws which I doubt would get even momentary consideration in the U.S. (unless prog limitations on free speech are more widely accepted).

                      I’m not saying that there’s no wolf, simply that not everyone who cries “wolf” is responding to an actual wolf.

                    19. But let us be realistic – I don’t even think I could bring back the 50s even if I wanted to, nor could I pull the stopper out of some bottle of reactionaryism and release a 50s genie.

                      The people who want to bring back sodomy laws want to equate legalized voluntary adult sodomy with govt-recognized SSM. I don’t make that equation, so you’ll have to talk to those who do about how their equating of the two things won’t lead to a bad place.

                    20. And bear in mind that my position is to block certain “progressive” changes to current law, which – before you get on my case about it – recall that *your position can be described in the same way.*

                      The latest gay-rights front is making businesses not only serve gay people, but to cater same-sex wedding ceremonies. If you oppose this – and I understand you do – then you are as vulnerable as I am to charges of holding up “progress” and bringing us back to concentration camps.

                      As I said, attempt the experiment – tell a bunch of SJWs about your views on business freedom!

                    21. I wasn’t aware that either of us was into concentration camps and so forth.

                      I wasn’t aware that either of us were royalists or Girondins…

                      I don’t even think I could bring back the 50s even if I wanted to, nor could I pull the stopper out of some bottle of reactionaryism and release a 50s genie.

                      As I was chiding a friend recently who supported public accommodation laws, the last time the gay rights movement did nearly as well as it has done now was Wiemar Germany. You’ll forgive me if I’m uncomfortable with “reactionary” movements who pine for a grand history, often fuzzily remembered where their ideas were on top. It was amazing how quickly the roaring 20s became Hitler’s 30s and the paranoid anti-communist/anti-capitalist 40s and 50s.

                    22. “You’ll forgive me if I’m uncomfortable with “reactionary” movements who pine for a grand history, often fuzzily remembered where their ideas were on top.”

                      I can’t actually call to mind any time when my ideas were on top, except for Eden, of course. At present, people like me are limited to simply opposing bad ideas, not adopting new ones, not even new ideas under the guise of returning to an idealized past.

                      I don’t think you can Godwin everyone who wants to get rid of some bad, recently-adopted policy. Such reasoning would not only shield SSM from criticism, but also the New Deal, the Great Society, and gangsta rap.

                      And if we’re going to go Godwin, check out the Nazis’ paramilitary arm, the SA, prior to 1934 (after 1934 the regime went anti-gay precisely because gayness was associated with the by-then-discredited SA).

                    23. My reference to the fifties was specifically meant as a “worst case scenario” – it’s not actually my goal to return there, but I was trying to imagine how some Eddie-supported reactionary movement might take advantage of my support.

                    24. Man, you’re incredibly tiresome. You’ve been harping on un-related French Revolutionary figures all over the board for weeks because you have a schadenfreude fantasy about them, but I make an on-topic historical reference to 1930s Germany and I’ve Godwinned.

                      Then you go on to parrot, whether you know it or not, noted asshole Scott Lively’s historical revisionism about Germany. Yes, Rohm was a homo, and he was purged at least partly because of the military’s discomfort with his homosexuality but mostly because of his radical communism. You should also know that the book burnings of sexually deviant material such as the library of Institut f?r Sexualwissenschaft began before Rohm and the SA were purged, not as a reaction to it.

        3. What the fuck does being married have ANYTHING to do with having a mother and father in your life?

          I suspect GKC wants boys and girls to abstain from sex until both church and state bless their marriage, and then doesn’t want the state to untie the knot until one parent dies.

          I may be wrong, but that’s usually what “wedlock” means.

          1. If you’re not a Christian, why should I care if the Church blesses your marriage or not?

            If you’re a Protestant whose denomination believes that marriage is a state institution, why should I care if the Church blesses your marriage or not?

            The approval of the Church applies only to people who are *members* of the Church.

            And why should I care whether the state approves your marriage? Marriage is a pre-state institution – it would exist even as between a man and woman on a desert island without the benefit of living under a state. The job of the state is to recognize marriages where they exist, and to deny recognition where it doesn’t exist.

            So-called libertarians want the state arbitrary and powerful enough to redefine marriage. That is *not* my position.

          2. I was married at Rainbow. The officiant was a great chum of many years, who was also tripping balls during the entire ceremony. Picture Agile Cyborg acting as the preacher.

            Best wedding ever.

            Of course, I didn’t meet Eddie’s required checklists and this means my children are doomed forever. But you should see the wedding album!

            1. Sigh…would you even bother to read my comment right above yours? Or are you so committed to “reflexive GKC criticism” that the facts don’t matter?

              1. Sigh. Would you read the time tags? We were typing at the same time, and I did not see your comment until I had already posted. And THEN, I went upthread to check those new comments before working my way down here.

                So sensitive today, Eddie.

                And let’s talk about this “reflexive” criticism of you. Are you feeling put upon by me? Unfairly targeted in thread after thread by the Hamster, for no reason but sheer pique? Have I somehow gained a reputation for being your bete noire? No? Then maybe we can concede that strawman to the waste bin and get on with our discussions.

                1. Look, Hamster, I admit I didn’t check the time stamps. Mea culpa, as my people say.

                  And I’m not a Hamster-phobe.

                  I am simply making the point that I don’t hold the views described in your 3:31 post: “Of course, I didn’t meet Eddie’s required checklists and this means my children are doomed forever.”

                  I hope I’ve clarified my views a little more by now.

                  1. I was only joshing. I thought the generous elbow-digging in your side, eyebrows wagging and “Eh, Eddie? Innit that right, Eddie?” would be readily apparent. I was WRONG.

                    1. Eddie has some kind of personality disorder, Hammy. Gentleness is really the best policy.

                    2. Don’t get your tentacles in a twist, Warty, I’m trying to be friendly.

                    3. Strange place for him to hang out, then.

            2. “I was married at Rainbow.”

              The grocery store? Serious question.

              1. No, the big annual summer camp-out for dirty hippies.

                1. Also known as Camp Bladder Infection.

                  1. I… had not heard this one, and now admit a certain curiosity. Do tell.

                    1. Just a joke an old friend of my made after he got back from one. He’s dead now.

            3. I refuse to marry hamsters. Not a fucking single way to handle all the goddamn scurrying about in an out of doom portals and shit.

              1. True. You should hear my husband complain.

    4. actually its the welfare state. Two parent home, no welfare check.

      1. Ganador, ganador, cena de pollo

    5. Even simpler: stop subsidizing single parenthood and stop subsidizing and encouraging divorce.

  5. Here was Charles Krauthammer on Fox News last night, according to National Review…

    The trifecta.

  6. Moving even a single factory can kill an entire small town. Move several factories and you can kill an a small city.

  7. The WoDs is the cause of 95% of the problems in this country.

  8. Krauthammer? In the unlikely event that worthless warmongering fuck got something right, it was purely by accident. Pass.

  9. Seriously, why are you quoting Krauthammer for anything? The man’s a statist Republican partisan hack. The only reason he’s for school choice is because that’s been a Republican plank for decades. Like the good partisan hack he is, he’ll spout “school choice would fix this” through predictable talking points at any problem involving the children, without bothering to go into any kind of specifics.

    1. Oh c’mon. If we went around letting facts get in the way of opinion and theory, we’d never get anything done.

    2. you should read Krauthammer’s book everything in there that he wrote some before Obama was even a senator has come to pass under Obama as President. The man is smart. Just because you don’t like one of his opinions does preclude the rest of his ideas

  10. “There are essentially two problems. . . . One is single parenthood, and the other is the worst schools on earth,

    Charles Krauthammer is a fucking idiot.

    Its not single parenthood.

    Its not the damn schools.

    Its the insidiously corrosive effect on community relations caused by, first, the WoD and, now, the WoT.

    Its the faux righteousness that public sectors unions cover themselves with to extort ever greater payoffs from the taxpayer while insulating their members from accountability – all for the price of enough votes to keep a fellow corrupt pol in office so the gravy train keeps running.

    1. I think the schools have more to do with this than the WoT.

  11. You know what this International Jew blames? Food deserts! Not enough vegetables is the reason they are rioting.

    But to be “serious,” charter schools are notorious for “zero tolerance” policies of expelling troublemakers and using rigid selection criteria that excludes them. I’m not sure the goyim are gullible enough to believe this, especially as many more parents have experience with charter schools. This may not be the best argument for us to make.

    1. WTF does this have to do with anything?

      1. Ignore it, it’s another racist troll.

    2. Merkin, when you started this new handle, did you just lift Mr. Lizard’s shtick whole-cloth and just substitute fucking goyim for stoopid mammals? Cuz it sure looks like you did.

    3. My hipster friend who grew up in Baltimore City and now lives in Portland, Oregon but was in Bmore the past week said this: No money is put into providing infrastructure or safety. No grocery stores no development no hope.

  12. Privatizing a public good always results in more expense for no benefit. It’s always pushed by people wanting to get in the middle and skim money that was otherwise going directly from taxpayer to service. If something is meant to be available universally, it is usually better to simply make it public. Republicans are disingenuous thieves who can’t govern and then use their failures as evidence of their philosophy that governing doesn’t work, which is a cover for wholesale fleecing. Their bullshit impoverished so-called inner cities, and they are happy to blame the resulting social problems on skin color, either overtly or in code, to this day. Nobody should listen to them about anything, and they should, for damn sure, be kept as far away from education policy as possible.

    1. Their bullshit impoverished so-called inner cities

      You nailed it, Tony. All those damn conservative Republicans on the city councils of Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, and other cities impoverished them.

      On the national level they also prevented the Federal government from pouring billions into a War on Poverty. Why if we could just go back in time to the 1960s and do that there would be no poverty today!

      1. About half the schools in the city of Detroit are charter schools. It doesn’t seem to be helping much. I don’t think it’s a panacea, even though school choice is morally the right solution.

        But when you’ve got the War on Drugs, a police force that believes the people they’re supposed to be protecting are ‘the enemy’, a city government that used to make it impossible to start a small business (that’s been getting a little better, especially in mid-town), and an African American lower middle class culture that disvalues school and responsible fatherhood you’ve got a recipe for failing schools of any kind. Which is what we have.

        FWIW, some of the public schools in Detroit are actually very good and their kids go to college. And some of the charter schools are scams. It’s an ugly mess.

        1. How long have those charter schools been going? Is it just a case of “too little, too late”?

        2. Charter schools are public schools; albeit with around 1/3 of the funding. However, the fact remains that charters are part of the public school system.

          1. Charter schools are public schools; albeit with around 1/3 of the funding. However, the fact remains that charters are part of the public school system.

            The same shitty results for 33% of the cost still sounds like an improvement to me.

      2. On the state level, they caused Maryland to be stingy with its state aid to Baltimore.

    2. Exactly, only the rich should get to choose what schools their kids go to! The poor, inner city parents should just patiently wait for the likes of you to figure out how to make public schools better.

    3. It’s always pushed by people wanting to get in the middle and skim money that was otherwise going directly from taxpayer to service.

      Don’t talk about public employee unions like that!

    4. Imagine if we lived in a world where U.S. per-pupil spending had tripled since 1965, instead of being mercilessly eviscerated by child-hating Republicans. What halcyon days those would be. Oh. Well, guess the only solution is to triple it again, huh?

    5. What’s that smell ? Something is stinkng up the thread.

    6. Education is not a public good.

    7. If something is meant to be available universally, it is usually better to simply make it public.

      Should we socialize food, clothing, and shelter? Why or why not?

      1. We already do to some extent.

        1. Nice goalpost-shifting. But if you have to take that position, how are you enjoying life in public housing?

        2. Pick a better living areangement: Pruit Igoe (pre demolition) or Aspen Colorado.

    8. Projecting again Tony? Is it Wednesday already?

      If something is meant to be available universally, it is usually better to simply make it public.

      So food, water, power and shelter should all be 100% publicly controlled too? How many countries has that worked out well in?

      1. Toilet paper should be as well. Just look at Venezuela.

        1. Fine, we’ll add “household sundries” to the list. Look who lives in the fancy first world. I’ll bet you consider the internet to be essential too…

        2. Can’t forget tampons

      2. Good thing California’s got its water supplies under public control.

    9. It’s always pushed by people wanting to get in the middle and skim money that was otherwise going directly from taxpayer to service.

      That would be true if the government provided the service in an efficient way. But that’s not the case. Government is extremely inefficient, and wastes much more money due to inefficiency than capitalists would skim in their greedy quest for obscene profits. Not only that, but in that greedy quest for obscene profits, evil capitalists find efficiencies that government does not, because they have an incentive to do so. The end result is a more efficiently provided service at a lower total cost, because of the incentives that profits create.

      Not that I would expect you to understand because you are as economically illiterate as you are scientifically illiterate. And stupid too.

      1. But you just made that up. It’s not true. You’d like for it to be true, because you’re an idiotic dogmatist, but it isn’t.

        1. Actually it’s 100% completely fucking true. Computers got cheaper and better, schools did not. Free market vs government.

          you’re an idiotic dogmatist

          But enough projection.

        2. Tony

          Cost of original Macintosh in 1984 (in 1984 dollars): $2495

          Cost of non-retina display highest end iMac (in 2015 dollars): $1999

        3. Oooooh, good rebuttal! You win!

          /sarcasm

      2. The one bullet i use when discussing/arguing issues with friends and family is:
        Incentives.
        If you had immunity from the consequences of doing your job poorly, would it affect how you do your job ?
        If you get to be a school teacher regardless if your students or parents are happy, would that affect your performance ?
        Incentives Incentives Incentives……sometimes i get a breakthrough.

        1. Not in Tony’s case. He’s the poster-child for You Can’t Fix Stupid.

    10. Wow, we silenced Tony on the first salvo. How often does that happen?

      1. He’ll be back to skull-fuck the thread long after it is dead, and then he’ll feel all smug because he got the last word.

    11. It’s always pushed by people wanting to get in the middle and skim money that was otherwise going directly from taxpayer to service.

      This actually very accurately describes the behavior of many people who have been involved in Baltimore’s bloated public education bureaucracy. There were even minor scandals related to administrators who hung around briefly, drew high salaries, and then left town. Baltimore spends far more per pupil than any other school system in Maryland, and is dead last in spending on classroom supplies; the vast majority of the money is spent on administrators. I went to school in Harford County, which is solidly Republican, spends far less on education, and gets some of the best results in the state.

    12. “It’s always pushed by people wanting to get in the middle and skim money that was otherwise going directly from taxpayer to service.”

      You mean like a certain government agency that actually doesn’t educate a single child? Or the leaders of two of the largest labor unions in the country?

    13. Why do you hate poor black kids Tony?

    14. So why are America’s best-off states dominated by Republicans?

    15. Baltimore, MD, Tony. Can’t find a Republican within 50 miles, and haven’t been able to for decades. Every few terms we elect a Republican as governor for variety’s sake.

  13. [OT] Daily Derp: This art student in my neighborhood has been soliciting votes for her derptastic art project. From her page:

    My artwork uses a pseudo-documentary style to explore the social and gender dynamics of a relationship in the liminal stage between dating and marriage. Because contemporary Family Development theories fail to include cohabitation as a life stage the meaning of these types of relationships is ambiguous to both individuals outside and inside of the relationship.
    In this series, I explore this ambiguity. Each photograph is paired with a short phrase that is physically raised on the image. The embossment, created with a rolling press, signifies a silent voice overshadowing the relationship. The work provokes the realities of intimacy that are met or disregarded within a liminal relationship.

    1. Tell her: tits or GTFO.

      1. You’d think that there would at least be some penetration shots or perhaps even a facial based on “The work provokes the realities of intimacy that are met or disregarded within a liminal relationship.”

    2. I think she should have a liminal relationship with the word “liminal”

    3. Because contemporary Family Development theories fail to include cohabitation as a life stage the meaning of these types of relationships is ambiguous to both individuals outside and inside of the relationship.

      When the wife and I cohabited we knew exactly what it meant: Reduced cost of living and a hell of a lot less driving. Other people also realized what it meant: We were, like, super serious.

      What’s so hard to understand about cohabitation?

    4. A light study of the lilted disconnect between a young woman’s photographic transition from dreams evolving into commitment realities. My thread peers tend to be less in touch with their inner art gods- in spite of their gifts in other areas.

      I rate it rather intimate and only slightly derpy. And in a different context from the Late P. Brooks I think would enjoy being blown by this thoughtful young minstrel. I promise to return the favor, dear.

      1. I actually posted ‘peers’. What the Jesus jizzm is up with that word and my fucking skullmeat?!

  14. Privatizing a public good always results in more expense for no benefit.

    Just for laughs, let’s accept this as true. What this indicates to me is intentional mispricing and cost shifting engaged in by the “public servants” who administer the program(s).

    1. That he wrote this on the internet is some quality irony.

    2. I’d actually like some examples of these goods becoming cheaper. The examples of privatization making them cheaper is pretty long, the other way I’m drawing a blank.

  15. Each photograph is paired with a short phrase that is physically raised on the image. The embossment, created with a rolling press, signifies a silent voice overshadowing the relationship.

    “Blow me.”

  16. Education is not a public good.

    It’s a village.
    Of idjits.

  17. Odd that libertarians have ideas about agency similar to tthoe of progressives: bad behavior is caused by somebody other than the person behaving badly. For the progs, its racists and corporations; for the libertarians, it’s the government. Neither leave much room for character and individual choice as determinants.

    1. Truly, when we libertarians point out factors that contribute to the difficulties facing people being fucked by the government it’s really just code for our secret opinion that people aren’t responsible for their actions. Slick there, catching onto us.

      1. I’m not sure that looting, burning and rioting are solutions to being fucked with by the government. It’s obvious that the government makes things worse for the less-well-off but people need a better response than a looting rampage, which inevitably makes the government clamp down harder.

        Martin Luther King’s tactics were effective but they seem to have been forgotten.

        1. Strawman down.

        2. MLKs tactics worked because of us. He was just a sideshow. If this problem were solvable and we wanted to solve it, it would get solved.

          1. Who the fuck is ‘us’? WTF are you talking about?

            “He was just a sideshow”

            No he wasn’t you idiot.

            1. I’m an International Jew and we are the ones who were really behind the “civil rights movement.”

              1. I like Jews. I like some of their movies. Their sandwiches. Their poetry. Their world street cred. I like their banks because my wife works as an executive making lots of money at one of their Fortune 100 places. And some these Jewish girls: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapal……frmNzXlEE

            2. He’s Mr. Lizard with a yarmulke and beard instead of scales, as I pointed out upthread.

        3. Did you miss 90% of the thread being about how education plays a role in economic and social success? When you force kids into a government run monopoly on education, do you think we should just say “fuck ’em, it’s all their fault?”

          1. No kids are being “forced.” If they want to enroll in private school, they can.

            1. You hand a parent of a kid in inner city Ballmer the $18K being spent for public schooling and then you might have a leg to stand on.

              1. They also can’t afford big house in the suburbs, so I guess that means that evil government is FORCING them to stay in an apartment in the city, right?

                1. That’s called poverty, IJ. And very few people in government seem to have the willpower to figure out how to keep jobs in America rather than sending them to the freedom-loving Chinese.

                2. No you fucktwat that’s completely irrelevant to his point.

    2. The libertarian argument is that allowing individual choice in determining what school the kids go to may have better results than that choice being made by the government. Talk about missing the point.

      1. I think he’s referring to the people upthread who point to the WOD as the root cause of the poverty cycle. If that’s true, then school choice doesn’t make much sense as a remedy. The only remedy is ending the WOD as far as I can see.

        I don’t think its the root cause, just an additional factor that makes it worse. These kids that grow up that are basically unwanted, or have parents uninterested are going to end up with higher rates of poverty. At the least school choice gives parents the option to seek better schools. For parents that don’t care it won’t do much.

      2. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of school choice, completely free of government interference. However, what kids do and learn at any school is largely a function of whether parents give a shit parents give about education. There is some evidence that many parents don’t.

    3. +1. The ideologies are very similar, they just have different scapegoats.

      1. The biggest difference of course is that corporations cannot lock people up in cages if they choose not to purchase goods and services that they neither want nor need.

        1. No, but according to liberals, corporations make people poor, and poverty causes crime, and crime causes the police to throw them in prison. It doesn’t make any more or less sense than the notion that crime happens because schools aren’t privately run.

          1. Fuck off Merican.

          2. Your own obtuseness in being unable to make such a connection isn’t the libertarian’s problem.

          3. Yeah. Those evil corporations supplying goods and services to voluntary customers while employing voluntary employees make people poor.

          4. It doesn’t make any more or less sense than the notion that crime happens because schools aren’t privately run.

            Crime happens because people don’t have decent jobs and don’t know how to contribute to society. Given that kids spend a large part of their youth in the school system, the school system is certainly to blame for that. And why doesn’t the school system do a better job? Because the people working there have no incentive to do so.

    4. But, you likely pay tithing at your local church that provides the means for missionaries to work in China, perhaps, where home bible studies are illegal. These missionaries are aiding and abetting people breaking Chinese law supported on funds donated by loving and law-abiding believers.

      So who is at fault here? The Chinese government or the Christian home bible studiers breaking the laws?

      1. Should it be legal to loot?

        1. Depends on the circumstances.

      2. I certainly don’t belong to any church. My tithing goes to the local microbrewery.

        1. A believer in hops and such.

    5. You sure showed that strawman. I don’t see any libertarians suggesting that rioters shouldn’t be held accountable. Tell me, do you think that people aren’t affected by their environments? Do you believe a child born to abusive parents is just as likely as a child born to loving parents to grow up and be successful?

      1. I’m sure everybody here believes that the rioters should be accountable. I agree that government behavior causes much harm to people. I think school choice is a good thing. But, when the time comes, one can choose to loot, riot or not based on something other than the fact that the rulers are crap.

      2. By the way, I think everyone is affected by their environment. And harm caused by a kid raised by abusive parents ought to be blamed more on the parents than the mayor.

        1. You aren’t presenting a point few would disagree with, man. I think your hair-splitter is a bit microscopic though I’m interested in other things you might offer the sphere of conjecture and musings.

  18. Has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with school choice.

    It has everything to do with a certain segment of the population with a MASSIVE sense of entitlement. This has been propagated since the 1960s as “society owes us everything, therefore we can do whatever we want because its owed to us”. So they throw a tantrum when a person from that community gets mistreated. Well, guess what – whites and Hispanics get mistreated by cops all the time, just that they don’t commit the vast majority of crimes in this country and don’t take it as an affront to their entire ethnicity when the cops rough up a criminal who happens to be white or Hispanic.

    Blacks participate in petty tribalism(separatist racism) more than any other race or ethnicity. It is this group identity instead of individual identity that causes this type of behavior and also keeps them down in society.

    1. Has it occurred to you that lousy education plays into this? Or is going beyond copy-pasta not your Ken?

      1. whites and hispanics attend lousy public schools – especially here in Georgia yet I have never seen whites or hispanics riot and loot no matter how many times blacks have committed atrocious crimes against a person who is white or hispanic. Just last year two blacks killed a white baby in a stroller. – Did the white community go out and riot and attack random blacks on the street – NO.

        The (insert social injustice here)______________ excuse doesn’t work because other ethnic groups go through the same thing yet do not act like animals. There are poor whites in poor schools in Appalachia but they don’t commit the crime that blacks do, same with Hispanic communities all over the country – still don’t commit the crimes blacks do or riot/

        So your argument is fallacious. School choice is a great thing privatizing the whole racket is better but the people are rioting in these cities because it part of black culture not because of poor schools. Besides you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink

  19. Baltimore and other similar locations are examples of a case for totally aboliting public education as is.

    Public education has failed those people the most that public education was touted as the way to help those people the most .. the poorer in society.

    Instead it seems like all good schools are only in richer communities advantaging them the most.

    1. “Public education has failed those people”

      yes – however, these people failed themselves as well. They didn’t take advantage of the schools as bad as they are and because of their actions the schools were terrible learning environments. Its tough to teach when you spend all of your time trying to maintain order in the classroom. Its tough to teach when the kids don’t show up in class or refuse to do any work. Its tough to teach when the “parent” (usually a single mother ) couldn’t care less about the kids schooling and refuses to discipline the kids, much less show up at school for conferences. Its tough to teach when the community doesn’t value academic success but instead celebrates dependency, drug abuse and irresponsible sexuality.
      Bad schools are bad not just because of poor teachers and administrators – even the best would have an impossible job under these circumstances. In order to improve things the entire culture has to change and most of the black community wants it just like it is

  20. The riots make the case for privatizing garbage collection, or contracting it out, because the private hauling firms don’t use metal cans that can be thrown thru windows.

  21. Almost heaven, west Balt-i-more
    Looting, burning CVS down to the floor.

  22. OMFG!!!! School choice!!?? You libraritarians simply cannot be suggesting that parents reward good schools with their money, and pull their funding from bad schools.

    Parents must be forced to fund a school no matter what. To say that funding should be removed from a school is crazy. Instead of letting a failing school fail, different people and more money should be spent to fix the school at all costs.

    –some douchebag slaver—-

  23. The only reason Baltimore isn’t Detroit, or Gary more like, is because the state bleeds Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties for tax money. Much of Maryland can get away with fiscal idiocy because of the proximity of DC and its commuters. Baltimore is a blighted shithole, and the only people who move there are hipsters, skinflints, and the hopelessly optimistic. And maybe people from other states who went to the Inner Harbor or Fells Point a couple times and think the whole city’s like that.

    When you talk about the “inner city” in Baltimore, keep in mind we’re talking about parts of the city that have been generational ghettos since the 60s or earlier. We’re talking about sustained urban blight. Baltimore has been the victim of decades of Progressive fiscal and social policy, and it shows. Yes, school choice, an end to the WoD, all that good shit would help, but you’ve also got to come to terms with the fact that there are communities in Baltimore where generations of people have grown up without stable families, without the possibility of steady, meaningful, legal employment, at the mercy of the government stooges who run public housing, and corrupt, violent police, and who basically don’t see much point in thinking beyond living on the dole and otherwise ignoring rules of decent behavior.

    School choice won’t hurt and it might help some people, but there are way, way bigger problems in Baltimore, and they start within the communities themselves.

  24. School choice is not the solution . If you really want to fix this you need stable families with their dignity intact to raise stable children with their dignity intact. The government programs in place have discouraged marriage and stable families while at the same time as taking peoples dignity by making them slaves to a welfare system whose chains seem impossible for so many to escape. That is not what people want to hear but it is the truth. You can throw all the money in the world at the people and nothing will change until they are given a chance to earn their money and hold their heads high as contributing members of society. I would rather see a public works program geared to full employment to give these men a trade and teach them the value and rewards of honest work. Return their dignity and self respect and things will change, to keep it changed they need marriage and stable families to anchor these young men. Marriage is the most important factor in keeping women and children out of poverty, and men out of prison – a family lifts all it’s members up. They need fathers who are there with them in the home who are good role models.

  25. Ah contraire. Graduation rates has risen since the crash for inner city schools. Teenagers didn’t stay in school because they were realistic about their job prospects and could find work in their neighborhoods like their parents. The trouble with talking heads echo chambers is that they really, really, really don’t know what’s going on. Following what they say would be like following Orson Wells, “War of the Worlds”.

  26. There will be little help for inner city poor until a whole range of changes are made. Among the important ones:

    -eliminate the minimum wage
    -implement school choice with universal voucher system
    -end the corporate income tax
    -end all welfare, food stamps and unemployment
    -end the ban in most big cities on legally carrying a firearm for protection
    -end the war on drug by decriminalizing ALL drugs
    -end occupational licensing
    -end the near monopoly in transportation by the taxi medallion system
    -end all employer mandated healthcare

    Now ? I know, I know ? the left has absolutely no intention of doing any of these things. Thus, the poor are fated to continue in a downward spiral. It’s a tragedy I’ve now been watching for the better part of a lifetime.

  27. To begin with, the child in Lynchburg was not in an urban school. the zero tolerance crazyness is not limited to urban schools or black students. Another issue is that it does not matter how good your school is if your kid rarely shows up, and never does his or her schoolwork. When you have schools where some of the students go on to college and success, and other students in the same classroom fail, drop out, and end up in prison, the primary problem is not the school. Clearly underfunded schools are not often good schools. But parents or church leaders or someone needs to make sure that those kids show up with the intention of doing their work and listening to their teachers. If you put a child without that guidance into the best school in the nation, he is still going to end up in poverty. I really believe that the battle for the future of that child is won or lost before his first day of school.

  28. I think Jim Smithy actually supports school choice. That’s why he’s putting so much effort associating retarded arguments with a public school education.

  29. my roomate’s half-sister makes $71 /hr on the computer . She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $17321 just working on the computer for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  30. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start…
    ………… http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  31. This article is just more conservative lies. School choice is all about privatizing education so the rich 0.001% can control that too, just like they control our news and our financial system.

    I have seen how charter schools operate, and it is not beneficial to anyone except the rich guy who owns the business.

    There are many social changes that can, and should, be made to address the plight of poor inner city people. All of which have been mentioned before, but are constantly ignored by people who want to make everything for profit.

    1. The rich control our news? So that means that just now, as you brought me the news of this, you had to get the permission of “the rich”, and have them tweak what you had to say, before you could say it to all of us!?!?

      I guess we’d better not trust what you have to say!

  32. my neighbor’s aunt makes $86 every hour on the internet . She has been without work for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $15501 just working on the internet for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  33. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  34. The schools are terrible because of the students who attend them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.