Forums Index >> General >> Oprah blames katie for peak oil...ratings crash.
Page : 1 : <2>
Lol
You make me think of Soylent Green, 44...
Makes me wonder how many kids really suffer from hearing
loss, lead poisoning, murcery poisonig and assma. Can we
trust him not to trump up this problem just to make his point?
Like I said before if this is as bad as he says, when a family's
income does increase it wouldn't make a difference to these
childeren but that is not what his data shows.
@t- Remember, the study was about what happens in populations, not individuals. The data doesn't enable examining the problem on a case by case basis, but...
Families that can afford medical care get the ear infections cleared up. They aren't chronic. (I've seen deafness from this...)
Famililes that can afford decent housing don't live in toxic environments. If they have an old house, they take care of the lead problems. If other toxins that lead to asthma are a problem, they take care of it.
Families that can afford options don't choose to live near old factories, smelters, and other unattractive options.
Families that can afford food don't send kids to school with empty stomachs. (Ever not eaten for a day or three and tried to pay attention in class?)
Some of these families have no money because the adults have made stupid dumbass decisions. Some of these families have no money because they don't know how to not live in poverty. Perhaps the welfare system helps create dependence on aid. (Generational poverty vs. Situational poverty) If we make it possible for all families to have a decent wage, many of these problems decline significantly.
IMO, all of these families have children who are living in poverty through no fault of their own.
Don't put the responsibility on the kids (and you didn't, but some may). I can live with it often being parent responsibility, but it isn't the kids' fault. I didn't get to select my parents, and neither did you.
Earlier you said
From where I live I don't see much poverty or poor schools.
That's good for you, but that really doesn't help the millions of kids around the nation who really are not being cared for. I've lived on both sides of this fence. I've been a poor kid, and a middle class kid. I've taught in inner city schools and rural schools. The well cared for kids (even poor ones) do very well overall. They have a good shot in life. They will be OK.
The kids who live in poverty don't get a fair chance. They have so much against them (through no fault of their own) that few will achieve what they could have. A few well placed bucks would work wonders for them, and in the long run, would enrich society. The benefits of programs that can do that would outweigh the costs...
Good post. I concur...still haven't sat down to read the piece...i will...maybe.
@LGM
Alittle reasurch on lead poisoning
In the late 70's 88% of children had lead poisoning.
by the year 2000 it declined to 2.2%.
quite remarkable
link
and the childeren most effected today
Sociodemographic factors associated with higher blood lead levels in children were non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, low income, and residence in older housing. The prevalence of elevated blood lead levels was 21.9% among non-Hispanic black children living in homes built before 1946 and 16.4% among children in low-income families who lived in homes built before 1946.
Note that the low income children have a lower % of lead poisoning
I agree it is a problem but it is not confined to children living in poverty
A story yesterday from the Baltimore Sun said the # of childeren with lead poisoning dropped from 162 to 135 from 2004 to 2005.(in Baltimore).
and the laws to protect the childeren are as follows..
Meanwhile, rental property owners could face a fine of $250 per day starting Feb. 24 for failing to perform at least one lead hazard risk reduction treatment on homes built before 1950.
The law makes intervention mandatory when a child resident is shown to have a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter
I think as far as lead poisoning goes the US is doing very well.
T raider
Overall, agreed, T raider, but more can be done. Lead is far more damaging than was believed in the past.
However, if the percentages you quote are accurate, 2.2% of US children have lead poisoning, but 21.9% (nearly TEN TIMES the average) of black children living in homes built before 1946 is way too high. I find it unacceptable that over 1 in 5 of those kids are dealing with lead poisoning, but only a tenth as many in the general population deal with it. This is the kind of thing that can be easily taken care of.
16.4% of children in low income families also deal with that (over eight times the average). I'm sure there is overlap between these two groups, too. Poor kids are suffering from poisoning in their environment, and the link between cognitive problems and lead poisoning is well established.
You just made Berliner's case for him.
And I agree with you more can be done but give credit
where credit is do.
Here is Berliners conclusion on lead poisoning,
again I think stretching the truth.
(page 37)
Though a reduction of, say, 4 or 5 IQ points is not disastrous in a single
poisoned child, that IQ reduction in a population will increase by 50 percent the
number of children who qualify for special education, just about what we see in
the schools serving the poor.
How can he reduce the whole population when it effects 16% of the
population?
So we are talking 4 kids in a class of 25 and...
Though a reduction of, say, 4 or 5 IQ points is not disastrous in a single
poisoned child
I think Berliner just made my case.
T raider
Last edited: Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 6:12:33 AM
Are you aware of how a child is identified and qualified for special education programs? Often students are referred, but just miss qualifying. They don't perform poorly enough, but they don't perform well. This happens fairly frequently. If these students are exposed to toxins that damage their learning ability, they may well fall under the line that allows them to be labelled "special education".
That IQ reduction in a population will increase by 50 percent the
number of children who qualify for special education
I don't have the numbers to support defending this, but it fits what I see. I'll try to dig up more data.
Also, there is an overrepresentation of minority students in special education.
Since the early 1970s, national surveys by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education have revealed persistent overrepresentation of minority children in certain disability categories. The most pronounced disparities then were black children who, while only 16 percent of the total school enrollment, represented 38 percent of the students in classes for the educationally mentally retarded. After more than twenty years, black children constitute 17 percent of the total school enrollment and 33 percent of those labeled mentally retardedonly a marginal improvement..
http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~hepg/introduction.html
In my opinion, this has more to do with poverty than it has to do with race.
Here's a link. This school has a population similar to what Berliner is discussing. This school has 80% of it's students getting free or reduced price lunch. The population is overwhelmingly minority students. Their achievement results compared to the state's are:
Reading
Math
Writing
Graphs from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Washington State
I don't know how much lead or other poisons are in the kids' bodies, but they are, as a whole, low income minority students. They have well qualified teachers. The teachers are doing a good job of trying to improve the kid's academic ability, but something is interfering. Poverty.
Last edited: Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 4:01:19 PM
Did you read your link very closely?
Finally, the theory that poverty and socioeconomic factors can explain all or most of the observed racial disparities fails to account for the extreme differences between black overrepresentation and Hispanic underrepresentation, differences that are even more significant in many states than disparities between blacks and whites.40 For example, blacks in Alabama and Arkansas are more than seven to nine times as likely as Hispanics to be labeled mentally retarded.41 Moreover, nationally and in many other states,42 the disparity in identification rates for mental retardation and emotional disturbance between blacks and Hispanics is greater than the disparity between blacks and whites. Yet Hispanics, like blacks, are at far greater risk than whites for poverty,43 exposure to environmental toxins in impoverished neighborhoods,44 and low-level academic achievement in reading and math.45 Thus, the high variation in identification rates among minority groups with similar levels of poverty and academic failure casts serious doubt on assertions by some researchers that it is primarily poverty and not bias that creates these deep racial disparities.46
Yeah, but I disagree. I'd rather believe it is poverty than racism. There is room for debate on that...
Ok Here are my points that I am trying to make.
What Berliner says
We
believe that the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law is a near perfect case
of political spectacle (Smith, 2004), much more theater than substance
But I find His research paper to be a brand of theater over substance. I expect
more from a Univesity study. They should give the facts and make their conclutions
on the facts. Yet Berliner gives 1/2 truths and streaches other truths
to funnel his readers to his views. I expect that in political spectacles not Univesity studies.
When I point out some of his streaches you can't see them ; its
like you are giving him a free pass to Go, collect $200. I don't get it?
When I put up numbers and give links you are skeptical. I wish you would
be skeptical of Berliner.
I do agree that
They have well qualified teachers. The teachers are doing a good job of trying to improve the kid's academic ability, but something is interfering.
But to say their failure is all poverty I can't agree on. I think its how the parents
effect their childerns attitude, and their family structure. You said yourself
. The well cared for kids (even poor ones) do very well overall. They have a good shot in life. They will be OK.
I will go 50% poverty 50% moral decay of our society. That is.. One parent homes,
drugs, gangs, absence of christian values etc.
T raider
Berliner never said it was all poverty, but poverty does have a great impact on the things you mention.
I will go 50% poverty 50% moral decay of our society. That is.. One parent homes,
drugs, gangs, absence of christian values etc.
I see your list as fairly complete. I also believe that poverty contributes to all of the rest of your list. If you have no resources, are you more likely to steal, do drugs, sell drugs, join gangs, prostititute yourself, or do any number of other things that are seen as morally wrong? I think so. Are you more likely to have children outside of marriage? I think so. Many of the social problems you see are tied to desires to feel better or have more, to feel part of something, or to be loved.
The culture of poverty is a very interesting topic, and more complex than I used to believe. Poverty isn't just a "throw money at it and fix it" problem, but income will help. So will understanding the culture.
A book that was rather eye opening for me was Ruby Payne's A Framework for Understanding Poverty
. It's written for teachers, but much of it applies here. Here's a bit from the publisher's website-
http://www.ahaprocess.com/Book_Framework.html
Ruby's thesis for Framework is simple. Individuals accustomed to personal poverty think and act differently from people in the middle and upper economic classes. Most teachers today come from middle-class backgrounds. Economic class differences, in an educational setting, often make both teaching and learning challenging. Too often, teachers don't understand why a student from poverty is chronically acting out or is not grasping a concept even after repeated explanations. At the same time, the student doesn't understand what he/she is expected to produce and why. Ruby discusses at length the social cues or "hidden rules" that govern how we think and interact in society and the significance of those rules in a classroom.
So, t raider, it appears that you and I agree overall, but you would like to see stronger linkage between Berliner's thesis and the data he offers. Fair enough, but I think his case is pretty strong.
Last edited: Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 4:22:25 PM
If I might:
Are you aware of how a child is identified and qualified for special education programs? Often students are referred, but just miss qualifying. They don't perform poorly enough, but they don't perform well. This happens fairly frequently. If these students are exposed to toxins that damage their learning ability, they may well fall under the line that allows them to be labelled "special education".
Quite often schools use a discrepancy model to qualify kids...if the discrepancy isn't determined "significant", usually read as a 15 point difference between some academic area and IQ, the child will not qualify under "learning disabled." so, if you have a child whoes IQ is 75 and academics are 65...you have a child who does not qualify...even though that child is not performing anywhere near the level of his peers. That child gets no help. None, nada, zip.
As a speech-language pathologist in the schools, I work at several different schools at once. I work at the schools in the best neighborhood and those in the worst. Let me just say, that in the higher economic status neighbor hoods/schools, we get drastically fewer referrals for special education evaluation. On the lower end of the spectrum, we can't keep up with the testing. In the high SES schools, we have 100% students passing state tests, at the other end, somewhere around 30%.
There are other staggering differences. I see them every day...
At the upper end school, the place is filled with parent volunteers...apparently families make enough money that one parent can volunteer his or her time. And man! The parents look great! Hot, fit moms! Meow...but at the other end...
Its like pulling teeth to get a parent in. Usually there's one parent (typically a mom). And sorry to say it, they are generally in sorry physical, and emotional shape. Often, they really aren't all that bright...they take time off from crappy jobs to come in...and we often learn that they aren't availible, or capable of helping their children with academics at home...
About oil
"WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally."
You have got to be kidding me...
I wish I could figure out what he meant by what he said... In english it seemed clear enough to me. I don't know what his language is. Any clues?
I thought I was hearing things when he said we need to reduce America's reliance on foreign oil. I guess he just didn't say what I thought he did.
(btw, I thought you probably had some connection to school systems, stink.)
No, he said it. And he said it like he meant it.
Apparently "saying" is an exercise bereft of meaning...like walking, or jumping, or falling over.
He said something, but meant another. I think another way to say that is: he lied.
again.
And the pundit class couldn't care less.
again.
Even bald face lying in the SOTU is barely newsworthy. What's this guy gotta do to draw serious criticism?
So this is how liberty dies......with thunderous applause.
If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
I have brought peace...and justice...and security to my new empire.
(all from Star Wars III)
Very relevant right now.
Also:
Patron: Why isn't Bush getting impeached for the deaths of thousands of people?
Bartender (thinking): No blue dresses were stained.
It'll take a murder or something for him to start receiving criticism.
They all do it
1/2 truths and streaches other truths
to funnel his readers to his views. I expect that in political spectacles
Fact is he wants to decrease our oil imports by 5.25 million b/day
which is equivalent to 75% of mideast oil imports.
Remember it all depends on what your definition of is is.
@LGM
So, t raider, it appears that you and I agree overall, but you would like to see stronger linkage between Berliner's thesis and the data he offers. Fair enough, but I think his case is pretty strong.
Fair enough, I had a good time, thankyou for yours.
T raider
After President George Bush delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday night, news commentators joked among themselves about switchgrass
How switchgrass and wood chips could run a car
Last edited: Friday, February 03, 2006 at 4:03:56 AM
Thanks hillbillies! Stephen colbert talks about what's wrong with you guys...
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Colbert.mov
quicktime
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Colbert.mov
WMP...click the link
T
Thats becuse he is evading the
use of hydrogen fuel.
Why more fossil fuel...
Peace
Page : 1 : <2>
Short attention span? Then pass on this rantit goes on an on in a semi-circular fashion. Better you head to Marco-Polo
Ahem:
Watching the Today show, I learned that Oprah conducted herself rather well when confronting a man masquerading as a heroin addictits the same thing I learned on the nightly news. Even as I switched from channel to channelI kept on learning and learningand always, the same thing.
So, being brought up to date and well informed as I am, and as no doubt, you are, in the most relevant issues of our times
Ahem:
Well, its no wonder we in this country have the political/social sensibility of spoiled, slightly retarded children. As we sleep-walk through the 21st century, real changes are on the horizon. How we respond to these forces will redefine how we Americans view our roles in the social constitution of our country, and how we view our place as a nation among nations.
Here are two crucial issues, but there are others
1). Peak oil the end of cheap energy
Understanding of the peak oil phenomenon and the forces governing what is about to about to happen also improved during the past year. The idea that "proven reserves," shale oil, tar sands, or arctic oil, has much, if anything, to do with the peaking of world oil production is now rejected by objective analysts.
The reason is simple. World oil production is now so massive 84 million barrels a day (30 billion barrels a year) that new sources of oil simply are not being discovered and brought into production fast and cheaply enough to make any difference. The ability to maintain the size of the current flow, and the availability of the resources to do so, is all that counts.
The concept of "accessible" oil reserves is coming into the literature. Accessible reserves are those that can be brought into production soon enough so they can increase or help stem declines in current production, and cheap enough so users can afford them. Discussions about significantly increasing world production by spending trillions of dollars on new exploration and production efforts are sounding less and less realistic in a situation in which we may be only months away from peak production
http://www.energybulletin.net/12022.html
Once you understand how much of our economy is based on the availability of cheap energy, you begin to understand the ominous importance of helping bring this issue into our social consciousness. Oil is on the way out and there is no easy, cheap technological fix.
2) Next up, the widening income gap: AKA: the return to feudalism
A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office reported that real income fell by more than 1 percent between 2002 and 2003 for the bottom 20 percent of workers, remained virtually flat for workers in the middle and rose 3.9 percent for the top quintile. It jumped 8 percent for the top 5 percent of families.
"All indications are we're back to a situation that's more like the 1980s, and income inequality is growing again," said Elizabeth McNichol, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0601270145jan27,1,1050558.story?coll=chi-business-hed
Our policies (especially with regard to global trade and tax policy) and our choices (especially with regard to our support for big box enterprises like Wal-mart which are replacing the merchant class with minimum wage earning, working welfare automatons) are helping to erode the middle class. Certainly other factors are in playbut these are the most obvious and persistent in my opinion. They are also possibly the easiest to reverse.
Americas very image is inextricably bound to the middle class. The fate of the middle class in America is the fate of America as we know it.
These two issues affect the quality of life in the US far greater than the issue of terrorism. Im not discounting terrorism as an important issue. It is important, but unlike these other issues, it is being addressed (perhaps the issue is even being exploited). However, there are other issues that arent being seriously discussed, partly because it isnt politically expedient to address them, and partly because these issues cause us to reflect upon ourselves, our habits, and the relationships we have with our government, each other and with our economy. Its easier for Matt, Katie, Tim Russell, and all the others to talk about box office receipts and Oprahs latest exploits than to present us with serious concerns.
Do we have the seriousness to do betterwith regard to the truly important issues, or do we not really care? It seems to me that there is a certain comfort in being a part of the herd and in being shepherded by Katie Couric and GW Bush. But exactly where are these shepherds leading us? There is no conspiracythere is simplyinertia. The inertia of big moneymeets the inertia of the inert.
Take a leap into the futureone without a middle class to pay for our military, our education, all our servicesand one without cheap energy, filled with dilapidated suburbs and failing metropolises (both of which are unsustainable without cheap energy)how will you fare in the coming years? Will the rich continue upon their blessed trajectory? How will that play out? Will you continue to work in a profession that compensates you at a reasonable level? Will you feel secure in your own or your childs educational options? Can you afford $5 dollar gas? $10 gas? Can your community? What does a post petroleum based economy look like?
And you know what? Even if things work out for you (through the miracle of the concept of American Exceptionalism, you just KNOW that they will), there is an increasing American underclass that is growing larger by the dayincreasingly unable to adjust to the changing economy, increasingly unable to meet the basic conditions of an economy that demands a high degree of literacy to meet the demands of the information industry, increasingly disenfranchisedincreasingly discontent. I know them, and I know their children. I work with their kids everyday in the public school system. Current educational systems fail these children. And as their performance on state testing lags, our resources dwindle; dried up by a political philosophy that doesnt apply long-term vision to the equation. The kids just arent worth it, it seems. And so I am complicit in mass-producing an American underclass. But then again, so are you.
The future looks bleak for spoiled, slightly retarded children. Sleep-walking through fields of distractionUnless we wake upand get serious.
Back to regularly scheduled programmingnext up: Tom Cruise calls injured troops "summer soldiers" for seeking medical attention.
Last edited: Friday, January 27, 2006 at 7:05:24 PM