Texsox

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 8, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) And maybe afterschool programs like that for struggling kids may be beneficial, but to make every student go through that seems expensive and actually hurtful. Having programs that force some of these kids to get off the streets and back in the classroom or onto the court/field/etc would be a good idea, imo. The problem is finding the funding to do such a thing, but still, that would be a heck of a lot easier than fighting with teacher unions to increase the number of hours a teacher has to work each week. There isn't a teacher in my school that doesn't tutor after school. Care to guess how many kids we get to stay for tutoring? We even offer a tutoring bus ride to the front door of their home. We have kids failing, whose parents will sign a statement that they are refusing tutoring and if their child fails he will be retained. Then, of course when the kid fails, they blame th school for not teaching the kid. We pull kids out of their electives on our planning periods and conference times for tutoring and the parents (not all) come and complain that we took their child out of PE or music or whatever. There may be some schools where that is the problem, but not any in my experience. Teachers want to teach.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 8, 2011 -> 10:38 AM) How should we regulate parenting tex? I'm open to it. BUt I have a problem with being so dismissive of kids who aren't doing well at 12-16 years old at school. Even if they are doing it to themself at that age, I'm not sure how much weight we should put on that, because at that point the child is not going to achieve anything in life. We've seen the charts of unemployment for those without high school employment. Not regulate, but we keep pushing schools to be parents and teach kids everything from sex to filling out an employment application.

We could also recognize that teaching doesn't trump parenting. And that some things are parent's responsibility. Instead, because teaching is a paid position and aprenting is not, we place all the expectations on education.

There are no right or wrong answers or we would have made those decisions a long time ago. Yes, are kids have a lot of computers, cell phones, etc. but that is the world we are preparing them for.

My students come from a wide range of economic conditions and shack is somewhat correct. There are a lot of lazy kids out there who would have been removed from most schools in other countries. Here we not only attempt, but demand that every kid be in school until 16. It really frustrates me that kids around the world are fighting for a chance to go to school, we force them to go, feed them two meals a day, and even provide school supplies, and kids put in less than zero effort. Not only are they not doing anything, but they are distracting the students around them. They can't bring a pencil or notebook but have $2 for a no uniform fundraiser and nice cell phones. To me it shows how much they value school. Give me a room full of recent immigrants, my experience tells me most will actually care and be thankful that they are getting an education. They don't think of it as a birthright.

lol you thought this was a private thread between u2

knowing this will continue will comfort me on my flights today.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 3, 2011 -> 08:12 AM) The argument is that, the way the districts are drawn, hispanics are underrepresnted i.e. there's 10,000 hispanics for every rep vs. 5,000 caucasions. The total in every district has to be close to the same. So the ratio is basically the same for every person. Any single individual will be 1 of X number, no matter which district. But we've decided that certain groups (in this case Latinos) need to be a majority in a few districts. Why?

How else can a conclusion regarding no new Hispanic districts? The map protects GOP districts. All people living in those districts, regardless of race, will have a rep. The rep will in all likelihood be a GOP. And that's somehow a problem. Why?

So what's everyone doing this summer? I have almost three weeks of training lined up. Boy Scout Camp Director training in June. Then in August two weeks of training for helping Pre-Ap students. In between five weeks on South Padre Island catching some waves and a couple weeks in Bar Harbor Maine watching whales instead of oil wells. (In Texas whales and wells are pronounced the same).

Of course I would agree that the two things you mentioned will hurt him with Dems. I can see calling him a murderer would be the hyperbole answer to the Willingham case. I'm not certain education will stick. People like lower taxes and he cut spending instead of lowering taxes. I'm even going to bet that he'll have some stat showing Texas spends over the national average based on something else. There are plenty of things not to like. But the rest of the country will be seeing someone we'll have a hard time recognizing once he officially runs.

The underlying presumption is Hispanics need a Dem representative and that the presumably GOP Rep cannot represent them. I'm uncomfortable with that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 3, 2011 -> 06:50 AM) There's also the whole "refused to review the conviction of a man sentenced to death despite a whole bunch of expert opinion that it was bulls*** because it would make Perry look bad" And cutting education when your state already is pretty horrible in education. Conservatives love the tough on crime death penalty. It's a deterrent and all that. Perry believed in the sanctity of the legal process and the jury that convicted the man. If you don't believe in our legal process maybe you're one of those commie liberals. All those criminals, those murders who chose to attack our values and our people, who were put to death in Texas will only help him with conservatives across the US. Maybe you want some activist judge (he's kind of the final judge in this) who will overturn the work of a lot of people, but conservatives want judges that will just uphold the law. And that's what Perry did. With many conservatives, money is not the answer to education. Standardized tests and better teachers are the answer. They believe there is a ton of waste, too many administrators, etc. So losing that money will not make much of a difference. Besides it was Dem lawmakers who earlier had chosen to stop some federal funds from going to Texas because they wanted Perry to violate the state Constitution. You have to find things that conservatives will not like, and he's got solid conservative values. Perhaps they can paint him as a flip flopper from his Dem days, but I think that will be easily explained by the Dem party left him when they started catering to the far left extremists in the party.

I will say this, and remember this is coming from a known liberal, I am uncomfortable building a map along racial lines. But I guess it is as valid as along political lines. But when I read "X" district it seems wrong. Each segment of the state should have about the same number of people to be represented. The racial makeup in an ideal world, shouldn't matter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2011 -> 08:28 PM) I think lecturing the country about your balanced budget and the evils of deficit spending when your budget is only balanced because of the stimulus is a pretty good policy point for starters. As I noted previously, I think opposig government regulation when regulation saved Texas from a housing bubble is missing the point. Using available resources to balance the budget is my preference to deficit spending like most other states. or raising taxes. How many other states received stimulus money?

Zero chance I will watch any of the NBA finals.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2011 -> 07:26 PM) Do you really think that's the worst we'd throw at him if we really tried? Unless you start making up stuff swift boat boy

I've been pretty consistent through the years that I like balanced budgets. I'll take tax and spend or don't tax and don't spend, but the past thirty years of don't tax and spend, spend, spend, is not a path we should be on. I don't think Perry is as bad as Kap and some of the "party elites" seem to think. I believe he has a serious chance at the nomination. When the worst thing the Dems are throwing is his secession comment, well that tells me a lot. Presidents have been elected with more baggage than Perry. In a race against Obama, I'll be punching the incumbent's lever. And as for any confusion, believing he can, or will, take the nomination is far different than supporting him. The sarcastic side of me has Palin in the GOP discussions. The serious side has Perry.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) Texas's unemployment is just under 8%, well under the national level. It's all those damn illegals sneaking in across the border.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 2, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) It has? Didn't they have a massive budget deficit (partly due to tax cuts!) that was "fixed" by massive cuts in spending, including education, and shuffling the numbers in the books? You mean didn't Texas cut taxes *and* spending? Yes. Both make him a darling of conservatives.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 2, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) This election will be won and lost on the economy. Which will really help Perry, Texas has done very well, thank you, during this economic downturn. I really do see him accepting the nomination. And I believe he could make a good, one term, President.

Y'all are Republican elites

Found the Rush transcript

Mitch? Perry to Obama, I'll see your old white guy and raise you an old white guy . . .

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) I want to see him go to D.C. and then threaten to Secede. I guess if that's the best shot at him the Dems have, he's good to go. I wonder who he will pick as a running mate? He won't need Palin, how about Rubio? Rubio is from the south, that may hurt his chances on the ticket. Perry will probably need a midwest /north east coast guy.