PDA

View Full Version : Omaha Segregation: White District, Black District, & Hispanic District


decemberlove
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Omaha school district to split along racial lines

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- In a move decried by some as state-sponsored segregation, the Legislature voted Thursday to divide the Omaha school system into three districts -- one mostly black, one predominantly white and one largely Hispanic.

Supporters said the plan would give minorities control over their own school board and ensure that their children are not shortchanged in favor of white youngsters.

Republican Gov. Dave Heineman signed the measure into law.

Omaha Sen. Pat Bourne decried the bill, saying, "We will go down in history as one of the first states in 20 years to set race relations back."

"History will not, and should not, judge us kindly," said Sen. Gwen Howard of Omaha.

Attorney General Jon Bruning sent a letter to one of the measure's opponents saying that the bill could be in violation of the Constitution's equal-protection clause and that lawsuits almost certainly will be filed.

But its backers said that at the very least, its passage will force policymakers to negotiate seriously about the future of schools in the Omaha area.

The breakup would not occur until July 2008, leaving time for lawmakers to come up with another idea.

"There is no intent to create segregation," said Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, the Legislature's only black senator and a longtime critic of the school system.

He argued that the district is already segregated, because it no longer buses students for integration and instead requires them to attend their neighborhood school.

Chambers said the schools attended largely by minorities lack the resources and quality teachers provided others in the district. He said the black students he represents in north Omaha would receive a better education if they had more control over their district.

Coming from Chambers, the argument was especially persuasive to the rest of the Legislature, which voted three times this week in favor of the bill before it won final passage on the last day of the session.

Omaha Public Schools Superintendent John Mackiel said the law is unconstitutional and will not stand.

"There simply has never been an anti-city school victory anywhere in this nation," Mackiel said. "This law will be no exception."

The 45,000-student Omaha school system is 46 percent white, 31 percent black, 20 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent Asian or American Indian.

Boundaries for the newly created districts would be drawn using current high school attendance areas. That would result in four possible scenarios; in every scenario, two districts would end up with a majority of students who are racial minorities.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/04/14/omaha.schools.ap/index.html

-------------------

Sam L
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:26 PM
What if you're mixed or Asian? :o

decemberlove
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:27 PM
Thats what I was wondering. It says "predominately" and "mostly" but I still think it will be weird for mixed or Asian kids.

Also, I'm assuming Hispanic means "brown" people and those who look Latino and not the white or black Latinos.

Volcana
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:53 PM
The truly relevant portion of the article
"There is no intent to create segregation," said Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, the Legislature's only black senator and a longtime critic of the school system.

He argued that the district is already segregated, because it no longer buses students for integration and instead requires them to attend their neighborhood school.

Chambers said the schools attended largely by minorities lack the resources and quality teachers provided others in the district. He said the black students he represents in north Omaha would receive a better education if they had more control over their district.My mother, who was a schoolteacher for 30 years, went from being a proponent of integration to an opponent over just this issue. White majorities consistently underfund and under-resource black schools in their districts. Under segregation, Blacks had fewer resources, but more control. Under current forms of integration, Blacks lack resources AND control.

*JR*
Apr 15th, 2006, 01:15 AM
But its backers said that at the very least, its passage will force policymakers to negotiate seriously about the future of schools in the Omaha area.
Since this law (as described in the article) blatantly violates Brown v. Board of Education, I presume said serious negotiations are the actual goal here.

TF Chipmunk
Apr 15th, 2006, 01:34 AM
What the fuck :mad::cuckoo:

RVD
Apr 15th, 2006, 02:15 AM
I'm having some kind of weird problem clicking on links on this site:confused: But before i offer any kind of real opinion on this issue, i really would like more information on the current public school system in Omaha, the economic and racial make up of neighborhoods/districts and how Chambers and others think that separate school systems would be better than the status quo. What i'm not clear on is how are the districts divided up now because the article seems to suggest that its already pretty much segregated....how will it be different once divided up into these districts, i gues mainly by how economic resources are given out...depending on those kinds of issues it might not be a bad thing in practice...there is an argument that black folks did better on a whole in terms of economics, education etc when there was segregation...only problem was there still wasn't any equal rights etc...maybe as the US is today, with blacks/Latinos taking control of their own in those ways, things might be better? Because obviously the staus quo right now isn't working for a large majority of blacks/latinos in the U.S. (especially many school systems). When people hear segregation they automatically think unequal but separate and equal might not be a bad thing;) Truth is many cities/towns in the US are still very segregated due to economices and that leads to unequal school systems, so if they have a remedy where already 'segregated' schools can be equal in terms of resources, i say yeah.Agreed! The information offered in the article is lacking in details. And I am too unfamiliar with Omaha to conclude one way or the other. I also am not familiar with Mr. Chambers. And though I consulted wikipedia's BIO on Mr. Chambers, I found it to be the shortest such write-up on a representative I've ever read. :lol:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Chambers

Anyway, he sounds like a colorful individual [Democrat], who at times pisses off even his own fellow constituents. ;) I kinda like that. :) It tells me that he walks to the beat of his own drum. :yeah:

However, my #1 question is, why would he condone further segregating the [largely] minority areas? There appears to be much that is not being stated in this article that has me :scratch:... :confused:
Again, and unfortunately, this article provides scant information for me to take a position. :shrug: But whatever they decide to do, I can only hope that the children are the ones who benefit and not the politicians for political [mid-term election] reasons. :)

PatrickRyan
Apr 15th, 2006, 02:17 AM
I've been to omaha many many times, and all i've seen were white ppl, i hardly saw any hispanics or african americans there.

CJ07
Apr 15th, 2006, 02:46 AM
I'm trying to figure out how to rationalize this and I'm not getting it...its wrong. :confused:

SelesFan70
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:15 AM
If I had kids, none of them would go to a government run school.

Summer Snow
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:17 AM
:o Racist hoes!

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:35 AM
These are the policies I am afraid of.
The Republican have admitted their desire to bring the country back to the 1950s in policies, supposedly not the segregation part but everything else.
Obviously noone is going to stop them if they're in power.

Rocketta
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:07 AM
I would want to know how they would guarantee equal funding? I don't think many black people have major issues with "seperate but equal" the problem has always been that the majority never allowed equality...will this be any different? :confused:

Volcana
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:08 AM
However, my #1 question is, why would he condone further segregating the [largely] minority areas?Because having fewer resources, but controlling those resources, is better than having fewer resources, but having OTHER people control those resources.

RVD
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:39 AM
Because having fewer resources, but controlling those resources, is better than having fewer resources, but having OTHER people control those resources.Okay, but we're talking about public schools, right? So, if public schools are funded by federal and state taxes, wouldn't it make more sense to legislate according to need, rather than race?
These are not private entities. Like Omaha Public Schools Superintendent John Mackiel said, there's a definite unconstitutionality here. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this goes before the State Supreme Court. Maybe even the federal Supreme Court.

From the article, I gathered that these were already segregated school districts. And the legislature's answer is to re-district in such a way as to further separate these children?! I'm sorry, but that is madness.

Why not re-district in a way that redefines the counties themselves. Or how about re-districting individual school district in such a way that would encompass de-segregating the region. This is not a difficult thing to do. Sure you'd have public outcry, but then at least the movement is not in the wrong direction. But in a direction that forces the issue of inclusion and equality.

I will even go so far as to say, "It won't work."
My daughter is half Mexican and half Black...and smart as a whip. In which school format/district/racial make-up would she fit? :shrug:

antonella
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:42 AM
Eventually this will be done to the U.S. as a whole, I fear, this is a test run.

njnetswill
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:59 AM
:retard:

Public school funding is not fair, true, but people have got to realize that there is a deeper problem that causes the negative statistics regarding African American and Latino populations.

RVD
Apr 15th, 2006, 06:16 AM
:retard:

Public school funding is not fair, true, but people have got to realize that there is a deeper problem that causes the negative statistics regarding African American and Latino populations.You could not believe how much of an understatement that truly is. :lol:
We've wrestled with this very problem during school site council meetings. And believe me, it ain't an easy issue to deal with. Especially in a city stuck in the 50's. :scared:

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 15th, 2006, 12:30 PM
I don't care if it does give funding control back to the "minority" districts, but this is a dangerous turn if this happens to follow through.

We need to fix the problem of funding equally before dividing up schools because of socio-economic status of the areas. This makes me sick to my stomach and to see several people supporting it makes it even worse.

*JR*
Apr 15th, 2006, 12:44 PM
Agreed! The information offered in the article is lacking in details. And I am too unfamiliar with Omaha to conclude one way or the other. I also am not familiar with Mr. Chambers. And though I consulted wikipedia's BIO on Mr. Chambers, I found it to be the shortest such write-up on a representative I've ever read. :lol:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Chambers

Anyway, he sounds like a colorful individual [Democrat], who at times pisses off even his own fellow constituents. ;) I kinda like that. :) It tells me that he walks to the beat of his own drum. :yeah:

Hmmm. When South Dakota passed a law recently (banning all abortions) that obviously will be found unconstitutional, also as a test of what IS "doable", you didn't have any kind words for their colorful personalities, etc.
:shrug:

flyingmachine
Apr 15th, 2006, 12:55 PM
The whole thing are just :retard: .

flyingmachine
Apr 15th, 2006, 12:58 PM
I don't care if it does give funding control back to the "minority" districts, but this is a dangerous turn if this happens to follow through.

We need to fix the problem of funding equally before dividing up schools because of socio-economic status of the areas. This makes me sick to my stomach and to see several people supporting it makes it even worse.
You are very right on that. Segregaton like this only make easier for the powerful groups to control the minorities.

No Name Face
Apr 15th, 2006, 01:34 PM
horrible idea.

Veritas
Apr 15th, 2006, 01:42 PM
What if you're mixed or Asian? :o

Considering Asians are generally invisible in Western media, it's not hard to see why they're not mentioned :tape:

*JR*
Apr 15th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Considering Asians are generally invisible in Western media, it's not hard to see why they're not mentioned :tape:
Tell the Michelle's (Kwan and Wie) that! :p

Veritas
Apr 15th, 2006, 02:33 PM
Tell the Michelle's (Kwan and Wie) that! :p

Including Lucy Liu, that's roughly about 0.00000001% of the attention that other non-Asian stars get ;)

Paldias
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:43 PM
What if you're mixed or Asian? :o

BURN THEM! :devil:

:tape: :scared: :o

Volcana
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:57 PM
You are very right on that. Segregaton like this only make easier for the powerful groups to control the minorities.Not true. As my mother points out, during segregation, at her school, the scholl president was Black, the leads in the school play was Black, the first violin was Black, and the available resources, however few, were allocated equally among the schools.

As the article points out, in Omaha the allocation of resources is already unequal, biased in favor of whites, and the laws on school attendance are written to promote de facto segregation. The don't bus the students, and the law requires that students attend neighborhood schools. So if the neighborhoods are segregated, as they are in most of the USA, the schools wind up segregated.

So if your kid is going to go to a segregated school anyway, why not have control of the resources?

Integration, not segregation, makes it easy for 'powerful groups to control minorities'. But those minorities don't have control over anything, the majority group does.

Anniemal
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:00 PM
This seems to me like a step back, rather than a step forward.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:05 PM
Did integration/desegregation really change that? Actually some would argue that integration made it easier because you can hide behind oh, everyone is equal under the law but really some people are still not being given equal education and economic opportunities...I simply don't see how saying an institution is not segregated solves the problems.Like the V-S joshua said, ensuring that there is equal funding under the current system really should be the issue but it's no secret that isn't happening, and not enough apparently is being done or currently working...perhaps a different way at looking at the issues is needed. From my understanding public schools get little money from federal dollars anyway, what comes into play in making school districts 'good' has a lot to do with the standard of living, property taxes etc in certain areas..all those things are economic issues that this country has not and will not deal with...There are obviously a myriad of issues, like parents in lower, economic areas being more involved (i.e. voting) in educational policies etc. That is why the suggestion of more control in the hands of blacks/latinos etc could be a good solution.
That is true, especially in a state like my home state, South Carolina.

I live in the upstate in Oconee County where it is primarily white and rich. I went to an outstanding high school with many opportunities. Now, if I was to live, say in Clarendon County in the low-country where the average piece of property is 1000% less than that of Oconee County, they are going to get a lot less money for their school district.

Compound with the fact that many white people stick together along with many black people, hence you have the idea of separate and unequal still alive today.

South Carolina can't fix the separate part, because you can't control where people live, other than make opportunities and such to attract a wide diverse culture, but they did realign the funding for schools so that Oconee would have to put in a lot of its money to equal out with the counties that had very little funding. It's still not equal, but it is tremendously better than 20 years ago.

Now, this problem could be solved if we transferred 25% of our defense budget to the educational system in terms of federal monies, but with GWB in office we will never see that. We probably won't see it even with HILLARY! in office because of the culture of "WE NEED MONEY FOR DEFENSE".

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Apr 15th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Not true. As my mother points out, during segregation, at her school, the scholl president was Black, the leads in the school play was Black, the first violin was Black, and the available resources, however few, were allocated equally among the schools.

As the article points out, in Omaha the allocation of resources is already unequal, biased in favor of whites, and the laws on school attendance are written to promote de facto segregation. The don't bus the students, and the law requires that students attend neighborhood schools. So if the neighborhoods are segregated, as they are in most of the USA, the schools wind up segregated.

So if your kid is going to go to a segregated school anyway, why not have control of the resources?

Integration, not segregation, makes it easy for 'powerful groups to control minorities'. But those minorities don't have control over anything, the majority group does.
But if you push the idea of segregation for the simple fact of funding, the more likely it is that race relations in the US are going to stay as bad as they are and probably get worse.

RVD
Apr 15th, 2006, 08:23 PM
Hmmm. When South Dakota passed a law recently (banning all abortions) that obviously will be found unconstitutional, also as a test of what IS "doable", you didn't have any kind words for their colorful personalities, etc.
:shrug:*JR*,*JR*,*JR*... *sigh* Here...lemme just...http://deephousepage.com/smilies/therethere.gif...theeeeerrrrre ya go. Is that better? Are you still hurting from that discussion? Wait a minute. I missed a spot http://deephousepage.com/smilies/therethere.gif :lol:

Hey, the abortion issue will be decided in less time than you think. And unfortunately, I am personally powerless in swaying the conservative religious zealots. Besides, they are already losing the battle. :lol: But if you would rather remain gullible towards that whole 'pro-life' belief, be my guess. :shrug:
What's that...? You say you're not gullible?
Okaaaay...

HEY...?!! What's that over there..?!http://deephousepage.com/smilies/kickbut.gif


:haha:

RVD
Apr 15th, 2006, 08:51 PM
Did integration/desegregation really change that? Actually some would argue that integration made it easier because you can hide behind oh, everyone is equal under the law but really some people are still not being given equal education and economic opportunities...I simply don't see how saying an institution is not segregated solves the problems.Like the V-S joshua said, ensuring that there is equal funding under the current system really should be the issue but it's no secret that isn't happening, and not enough apparently is being done or currently working...perhaps a different way at looking at the issues is needed. From my understanding public schools get little money from federal dollars anyway, what comes into play in making school districts 'good' has a lot to do with the standard of living, property taxes etc in certain areas..all those things are economic issues that this country has not and will not deal with...There are obviously a myriad of issues, like parents in lower, economic areas being more involved (i.e. voting) in educational policies etc. That is why the suggestion of more control in the hands of blacks/Latinos etc could be a good solution.That is such a true statement.

I recall taking part in the Coretta Scott-King Writing Contest in high school. The finalists were required to meet at this really swank high school in Castro Valley [only approx 5 -7 miles East of Oakland. And just to give you an idea of the funding disparity as well as [apparent] ethnic make-up between our schools....
The Castro Valley school boasted ZERO Blacks, Mexicans, or Asians in the contest. And maybe that says more about their lack of inclusion than anything else, but I just found it unimaginable that not one finalist was anything other than white.
The other glaring difference was their cafeteria and outside track field. The cafeteria had two massive winding stairways at opposite ends, and was 4 times as large as our gymnasium! :eek: They also had a FOOD COURT in there. A freak'n FOOD COURT!! There was Mexican food, Chinese food, A hot dog stand, and a cinnabun and donut stand! It was ridiculous! We could barely afford text books at my school, and this school was chowing down on gourmet fast food?! :rolleyes:
And their outside field boasted a full 100 yard football field, 8-lane race track, massive fan stands, and a full-sized electronic scoreboard. We did laps in the gym. :o Sometimes we'd jog all the way down to Oakland's Lake Merritt and lap the lake, which was cool. But you get the picture.

Anyway, all that to prove that the money is THERE. It's just not portioned out equally. So even in desegregated areas, white schools have always gotten the bulk of the funding. :mad:

flyingmachine
Apr 16th, 2006, 08:21 AM
Not true. As my mother points out, during segregation, at her school, the scholl president was Black, the leads in the school play was Black, the first violin was Black, and the available resources, however few, were allocated equally among the schools.

As the article points out, in Omaha the allocation of resources is already unequal, biased in favor of whites, and the laws on school attendance are written to promote de facto segregation. The don't bus the students, and the law requires that students attend neighborhood schools. So if the neighborhoods are segregated, as they are in most of the USA, the schools wind up segregated.

So if your kid is going to go to a segregated school anyway, why not have control of the resources?

Integration, not segregation, makes it easy for 'powerful groups to control minorities'. But those minorities don't have control over anything, the majority group does.
I know what you about controlling resource within a school but at the end of the day it's the local goverment who will put the funding into schools not the school itself.

flyingmachine
Apr 16th, 2006, 08:41 AM
Did integration/desegregation really change that? Actually some would argue that integration made it easier because you can hide behind oh, everyone is equal under the law but really some people are still not being given equal education and economic opportunities...I simply don't see how saying an institution is not segregated solves the problems.Like the V-S joshua said, ensuring that there is equal funding under the current system really should be the issue but it's no secret that isn't happening, and not enough apparently is being done or currently working...perhaps a different way at looking at the issues is needed. From my understanding public schools get little money from federal dollars anyway, what comes into play in making school districts 'good' has a lot to do with the standard of living, property taxes etc in certain areas..all those things are economic issues that this country has not and will not deal with...There are obviously a myriad of issues, like parents in lower, economic areas being more involved (i.e. voting) in educational policies etc. That is why the suggestion of more control in the hands of blacks/latinos etc could be a good solution.
To be honestly integration between blacks and whites in the US is hardy exist :tape: desegregation yes but integraton no. You have to rememeber the integration is a two way thing if one of the groups don't except it. Then it will never work. However, do the agree that they are hinding problems of funding and I don't thing this is doing to work. Also there are one thing I concern over this is the prejecdice and the igorance between the groups will increase and this is a bad thing.

*JR*
Apr 16th, 2006, 01:44 PM
....
Anyway, all that to prove that the money is THERE. It's just not portioned out equally. So even in desegregated areas, white schools have always gotten the bulk of the funding. :mad:
I agree (despite your smug, contemptuous attitude about any rights for another "disempowered group", the not yet born). In fact, women's unfettered convenience on that is much more important to Democrats in California (and nationally) than the need you point out for a fair school funding formula.

One that should be permanently divorced from the local tax base, and made @ least statewide, or better yet national. So go ahead and be a tool of the elitist "Streisand Democrats", just don't cry about continued economic injustice afterwards. :rolleyes:

Infiniti2001
Apr 16th, 2006, 03:38 PM
I love the way they are throwing sops to the Blacks and Hispanics by saying they will have more "control" over their school districts. Hey, they had total "control" back in the Jim Crow days too; it's just that whites had all the resources, and that is exactly what would happen here if this weren't so transparently going to be declared unconstitutional. costing the city millions of dollars that could be educating kids. All the increasingly scarce resources would be channeled into the white school system. In fact, many experts think that it would be more effective to go in the opposite direction and regionalize schools, pooling resources, avoiding duplication and giving students more options. Idiots. Our country is being run by unethical conscienceless idiots. GOP= greedy old pricks

RVD
Apr 17th, 2006, 01:55 AM
:haha: :wavey: Glad to see you've returned just as sharp-witted as ever. :worship:

Shall we begin...? ;) I agree (despite your smug, contemptuous attitude about any rights for another "disempowered group", the not yet born). In fact, women's unfettered convenience on that is much more important to Democrats in California (and nationally) than the need you point out for a fair school funding formula.For the moment, let's limit the discussion to the independently functional, living and breathing sort, shall we? ;)
I assure you that Californians are concerned with far more than you apparently give them credit. Be it 'life' pro- or con-[a 'non-zealous' and more secular approach to the problem would be much preferred, thankyouverymuch], or 'death' [equality in sentencing throughout all of Jurisprudence]. But enough of my dreams. Let's talk reality. Which is, I actually agree with the fact that California is a dismal shadow of funding and academic fairness, with respect to the rest of the nation. And I'm sad to say that I do not see it changing anytime soon.

After the Reagan-rape of the school systems here, and the Bush lobotomy of the school's political arena, we are little more than fish swimming in a stagnant pool of embezzlements, out of control plagiarism, illogical budget cuts, mass teacher exodus, and overt gentrification]. But what else is new in the golden state of California? :shrug:One that should be permanently divorced from the local tax base, and made @ least statewide, or better yet national. So go ahead and be a tool of the elitist "Streisand Democrats", just don't cry about continued economic injustice afterwards. :rolleyes:Hey, I agree. Are you surprised? :p

My main beef is with the federal government purposely enacting a program or programs doomed to failure before it/they even began.

Did you know that No Child Left Behind is actually designed to LEAVE CHILDREN BEHIND? And please do not ask for proof, because the proof is in the sheer number of kids not passing their high school exit exams; or the non-funding of NCLB; or the closing of schools in minority areas.
If you want to talk about school/student improvement, let's first get rid of the ridiculous belief that such entities as a 'California State Lottery' alone is actually going to help a financially strapped state-wide school system. :fiery: It further infuriates me to discover that after a voter approved parcel tax measure passes, teachers are STILL denied raises, improved health care coverage, or even basic or essential school supplies. ARRGGGHHH!! :mad:
:kiss:

*JR*
Apr 17th, 2006, 10:44 PM
:haha: :wavey: Glad to see you've returned just as sharp-witted as ever. :worship:

Shall we begin...? ;) For the moment, let's limit the discussion to the independently functional, living and breathing sort, shall we? ;)
I assure you that Californians are concerned with far more than you apparently give them credit. Be it 'life' pro- or con-[a 'non-zealous' and more secular approach to the problem would be much preferred, thankyouverymuch], or 'death' [equality in sentencing throughout all of Jurisprudence]. But enough of my dreams. Let's talk reality. Which is, I actually agree with the fact that California is a dismal shadow of funding and academic fairness, with respect to the rest of the nation. And I'm sad to say that I do not see it changing anytime soon.

After the Reagan-rape of the school systems here, and the Bush lobotomy of the school's political arena, we are little more than fish swimming in a stagnant pool of embezzlements, out of control plagiarism, illogical budget cuts, mass teacher exodus, and overt gentrification]. But what else is new in the golden state of California? :shrug: Hey, I agree. Are you surprised? :p
No. But you need to accept that there are millions of socially conservative voters who the Democrats lose because of the PC flavor of the message. Reagan got the votes of about 40% of members of union households in 1980 vs. Jimmy Carter. Ahnuld - yes, he was pro-choice, but seen as quite "non-PC" - got 30% of the Hispanic vote in the '03 Gov race, and arch conservative Tom McClintock I think around 13% of it. (Hispanic himself) Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante got only 55% of the Hispanic vote!

Of course John F(ucking) Kerry blew it in '04 with his perceived "effete elitism". The Democrats' "back of the bus" approach to socially conservative working class voters (in effect, "Shut up and vote for us you riff-raff, we're better for you economically") just doesn't work. Even political grandmaster Bill Clinton used the phrase "safe, legal, and rare" re. abortion, though its hardly rare when every Yellow Pages is full of display ads for abortion clinics. (Plus, Democrats in office get too much of a free ride on issues like school funding, as they pander to "up for grabs" suburban voters).

John A Roark
Apr 17th, 2006, 11:47 PM
Hey, folks--
A native Omahan here.
This thing is John Mackiel's bread and butter, despite what you read--he's the superintendent of schools here, with more nerve than a government mule. I live and breathe this stuff every day--the World-Herald, our local newspaper, covers every minute detail of the developments of the case. Since Mackiel didn't think of it first, he's against it.

This isn't about race, gang. The side to this story that you do not know concerns some of the other school districts nearby, specifically Westside school district 66, and Millard public schools. Mackiel and his gang of swordfish on the Omaha Public school board have initiated a "one city, one school district" campaign based on a fast and loose interpretation of an archaic Nebraska law which states in part, "the confines of a city within this state shall constitute the boundaries of the extant school district.

That's great, except that Millard and District 66 were significantly removed from the city limits when they were formed. OPS now wants to take them over--and this is all about money, folks, pure and simple. OPS doesn't have the tax base (even though they forcibly annexed the city of Elkhorn to our west, against the wishes of everyone in that town as well as the wishes of a significant minority of Omahans.

The money issue is just one more stumbling block in the current OPS plan, as well. The districts are North, West, and South, specifically, and although the majority of blacks live in North Omaha and the Hispanics predominate in South Omaha, the disparity between the racial makeup is not so great as to make that much of a difference. Another part of the issue here is power, the biggest drumbeat North Omaha hears, having had so little of it over the years.

ReeVee, you'd love Ernie Chambers. He's been a thorn in the side of the establishment in the Nebraska Unicameral for years. He runs a barber shop up on 24th and Lake in North Omaha (heavily black), and the politics run fast and furious. I've sat in a few sessions. You would enjoy it. Incidentally, my father was one of the few white men Ernie had any respect for at all. Mr. Chambers came to a function out in my hometown of Ord, Nebraska (serious hicktown, population 2600) and promptly visited Gerald John's barber shop. He sat down in the chair, and told every farmer and townsman in the palce (of which my father was one) that he bet he's NEVER see any of them in his barbershop--they'd be too frightened to go in his part of Omaha.
We wound up building a State Department of Roads building on 24th Street down south near Bellevue, and going home, the old man said we were going to make a detour. He went right to Ernie's barbershop and walked straight in, despite the glares he got from several black men outside. He sat down in the chair and told Ernie, "By the way--remember that time you were out in Ord? Well, here I am. I want a crewcut." Chambers was so shocked he couldn't speak for about ten seconds, then he laughed loud and long and shook the old man's hand, and gave him the haircut for free. It was a good cut, too--the man can wield his scissors.

There are quite a few here who think this will get struck down, but others insist it will fly. A court challenge is already in the works. We shall see.

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 12:40 AM
There are quite a few here who think this will get struck down, but others insist it will fly. A court challenge is already in the works. We shall see.
From Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) Chief Justice Warren writing for the (9-0) majority:

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 01:06 AM
From Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) Chief Justice Warren writing for the (9-0) majority:

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Let it go, man: this hurdle's already been negotiated.
If Ernie Chambers, the very epitome of watchdog politics, favors it, Brown v. Board is a dead issue, so far as this breakup is concerned.
Trust me on this one--I live this fight every day: in the World-Herald, on KMTV7, WOWT6, ActionNews3, Fox42... the fight has never been about race, not to the people in Omaha whom the breakup affects. Maybe the clowns down in Lincoln see it differently, but they're Unicameral and generally a step behind the city of Omaha on municipal issues.
This fight has always been about money and power--and the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics in Omaha favor the plan. It takes the concentration of power away from the middle- and upper-class whites living in west Omaha, and gives it to the people most affected by the plan.

ptkten
Apr 18th, 2006, 03:32 AM
It may be good short term for minorities in Omaha, but it sets a dangerous precedent for segregation, and will hurt race relations in the long term as it will isolate the different races and prevent them from working together to solve the problem.

RVD
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:29 AM
Hey, folks--
A native Omahan here.
This thing is John Mackiel's bread and butter, despite what you read--he's the superintendent of schools here, with more nerve than a government mule. I live and breathe this stuff every day--the World-Herald, our local newspaper, covers every minute detail of the developments of the case. Since Mackiel didn't think of it first, he's against it.

This isn't about race, gang. The side to this story that you do not know concerns some of the other school districts nearby, specifically Westside school district 66, and Millard public schools. Mackiel and his gang of swordfish on the Omaha Public school board have initiated a "one city, one school district" campaign based on a fast and loose interpretation of an archaic Nebraska law which states in part, "the confines of a city within this state shall constitute the boundaries of the extant school district.

That's great, except that Millard and District 66 were significantly removed from the city limits when they were formed. OPS now wants to take them over--and this is all about money, folks, pure and simple. OPS doesn't have the tax base (even though they forcibly annexed the city of Elkhorn to our west, against the wishes of everyone in that town as well as the wishes of a significant minority of Omahans.

The money issue is just one more stumbling block in the current OPS plan, as well. The districts are North, West, and South, specifically, and although the majority of blacks live in North Omaha and the Hispanics predominate in South Omaha, the disparity between the racial makeup is not so great as to make that much of a difference. Another part of the issue here is power, the biggest drumbeat North Omaha hears, having had so little of it over the years.This issue is intriguing because it mirrors much of what the OUSD (Oakland Uniified School District) had gone through. And they also attempted a radical change of leadership after losing the right to run its own schools. :eek: And let's just say that for the last 3 years, Oakland schools have been run by California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell through his state-appointed administrator, Randolph Ward. And though Mr. Ward has discovered massive fiscal inaccuracies and abuses, and corrected them, over the past years, I'm sorry to say that the physical state of the schools, and academic improvement has been ...well... negligible if at all.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that Mr. Ward is probably the single most hated man in Oakland. :lol: The following link indicates the latest in a very tumultuous relationship between this man, the State, and the teachers. http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/alameda_county/oakland_berkeley/14230500.htm

All this after Oakland suffered a major budget shortfall and was unable to make good on an agreed upon teacher pay raise that amounted in the tens of millions of dollars. :eek: :scared:ReeVee, you'd love Ernie Chambers. He's been a thorn in the side of the establishment in the Nebraska Unicameral for years. He runs a barber shop up on 24th and Lake in North Omaha (heavily black), and the politics run fast and furious. I've sat in a few sessions. You would enjoy it. Incidentally, my father was one of the few white men Ernie had any respect for at all. Mr. Chambers came to a function out in my hometown of Ord, Nebraska (serious hicktown, population 2600) and promptly visited Gerald John's barber shop. He sat down in the chair, and told every farmer and townsman in the palce (of which my father was one) that he bet he's NEVER see any of them in his barbershop--they'd be too frightened to go in his part of Omaha.
We wound up building a State Department of Roads building on 24th Street down south near Bellevue, and going home, the old man said we were going to make a detour. He went right to Ernie's barbershop and walked straight in, despite the glares he got from several black men outside. He sat down in the chair and told Ernie, "By the way--remember that time you were out in Ord? Well, here I am. I want a crewcut." Chambers was so shocked he couldn't speak for about ten seconds, then he laughed loud and long and shook the old man's hand, and gave him the haircut for free. It was a good cut, too--the man can wield his scissors.

There are quite a few here who think this will get struck down, but others insist it will fly. A court challenge is already in the works. We shall see.I had a feeling that you were the man to talk to. :) And I'm beginning to like this man Chambers more and more. :cool:

Please keep me informed of the developments, if you don't mind.
If Mr Chambers is successful, Omaha just may become a model for the rest of the nation. Not to say that this approach would work everywhere, but it most certainly deserves consideration.

I still haven't made up my mind if this is a good move or not. :shrug:

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:37 AM
It may be good short term for minorities in Omaha, but it sets a dangerous precedent for segregation, and will hurt race relations in the long term as it will isolate the different races and prevent them from working together to solve the problem.
A lot of the 'minorities' (in relation to what?) in Omaha see no reason to work with the other races to solve any of the problems around here.
Down along 'L' and 'Q' between 22d and 36th, there's a vast concentration of Latinos where there once resided the Czech and Polish heart of our city. They came in response to the call for workers, the meat-packing jobs down at Omaha Steaks and Skylark Meats and Nebraska Beef that neither blacks nor whites will do. More and more, the whites in Omaha just don't go down there, unless it's only to pass through on their way to Bellevue and Offutt AFB. Some of the blacks in the city go down there to cause trouble--at least in this town, the two races do not get along.
Get north of Saddle Creek Road and the Northwest Radial Highway, all the way to Florence, between the river and damn near 66th street (it's a huge demographic), almost every black in Omaha lives there. In most of that area, but especially between Lake Street and Ames Avenue east of 42d, the nights are deserted. Drugs and assault run rampant down there.
Ernie Chambers and some of the faculty in the Black Studies Department at both UNO and Metropolitan Community College have been trying to revitalize the area, and in some measure they have succeeded. There is retail and commercial almost north to Hamilton--and believe me, that's a huge improvement just from the '90's!
But horror stories (documented, alas) abound about the dreaded 'North O.' The drug use and the crime are down some in recent years, but it's still chaos up there. They just rebuilt the Washington branch of the Omaha Public Library (Ice-T came for the dedication), and Lord of Love AME has built a gigantic new church up there. But will that stem the tide? Dunno.

The point here is, it seems like the white population of Omaha has given up, in large part, on these two sections of town. They live primarily downtown (a lot of your young, single professionals are getting condos in a hugely rebuilt downtown; almost every old building in Jobber's Canyon and the Old Market, downtown, is being turned into condos. My girl Tara has herself a $120,000 unit at the 1600 Farnam--she's the communications director for OperaOmaha), or in Benson/Dundee (big working-class neighborhoods;I live in southwest Benson myself)...but mostly the exodus is west. Omaha used to end around 102d Street--even when I moved out here in '91, I was hard-pressed to find much new beyond 132d street. But now the city goes all the way to Elkhorn--242d street. Pretty soon, Omaha will be synonymous with Douglas County; they may even spill over into Washington, Saunders, Sarpy and Cass counties.
There's a lot of money here, what with the Gallup headquarters, Union Pacific Railroad, Mutual of Omaha, and the like. All the people that work for the big companies take their money west. The happening spot these days is Village Pointe, and that's way the hell and gone out to 168th street! North Omaha and South Omaha have largely been relegated to has-been status.

The people there don't appreciate that, not at all. There are still many good whites in this town who try to fill a need and a gap (Trinity Episcopal Cathedral at 18th and Capitol, on the north edge of downtown, had lots of them--people like Tom Hurley, Debbie Andrews, Todd Illig, Lynn Oldenhuis...and myself)--
But the Latinos and the Blacks are so fed up with the bullshit that they don't want our help. They see it as 'looking down' and 'charity rather than opportunity.' They might be right. But what else is there?
There have been new businesses with new buildings started at various times in both North and South O, and by and large, each of them has been vandalized and forced to shut down because the people willing to work won't go into those neighborhoods for fear of having their cars stolen or themselves mugged--and the people that live there have proven too unreliable as a labor force. They won't stay on the job. What do you do?

It's a never-ending, vicious cycle, one that feeds on itself and only grows more untenable each year, resulting in ideas like the school district's breakup, where the racial segments that predominate in each area see it as a way to get control of SOMETHING back from the white population out west who are living high and have forgotten all about them, don't care about them, and would rather Omaha fence them off and keep them in their own little worlds. That's why they favor the plan, and that's why they don't want to work with the rest of the city to solve the underlying problems.

Whatcha gonna do?

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:51 AM
Ernie Chambers is the single-handed explanation for why Nebraska passed term limits for legislators:twelve years and you're out. He pissed off so many of the farmers out west that they finally ganged up and figured out a way to force long-standing senators out.
Farmers in western and central Nebraska have never understood the needs or wants of inner-city Omaha--and there are as many people in Omaha and the metro as half the rest of the state!
Ernie keeps fighting them, making them open their eyes, get their heads out of the sand and look east--but he has gone overboard many times and has little use for decorum or protocol. He never wears a suit--sweatshirt and jeans are his uniform. He's had 36 years in office, by far the longest serving lawmaker ever in this state. He just doesn't give a damn--if it's good for North Omaha (his district), then he pushes for it, farmers be damned. http://www.examiner.com/images/ap/small/small_NY11103280634.jpg

RVD
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:54 AM
A lot of the 'minorities' (in relation to what?) in Omaha see no reason to work with the other races to solve any of the problems around here.
Down along 'L' and 'Q' between 22d and 36th, there's a vast concentration of Latinos where there once resided the Czech and Polish heart of our city. They came in response to the call for workers, the meat-packing jobs down at Omaha Steaks and Skylark Meats and Nebraska Beef that neither blacks nor whites will do. More and more, the whites in Omaha just don't go down there, unless it's only to pass through on their way to Bellevue and Offutt AFB. Some of the blacks in the city go down there to cause trouble--at least in this town, the two races do not get along.
Get north of Saddle Creek Road and the Northwest Radial Highway, all the way to Florence, between the river and damn near 66th street (it's a huge demographic), almost every black in Omaha lives there. In most of that area, but especially between Lake Street and Ames Avenue east of 42d, the nights are deserted. Drugs and assault run rampant down there.
Ernie Chambers and some of the faculty in the Black Studies Department at both UNO and Metropolitan Community College have been trying to revitalize the area, and in some measure they have succeeded. There is retail and commercial almost north to Hamilton--and believe me, that's a huge improvement just from the '90's!
But horror stories (documented, alas) abound about the dreaded 'North O.' The drug use and the crime are down some in recent years, but it's still chaos up there. They just rebuilt the Washington branch of the Omaha Public Library (Ice-T came for the dedication), and Lord of Love AME has built a gigantic new church up there. But will that stem the tide? Dunno.

The point here is, it seems like the white population of Omaha has given up, in large part, on these two sections of town. They live primarily downtown (a lot of your young, single professionals are getting condos in a hugely rebuilt downtown; almost every old building in Jobber's Canyon and the Old Market, downtown, is being turned into condos. My girl Tara has herself a $120,000 unit at the 1600 Farnam--she's the communications director for OperaOmaha), or in Benson/Dundee (big working-class neighborhoods;I live in southwest Benson myself)...but mostly the exodus is west. Omaha used to end around 102d Street--even when I moved out here in '91, I was hard-pressed to find much new beyond 132d street. But now the city goes all the way to Elkhorn--242d street. Pretty soon, Omaha will be synonymous with Douglas County; they may even spill over into Washington, Saunders, Sarpy and Cass counties.
There's a lot of money here, what with the Gallup headquarters, Union Pacific Railroad, Mutual of Omaha, and the like. All the people that work for the big companies take their money west. The happening spot these days is Village Pointe, and that's way the hell and gone out to 168th street! North Omaha and South Omaha have largely been relegated to has-been status.

The people there don't appreciate that, not at all. There are still many good whites in this town who try to fill a need and a gap (Trinity Episcopal Cathedral at 18th and Capitol, on the north edge of downtown, had lots of them--people like Tom Hurley, Debbie Andrews, Todd Illig, Lynn Oldenhuis...and myself)--
But the Latinos and the Blacks are so fed up with the bullshit that they don't want our help. They see it as 'looking down' and 'charity rather than opportunity.' They might be right. But what else is there?
There have been new businesses with new buildings started at various times in both North and South O, and by and large, each of them has been vandalized and forced to shut down because the people willing to work won't go into those neighborhoods for fear of having their cars stolen or themselves mugged--and the people that live there have proven too unreliable as a labor force. They won't stay on the job. What do you do?

It's a never-ending, vicious cycle, one that feeds on itself and only grows more untenable each year, resulting in ideas like the school district's breakup, where the racial segments that predominate in each area see it as a way to get control of SOMETHING back from the white population out west who are living high and have forgotten all about them, don't care about them, and would rather Omaha fence them off and keep them in their own little worlds. That's why they favor the plan, and that's why they don't want to work with the rest of the city to solve the underlying problems.

Whatcha gonna do? :eek: Sounds like a horrible situation down there. I never realized the relationship between the people was so bad.
Is there no common ground at all to be built upon? The race relations in California isn't nearly as chaotic. We have our moments of calm celebration, and a common goal of keeping that nut job of a President from completely destroying our State [and government]. But sometimes you just feel as if most are simply tolerating each other. This even applies between Black people as well. :shrug:
It's all so depressing.

RVD
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:01 AM
Ernie Chambers is the single-handed explanation for why Nebraska passed term limits for legislators:twelve years and you're out. He pissed off so many of the farmers out west that they finally ganged up and figured out a way to force long-standing senators out.
Farmers in western and central Nebraska have never understood the needs or wants of inner-city Omaha--and there are as many people in Omaha and the metro as half the rest of the state!
Ernie keeps fighting them, making them open their eyes, get their heads out of the sand and look east--but he has gone overboard many times and has little use for decorum or protocol. He never wears a suit--sweatshirt and jeans are his uniform. He's had 36 years in office, by far the longest serving lawmaker ever in this state. He just doesn't give a damn--if it's good for North Omaha (his district), then he pushes for it, farmers be damned. http://www.examiner.com/images/ap/small/small_NY11103280634.jpg:lol: So the best thing that can be said of Mr. Chambers is that he help galvanize an entire State in working together towards a common cause and goal. ;) Oh well, after serving so long, I suppose he's due some time off. :)
I hope that whoever replaces him is perceptive enough to get all sides working together, because the situation there sounds rather impossible.
Good luck, and stay stay strong J.A.R. :wavey:

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 11:57 AM
Let it go, man: this hurdle's already been negotiated.
If Ernie Chambers, the very epitome of watchdog politics, favors it, Brown v. Board is a dead issue, so far as this breakup is concerned.
Uh Jack, I'm not questioning ole Ernie's good intentions, but you yourself admitted ("There are quite a few here who think this will get struck down, but others insist it will fly. A court challenge is already in the works. We shall see.") that its a "jump ball", legally.

Supreme Court decisions may indeed be modified by the Supreme Court itself (as Brown did the 1896 ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson that put the discredited words "seperate but equal" in American history. But they might be unwillinging to make an exception, for fear of "opening that can of worms", to papaphrase what ptkten said above.

And re. school funding getting fucked up by the Democrats kissing up to the suburbanites (while falsely bashed as coddling the poor, ironically) I still say to RVD: Bring... It... On. :armed:

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 18th, 2006, 02:46 PM
All public schools should receive the same funding on a per student basis. That is the only way to solve the gross disparity between school funding.

The lie that is America is that everyone has equal opportunity. Not when school A receives millions in funding and school B receives thousands. That is in no way equal.

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 03:32 PM
Remember, Cybelle, the principle here is on school districts--and so many whites in Omaha live south of Blondo and west of 72d street because it puts them in District 66--where the tax base in higher, but the quality of education outstrips Omaha Public running away. Maybe it's not balanced, but that's how the school district system operates, and those with more money will go to spend more on their kids. Those that have less are left to make do, and just or not, it is indeed fair. Want to put your young'uns in Westside? Papillion-LaVista? Millard South? There's nothing stopping you except whether or not you can afford to move there.

JR, the court case remains a live issue, sure--it's just that Brown v. Board won't be raised as part of it. I think the direction of the challenge has something to do with voter sovereignty, due to John Mackiel's goofy idea about a 'learning community.' He proposed that red herring after he had to find a way to deflect all the criticism he got for trying to absorb the surrounding school districts under his "One City, One School District" plan. Well, the districts designated for absorbtion (District 66 and Millard Public) are fighting it tooth and nail. So Mackiel had to think of a way out--and his way out wasn't thought through, alas. This 'learning community' would comprise a loose coalition of local school districts unified through a mediator (Fremont, Wahoo, Blair, Gretna, etc.)--and it would be diffusing the power even further.
Chambers, who absolutely has the power to do such things, threatened that idea with immediate extinction if his people weren't assured the proper control over their own schools. Thus Mackiel had to compromise on the bill for his learning community by adding in this proviso of three new districts--in the assurance that Governor Heineman would veto it anyway and they could start over with a plan that would take an end run around ol' Ernie.
That didn't work--Dave Heineman knows where his self-interests lie, and that's in the massive voter base that he'd upset if he didn't give Ernie what he wanted.
So this whole twisted monster has spiraled right out of control, and John Mackiel and Governor Heineman are left to deal with the wreckage. Ernie Chambers doesn't mind a bit--he loves to watch 'em squirm.

ReeVee, you are a little right and a little wrong: the last thing Ernie cares about is galvanizing a state to do the right thing, unless that right thing means good news for his district, North Omaha.
Yes, the situation is pretty bad, although to hear people around here pooh-pooh it, there's really no problem at all. The latinos have gotten a bill through the State Legislature guaranteeing in-state tuition at all state colleges and universities for the children of illegal immigrants, and everyone else hates the idea. So you have the blacks cheering Ernie on, the Hispanics fighting to keep the new tuition law in place, and the rest of the state despising both groups, but putting a phony face of peace and harmony on it. The blacks and Latinos see right through it, and despise the rest of the state right back. No one wants to get together, no one wants to give any ground in love or justice, and thus we have this impasse and the situation that has blown up around it.

Whatcha gonna do?

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Maybe it's not balanced, but that's how the school district system operates, and those with more money will go to spend more on their kids. Those that have less are left to make do, and just or not, it is indeed fair.
If "the sins of the father are not visited on the son", how in Hell is that fair? The object is not to accept such crap as (Bruce Hornsby lyric) "that's just the way it is", its to change it! (If the Democrats can ever get the party's head out of its ass in terms of prioritizing the untouchable agenda of PC social issues, of course).

Helen Lawson
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:56 PM
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that little girl's last name was Brown? It's just like that sodomy case, where there was that name, Bowers v. Hardwick. I swear, I think they chose these plaintiffs for their names!

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:35 PM
If "the sins of the father are not visited on the son", how in Hell is that fair? The object is not to accept such crap as (Bruce Hornsby lyric) "that's just the way it is", its to change it! (If the Democrats can ever get the party's head out of its ass in terms of prioritizing the untouchable agenda of PC social issues, of course).
You're reaching too far, here.
The set-up is thus:
A specific block of land is designated a school district (usedtabe, this was 36 sections, or 6 square miles, or a township). A given segment of the poualtion lives there. If it turns out that many of those people have a lot of money, then the property values go up, and the less affluent are squeezed out by the fair market system.
No-one has ever been guaranteed such-and-such a job that pays well if said individual can't do the job. Without said job, less money. Less money, inability to afford the good house and the high-priced land. With said job, there's more money, the ability to afford a higher tax base, and thus more resources to secure a better school system within the district.

This is exactly the difference between District 66 and OPS, and is the major sticking point in the fight, which is why Mackiel started his consolidation idea. Force all the homeowners into a conglomerated tax base, spread the money around equitably per head, no matter how much one makes or pays in taxes. But do they equalize the property values? Noooooo....

This is bare-naked communist thought I'm seeing here. Tax the rich heavily to provide for the poor. Tax the intelligent and productive excessively to make up for the shortcomings of the ordinary.

Justice demands that exactly such a thing be put into place. Anyone with eyes of love can see that the poor and the disadvantaged need a hand. "Love wastefully;" "Love without counting the cost."
Easy for me to say--I can only love with my heart, since I desperately lack resources right now. Maybe in a couple years, after I have finished Journalism school?
But fairness demands that you cannot force anyone to do these things. Violence of any kind, physical, emotional, economic, or otherwise, is always WRONG. Violence and force is what would be required to effect such a change amid the unwilling who do not have the love it takes to look past themselves to justice.
You may be willing to commit such violence--I am not. That lacks justice as thoroughly as the plight of these children.

Whatcha gonna do?

wally1
Apr 18th, 2006, 07:37 PM
This is bare-naked communist thought I'm seeing here. Tax the rich heavily to provide for the poor. Tax the intelligent and productive excessively to make up for the shortcomings of the ordinary.Some of what you say makes sense, but isn't the point about inequality of school funding that you're punishing children who haven't yet had the opportunity to prove whether they're ordinary or not?
But fairness demands that you cannot force anyone to do these things. Violence of any kind, physical, emotional, economic, or otherwise, is always WRONG. Violence and force is what would be required to effect such a change amid the unwilling who do not have the love it takes to look past themselves to justice.
You may be willing to commit such violence--I am not. That lacks justice as thoroughly as the plight of these children.

Whatcha gonna do?By mentioning violence and force you're overstating things here. A progressive and redistributative tax system such as exists in many European countries (particularly Scandanavia) doesn't require or result in violence or particular use of force...

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 07:44 PM
This is bare-naked communist thought I'm seeing here. Tax the rich heavily to provide for the poor. Tax the intelligent and productive excessively to make up for the shortcomings of the ordinary.
JustineTime, where RU, now that someone else is calling ppl here a bunch of Commies! :lol:

Violence and force is what would be required to effect such a change amid the unwilling who do not have the love it takes to look past themselves to justice.
You may be willing to commit such violence--I am not. That lacks justice as thoroughly as the plight of these children.

Whatcha gonna do?
Hmmm, "tough choice". Uh.... side with the kids! (They have the same fucking birthright). And many of the rich do jobs less essential to society (like endless litigation, or Wall Street trading) than many of the non-rich (teachers, firefighters, cops, etc.) :retard:

All that Ayn Rand bullshit is polluting your mind, Jack! :devil:

RVD
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:16 PM
You're reaching too far, here.
The set-up is thus:
A specific block of land is designated a school district (usedtabe, this was 36 sections, or 6 square miles, or a township). A given segment of the poualtion lives there. If it turns out that many of those people have a lot of money, then the property values go up, and the less affluent are squeezed out by the fair market system.
No-one has ever been guaranteed such-and-such a job that pays well if said individual can't do the job. Without said job, less money. Less money, inability to afford the good house and the high-priced land. With said job, there's more money, the ability to afford a higher tax base, and thus more resources to secure a better school system within the district.

This is exactly the difference between District 66 and OPS, and is the major sticking point in the fight, which is why Mackiel started his consolidation idea. Force all the homeowners into a conglomerated tax base, spread the money around equitably per head, no matter how much one makes or pays in taxes. But do they equalize the property values? Noooooo....

This is bare-naked communist thought I'm seeing here. Tax the rich heavily to provide for the poor. Tax the intelligent and productive excessively to make up for the shortcomings of the ordinary.

Justice demands that exactly such a thing be put into place. Anyone with eyes of love can see that the poor and the disadvantaged need a hand. "Love wastefully;" "Love without counting the cost."
Easy for me to say--I can only love with my heart, since I desperately lack resources right now. Maybe in a couple years, after I have finished Journalism school?
But fairness demands that you cannot force anyone to do these things. Violence of any kind, physical, emotional, economic, or otherwise, is always WRONG. Violence and force is what would be required to effect such a change amid the unwilling who do not have the love it takes to look past themselves to justice.
You may be willing to commit such violence--I am not. That lacks justice as thoroughly as the plight of these children.

Whatcha gonna do?This is quite the quagmire.
A divided county/city/state...
Unfair Real Estate Valuation...
Political posturing...
Huge racial divide...
State School Superintendent takes hands-off approach... [my assumption]
And the only ones who this ultimately hurts is the school kids.

I can see why Ernie decided to go it alone. He's up against an entire State and the business interests. I guarantee you if these 'less affluent' areas were to be infused with new businesses, the current problems would most likely fix themselves. At this stage, based on wha I've read, I don't see this happening.

What Mr. Chambers needs to do is to get outside investors interested in developing the less affluents areas. It's not easy, but Oakland is in the process of doing this very thing. It appears to be working. Also, it sounds as if the State needs step in and regulate run-away real estate valuation...maybe slow down construction or offer tax break incentives to middle and upper echelon and business as a compromise to slow future expansion.
The sad fact is that the poor are being left behind and forgotten. This attitude does no one any good, and could blow up in their faces if they are not careful. Sounds as if it already is in terms of crime and squalor. And it will only get worse.
Now that I think of it, Fresno, California [wifie's home town] is experiencing the exact same problem.

*JR* -
Bring what on? :shrug: We agree in essence...or did I miss a question? :confused:
The only problem I have is with your odd use of rhetorical name-tags [Streisand-Democrat????] where they don't apply, or is your insistence that the Democrats are in a position of power to influence Congress. Give it time holms. After the mid-term elections, maybe we'll witness a positive, less fanatical resurgence. :)

Incidentally, why do you constantly reference 'political correctness' in your replies?! What bearing does political correctness have on this issue? :confused: :scared:

Infiniti2001
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:37 PM
All public schools should receive the same funding on a per student basis. That is the only way to solve the gross disparity between school funding.

The lie that is America is that everyone has equal opportunity. Not when school A receives millions in funding and school B receives thousands. That is in no way equal.

Exactly!!But I have truly come to believe, after all I've heard from teachers (my aunt and cousin among them) and parents and others involved with the schools system, that is it's true that the Republicans want to eliminate public schools, institute mass warehouses for poor and working class (and most middle-class kids) and have taxpayers subsidize wealthy families who send their kids to private schools. The Republicans are just so evil. :tape:

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:50 PM
John A Roark - You caused me to be aware of something I didn't know I didn't know. I don't know how to send reputation!?!? I never had cause to do it before, but your posts in this thread have been exemplary. Detailed, informative and clear. I hereby give you the highest praise I ever give on this board. Your series of posts on this thread were worthy of Brian Stewart.

I'll send some reputation your way when I figure out how.

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:58 PM
*JR* -
Bring what on? :shrug: We agree in essence...or did I miss a question? :confused:
The only problem I have is with your odd use of rhetorical name-tags [Streisand-Democrat????] where they don't apply, or is your insistence that the Democrats are in a position of power to influence Congress. Give it time holms. After the mid-term elections, maybe we'll witness a positive, less fanatical resurgence. :)

Incidentally, why do you constantly reference 'political correctness' in your replies?! What bearing does political correctness have on this issue? :confused: :scared:
"Streisand Democrats" (and Move On, etc. etc.) were the main source of Democratic "soft money" B4 it was banned under McCain-Feingold, and continued as such with the (liberal) 527's (the groups running the "independent" negative ads after that, for both sides). Babs and her pals are the epitome of PC (and :secret: probably not so keen to pay more taxes to break the "cycle of poverty").

Political correctness virtually defines them. And forget what we agree on, their oozing contempt for socially conservative working class voters drives many into the arms of a Reagan, an Ahnuld, a dubya, etc. Sure we may take the House (the Senate will be much harder) this November. But the "values issue" will still cost us bigtime in future elections. (Like the way the '74 post-Watergate election Democratic sweep was a one-shot deal).

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:28 PM
"Streisand Democrats" (and Move On, etc. etc.) were the main source of Democratic "soft money" B4 it was banned under McCain-Feingold, and continued as such with the (liberal) 527's (the groups running the "independent" negative ads after that, for both sides). Babs and her pals are the epitome of PC (and :secret: probably not so keen to pay more taxes to break the "cycle of poverty").

Political correctness virtually defines them. And forget what we agree on, their oozing contempt for socially conservative working class voters drives many into the arms of a Reagan, an Ahnuld, a dubya, etc.With all due respect, this 'one size fits all' post is rife with error. For starters, bluntly, what the hell is a 'Streisand Democrat', other than a confederate boogeyman? Certainly those who started, and continue to be involved with MoveOn.org are in no way dilettantes. Nor have they exhibited an 'oozing contempt for socially conservative working class voters'.

I might add, 'the epitome of PC', is quite clearly those who constantly claim that white racism is no longer potent force in this country. For what is 'Political Correctness' if not voices platitudes comfortable to a constituency, even if they are provably false?

Also, quite a few wealthy liberals have expressed a willingness to pay more taxes if that the cost of a more equitable tax policy. AL Franken, Susan Sarandon, Bill Clinton (not realy very liberal) to name a few.

Having said all that, I actually agree that there are liberals that do, in fact, have precisely, an 'oozing contempt for socially conservative working class voters'. If I heare one more liberal talking head say white working class conservatives are 'voting against their own interest' I'll scream. How about assuming that white working class conservatives actually have some idea of what their own best interest is, and asking them about it. I live in a conservative Republican town, and I've managed to open quite a few eyes by listening more than I talk. "I agree with you' goes a lot further than 'Shut up. I know best'.

*JR*
Apr 19th, 2006, 06:40 PM
(QUOTE=Volcana all in italics, replies not)

With all due respect, this 'one size fits all' post is rife with error. For starters, bluntly, what the hell is a 'Streisand Democrat', other than a confederate boogeyman? Certainly those who started, and continue to be involved with MoveOn.org are in no way dilettantes. Nor have they exhibited an 'oozing contempt for socially conservative working class voters'.

Babs is merely a metaphor, based on a political joke during the 90's that (the pre-Senate candidate, much more PC) Hillary Clinton "lived in Barbra Streisand's wallet" re. ginning up "soft money" for the Democratic Party and fundraising groups like Emily's List. Move On is an example of the Howard Dean style "If you don't agree with us, you're some kind of Neanderthal" worldview.

I might add, 'the epitome of PC', is quite clearly those who constantly claim that white racism is no longer potent force in this country. For what is 'Political Correctness' if not voices platitudes comfortable to a constituency, even if they are provably false?

Lets not debate mere semantics. Call the de-nile you cite Political Stupidity or whatever, but the left has "first dibs" on the term Political Correctness, and doesn't seem about to give it up.

Also, quite a few wealthy liberals have expressed a willingness to pay more taxes if that the cost of a more equitable tax policy. AL Franken, Susan Sarandon, Bill Clinton (not realy very liberal) to name a few.

Sure, plus you could add George Soros, Bill Gates' father, and (maybe?) Warren Buffet. Kudos to them, though they probably all have a lot of money in tax shelters for their heirs. I wonder if Soros and Buffet only invest in "sweatshop free" (including by subcontractors) companies. And as President, Clinton certainly didn't slap sanctions on "sweatshop nations".

Having said all that, I actually agree that there are liberals that do, in fact, have precisely, an 'oozing contempt for socially conservative working class voters'. If I heare one more liberal talking head say white working class conservatives are 'voting against their own interest' I'll scream. How about assuming that white working class conservatives actually have some idea of what their own best interest is, and asking them about it. I live in a conservative Republican town, and I've managed to open quite a few eyes by listening more than I talk. "I agree with you' goes a lot further than 'Shut up. I know best'.

I'm glad we agree on this point, though I'd slightly alter the formula: IMO, indeed the liberal talking heads are often right about white working class (social) conservatives "voting against their own (economic) interests". But what those commentators ignore is that said voters may place other things first, like protecting their kids from terrorism and "decadence".

So we can argue that dubya has made the world more dangerous via the Iraq War, but when idiot Kerry said in a NY Times interview in '04 that terrorism should be "a nuisance like gambling and prostitution", the Bush folks indeed jumped all ova that, for example. (OK, that one isn't PC, its just a dumb candidate).

Lastly, PC is the use of wording where ppl just don't talk that way. ("People of color" is one example). And it not only sounds weird, but its generally used in the context of those lower on the income scale fighting for leftova's from the massah's table, based on ethnic origins, a cruelly effective divide-and-conquer strategy by the Republicans.

John A Roark
Apr 21st, 2006, 02:07 AM
Lets not debate mere semantics.
Every time I see someone pair the words "mere" and "semantics," I bite my tongue hard and remind myself that I, too, am greatly ignorant.

RVD
Apr 21st, 2006, 06:37 AM
Lastly, PC is the use of wording where ppl just don't talk that way. ("People of color" is one example). And it not only sounds weird, but its generally used in the context of those lower on the income scale fighting for leftova's from the massah's table, based on ethnic origins, a cruelly effective divide-and-conquer strategy by the Republicans.*JR*, I personally respect your political pov, and also your intelligence in most matters. BUT...!

...was this last part a 'dig' directed at me? :confused:

I need to know before posting my reply.

*JR*
Apr 21st, 2006, 05:33 PM
*JR*, I personally respect your political pov, and also your intelligence in most matters. BUT...!

...was this last part a 'dig' directed at me? :confused:

I need to know before posting my reply.
No. (I don't recall your ever posting in the wacky "language" of PC Speak, though you've often taken their positions on issues, I trust thru your own judgement. Whereas many PC folk are mere parrots). ;)