Red vs. Blue State - fencing comparisions

[telkanuru]

'T would be more interesting than W hiding behind his pops.. Or claiming a link between the bout committie and al Quaida.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

It would be funny! Kerry would:
* run off the end of the strip at the first sign of trouble.
* demand a purple heart every time he got scored on.
* want to switch sides whenever he got behind.
* blame the equipment and refs when he lost

*laughing*
Claim .. "I don't get hit!"
Want to get 3 photo ops of him in his gear before fencing one touch
Refuse to release his USFA number.
Demand a recount from the Director.

Meanwhile Bush would stand there, making faces.
And consult quietly with Karl Rove on tactics to use
And use the word "flungefulness" about his opponents tactics
Demand the bout be fought in Texas in an auditorium of his choice, with a Texas bout committe and director
Start the bout with a prayer.

And off to the side,
Dan Rather is looking at a grainy photocopy of a document that GW was actually trained by Aldo Nado in 1930. (Typed in proportional font with true superscripts).
Dick Cheney is wondering how he'd look stuffed into a too-tight lame.
John Edwards is checking his hair.
And Jacque Chirac is muttering "But I could have scored that touch so much more gracefully...."

[Bayou Bum]

Of course, the biggest obstacle would be getting the mask over his HAIR!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

My kids have even noticed that fencers we meet tend to be more liberal than most people. I live in a very red state and felt like I was at a Kerry convention at every tournament.

Oh, they let women fence?

[Bayou Bum]

While on Red and Blue States … I love this one by CNN

Below is a look at the average taxpayer's total state and local tax burden for the Red and Blue States and the 10 states with the highest burden. That burden reflects what residents pay in state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes and fuel taxes, among others. It also accounts for the portion of business taxes that is passed along to the consumer by way of higher prices and lower wages

Average Blue States = 10.3%
Average Red States = 9.1%

Top 10:
District of Columbia12.9% Blue
Maine 12.2% Blue
New York 12.0% Blue
Minnesota 11.0% Blue
Rhode Island 11.0% Blue
Connecticut 10.9% Blue
Hawaii 10.7% Blue
Wisconsin 10.7% Blue
California 10.6% Blue
Utah 10.6% Red

Source: CNN

[telkanuru]

Which brings up the point that if the red states don't want the programs that result from our tax dollars, can we have them back, please, so we can have better schools?

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Which brings up the point that if the red states don't want the programs that result from our tax dollars, can we have them back, please, so we can have better schools?

You have to talk you your elected liberal officials. The taxes listed are only state and local. Do you mean you are paying that much in taxes and still have lousy schools? Maybe you should move to a red state, or become one.

[Epee_Pox]

oh please, not the old trope that more money = better schools. the more money you throw at bad schools with bad tenured teachers, the more the schools continue to suck and the richer the unions get.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

You have to talk you your elected liberal officials. The taxes listed are only state and local. Do you mean you are paying that much in taxes and still have lousy schools? Maybe you should move to a red state, or become one.

Oh, my apologies. I thought you were citing the data that showed that most of the federal tax dollars paid by blue staters went to those living in red states. Perhaps if we didn't need to do this, we wouldn't need to spend quite so much on local taxes?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

oh please, not the old trope that more money = better schools. the more money you throw at bad schools with bad tenured teachers, the more the schools continue to suck and the richer the unions get.

Which explains why Boston has worse schools then its richer suburb Newton, where I fortunately grew up...

Money is not the sole deciding factor, but you are out of your mind if you think it dosn't make a difference.

[scrapinpeg]

Telk: As posted in other threads, empirical data show that there is a very weak correlation between the amount of money spent on a school district and the quality of its schools. Districts with the highest per-student spending, such as Washington D.C. for example, often have the worst results.

The single most important factor, with perfect correlation with success, is parental involvement. Communities with little parental involvement in the schools have crappy schools. Communities with good parental involvement have good schools.

The money factor is important, of course. But what is important is not how MUCH money is thrown at the district, but how the money is SPENT.

Districts where the money goes to heavy bureaucracies, political expenditures, kickbacks/bribes (very common, don't roll your eyes like that), bloated and corrupt construction/repair arrangements, compliance with byzantine regulations and union requirements, skyrocketing requirements for special ed, and non-classroom pet projects -- these are the big-money districts with failing schools.

[scrapinpeg]

Aside: Yay, threadjacking!

[Bayou Bum]

I only posted that because I thought it gave evidence to the old theory of democrats = high taxes, republicans = low taxes. I wasn't even thinking about schools. One major flaw in the numbers is: do you get what you pay for? The blue states may have higher tax rates but if the people there are happy feel they are getting their money's worth, then what's the problem?

As far as schools; everyone knows that money does not equal quality schools. Everyone can cite examples of lousy schools where the cost per student is twice what it is in good schools. Just remember: before your child turns 18, only 10% of their learning is at school!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

As far as schools; everyone knows that money does not equal quality schools. Everyone can cite examples of lousy schools where the cost per student is twice what it is in good schools. Just remember: before your child turns 18, only 10% of their learning is at school!

It's true that more money does not necessarily mean more learning in schools, but in a good school system, more money well spent certainly helps. The school can, for example, buy better books. Or, in some schools, buy books in the first place.

10% is alot, actually. Think of it this way: Where did you learn how to speak English? How to fence? How to do whatever job you do? How to drive, eat, interact with others, etc. But that doesn't mean we can get rid of schools entirely. (If that's what you were getting at.)

[Bayou Bum]

No, we shouldn't get rid of schools. I am just saying that as parents, if we leave all the education of our children up to the schools we will get exactly what we are getting. My kids go to public school but I make sure that it is only a fraction of their total education. Otherwise, they would probably be average public educated kids.

[telkanuru]

How then do you account for the lack of failure of public schools in other countries?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


It has been said that if one is angry, one should wait a bit so that that can
blow off some steam, and then act when one is less angry.

I have waited now. And I am still p*ssed off like Hell.

The:
1. relation between school spending and school results
2. relation between urban and non-urban wealth generation
are interesting topics in their own right, and should be dealt with in threads of their own.

Tre result of a fantasy fencing match has as noted already been treated in a thread of its own, and for anyone to continue that "water-coolerish" topic outside that thread, once they have been notified of its existence, suggests to me that those people are thoughtless, or worse.

What the heck is wrong with you people?

Do you bring up points outside the agenda, without having previously notified the agenda writers in writing, when you go to your clubs annual meeting also?
Are you just generally "blurt-out-whatever-pops-into-my-head" people IRL, nonwithstanding if it is germane to the discussion at hand? How would you feel if I would go and threadjack your threads to my hearts content? FYI, I feel it as if someone would have given me a smack on the ears. I mean that literally.

I have gotten threads that I started, and in at least one case, put considerale effort in writing the starting post threadjacked one time too many to sit by and take it silently.


Angrily,

Peter Gustafsson

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!


It has been said that if one is angry, one should wait a bit so that that can
blow off some steam, and then act when one is less angry.

I have waited now. And I am still p*ssed off like Hell.

The:
1. relation between school spending and school results
2. relation between urban and non-urban wealth generation
are interesting topics in their own right, and should be dealt with in threads of their own.

Tre result of a fantasy fencing match has as noted already been treated in a thread of its own, and for anyone to continue that "water-coolerish" topic outside that thread, once they have been notified of its existence, suggests to me that those people are thoughtless, or worse.

What the heck is wrong with you people?

Do you bring up points outside the agenda, without having previously notified the agenda writers in writing, when you go to your clubs annual meeting also?
Are you just generally "blurt-out-whatever-pops-into-my-head" people IRL, nonwithstanding if it is germane to the discussion at hand? How would you feel if I would go and threadjack your threads to my hearts content? FYI, I feel it as if someone would have given me a smack on the ears. I mean that literally.

I have gotten threads that I started, and in at least one case, put considerale effort in writing the starting post threadjacked one time too many to sit by and take it silently.


Angrily,

Peter Gustafsson

Peter, you have just become typecast. Ever watch the show Animaniacs? Don't take this the wrong way, but they have this bit called The Ranting Swede...

What do you expect in this thread? I don't know if you should call yourself a member unless you have successfully initiated a threadjack

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Peter, you have just become typecast. Ever watch the show Animaniacs? Don't take this the wrong way, but they have this bit called The Ranting Swede...

What do you expect in this thread? I don't know if you should call yourself a member unless you have successfully initiated a threadjack

Peter! We're talking about completely useless information in a social setting. There is no agenda, no objective, and no purpose. Threadjacking is what people do in clubs and organization meetings. It's human nature to pop something off the top of your head, relive stress with an anecdote, tell a joke at a quiet mement. It's what we do when we're at play.

Even when not at play, conversations are lightened. When was the last time you went to a speaker's lecture where he didnt open up with a joke, and if he noticed the audience turning null and drowsy, try to revive it with another one?

Don't be angry. You never know what might be contributed during a threadjack. It might even be something fun and useful!

[Epee_Pox]

The Ranting Swede was NOT from Animaniacs. He was on Sheep in the Big City.

So whatever happened to that show? What killed it? This is IMPORTANT!!