School choice leaves behind the vast majority of kids for a lucky small percentage. It would drastically make the situation worse.
I don't know about that. And there's the fact that the most vocal proponents for school choice over the years have been inner-city/urban blacks.
And the most vocal opponents have been inner-city/urban blacks. Also was the 1994 crime bill a good or bad thing for African Americans because black community leaders strongly endorsed the bill.
this topic is actually related to what I pm'd you about. I know you haven't responded yet but if you do I'll provide more details
Causes are best when they are focused. Child Leukemia. Water Rights. Save the Whales. Raise money for a church. Fighting police brutality. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that an organization created to fight police brutality needs to address all crime or isn't legitimate. That's stupid.
Actually that's not true at all. Scientists are not looking for a catch-all cure but focus in on a single type of cancer - and not only that, they focus on one mutation of many that causes that disease. So you are dead wrong here and are actually proving my point.
I'm responding honestly to you without any way trying to attack you. Apologies if my tone is harsh at time. I'm going to go through your post and respond to each thought: BLM (the org) created the movement. One of the founders of BLM coined the term and they were active in the very early protests. They are young and inexperienced and at times their decisions and talking points reflect that. But they have still built an impressive movement considering those issues. At times they are self-righteous and intoxicated - as young people who feel the need to be empowered often are. I don't see BLM at any level encouraging vandalism, looting, or violence. In fact I have seen more effort to stop it as they are aware of the damage it causes. You have random people who see chaos as an opportunity to loot or commit violence. And you also have seen videos of people not with the movement trying to give it a bad name. We've seen white nationalist groups create fake content online and on the street - this has been documented in other threads during the protests. BLM isn't advocating for the tearing down of statues of Lincoln is it? I would advise not grouping everything that is happening under BLM. BLM was critical of the CHOP for instance as they felt it was taking the goals of BLM and expanding them into something completely different. You have all sorts of groups who see what is happening as an opportunity to push their agenda. The goal of BLM is not just justice for George Floyd but to stop future police brutality. It's been going on for years and not improving. There is a need to do more than arrest and prosecute bad cops, but change the culture of policing and the idea of policing. They have chosen an unfortunate expression of "defund the police" but that actually worked in Camden where the police was completely defunded and rebuilt as a different kind of organization, and not only did police brutality go down, but crime did as well. So that goal is valid and one to strive for. Often times people don't simply hear when leaders speak out against violent actions. Organizations have clear and direct messages. And they do speak out to their broad values and work to control bad actors. I've heard BLM speak out against violence before. But it doesn't always get reported because it's not very interesting news. So it's the tree that falls in a forest with no one around and no one hears sort of thing.
They are looking at children's lives as well. Did you already forget about the black children shot by police where the officers haven't been prosecuted? I won't always be wrong. We could also play the reverse game. Why do police and law enforcement support organizations only focus on law enforcement? Why don't you criticize the One Vision One Life program which targets reducing violence in many of the African American communities in Pittsburgh? They are focused on preventing black on black violence but they do absolutely nothing about making sure cops that wrongly kill blacks are prosecuted and justice is served.? Your idea is that the organization should be broader and overlap the work of dozens of other organizations already targeting black on black violence. That isn't their purpose. Though their purpose does have some byproduct benefits in that area as well. Again, breast cancer awareness doesn't focus on heart disease or lung cancer. It doesn't mean they don't care about those issues. It's a ridiculous position.
You are incorrect. The scientist may stumble upon a cure for another type of cancer before he hits the one he was focused on. Claiming victory prematurely is playing pigeon chess.
Please don't change the subject. We all know the name George Floyd, but how many of us know even one name of any of the children who lost their lives in riot related or other violence in recent weeks. Ask yourself - why is that?
They aren't advocating lung cancer research or skin cancer research. They are advocating breast cancer research.
What is your solution to black on black crime? For the amount of concern trolling you have for black on black crime and chastising liberals in here for "ignoring it", those same liberals have far more nuanced and fleshed opinions of what they believe the solutions are to black on black crime while you haven't provided any nuanced solution.
You ask yourself why you don't know the name of any of the many groups fighting against the black on black violence that takes place in the communities? Why do you only know the name of BLM if you truly cared about the lives of the black children? Why is it that you don't know the name of the other community groups that target and advocate for the cause you are talking about only in an effort to try and discredit Black Lives Matter. Watch this, if you wish to know more about BLM. It happened at a Trump rally. Watch all the way to the end. https://nowthisnews.com/videos/poli...ctivist-speaks-at-pro-trump-rally?jwsource=cl
an alternative view https://www.niskanencenter.org/mora...RzFGDXHTbKoFf2ihTl9rgJ8c2lO2C6dfzWDtBtJVMo4R8
Sorry but it's just simply not pragmatic. Ask yourself this. In a crowded urban school that might have 5000 students how many of them have a realistic shot at "school choice".
Getting just a little off track here doncha think? Going by your logic, one has to ask which cancer represents the children?
The concept of school choice is so laughable when you actually break it down. It admits defeat that not all Americans citizens can get equal access to the same quality public education. Just logically conclude what "school choice" means. If there are multiple schools for a parent to chose from why WOULDN'T THEY chose the best school? That means your hypothetical end result would be there would be no school choice because the goal here is to have EVERY AMERICAN citizen have equal access to the best quality public education. School choice implies parents having to compete and fight for their children going to to the better school. How about this. Let's examine the public school districts in the wealthiest neighbor with high property values and therefore high amount of property taxes to fund their public schools and make that the standard for all school distrcits meaning a substantial increase in subsidies at the federal level to school districts in neighborhoods with low property values.
