Keep in mind that Cuomo is responsible to the statewide electorate, not just the few upstate cities. City living is a luxury and should mainly be funded by those people who choose it. People who live outside of the city manage to get along without multiple hundreds of professional police, rec centers, music festivals, etc., and increasingly do not come to a city even for work. As those people manage to mainly self-fund their local governments through their own property taxes, they have a reasonable expectation that cities should do so to the same extent.
I find the selection of the subject of Obama's speech on the US and terrorism as an amazing attempt to look at this past week through rose colored glasses ...... To ignore three separate scandals with this administration over its head in defending its actions for a speech which was clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the scandals is just amazing even for a liberal leaning paper ..... But lets take the speech, "the destruction of Muslim Extremist terrorism" is anything but close to an end. Right now the US is working on a method to cover their gun running to Syria via Benghazi and Turkey by getting multiple countries to remove the international restriction on aiding any single side to overthrow a government. The US government violated international law by these actions. Gun running is exactly why the Ambassador was in Benghazi in the first place..... Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria are all being controlled / disrupted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its associates. The Coptic Christians are fleeing Egypt by the 10s of thousands due to the attacks by members of the Muslim Brotherhood there...... but Mary Anna Towler chooses to do a critique of the President's speech and describes it as " eloquent, principled and rational one"..... She references the need for an "informed public" .... I must suggest that what we need is "a more informed media" at all levels ....... then maybe we would get those who have access to this administration to start the inquiries to expose the tyrannical actions of big government , and specifically this administration.
"Trillions"? Hardly. But, hey, the poor have too much and the rich not enough. How about winding down the right-wing war on the middle class?
"It is time, though, to wind this war - whatever you want to call it - down. It's also time to wind down the war on drugs, now, after how many hundreds of billions of dollars? "
How about winding down the liberal "War on Poverty" that has been in place since the Johnson administration? TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent on that and guess what? We seem to have more poor people than ever.
This would have been a great speech, had Obama made it in 2009 as part of fulfilling his campaign promises, or rather his implied campaign promises. Four years later however it's stale, trite, disingenuous and way too late.
@Reggie: We are neither going home nor declaring victory, although at least this President has decimated al Qaeda. He's also made us more hated in Pakistan than India, an ominous situation with a country that is producing nuclear weapons by the dozens. It is time, though, to wind this war - whatever you want to call it - down. It's also time to wind down the war on drugs, now, after how many hundreds of billions of dollars? And with what results? but is now in 115 countries. 115 countries! That's the definition of insane.
This "war on terrorism" lexicon is nuts, too: Are we really at war with, for example, Shining Path? The military wing of the Irish Republican Army? Does anyone recall Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring war on carrier-based airplanes on December 8, 1941?
Oh, so that's how you end the war on terrorism: declare victory and go home.
The "we" has to include black families themselves. What many liberals are unwilling to confront is that there are lots of people having children who aren't raising them - mothers and fathers. Poverty is part of the equation, but it's not necessarily the explanation for it.
"We" seem willing to assign blame to teachers, racism, capitalism, etc., but the bottom line is that "we" can only help people who help themselves. That means people who are struggling need to exercise self-control - not having children you can't or aren't willing to support. It means taking responsibility for parenting the children you bear, including taking an active role your kids' education and their well-being.
It's important to help people who are struggling. But "we" need to provide a safety net - not a safety hammock. When "we" assume responsibility for providing everyone with food, housing, education, health care, and child care, we'll get the same result every time. "We" may have good intentions, but ultimately we're enabling shiftlessness and accepting blame for outcomes that are not our responsibility.
And yet somehow, the beleaguered RCSD faculty is supposed to overcome this gap or we lose our jobs.
Lots and lots of hard-working educators spend hours and hours preparing, teaching and assessing. Yet we're told we're just not good enough.
I know this article isn't meant to tell us to stop or that our efforts are pointless. The point (which many have been arguing for a long time) is that the current reform efforts are aimed in the wrong direction. Over 95% of the people who teach in the district are fine, and are doing the best with the hand we've been dealt. Reforms must be targeted at the people who need the help - children and parents.
If we spent 1/3 of what we spend on Special Ed in early childhood care and educating parents, we would need less than the 2/3 remaining in the budget. (Not a study result, just some darn fine logical thinking.)
Why does the district spend so much? To try to play catch-up. If I were a race car driver and I started a 500 mile race when my competitors already had 150 miles done, I'd need to be spending way more on my car to even consider being competitive. If I could somehow start at the same time as all the others, I would not need to spend quite so much on my car. It's a clunky analogy, but it works.
Another ironic essay by Towler, seeing that she has saw fit to not hire even one single black person or hispanic from the "City" of Rochester for her newspaper. Feel free to look at the staff names and google their pictures. Not one minority. And then have the gall to wax on about employment discrimination. PLEASE!!!!
Here is what most people are unaware of:
1. The US is providing arms via CIA connections (gun running which is violating international law)
2. Those CIA connections are via a town in Libya called Benghazi
3. The attack on the embassy site was after the Ambassador met with officials from Turkey who were setting up a transfer of US arms brought to Libya during the uprising via ship to Turkey, then Syria
4. The Saudi's were also involved by facilitating the US / Syria relationship
5. The Saudi student caught in Boston and later released is also very much a part of the Saudi influence in this country .... not unlike the 400 Saudi's who flew out of this country a few days after 9/11/01 when no planes were allowed to fly in or out of this country. ......
Now many might respond with this being a conspiracy theory and I would agree .... the problem is there is plenty of real, actual information to support all of this especially the Saudi's influence on this US Administration and probably to last ...... To say we should be careful about becoming involved in Syria is too little said and clearly too late ......
Interesting article, with a lot of numbers thrown around, with the exception of one number. ACTRochester.org says that 79% of black "families" in the city of Rochester are single parent for the 2007-10 period, up from 74% in 2000. Nationally, the percentage of black "families" that are single parent is 63%. The black "family" has disintegrated and this is a direct contributor to poverty. The proliferaton of Dr. Conrad Murray "family values" in the black community means that a guy that fathers 8 kids from 7 different mommies is not all that unusual. The only way to change this is to demonize single parenthood in the same way we demonize other things in society that we want less of - cigarette smoking, obesity, texting while driving, and more. We just collectively need the guts to call a spade a spade. The "lifestyle choice" of having kids out of wedlock is wrong, and should be discouraged. I, for one, and sick and tired of paying for somebody else's irresponsible lifestyle "choices." Enough is enough.
For what it's worth, from a suburbanite, the proposed building aesthetically will be an improvement for University when compared to the Gleason façade. As far as the "character of the neighborhood" a multi unit dwelling fits right in with the pre-existing apartment building just to the east of this site. It's not as though this is being dropped into the upper Monroe neighborhood of single and two family homes.
It sounds like the GEH just is looking for a way to lock down that real estate without paying market rates until they have the funding or interest in expansion.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest”
I think steve has had the most accurate and nuanced view of this issue, so far.
Some of the earlier commenters who have decried teenage parenting also have some reasonable points, even if the hyperbole is occasionally masking their points.
The problem we're looking at here is a cyclical, self-perpetuating one that isn't "caused" by race, but has a strong racial component due to historical factors.
Poor, impoverished, barely literate high-school dropouts are more likely to raise the same, no matter what color their skin is. When people of this type are concentrated due to housing costs and/or inability to take advantage of opportunities due to ignorance or ignorance-based fear, they become a visible class, and if there's some way to distinguish them physically, that "reason" will be blamed as the cause.
It is absolutely true that people throughout history have raised themselves up by their bootstraps. It is equally true that those people are exceptional, and not the rule. (i.e. it's possible, but not probable.) Education is the most democratic method of helping the lower class rise from poverty, but education also requires certain skills and habits that may not be well-supported at home.
But... at the root of the issue is that even when someone gets an education, they need a job to be able to take advantage of that education. There is a decided lack of jobs available in the Rochester area for people who have graduated high school, but not been able to go to college. To wit: there is no reason for many young people to put forth the effort to get a diploma, when there's nothing to do with that diploma. Many of the service industry jobs they can get, they can get with a GED or less.
Rochester needs more lower-tech industrial-level jobs where people with only a high school diploma can make a living wage. As much as I, as an educator, want everyone to get the best and most education possible, I recognize that not everyone is college material. Those people deserve to be able to make a living as well. It should not require stitching together 3 jobs' worth of income to be able to make ends meet.
How do we get those lower tech, higher paying jobs (higher than Wegmans or Wal-mart, anyway) here? That's an answer I don't have.
A mixture of racism and good ideas in these comments so far. I consider the issue one of economics as much as race. Someone like Obama or Janet Lomax or Bill Johnson or Wade Norwood or Adam McFadden are all college-educated, upper middle-class and upper-class professionals. With higher education comes access to professional jobs, which provide a higher level of income. A white student in a poor school district (Gates, Chili, Albion) without college-educated parents is more likely to work in a low-wage, low-skilled job than an African-American who goes to SOTA who's parents are a lawyer and a college professor. Why? Because the SOTA student has been raised in a culture of education and affluency, with clear role models to emulate. Institutional racism plays a role but not as much as certain activists and nay-sayers would like. Until we create easy access, high-paying jobs and give kids (white and black) good role models, this cycle will continue unabated and everyone will continue complaining unabated.
@Justice: LOL. Far from "ignoring the problem," we've dumped trillions upon trillions of taxpayer dollars into all kinds of schemes we were promised would eradicate the problem. We spend more now than in the Golden Age of the so-called War on Poverty. So enough already about taxpayer money. And nobody's placing "all the blame" on illegitimate parents. But moral revival is a necessary, even if not sufficient, part of the solution, and one that the original article ignored.
@MJN: You're darn right, we object to government schools — the same ones that produce the abysmal results this article describes — diverting scarce time and resources to ideological campaigns promoting sexual filth and immorality. But that's neither here nor there. Places where such policies have been in place for years have essentially the same or higher rates of illegitimacy.
The findings in this article are nothing new. However, I want to express an opinion about the continuous misinterpretation of statistical data as representing the cause of the problem at hand - poverty. I quote the superintendant of the city school district that states:
"African American students are not meeting any of the state standards in the areas of English, math, science or social studies." Neither, in fact, are Hispanic children. Only white children are.
this gap in academic achievement is strongly associated with race, ethnicity, social-economic background, and family and neighborhood stability," which are having a major, negative effect on children's achievement in school.
In statistical analysis - correlation of variables does not prove causation. In other words, just because there are a number of factors that are all associated with a certain outcome - poverty or poor academic performance, does not imply that the outcome is caused by all of those factors. So, for those that look at the implications that this is a racial or ethnicity driven problem, may be wrong. All of the factors indicated - "race, ethnicity, social-economic background, and family and neighborhood stability" are (I suspect) correlated with each other. They don't all help explain the cause.
Why do I suspect that those who are crying the loudest about the problem of out-of-wedlock children and the number of young parents who are unable to support children of their own are also the ones who were first in line to whine that the city schools’ plan to address the problem in part by handing out condoms was immoral and would only promote sexual congress and excess?
Putting all the blame on blacks and Hispanics for immorality and the continuing cycle of poverty rather than on our society for ignoring the problem while wasting our money to address theproblem on corporate welfare, senseless wars of choice, and tax breaks for the wealthy is both racist and classist.
Website powered by Foundation