Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 21 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >  Last ›
   2001. JE (Jason) Posted: August 10, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4768267)
Cillizza: Republican takeover of Senate appears more and more assured:
These past seven days typified the fates of the two parties this election cycle. Democrats have been hit by retirements in tough states — Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and, to a lesser extent, Iowa — and Republicans haven’t nominated the sort of extreme candidates who lack broader appeal in a general election.

Those realities — along with a national playing field in which a handful of incumbent Democrats are defending Republican-leaning seats in places where President Obama is deeply unpopular — have made a GOP takeover a better-than-50/50 proposition. ...

Add it all up, and Republicans have enough races within the margin of error to think that even the slightest national breeze blowing in their favor — and that wind looks likely to be there — will be enough to push them over the top in a few of these very close contests.
   2002. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 10, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4768279)
You are an idiot who knows nothing about Hawaii, and should for that reason keep your ignorant trap shut about it.

Abercombrie lost because he was a grating, annoying person who acted like a Republican in siding with developers. David Ige, who won the primary, will be the favorite, despite earlier polls showing the Republican in the lead.

If you want to place a wager on this election, let me know. 10 Grand minimum buy in.


Surely you realize that you could've saved quite a few keystrokes & been just about as accurate if you'd stopped after "nothing" & gone on about your merry way.
   2003. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 10, 2014 at 09:24 PM (#4768287)
These past seven days typified the fates of the two parties this election cycle. Democrats have been hit by retirements in tough state... along with a national playing field in which a handful of incumbent Democrats are defending Republican-leaning seats in places where President Obama is deeply unpopular... even the slightest national breeze blowing in their favor


Although these things are true, my mind can't help but go back to the statistic I posted a few pages ago.

Take all 17 combined midterm elections since World War 2, for all 17 of the sitting presidents and their 17 good, bad and mediocre approval ratings, in 17 changing political climates and playing fields, encompassing thousands of individual House and Senate races.

These are the numbers for the incumbent presidents' party in midterms, Truman through Obama inclusive:

Won: 21 seats
Lost: 539 seats
   2004. tshipman Posted: August 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4768299)
Add it all up, and Republicans have enough races within the margin of error to think that even the slightest national breeze blowing in their favor — and that wind looks likely to be there


I would add to Gonfalon's point that while it's certainly still possible that there will be a national breeze blowing, there's very little evidence of one thus far. A bunch of races that looked like toss-ups six months ago ... still look like toss-ups. While Obama's approval rating has declined, Republicans haven't shown any benefit thus far, either in specific races, or in the GCB.

Saying that a national breeze will blow to the GOP's favor vs. the Democrats' seems to me like no better prediction than a coin flip. There are ample reasons to think either side might benefit more from the next few months.

On the one hand, the dip in Obama's approval ratings has been largely linked to foreign policy and the immigration "crisis". Foreign policy stuff is a total grab bag. Will air strikes against ISIS go well? Will Russia ramp up their covert war against Ukraine? Who the hell knows? So far, those things seem just as likely to go well for Obama as poorly. It's also unclear that if things get more negative that it will matter--it hasn't thus far.

Jobs numbers continue to be good, and a drop in the unemployment rate to below 6% would be news that people might pay attention to. Further, Republicans seem just as likely to overreach on issues like immigration as they are to benefit. Obama's proposed DACA rules could add a large monkey wrench into the works as well, to his benefit or detriment.

Again, anyone claiming to know for sure which way the election will go outside of a few races is probably trying to sell something.
   2005. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 10, 2014 at 10:38 PM (#4768305)
With about 1% of the vote in, they're already calling the Democratic gubernatorial primary against the incumbent Governor. Pretty strong message there. Not clear yet if his appointed Senator will also go down.

You are an idiot who knows nothing about Hawaii, and should for that reason keep your ignorant trap shut about it. Abercombrie lost because he was a grating, annoying person who acted like a Republican in siding with developers. David Ige, who won the primary, will be the favorite, despite earlier polls showing the Republican in the lead. If you want to place a wager on this election, let me know. 10 Grand minimum buy in.

Whatever happened to the politics of civility? A little rain and Srul resorts to name-calling & insults. Sad. And, of course, there was nothing objectionable about my post - I merely noted that the voters sent a pretty strong message to the incumbent governor. He lost by better than a 2 to 1 margin, double what was indicated in the most favorable poll for Ige at RCP. That's an awful showing for an incumbent that outspent a little-known opponent by 10 to 1 and had Obama's endorsement. I guess we would have all known that was coming if Srul had only alerted us, but I don't recall him sharing his wisdom in advance of the election.

The last 30+ years of Hawaiian Senate races, all won by Democrats:

I think the GOP opportunity is limited to the Governor's race.
   2006. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 10, 2014 at 10:51 PM (#4768308)
On the one hand, the dip in Obama's approval ratings has been largely linked to foreign policy and the immigration "crisis".

From RCP:
Obama's Overall Job Approval: 41% Approve - 54% Disapprove
Job Approval - Foreign Policy: 37.6% Approve - 53.7% Disapprove
Job Approval - Economy: 39.7 Approve - 55.4% Disapprove

Not seeing that Obama's unpopularity is limited to two issues, or that the economy is helping him.
   2007. tshipman Posted: August 10, 2014 at 11:43 PM (#4768323)
Not seeing that Obama's unpopularity is limited to two issues, or that the economy is helping him.


That's not my point. My point is that the decline in his approval ratings traces back from May. The economy has improved since May, while Bad Things have been happening internationally.

If you look at the trendlines in his job approval, you see disapproval of FP rising before you see the decline in his overall ratings. I mean, there are no smoking guns, inasmuch as DC hacks like to claim that there are, but it seems much more likely that bad news abroad has been driving things.
   2008. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:27 AM (#4768381)
So, uh, not sure if you weirdos have discussed it, but did Tony Stewart hit that guy on purpose? I've only seen a home video of the incident--I'm sorry that I did--but it looked like, at minimum, he did nothing to avoid him. Obviously that guy shouldn't have been on the track and acting like a yahoo, but still...
   2009. Lassus Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4768397)
After reading every argument from "murderer" to "total accident", the most likely thing to me seems that Stewart, redass that he is, tried only to spray him with dirt and screwed up, badly.
   2010. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4768399)
So, uh, not sure if you weirdos have discussed it, but did Tony Stewart hit that guy on purpose? I've only seen a home video of the incident--I'm sorry that I did--but it looked like, at minimum, he did nothing to avoid him. Obviously that guy shouldn't have been on the track and acting like a yahoo, but still...

I'm not sure what there is to discuss. It may have been murder, it may have been a total accident. I don't see how we can hope to get into Stewart's head to figure it out. There doesn't seem to be any other real evidence.
   2011. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4768403)
The whole thing is very bizarre. Good luck to whatever prosecutor/DA who has to make sense of that. When I first heard about it I assumed it was a NASCAR race and it seemed like, yeah, at those speeds a guy on the track would be hard to avoid. But it was just a dirt track race and they were under caution. If nothing else Kirk Gibson should take notes about what happens when you kill someone through redassery...
   2012. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4768412)
I discovered that Brooklyn JAPs couldn't hold a candle to the ones from LonGisland,

LonGisland???
It's Lawn Guy Land
   2013. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4768417)
Regarding Tony Stewart, I've only seen one video (I assume in this day and age there are others), and in the one I saw it certainly looked like Stewart's intent was an open question.

OTOH Ward was just unbelievably stupid.

Ugly situation
   2014. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4768454)
Yeah, I guess the kid was stupid, but ... drivers walking on racetracks happens. It's not as though no driver has ever walked on a racetrack before. Or mechanics, crewmen, and medical personnel. So that can't be the dispositive fact.

As I understand it, they were under a caution when Stewart hit the kid. For a world class driver to hit another driver with his car while the caution was on is pretty tough to chalk up to pure accident. I doubt he intended to hit him, but I see no way to avoid the conclusion that he at least tried to scare him. He could have completely avoided him with ease.
   2015. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4768473)
At the very least it has to be manslaughter doesn't it?

Doesn't he have to serve time for this?
   2016. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4768480)
At the very least it has to be manslaughter doesn't it?

Doesn't he have to serve time for this?


Could be ruled an accident. The guy was running around on a racetrack.

For manslaughter, you have to prove intent.
   2017. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4768486)
Could be ruled an accident. The guy was running around on a racetrack.


I'm seeing a lot of push back on the "it was intentional" angle from racers and racing people. They point out near universally that the car immediately before Stewart had to swerve at the last minute to miss Ward, and they point out near universally that dirt track Sprint series cars "steer with the throttle, not the wheel."
   2018. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4768506)
They point out near universally that the car immediately before Stewart had to swerve at the last minute to miss Ward, and they point out near universally that dirt track Sprint series cars "steer with the throttle, not the wheel."

He "had to swerve" because he was driving too close a line to begin with. If there were visibility problems -- doubtful, judging by the cell phone video where the lighting picks up Ward just fine -- the family will have a nice lawsuit against the track and promoters.

A world class driver hitting a human under a caution flag by pure accident doesn't really pass the laugh test.
   2019. Lassus Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4768508)
I'm seeing a lot of push back on the "it was intentional" angle from racers and racing people. They point out near universally that the car immediately before Stewart had to swerve at the last minute to miss Ward, and they point out near universally that dirt track Sprint series cars "steer with the throttle, not the wheel."

Been reading the same thing, and this is why I think the "trying to scare/spray and booted it" fits best. IMO, obviously, WhoTF knows.

I've also seen mentioned that the "throttle, not wheel" steering is informed by higher speed, and under caution, the wheel works into it a lot more.
   2020. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4768509)
and they point out near universally that dirt track Sprint series cars "steer with the throttle, not the wheel."

What does this mean?
   2021. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4768512)
For manslaughter, you have to prove intent.



NY Penal LAw:
§ 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
***
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.


§ 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes the death of such person or of a third person;
***
   2022. The Good Face Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4768513)
Been reading the same thing, and this is why I think the "trying to scare/spray and booted it" fits best. IMO, obviously, WhoTF knows.


That's my take on it as well. Stewart isn't some weekend warrior; he's one of the best drivers on the planet. The most likely scenario is he was engaging in risky/reckless behavior and came up snake eyes.
   2023. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4768517)
I'm seeing a lot of push back on the "it was intentional" angle from racers and racing people.


I think the pushback is against the idea that Stewart intentionally hit/killed Ward... I saw an interview this morning where some guys working at track said they think Stewart was trying to "spray" Ward
   2024. Greg K Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4768521)
That's my take on it as well. Stewart isn't some weekend warrior; he's one of the best drivers on the planet. The most likely scenario is he was engaging in risky/reckless behavior and came up snake eyes.

A real Kolvoord Starburst scenario. Though motivated by dickishness rather than showing off. But the same underlying arrogance is there I think.
   2025. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4768522)
That's my take on it as well. Stewart isn't some weekend warrior; he's one of the best drivers on the planet. The most likely scenario is he was engaging in risky/reckless behavior and came up snake eyes.

This makes the most sense to me. I just can't imagine Stewart wanting to actually hit him. But, my god, it was a reckless thing to do.
   2026. Howie Menckel Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4768523)
"For manslaughter, you have to prove intent."

depends on the state.
In New Jersey, for reckless manslaughter, you must have exhibited "a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result from his conduct, and such disregard involved gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the defendant's situation."

But if you SHOULD HAVE been thinking about how risky your behavior was and that someone reasonably might be killed - but you didn't think about it - then you are negligent, and not guilty.

That in a nutshell is why the Jayson Williams legal saga lasted almost a decade. Clearly he should have realized that picking up a possibly loaded shotgun and snapping it shut in a room with a bunch of people might end badly. But was he thinking about that at the time? jury went 8-4 for "not guilty" on that, so hung on that core count. My sense always was that you'd never get a verdict in 100 trials - you'd need to find 12 people who all agree to hold their nose and go "not guilty" in spite of the tragic death of the limo driver, or get all 12 to settle on somewhat of a 'nullification' and assume that a rich guy in his 27,000 square foot mansion was actually thinking about how someone might get killed by this stunt, but 'what the heck, I'll roll the dice.'

obviously it's better for all states to have some sort of "criminal stupidity" charge, where an act can be so foolish that "wow, I never meant for that to happen" is not sufficient.

I think New York may have better laws on this issue but will defer to the attorneys.....
   2027. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4768527)
A world class driver hitting a human under a caution flag by pure accident doesn't really pass the laugh test.


It's a little more than that. The guy that was hit was actually trying to get close to the car that hit him. He was moving towards it.
If you're going to assign blame, I have to think that more than 90% of it goes to the guy who was hit.


and they point out near universally that dirt track Sprint series cars "steer with the throttle, not the wheel."

What does this mean?


It was explained to me that those kinds of cars accelerate in order to start a fishtail maneuver so they can go around the corners properly.
   2028. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4768531)
I'm not signing on to any theory personally. The mechanics of it is completely out of my range of knowledgeable subjects. The closest I've ever come to racing was a couple of track days on the bike, and bikes don't behave like cars, nor does dirt behave like well manicured road courses. I can easily see the "tried to spray him and ###### it up" angle too. I'm just relaying some of what I'm hearing from racing people I know.
   2029. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4768532)
I can only imagine the meltdown that must be happening at the NASCAR version of BBTF.
   2030. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4768546)
Isn't trying to spray a guy with dirt displaying reckless indifference to his life?

DA will probably overcharge, Stewart will have world class representation and he will probably serve no time.
   2031. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4768547)
As I understand it, they were under a caution when Stewart hit the kid. For a world class driver to hit another driver with his car while the caution was on is pretty tough to chalk up to pure accident.

It's not unheard of for drivers to crash out of races under caution, so file this under Idiot Knows ####-All.
   2032. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4768553)
A world class driver hitting a human under a caution flag by pure accident doesn't really pass the laugh test.


It's a little more than that. The guy that was hit was actually trying to get close to the car that hit him. He was moving towards it. If you're going to assign blame, I have to think that more than 90% of it goes to the guy who was hit.

Especially considering he was dressed in black. How ####### stupid can he have been?

But then Ward is hardly the only moron who's done this. Apparently Stewart himself had walked out onto the track during races to confront other drivers on more than one occasion. If NASCAR had an ounce of sense, that sort of behavior would get a mandatory one year suspension.
   2033. Ron J2 Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4768558)
al-Maliki out?

Probably good news, although there's some chance that it actually makes things worse if al-Maliki decides not to go quietly.
   2034. CrosbyBird Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4768563)
It's a little scary, though, to think that a murder charge could hinge on a general sizing up of someone as being "bad-tempered." I hope it comes down to the physical evidence of the actual incident in question... could he see the guy, is what he did something you might do in an attempt to avoid a collision, etc.

It is definitely scary.

On the one hand, just because someone gets angry enough to throw a helmet at someone doesn't mean that he is capable of getting angry enough to deliberately run someone over. On the other hand, part of having poor impulse control is losing perspective and going beyond what would be a reasonable response.

I think this is one of the harder questions of "probative value vs. prejudice," and of course, it's especially cultural. To some people, punching someone for strong insults (especially directed toward loved ones) is justifiable or even expected; to others, violence is only acceptable in self-defense or defense of others from violence.
   2035. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4768565)
DA will probably overcharge, Stewart will have world class representation and he will probably serve no time.


Yeah, you get some rubes on the jury and a flashy baloney-slinging shyster representing Stewart and he's as good as home. "If the man tried to swerve, no time he must serve."
   2036. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4768566)
After reading every argument from "murderer" to "total accident", the most likely thing to me seems that Stewart, redass that he is, tried only to spray him with dirt and screwed up, badly.


This is where I come out as plausible explanations for what happened:

1. Stewart had a meltdown and swerved into him intentionally (perhaps not trying to kill him per se but not really thinking about what he was doing).

Or

2. Stewart tried to dust him, as Lassus says above, and it went bad because, well, it was a really dumb idea and you can't control things to that level of specificity.

Or

3. Least likely, Stewart just couldn't avoid him. I don't think this is the case because you hear the throttle and you see Stewart's car swerve (apparently the throttle makes the car kick to the right from the back). Now, granted Ward was in the middle of the track and insanely confronting Stewart on foot, so perhaps Stewart really couldn't avoid him. Again, seems unlikely to me that this is what happened but, well, maybe. Perhaps Stewart should be given the benefit of the doubt since the guy was insanely in the middle of the track... still.

(Idle thought: Can we stop the nonsense where we report that "Stewart's car" hit the guy? That seems needlessly technical, almost to absolve Stewart of the possibility of intent/guilt. Stewart hit the guy. If I swing a bat and hit you, then nobody says "Ray's bat hit the guy in the head." Or when a drunk driver hits a victim, nobody says "the drunk driver's car hit the victim." They say the drunk driver did. Even in a non-alcohol related incident people say "Joe ran into him." They don't say "Joe's car" did.)

---

I don't watch racing but I see highlights from time to time where a guy is out of his car on the track angrily confronting drivers still in their cars, and I'm always like "Strange that these guys never seem to get killed doing something insane like this." Well, I guess I don't have to say that anymore.

---

Question for you crazy NASCAR fans: I presume Tony Stewart is a big name in NASCAR and has won the traditional NASCAR races but does this dirt racing on the side? I recognize the name (so I presume he is a big name) but that's about it.
   2037. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4768568)
It's not unheard of for drivers to crash out of races under caution, so file this under Idiot Knows ####-All.

Yeah, I guess in hillbilly white trash NASCAR, anything's possible.
   2038. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4768570)
"If the man tried to swerve, no time he must serve."

"If the man tried to spray, he can't do a day."
   2039. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4768571)
I'm not sure what there is to discuss. It may have been murder, it may have been a total accident. I don't see how we can hope to get into Stewart's head to figure it out. There doesn't seem to be any other real evidence.


The throttle and the kick-out of the car from the back right as a result of it, which resulted in the guy being destroyed by the back right wheel. The fact that Stewart specifically was the one Ward was confronting, which may have led Stewart to do something insane in the heat of the moment. (Of course, the fact that Ward was confronting him cuts both ways: perhaps this is why Stewart had trouble avoiding him.)

No attempt to slow down or stop is another problem for Stewart.
   2040. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4768577)

Question for you crazy NASCAR fans: I presume Tony Stewart is a big name in NASCAR and has won the traditional NASCAR races but does this dirt racing on the side? I recognize the name (so I presume he is a big name) but that's about it.


It's very common. Some big NASCAR racers often race at the dirt track in my wife's hometown of Jacksonville, Illinois. These guys like to race! And yeah, Tony Stewart is like the Miguel Cabrera if NASCAR. If he's not the biggest star he's damn near close to it.
   2041. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4768580)
Question for you crazy NASCAR fans: I presume Tony Stewart is a big name in NASCAR and has won the traditional NASCAR races but does this dirt racing on the side? I recognize the name (so I presume he is a big name) but that's about it.

Yeah, that's the same guy. Apparently it establishes him as a purist of sorts, and of course it hardly hurts his branding to the hardcored NASCAR demographic. Stewart's kind of like the loony version of Willie Mays continuing to play stickball in the Harlem streets when he first came up to the Giants.

EDIT: coke to Shooty
   2042. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4768581)
Some big NASCAR racers often race at the dirt track in my wife's hometown of Jacksonville, Illinois.


Well, sure. They can solve only so many quadratic equations in their spare time before it gets really, really old.
   2043. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4768583)
Stewart's initial statement, released after the race, was very callous. Something like "Tony will race on Sunday as it is business as usual." Later Stewart's team came out with a more sympathetic and compassioned statement, but the first one which nobody is talking about was a real dud.


   2044. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4768586)
Apparently Stewart himself had walked out onto the track during races to confront other drivers on more than one occasion.


Most of Stewart's confrontations have happened in the pits, I think.

Some big NASCAR racers often race at the dirt track in my wife's hometown of Jacksonville, Illinois. These guys like to race!


Agree. Stewart apparently runs dirt tracks in his down time because it's generally considered the most technically difficult racing, and it keeps his driving skills sharp. Other guys run desert rallies. But most racers race. It's what they do.
   2045. just plain joe Posted: August 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4768587)
Question for you crazy NASCAR fans: I presume Tony Stewart is a big name in NASCAR and has won the traditional NASCAR races but does this dirt racing on the side? I recognize the name (so I presume he is a big name) but that's about it.


Not a crazy NASCAR fan but yes, Stewart is one of bigger names in NASCAR, and yes, he likes to race sprint cars on dirt when he has the opportunity. Stewart started his racing career on short, dirt ovals and has remained a fan even after moving to the bigger, faster, paved tracks of NASCAR.

Sprint cars are inherently dangerous for everyone involved. They are basically an engine stand with wheels; sprint cars have no flywheel, no clutch and no transmission, the engine is connected to the rear wheels via a simple "in and out" box. They are essentially driven with the throttle, typically the driver will pitch the car sideways when entering a turn and will then try to modulate the throttle and keep it pointed in the right direction, many times one or both of the front wheels come off of the ground when cornering.

I have no idea whether Stewart his the guy on purpose or not, the only person who knows for sure is Stewart. Tony Stewart does have a long-standing reputation as a hothead who tends to act impulsively and to speak before thinking about what he is saying.


EDIT: Carbonated beverages all around.




   2046. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4768599)
I have no idea whether Stewart his the guy on purpose or not, the only person who knows for sure is Stewart.


I mean, sure, but the legal issue of intent is determined by the evidence. And this is part of it:

Rich Willis, who was at the track, said he didn't see exactly what happened but his sister down in Turn 1 did. He saw Stewart and Kevin Ward get into the wreck.

"People (who could see it better) said the guy got out of his car and was gesturing angrily at Tony Stewart when Tony Stewart came by during the next lap under yellow," Willis said in a phone interview. "He approached him and evidently when he was driving by the guy standing on the track gesturing at him, he gunned his engine.

"What happened was the back end kicked out and clipped the guy and the guy flew across the track."


Yes, yes, this Willis didn't actually see it. But my point is that you can hear Stewart gun his engine in the video. And you can see the car kick out.

Remember: the caution flag had been thrown, and yet here Stewart was gunning his engine.

Here, this guy did see it, and is experienced enough to know how the cars work; granted he is a friend of Ward's so perhaps his conclusion is biased but the physical evidence is the physical evidence:

Tyler Graves, a sprint-car racer and friend of Ward's, told Sporting News in a phone interview that he was sitting in the Turn 1 grandstands and saw everything that happened.

"Tony pinched him into the frontstretch wall, a racing thing," Graves said. "The right rear tire went down, he spun on the exit of (Turn) 2. They threw the caution and everything was toned down. Kevin got out of his car. … He was throwing his arms up all over the place at Tony for most of the corner.

"I know Tony could see him. I know how you can see out of these cars. When Tony got close to him, he hit the throttle. When you hit a throttle on a sprint car, the car sets sideways. It set sideways, the right rear tire hit Kevin, Kevin was sucked underneath and was stuck under it for a second or two and then it threw him about 50 yards."

   2047. JL Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4768602)
No attempt to slow down or stop is another problem for Stewart.


I don't know that this is accurate. One commentator (I forget who) indicated that trying to stop (or even slowing down) can decrease your ability to steer. No idea if this is true, but if so, maintaining his speed may have been the correct thing to do.

Having said that, my guess would be that Stewart would have been pleased with a result that ended with Ward getting dusted.
   2048. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4768605)
I don't know that this is accurate. One commentator (I forget who) indicated that trying to stop (or even slowing down) can decrease your ability to steer. No idea if this is true, but if so, maintaining his speed may have been the correct thing to do.


Fair enough, as the other cars seem to be going the same speed as Stewart's car.

But to another point, look at the car right before him. This car moves left. Now follow the path of Stewart's car. His car moves -- swerves -- right. And right into the victim.

   2049. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4768611)
Probably good news, although there's some chance that it actually makes things worse if al-Maliki decides not to go quietly.

all signs are that he doesn't intend to go quietly...


But if he's lost the US, and he's lost Iran, and he's apparently lost every Shiite group other than his own "State of Law" party, who are these "Special forces loyal to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki" that keep getting mentioned in news reports, and where were they when Mosul fell?

My guess is that if he actually decides to "fight" the people who would actually do such "fighting" won't. He's toast.




   2050. dlf Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4768617)
But my point is that you can hear Stewart gun his engine in the video.


How can you tell its Stewart and not any of the other drivers on the track gunning his engine?
   2051. Ron J2 Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4768618)
#2049 Right, doesn't seem like he wants to go quietly but doesn't seem to have enough supporters that this will matter. And doesn't seem the kind of guy who could build on his surrent level of support -- even if he's spent some time trying to get loyalists into positions of power.

It's just that to date Iraq has been sort of Murphy's Law in action and it's very easy to see how this could add another dimension to the current problems. All the place needs to make things complete is to add Shia versus Shia (armed) conflict.
   2052. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4768620)
How can you tell its Stewart and not any of the other drivers on the track gunning his engine?


Because we see Stewart's car jerk to the right and they were in a caution flag making it unlikely that other drivers were gunning their engines.
   2053. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4768632)
At the very least it has to be manslaughter doesn't it? Doesn't he have to serve time for this?

Depends on the evidence. If the initial video is the best evidence, I doubt there'd be an indictment much less a conviction. Maybe high tech analysis would show more, but the video seemed inconclusive. Can one say when Stewart saw Ward (dressed in black)? Did he accelerate to hit him or to get away from a nut job who was coming towards his car? Did Stewart misjudge the space he had or did Ward keep coming toward Stewart's car and get clipped? I couldn't tell from looking at the video, and I don't see how anyone can reach any conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. But there may be more video, from cellphones or the track. Maybe it will be definitive, but I doubt it. There should be witness testimony, but again it's iffy whether it all stacks up one way or is conclusive on the issues. Maybe Stewart incriminated himself after the race and someone will so testify, or maybe nothing like that happened. In any event, I think you need much more than that initial video and a bunch of assumptions to bring a case.
   2054. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4768636)
Most likely case is that Stewart gunned it knowing his back end would swing right with the intent to dust Ward, and he wound up hitting him. I mean, there's no ####### way Stewart didn't know what his car would do if he gunned the engine -- right? And the tape shows the car reacting as it would if the driver had gunned its engine.
   2055. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 11, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4768644)
Did he accelerate to hit him or to get away from a nut job who was coming towards his car? Did Stewart misjudge the space he had or did Ward keep coming toward Stewart's car and get clipped?


My thought is that Stewart was trying to avoid hitting him and avoid hitting another car and tried to "thread the needle" and ended up being unable to do so in a car that is hard to handle that was on a surface that is hard to drive on.
   2056. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4768646)
Apparently Stewart himself had walked out onto the track during races to confront other drivers on more than one occasion.

Most of Stewart's confrontations have happened in the pits, I think.


But not all of them, as this article indicates:

Like many other drivers over the years — both at the top level of auto racing, and on dirt tracks like the one Saturday that was the site of the fatal confrontation — Stewart has gotten out of his crashed racecars and has wagged his finger at other drivers, warning them that a flogging could come for causing him to wreck. Verbal and physical altercations also [emphasis added] have unfolded in the garages or on pit road.
   2057. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4768648)
Because we see Stewart's car jerk to the right and they were in a caution flag making it unlikely that other drivers were gunning their engines.


There's also more than a few witness statements that Stewart gunned his engine
   2058. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4768650)
Stewart has gotten out of his crashed racecars and has wagged his finger at other drivers, warning them that a flogging could come for causing him to wreck.


What is he, some sort of badass? That sort of puffed-up bluster should inevitably lead to him getting his ass kicked by an inferior driver who knows how to throw a left hook. It's one thing to call another man a fee-simple son of a #####, quite another to threaten to beat his ass.
   2059. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4768651)
Today's most interesting poll, so far, has the GOP candidate for Governor in Obama's home-state of Illinois leading by a 51% - 38% margin. It's not so much that Rauner is leading, but the wide gap compared to the earlier polls that had him with narrow leads. If that margin is confirmed by other polls and holds up on Election Day, there'd probably be some down ballot gains for the GOP, too.
   2060. Lassus Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4768657)
Obama should never have written that book about Stewart.
   2061. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4768664)
There's also more than a few witness statements that Stewart gunned his engine.

I wouldn't be confident that much of that ends up as admissible evidence that holds up under cross examination. Could happen, but it would also seem difficult to disprove a claim by Stewart that he accelerated to get away from Ward and only made contact because Ward kept coming toward the car, attempting to punch it or hit it with his helmet. Maybe video from the other side of the track will show things more clearly, if available. However, nothing like that has become public yet, so who knows if it exists.
   2062. GregD Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4768672)
On our previous conversation earlier in the thread about whether charter standards functioned to keep out bad actors, see this story about fraud and nonexistent academics and a staunchly supportive and corrupted oversight board. If we went to vouchers, I would expect much, much more of this, and the improvement for the kids in schools that worked would be swamped by the complete failure and theft at con-men academies like this one.
   2063. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4768673)
Today's most interesting poll, so far,


The only thing interesting in that Poll is that "We Ask America" is still in business and didn't change its name after 2012.

   2064. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4768679)
(Idle thought: Can we stop the nonsense where we report that "Stewart's car" hit the guy? That seems needlessly technical, almost to absolve Stewart of the possibility of intent/guilt. Stewart hit the guy. If I swing a bat and hit you, then nobody says "Ray's bat hit the guy in the head." Or when a drunk driver hits a victim, nobody says "the drunk driver's car hit the victim." They say the drunk driver did. Even in a non-alcohol related incident people say "Joe ran into him." They don't say "Joe's car" did.)


Related: The Curious Grammar of Police Shootings
   2065. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4768683)
The only thing interesting in that Poll is that "We Ask America" is still in business and didn't change its name after 2012.


You forgot the part about where it supports Clappy's preferred narrative.
   2066. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4768690)
and was stuck under it for a second or two and then it threw him about 50 yards."


Let's all stipulate that Ward was not thrown 50 yards.
   2067. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4768691)
Yards are not feet.
   2068. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4768692)
On our previous conversation earlier in the thread about whether charter standards functioned to keep out bad actors, see this story about fraud and nonexistent academics and a staunchly supportive and corrupted oversight board. If we went to vouchers, I would expect much, much more of this, and the improvement for the kids in schools that worked would be swamped by the complete failure and theft at con-men academies like this one.

There wouldn't be "much, much more" of anything; the fraud and lax education standards would simply exist under the "charter school" banner rather than under the "government school" banner, where there's an obscene amount of both today.

Vouchers are about giving poorer parents the ability to take some control of their kids' education. Funny how the same liberals who drone on about "choice" every day are so adamantly opposed to poorer people having some choice when it comes to schools.
   2069. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4768694)
Vouchers are about giving poorer parents the ability to take some control of their kids' education. Funny how the same liberals who drone on about "choice" every day are so adamantly opposed to poor people having some choice when it comes to schools.


Yeah, no one believes vouchers are about helping poor people.
   2070. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4768695)
Vouchers are about giving poorer parents the ability to take some control of their kids' education. Funny how the same liberals who drone on about "choice" every day are so adamantly opposed to poor people having some choice when it comes to schools.


You can choose to pay your own money, what's more American than that? If the Pope or the Caliphate want to chip in from their holdings to make up any shortfalls praise the lord and pass the paganism.
   2071. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4768697)
Yeah, no one believes vouchers are about helping poor people.

Poor people seem to.

***
You can choose to pay your own money, what's more American than that? If the Pope or the Caliphate want to chip in from their holdings to make up any shortfalls praise the lord and pass the paganism.

By this logic, poor kids aren't entitled to an education at all.
   2072. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4768700)
Poor people (Republicans eager to destroy teachers unions) seem to (want to pretend it does).

   2073. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4768701)
The only thing interesting in that Poll is that "We Ask America" is still in business and didn't change its name after 2012.


The poll was "sponsored by" Reboot Illinois, also. I'll let you figure out why Illinois needs rebooting.
   2074. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4768706)
You can choose to pay your own money, what's more American than that? If the Pope or the Caliphate want to chip in from their holdings to make up any shortfalls praise the lord and pass the paganism.

By this logic, poor kids aren't entitled to an education at all.


They get the same educational access as everyone else. You want freebies to send the poors to a madrasa so they can ululate to Mecca 5 times a day then you and your Mullahs pay for it. I'd dry your money though, moistened with crocodile tears as it may be.
   2075. GregD Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4768711)
There wouldn't be "much, much more" of anything; the fraud and lax education standards would simply exist under the "charter school" banner rather than under the "government school" banner, where there's an obscene amount of both today.
I know you haven't looked at what's out there, but there are literally places where people are taking money allocated by the government for lunch and putting it in their personal accounts. Where they lie about building usage. Where they rent buildings from their cousins at 4X local values.

And then charter and voucher advocates pass laws that make it illegal to audit them.

It doesn't take any great insight to figure out that if you pass a law guaranteeing state dollars for enrollment and then pass laws saying no one can audit how you spend that money, you get a lot of con men lining up. The Michigan story I posted earlier included conservatives who were just dumbfounded at how the system was set up primarily to deliver theft. Educational advancement was an incidental byproduct.

But if you prefer the pro-theft side of the equation, that's fine.

Bloomberg, to his credit, is the one person who insisted on closing charters that didn't perform. And insisted on the state leg giving that authority to audit and close. But under a mayor Moskowitz, I can't imagine that lasting a second.

It is strange to me that some people see corruption in any government program inside the government but seem baffled at the idea that government grants could lead to corruption.

On performance, charters on average perform slightly worse than normal schools when you study comparable students. Charters juke the stats very well by admitting students until the day they get reimbursed then dismissing the low performers before test day. And Geoffrey Canada took it one step farther by dismissing an entire grade's worth of students for scoring low on tests. And those are the good ones! But charters can be part of a well-regulated school system. But only if they are very well regulated to keep the con men out.
   2076. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4768717)
   2077. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4768728)
Poor people (Republicans eager to destroy teachers unions) seem to (want to pretend it does).

Typical: You're more concerned about teachers unions than about kids' education.

***
I know you haven't looked at what's out there, but there are literally places where people are taking money allocated by the government for lunch and putting it in their personal accounts. Where they lie about building usage. Where they rent buildings from their cousins at 4X local values.

Great, and there are government schools where the principal doesn't show up for days at a time.

And then charter and voucher advocates pass laws that make it illegal to audit them.

It doesn't take any great insight to figure out that if you pass a law guaranteeing state dollars for enrollment and then pass laws saying no one can audit how you spend that money, you get a lot of con men lining up.

LOL. Public-sector employee unions behave the same way.

It would be stupid for anyone to argue that all government schools should be closed because of stories like the one in the above link. Arguing that charter schools are little more than fronts for fraud, based on a few outrageous stories, is just as stupid.

It's funny how the same lefty posers who are outraged by silly trivialities like the NCAA's "monopoly" over student-athletes have no problem with government schools and teachers unions having a monopoly on the schooling of poor kids.
   2078. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4768729)
Typical: You're more concerned about teachers unions than about kids' education.


You want to destroy teachers unions plain and simple. I want to help kids by putting more money into the system, you want to "help" kids by taking money out of the public school system.
   2079. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4768731)
You want to destroy teachers unions plain and simple. I want to help kids by putting more money into the system, you want to "help" kids by taking money out of the public school system.

A platitude and a non sequitur, all in one.

(And, without a doubt, more Bitter Mouse hypocrisy, since he assuredly isn't "putting more" of his money "into the system"; he wants to force other people to put "more money into the system," despite zero evidence that more money, above and beyond current funding levels, will lead to better results.)
   2080. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4768740)
So you are claiming vouchers don't take money out of the public school system? Really? And as a tax payer it is my money. I am not one of the "47%" you love to scorn so much.
   2081. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4768743)
The poll was "sponsored by" Reboot Illinois, also. I'll let you figure out why Illinois needs rebooting.
BSOD?
   2082. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4768745)
So you are claiming vouchers don't take money out of the public school system? Really?

No, they don't have to, especially not on a per-student basis.

And as a tax payer it is my money. I am not one of the "47%" you love to scorn so much.

You have two kids in school, right? It's highly unlikely you're a net payer rather than a net recipient.
   2083. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4768746)
Today's most interesting poll, so far, has the GOP candidate for Governor in Obama's home-state of Illinois leading

Wow, "Obama's home state of Illinois," that really shows how low Obama has fallen.

Bill Clinton had a Republican Governor in Arkansas. Reagan had a Democratic Governor in California. George Bush Sr. had a Democratic Governor in Texas.
   2084. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4768747)
You forgot the part about where it supports Clappy's preferred narrative.


I'm not sure how that makes it "interesting" to anyone who doesn't go by the handle Yankee Clapper.
   2085. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4768749)
I'll let you figure out why Illinois needs rebooting.

There's more than a few state governments that could use a little rebooting
   2086. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4768752)
No, they don't have to, especially not on a per-student basis.


Look at those goal posts change. Money is being taken out, just like I said (and because of fixed costs it hurts the system). And you are only doing it because you hate teachers unions. Which is fine, just own up to it man. You will feel better about it.
   2087. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4768756)
BSOD?


Juvenile joke:

Find a screencap of the BSOD, download it to co-worker's computer, go on co-worker's computer, direct the co-workers' screen saver program to the BSOD screencap...
wait to hear cursing
   2088. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4768759)
You want to destroy teachers unions plain and simple. I want to help kids by putting more money into the system, you want to "help" kids by taking money out of the public school system.

I'm sure it never occurred to Bitter Mouse that there would be no need to put "more money into the system" if better use was made of the funds already available.
   2089. The Good Face Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4768763)
It's funny how the same lefty posers who are outraged by silly trivialities like the NCAA's "monopoly" over student-athletes have no problem with government schools and teachers unions having a monopoly on the schooling of poor kids.


Public schools are headwaters of liberal power, which is why, as you can see whenever the topic comes up, they will do and say anything to maintain the status quo.

People act as they believe, and they believe as they are conditioned to believe. And public schooling is such a powerful opportunity for conditioning...
   2090. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 11, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4768766)
I'm sure it never occurred to Bitter Mouse that there would be no need to put "more money into the system" if better use was made of the funds already available.


I am totally open to better use of the money. And of course most school systems are trying to better use their funds. It is funny how more money helps in every situation, except seemingly in your opinion schooling, where the secret is somehow less money.
   2091. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4768771)
Look at those goal posts change. Money is being taken out, just like I said (and because of fixed costs it hurts the system). And you are only doing it because you hate teachers unions. Which is fine, just own up to it man. You will feel better about it.

This is hilarious. If a school gets $10,000 per student for five students and then one student leaves for a charter school and the government takes $5,000 in funding away, the school now has more money on a per-student basis, not less. Only a liberal could see that as a "funding cut."

And of course most school systems are trying to better use their funds.

LOL.
   2092. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4768776)
You want to destroy teachers unions plain and simple. I want to help kids by putting more money into the system, you want to "help" kids by taking money out of the public school system.
That's right; you're acting in good faith, whereas people who disagree with you are not.
   2093. BDC Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4768781)
Arguing that charter schools are little more than fronts for fraud, based on a few outrageous stories

I knew this thread would get back to baseball eventually! Here's some recent news about some of Deion Sanders' ventures :)

I know some charter-school teachers, and of course lots and lots of public-school teachers. I'd say that charters are a mixed bag. In Texas they are supposed to be special in some way, to provide an angle a public school can't. "Serving poor people" is not part of the mission, necessarily; they should serve an academic mission. Languages (not taught in many public schools) are often a draw here in Texas. Some do teach well and some don't.

And you know, you can say the same of public schools. Where this idea comes from, that the public-school system is some vast sewer, is beyond me. Any y'all enemies of publics ever darkened the door of a public school? Most of them are very good, and their employees longsuffering and dedicated.

I'd say the main difference is that when public schools are corrupt in some way, it's at a systemic, chronic level, and there are mechanisms for righting them – I know, often underenforced, often blocked by unions, yadda yadda. When charter schools are corrupt, and the headlines really are full of such instances, the whole #### thing collapses, and kids, poor rich or otherwise, are simply exploited for their voucher value and can lose entire years of education. But hey, that's the exciting entrepreneurial marketplace.

"Choice" is often touted as an advantage of charters, but there are always limits on choices. And a large urban district like Arlington TX offers substantial choice in public schools. Transfer across district lines is exceedingly common here, for all kinds of reasons (families' mobility having a lot to do with it).

   2094. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4768783)
Wait, if conservatives are all hot for charter schools, why don't they give all their surplus money to them and stop stealing money from the rest of us? (/the Ray test for sincerity of political beliefs.)
   2095. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4768787)
I can only imagine the meltdown that must be happening at the NASCAR version of BBTF.

Isn't a thinking fan of NASCAR an oxymoron?
   2096. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4768788)
And you know, you can say the same of public schools. Where this idea comes from, that the public-school system is some vast sewer, is beyond me. Any y'all enemies of publics ever darkened the door of a public school? Most of them are very good, and their employees longsuffering and dedicated.

Right, but most of the good public schools serve middle class and upper middle class, mostly white and asian, communities.

Most of the bad public schools serve poor and working class, heavily black and hispanic communities. These districts have levels of corruption and mismanagement that middle class communities wouldn't tolerate, because the parents have no political clout. The politicians can do much better courting the teachers unions, and corrupt contractors, since they are largely one-party towns. The poor and working class also don't have the option of moving to get access to better schools.

Vouchers are largely about giving these parents some say over their children's education; the same kind of say middle class and richer parents have today.
   2097. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4768791)
I'd say the main difference is that when public schools are corrupt in some way, it's at a systemic, chronic level, and there are mechanisms for righting them – I know, often underenforced, often blocked by unions, yadda yadda. When charter schools are corrupt, and the headlines really are full of such instances, the whole #### thing collapses, and kids, poor rich or otherwise, are simply exploited for their voucher value and can lose entire years of education. But hey, that's the exciting entrepreneurial marketplace.

But how is that different for charter schools? If anything, it seems like a feature that bad charter schools collapse more quickly than government schools. There are government schools that have been dysfunctional for years if not decades (see the link in #2077), which often graduate kids who are all but illiterate. I don't see many liberals complaining that the kids at the school in the link above lost "entire years of education." All I see are scare stories about random charter schools that typically serve a fraction of the kids at dysfunctional government schools.
   2098. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4768796)
Right, but most of the good public schools serve middle class and upper middle class, mostly white and asian, communities.


If only there were some organization with a chartered mandate to serve the least among us, to give their own coats and shirts in the furtherance of helping the lowly, with the guarantee of the greatest of all rewards to those who comply. I bet they'd handle this #### toot-sweet.
   2099. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4768805)
And you know, you can say the same of public schools. Where this idea comes from, that the public-school system is some vast sewer, is beyond me. Any y'all enemies of publics ever darkened the door of a public school? Most of them are very good, and their employees longsuffering and dedicated.

/raises hand.

"Most" and "very good" might be a bit of a stretch, but it's truly bizarre to see people blaming teachers and schools for the cultural failures that generate tough-to-teach kids. Our society isn't set up to educate kids well -- we don't value education in any way, really, other than in the elite precincts -- and there's no way teachers are going to overcome that massive structural flaw.
   2100. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4768814)
Vouchers are largely about giving these parents some say over their children's education;


No, vouchers are largely about trying to screw teachers unions. How many conservatives would still endorse vouchers if it came with the idea that all charter/private school teachers must also join the teacher's union?
Page 21 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-20-2014
(84 - 12:10am, Sep 21)
Last: Pirate Joe

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(74 - 12:08am, Sep 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(9 - 12:07am, Sep 21)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3397 - 12:06am, Sep 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(310 - 12:02am, Sep 21)
Last: Every Inge Counts

NewsblogAthletics out of top wild-card spot, Texas sweeps
(3 - 11:56pm, Sep 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(293 - 11:38pm, Sep 20)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

NewsblogEn Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction
(37 - 11:23pm, Sep 20)
Last:  

NewsblogLindbergh: Dellin Betances’s Season & Bullpen Strategy
(3 - 9:32pm, Sep 20)
Last: bobm

NewsblogEsquire: Martone: The Death of Derek Jeter
(312 - 9:20pm, Sep 20)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogKauffman Stadium ‘should be rocking’ as Royals face most important series in decades Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article2157217.html#storylink=cpy
(1 - 7:25pm, Sep 20)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(1 - 7:09pm, Sep 20)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogKeri: How Washington Built a World Series Favorite
(58 - 5:55pm, Sep 20)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(311 - 4:44pm, Sep 20)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(68 - 3:09pm, Sep 20)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

Page rendered in 0.9536 seconds
53 querie(s) executed