No mental health issue in america.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.

And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.

As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more

You do realize he's just a paid political troll don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more

I don 't know who is worried about what you post, I'm certainly not one who is worried about you post, certainly not worried about this typically uninformative, incoherent, irrelevant, useless, and rather ignorant response to what I said.

But carry on because "some here" are shivering with worry over what hallucination you might sputter out next.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...


The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...


The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.

Why is the union entitled to a cent of my money, if I don’t want to give it to them? And why, when union membership becomes voluntary, do so many people opt out?

I was a public schoolteacher a million years ago. I know a little bit about public unions. They could teach the mafia a few things about greed and corruption and strong arm tactics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

To join the local rifle club I had to join the NRA, I wasn't happy about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.

But you should run, even if i disagree with you. Running will push the view in your direction and if you believe in what you say that should be important to you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you should run, even if i disagree with you. Running will push the view in your direction and if you believe in what you say that should be important to you.

Thanks. The other reason why I don't run? As much as I believe my opinions are based on common sense, fiscal sanity, and also a respect for teachers...teachers hate my opinions, and I don't want to piss off the people who teach my kids. I have 3 boys in elementary school. I will share my views with my friends and family who teach in other towns, but I don't let my kids' teachers know what I think, as far as they know, I'm as pro union as Jimmy Hoffa.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

I thought Train Wreck might be more appropriate

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

I think I pointed that out to the McKenzie Brother....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.

You specifically referred to Blacks and Hispanics. Which infers a comparison to others. Even if the rates of abortions for all groups has dropped, the rates for blacks compared to whites and Asians and Hispanics, has dramatically risen. So then the number of births per 1000 pregnancies would have become less for blacks, dramatically than for whites, Asians, and Hispanics. That portion of the lower Black birth rate due to abortions would affect the rate of growth in the size of the Black population vis a vis others. Which supports to some degree the idea that the native Black population is diminishing or growing less in comparison to other races which Jim exaggerated with his usual hyperbole when he said : "liberalism is convincing blacks to abort themselves almost out of existence."

All else equal, a drop in abortion rates and a drop in birth rates means a drop in pregnancy rates, which refutes your statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You talked about birth rates before, but you change to pregnancy rates here. In either case, how does a drop in abortion rates decrease either birth or pregnancy rates. Won't higher abortion rates cause a drop in birth rates? Or vice versa, won't lower abortion rates (lower number of abortions per 1000 pregnancies) increase the number of births per 1000 thus increasing the birth rates (number of births per 1000 pregnancies)?

And what do either birth or abortion rates have to do with pregnancy rates if "Pregnancy rate is the success rate for getting pregnant. It is the percentage of all attempts that leads to pregnancy, with attempts generally referring to menstrual cycles where insemination or any artificial equivalent is used, which may be simple artificial insemination (AI) or AI with additional in vitro fertilization."?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You talked about birth rates before, but you change to pregnancy rates here. In either case, how does a drop in abortion rates decrease either birth or pregnancy rates? I can see how that isn't clear. It isn't that the drop in abortion causes the the decrease in birth rates. If the birth rate dropped and abortion rates dropped, then pregnancy rates had to drop, which is the case. Fewer black and hispanic teens get pregnant each year now than 25 years ago. Also, ~5% fewer have sex before the age of 18 than in the 1990's


And what do either birth or abortion rates have to do with pregnancy rates if "Pregnancy rate is the success rate for getting pregnant. It is the percentage of all attempts that leads to pregnancy, with attempts generally referring to menstrual cycles where insemination or any artificial equivalent is used, which may be simple artificial insemination (AI) or AI with additional in vitro fertilization."?
You are right that if you go to wikipedia, you get the definition of pregnancy rate that you quoted. However, the literature related to pregnancy and birthrates also use the term pregnancy rate differently: the number of women out of 1000 who become pregnant.
i.e.
Kost K and Maddow-Zimet I, U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2011: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us...cy-trends-2011.

Me: By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.

You: Abortion

You are wrong about why teen birth rates among blacks and hispanics are 25% of what they were in 1990.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Me: By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.

I'm not getting your point about "Republican leadership." Birth rates would have to do with a mixture of various factors including cultural values and state politics. States with larger populations tend to be Democrat run. Large urban areas are also usually run by Democrats. National statistics can be skewed to a great extent by large states and cities. During that 12 years, a great deal of political leadership was by Democrats in the Big states and cities. State governments would have had more influence than the federal government on their own rates. And there was a great deal of Democrat leadership in the federal Congress during that time. And the uptick in birth rates began before that 12 year period. So, the correlation between either Republican or Democrat leadership and the rise and fall of birth rates in that 12 year span is unclear, and possibly less relevant than other factors.

You: Abortion

I didn't say abortion was the only reason. It was a contributing factor, especially in the comparative decrease in population between the races.

You are wrong about why teen birth rates among blacks and hispanics are 25% of what they were in 1990.

I am not wrong that teen birth rates were impacted more among blacks and Hispanics by abortion than among whites. The abortion rates are 300% higher for blacks than for whites. Whatever factors exist in producing birth rate figures, abortion is one. And that factor is significant when comparing races. The birth rate would significantly increase for blacks if their abortion rate was comparable to whites. You brought up blacks and Hispanics. That's what I addressed.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I am not wrong that teen birth rates were impacted more among blacks and Hispanics by abortion than among whites. The abortion rates are 300% higher for blacks than for whites. Whatever factors exist in producing birth rate figures, abortion is one. And that factor is significant when comparing races. The birth rate would significantly increase for blacks if their abortion rate was comparable to whites. You brought up blacks and Hispanics. That's what I addressed.

I quoted you. You said one word when you replied to my post- abortion. You didn't say the rates were impacted more by abortion for blacks than whites. You said abortion as the explanation for the drop in birth rates. You can keep trying. I'm done with it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I quoted you. You said one word when you replied to my post- abortion. You didn't say the rates were impacted more by abortion for blacks than whites. You said abortion as the explanation for the drop in birth rates. You can keep trying. I'm done with it.

There was a lot of discussion which followed both your baldly stated fact in response to Jim that birth rates were lower after twelve years of Republican leadership and my baldly stated "abortion" as a support to what Jim had said. After that, you, as well as I, proceeded to explain what and why we said what we said.

It seemed to start with your: "The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia." From which you immediately jumped to your statement that birth rates had dropped after twelve years of Republican leadership. From there we went back and forth fleshing out my single word and your simple statement.

You didn't refute what I said. You certainly didn't refute that abortion has an effect on birth rate, even more so on black birth rate. Nor did you show how Republican leadership was responsible for higher birth and abortion rates. Your Guttmacher Org. link didn't connect lowered birth rate to Republicans. It posited more use of, and better, contraceptives and the influence of economic conditions as reasons for the lowered birth rates. It mentioned that "Wide differences in birth and abortion rates (as opposed to pregnancy rates) also persist across racial and ethnic groups." Which, since you had specified black and Hispanic teens, is what I addressed and pointed out, indeed, that the black birth rate was suppressed far more in blacks than in whites due to abortion.

If all that exasperates you, then by all means be done with it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It seemed to start with your: "The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia." From which you immediately jumped to your statement that birth rates had dropped after twelve years of Republican leadership.

No, I didn't immediately jump to the birth rate statement. It was part of a response to:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Completely in context. You just missed the context. Now I am really done

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, I didn't immediately jump to the birth rate statement. It was part of a response to:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Completely in context. You just missed the context. Now I am really done

I was referring to the start of the back and forth between you and me. But I can see why you responded to Jim the way you did. I just think you made an oversimplified and misleading statement. It's a lot more complex, and telling, when one gets into the weeds of the argument. Abortion impacts black birth rates a lot more than it does white rates.

And abortion has an effect on the subject of this thread--mental health issue in America. I suppose it can be seen as having either a positive or negative effect, depending on circumstances. It may be positive for the mental health of poor single black women. I don't think so. But I can understand the opposite view. Discussing that would be getting farther into the weeds. But that would be more germane to the notion of "family values" and what effect those values have on American culture, even how the deterioration of those values can produce mass killers.

[wdmso]

back to MH issues

Florida House Declines Debate On Assault Rifles,
in a matter of three minutes. The bill would have prohibited the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and required “certificates of possession” for lawfully-possessed firearms, among other measures.



An hour later, Rep. Ross Spano turned the lawmakers’ attention to more pressing matters: pornography. The bill (HR 157) argued that it was “creating a public health risk” and was “contributing to the hypersexualization of children and teens.”