Lebron James ‘i promise school’ crushing it

Hells bells, I would say that I might be protesting too much...I'll give you that. Same time, you moved the goal posts. You are only now saying that GS was deliberate "to get the black community under the Democratic Party." But that is not what you argued in multiple comments and what I pressed you on multiple times.

I won't go back and quote them but your argument was unmistakably GS was passed to deliberately harm blacks, which is not the same as political pandering to get votes

FWIW, the quote you use about LBJ?

No evidence he ever uttered it, though he was known for using the N pejorative.

Yes, few would argue that it's better not to work than work. No disagreement.

But, there is a considerable flaw in your argument.

You can't simply pick random years before and after GS, then conclude that because 2017 had higher rates of black UE than from 1890-1954 that GS caused it. There can be a whole mess of different explanations for the differences.

*I have questions about how Williams (and the census) defined "active" and how this comports with current official definitions/measurements of LFPR and UE. Regardless, see above.

Anyway, it shouldn't be a surprise that blacks were active in the labor market. Whether they were *more active* than whites in 1900 is disputable. Not to mention, the 1910-1954 period also latently captures some percentage of the millions of blacks who were economically displaced from the south. If they were working and counted in those census, it's after a prior inability to find sustainable employment and after enduring having to move far from home to do so.

Consider this too, after Great Society, poverty & unemployment rates dropped considerably for blacks (all others too). But comparing late 1960s - 1970s employment numbers to 2017 requires more than just looking at which is higher or lower to draw conclusions. Think of it this way, in the several years leading up to 2017, black UE dropped during the long period of job creation after the great recession, reaching the lowest rate on record early in Trump's presidency.

Can we credit GS with that? Obama?

So to answer your question, I can't say with certainty what to expect based on your comparison.

If GS policies were put in place to incentivize not working, they seem to have had the opposite effect, reducing the UE rate and increasing employed considerably after 1965 (fwiw, job creation under LBJ is third highest among presidents since FDR). Anyway, the problem with the "disincentive to work argument" is twofold--there's no evidence that has found any significant disincentive effects, and two, the unemployment problem in the black community is primarily wrt poor blacks, in particular in urban communities around the country mired in transgenerational poverty, often dropping out of school, getting involved in juvenile delinquency & crime etc. This subset of the black population is in many respects in worse condition compared to poor whites.

Haven't tried to stomp you. Maybe it's that you don't like being challenged on your ideas and arguments?

Anyway, as I mentioned, I don't feel any need to prove myself to anyone, but you're making a classic error in thinking that someone debating you knows less than you, using ad hom in the process.

 

The issue with you had and that you seemed to have is I’m debating you I am only stating what I know to be true.

Also, I will keep this simple for you because you don’t seemed to be understand clearly. The GS can both get the black community to vote Democratic as well as to deliberately hurt the black community too. This breaks down your whole point and for some reason trying to counter and not help. What I have to tell women all the time. Two things can be true at the same time and it’s not a whoa I got you moment.

 

How can it do that when all of this comes down to individual choices made by individual people?

 

Was that LBJ quote a truth that you know?

If so, you might want ask yourself about what you think you know is true or not.

I understand very well. And while I don't disagree that two seemingly incongruent things can be true at the same time, it still doesn't get you around the fact that you didn't mention anything about getting the black community to vote Democratic the first several times you claimed that GS was a deliberate plan to harm blacks.

Maybe you thought it all along, I don't know, but you did not mention it until a comment to @mrhansduck . In any case, you haven't shown that either of those statements are true, just that you believe them to be.

 

Mostly the problem you’re going to have is that if you are right…then Mutz has to question his own faith. This kind of stuff is his religion.
That guy has flipped a page or two to get to where he’s landed today.
If you push him, and you have, he’ll fight you all day and night to prove his worth. After all, it’s a massive piece of his identity.

 

Outside forces are only acting upon and conspiring against other people, but not me and the people I know personally

 

The same reason why people can get on drugs knowing the downfalls, consequences, and circumstances that can come of it.

 

That LBJ quote is very known, you have already admitted to him being known to uttering that slur, but I guess it’s too far of a stretch for him the utter the rest? You choose to think that he didn’t said it, I choose to believe he said it and implemented it.

I don’t have to mention everything I believe on subject right a way to please some asinine rules you have on discussing topics. Again, two things can be true one the GS was deliberate to hurt the black community and two it benefited from getting the black community to vote democratic.

Also, I’ve broken down how this had effected the community in the years past, how it has taken fathers out the homes in the black community. How the black community has struggled because of it and how it’s been a choice of the people inside of the community. Which is the point in my first post on this subject, that has been the downfall of the black community. You can choose not to believe this or not. I don’t care. I don’t understand why you are stuck on rather it was the GS of not. Maybe you have a need to be right. The bottom line the fathers are not in the homes and that means children in fatherless homes are at the greatest detriment. The statistics back this up.

 

Choice, right?

 

Yes, there’s a choice to do these things, the key is to make people aware of their choices by explaining the pitfalls which was my point in the very beginning.

 

*EVERYONE* agrees fatherless homes is a negative, and that for whatever reason the black community has greater issues here. The disagreement is on causation. You just lay out a few points from history and try and show correlation, but you understand correlation and causation are not the same, right? Repeating it over and over will never establish the link. I’m sure Mutz is probably familiar with the old ice cream sales vs violent crime correlation. Whenever ice cream sales go up, violent crime does too. It’s demonstrable fact. Surely we must ban the sale of ice cream to prevent violent crime! But no, because there is no causal relationship it would be futile to do so. There is another factor at play, another variable connected to both. (hint: the hot weather).

I don’t think anyone argues against generally teaching kids ideals such as “personal responsibility” and “don’t be anybody’s victim” is an admirable if not 100% necessary message to ingrain in youth. I think financial literacy should be taught early as well. It might fall on deaf ears just as the “just say no to drugs” campaign, but can’t fault the message, and even if it only gets through to 10% that would be a positive.

The disagreement, are these blame games you are engaging in. It sort of comes off as a mishmash of right wing talking points you have embraced (LBJ, feminism, great society, black victimhood). I’ve yet to see an actual articulated solution to anything. Like… ok we get it, you don’t like “feminism”. Which is the thing that caught my eye, because I don’t think of uneducated, single, impoverished moms as “feminists” in the first place. The disconnect I saw is you are attributing blame and anger to “strong matriarchal women” and educated women, when statistically these real issues are actually coming from women with high school or less education. These uneducated women in the ghettos likely don’t even know what feminism is.

 

Seems to go without saying that if outside forces can act in a way to intentionally/unintentionally destroy communities as you have argued, individual choices aren't what they are cracked up to be, especially when confronting larger structural problems and powerful disruptive forces.

 

I think we all agree teaching personal responsibility is a good thing. In problem areas maybe you can even try novel ways of showing kids “tough love”, like taking them on a field trip to the nearest prison and saying “you don’t want to end up like this”. Problem is a crime ridden or gang area lot of them caught up in a cycle might already be intimately familiar with it. I’d imagine shock therapy would have its limits.

Back to the Lebron example, I’ve thought the best thing in the “extreme cases” would be to remove kids from those situations entirely. But clearly there is no appetite for that in terms of resources, obviously there are legal issues getting kids away from even junkies or totally unfit parents. It’s a very complex societal problem.

 

Believe what you want but using a quote in which there's no evidence of that LBJ ever saying it is nonsense. And look, you're the one making claims re: Great Society as being fact. And your'e doing it again now. That's your choice.

Thing is, I don't disagree with the general premise about effects from single-parent homes, but let me ask you this, can you explain why violent crime rates for blacks have dropped dramatically over the past 30 years despite persistently high levels of absent fathers?

I mean, if we are to believe that absentee fathers is the only reason for juvenile delinquency and crime, shouldn't violent crime remain somewhat constant relative to single-female headed households?


*Y axis not included: Graph is only meant to display the trends and are not based on the same y-axis measure.

 

I will respond to both @BLING and @mutz87 with this post because as I stated before I’m on vacation in the lovely country of Brazil with beautiful women all around and don’t have the time with going back and forth with two.

I will take it back to title of the thread to answer both of your questions and to deal with this going forward with the issues in the community.

To no one’s surprise, LeBron James’s solution to the academic woes to at risk Akron students is failing. Five years into the well financed “I Promise School” according to new reports, not a single eighth grader can pass Ohio’s math test. Also, just eight percent of the student body can read at an appropriate level.

LeBron James it appears is not the second coming of Joe Clark. The baseball bat carrying school principal immortalized in the movie Lean on Me. The I Promise School is what happens when public relations managers convince a well intentioned jock to chase Muhammad Ali’s legacy. By using fame and influence to concoct a utopian vision for middle school for poor kids. The I Promise school is a secular liberal fantasy. Taxpayers fit the overwhelming majority of the bill. A celebrity finances the luxuries and corporate media writes glowing fixtures at the schools launch. While returning years to explain away the failures while reminding everyone that the decision makers meant well. I Promise uses James’ money to buy school uniforms, good for families, job placement services for parents, bikes and helmets for each student, and Nike themed decorations inside the building. In LeBron’s mind and the minds of his progressive handlers, a lack of uniforms, food, bikes, affordable housing, and a mother with a high paying job are all that stood in the way of LeBron being an honor roll student in Junior High. Five years of I Promise blows up that myth.

America has been throwing money at schools for decades without any desirable progress. In order to excel, poor kids need the exact same things as rich kids. A Father in the home, preferably two of them. One should be called Daddy and the other should be called whatever deity you follow. Kids need Dads more than free lunches, bicycles, Nike shoes, and school uniforms. No serious person denies this. LeBron doesn’t deny it. He is rich, famous, and in great health, and could live the life of Hugh Hefner if desired to. He chose to marry his high school sweetheart and build a family. He’s given his three children what he was denied in childhood. A stable home with two parents.

LeBron James and celebrities like him should use his fame, money, and influence to promote marriage within the black community to which he proclaims allegiance. How you guys keep asking, by partnering with a church in Akron to promote the benefits of a biblical marriage and a close relationship with our real Father. Any athlete or celebrity, serious about addressing poor black people, should partner with a faith leader and a church.

You can’t trust greedy preachers you say. Ok, can you trust the black lesbian mansion purchasing marxists, who founded Black Lives Matters? Is it wiser to blow you money and credibility on bikes, helmets, and sneakers on Junior High students?

How many government and celebrity financed “step-daddy's” welfare, affirmative action, social justice initiatives, criminal justice reform, etc. (All out of the GS I might add) have to fail before we accept traditional family design as the solution?

It sounds I am picking on LeBron James, I am not. I used to think the same foolish stuff in my 20s as well. I did not place a high enough priority on family. I thought money could fix or improve everything.

 

If marriage and fathers in the home is so singularly important, why then did both property and violent crime rates for blacks drop by over 60% from 1994 to 2019 while single parenthood remained at very high levels?

As for LJ's school, one of the problems is that they're using a single indicator to basically claim his efforts have been a failure. Never mind it's a single exam, and tells us nothing about possible ways in which these extreme at-risk kids lives might have improved. For instance, maybe they're now less likely to be or get involved in juvenile delinquency? Maybe they're getting help in other ways that improve their life's chances and opportunities? Possible, right?

 

Because simply there was a war on crimes and more stricter gun laws instituted during that time which caused a reduction in crime. Also, there’s CCTV cameras became more prevalent as well.

Also, as I noting the students cannot read at an appropriate level sans eight percent. That’s another indication of poor results besides the test.

What do you have against having fathers in the home? Usually, when I have discussions in public forums the very people that are against it are fathers themselves, married, in the homes, and provide their own children the stability needed for a healthy upbringing. However, they will waste time debating this not to be case when it comes to the underprivileged children just to hold onto some kind of liberal progressive ideology while maintaining a conservative viewpoint in their very homes.

 

Fathers are extremely important. I feel like that’s a different issue than the marriage contract, but I’m open minded about it.

Iceland, for example, has high out of wedlock birth rates but fathers get paid leave, which seems cool and important for dads to bond with the baby. I would support that here. There, the family still lives together without the marriage license I guess? I assume they're as monogamous as other places?

Not saying Iceland proves anything but they are doing very well educationally so it’s an interesting data point in terms of analyzing variables, potential correlation versus causation, etc.

 

Without commenting on the merits of these causes, but treating them as true, doesn't this suggest that maybe the single-parent/absentee father issue as a cause of crime & delinquency isn't quite as important as you've insisted, and maybe this issue is just a wee bit more complicated? After all, we shouldn't expect a staggering 60-70% reduction in crime in the black community when absentee fathers remains staggeringly high.

I have absolutely nothing against fathers being in the home. I am saying that a fairly extensive constellation of factors ranging from individual to family to structural (in particular the concentration of poverty & disadvantage) that put kids at-risk are far more important to the equation than you want to believe. Another way to think about it, absentee fathers (however it might be measured) is much less significant in predicting delinquency and life outcomes for juveniles from the middle and upper classes, which is to say, fathers absent from the home cannot explain these differences. I am also saying that other family arrangements are not abnormal or worse than the traditional family structure and fathers don't necessarily need to be in the home to have a positive effect on male children.

What I am not saying is that fathers are not important.