FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

IIRC, that's the entire point of the #CrimingWhileWhite Twitter hashtag. White folks talking about doing blatantly criminal activity and getting a pass from the cops. Some guy mentioned he PUNCHED A COP IN THE FACE while drunk and the cop just drove him and his buddy home.

Honestly though I'm not going to believe a story simply because it's on twitter. The story could be true or it could just be a race-baiter.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

As I said, I think both groups have work to do. But, just like you as a teacher, it can't be all cops. You can be trained to be the best teacher possible and know every tactic available. However, if a few kids continually act disrespectful day after day, at some point you may fail them on an assignment or remove them from class when maybe it wasn't completely deserved. We are human beings after all.

But it's always on me to make the first move. Those with power have more responsibility than those without. That may or may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

You should care about that difference if you're sincere about this, because underlying societal racial prejudice is a completely different beast than overt conscious racism, and require completely different considerations to address.

No because the former is more prevalent and more difficult to address by orders of magnitude, and thus should be a much higher priority. I have at least some modicum of confidence that society is (slowly) improving in its ability to deal with overt racists.

Originally Posted by molson

Then, I described some ways of ways agencies try (and should try more, and harder) to address that type of underlying cultural prejudice. Do you disagree with those approaches, or have thoughts about what else can concretely be done, aside from just being angry?

This is pretty much how I can respond to yours and Arles' "how can we break this cycle?" questions as sincerely as possible: it is hard for me to overstate how much more emphasis should be placed on these approaches. If doing so raises the barrier of entry to becoming a police officer or temporarily reduces the amount of crime-stopping power that's out on the streets, so be it. Setting guidelines or having a conversation absolutely should not be enough; as it stands, there are not too many better-paying jobs for those with the level of education or training that the average police officer has.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

IIRC, that's the entire point of the #CrimingWhileWhite Twitter hashtag. White folks talking about doing blatantly criminal activity and getting a pass from the cops. Some guy mentioned he PUNCHED A COP IN THE FACE while drunk and the cop just drove him and his buddy home.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Honestly though I'm not going to believe a story simply because it's on twitter. The story could be true or it could just be a race-baiter.

Or just bullshit to sound cool. Not sure I know of any situation you punch a cop in the face and get a ride home. Unless they live in Moose Jaw Arkansas and the Cop is his brother.

Can't believe that this hashtag was created for any reason other than to troll people.

[RainMaker]

My priblem qith this whole thing is that I think people are picking bad examples of police brutality. It would be nice to address it, but these are not the cases.

I also don't think race plays as large a role as people are making it out to be. Cops are dicks to everyone.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My priblem qith this whole thing is that I think people are picking bad examples of police brutality. It would be nice to address it, but these are not the cases.

I also don't think race plays as large a role as people are making it out to be. Cops are dicks to everyone.

I don't mean to be antagonistic but based on Ben's story, what percentage do you believe that race played in that situation?

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

This is pretty much how I can respond to yours and Arles' "how can we break this cycle?" questions as sincerely as possible: it is hard for me to overstate how much more emphasis should be placed on these approaches. If doing so raises the barrier of entry to becoming a police officer or temporarily reduces the amount of crime-stopping power that's out on the streets, so be it. Setting guidelines or having a conversation absolutely should not be enough; as it stands, there are not too many better-paying jobs for those with the level of education or training that the average police officer has.

One change I'd make was to make this offer to every union - we'll give you more money and better benefits (hopefully increasing competition for the jobs,) and you make it easier for us to fire you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't mean to be antagonistic but based on Ben's story, what percentage do you believe that race played in that situation?

I'm sure it played a role. As Ben said, cops are always assessing risk. The same reason cops treated me differently when I was a teenager driving around with my friends than they do now. A white tattooed guy with a mohawk and wifebeater is going to be treated differently from a white guy in a suit. I don't know if that is fair or not, but it's part of police work. I do think cops owe people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

My issue is that I think cops are dicks universally to people. I don't think some wing of the KKK all decided to join the police force and decided to only treat black people poorly. I think if you punched a cop in the face, you'd take a beating regardless of race. That turning this into strictly a race issue ignores the bigger issue that police brutality hurts everyone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

One change I'd make was to make this offer to every union - we'll give you more money and better benefits (hopefully increasing competition for the jobs,) and you make it easier for us to fire you.

My offer would be that you get a little more money and benefits, but every dime we lose in lawsuits comes out of that. Would help with the self-policing I'd imagine.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't mean to be antagonistic but based on Ben's story, what percentage do you believe that race played in that situation?

100%, but that interaction represents maybe .001% of police interactions. My point in sharing that was simply to illustrate the sorts of things that happen. The fact that he was on heightened alert doesn't even mean that *he* is racist, for that matter. Given where he lives, dude probably goes for weeks at a time without seeing a black person where he doesn't need to be on heightened alert. That's the tough reality there.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm sure it played a role. As Ben said, cops are always assessing risk. The same reason cops treated me differently when I was a teenager driving around with my friends than they do now. A white tattooed guy with a mohawk and wifebeater is going to be treated differently from a white guy in a suit. I don't know if that is fair or not, but it's part of police work. I do think cops owe people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

My issue is that I think cops are dicks universally to people. I don't think some wing of the KKK all decided to join the police force and decided to only treat black people poorly. I think if you punched a cop in the face, you'd take a beating regardless of race. That turning this into strictly a race issue ignores the bigger issue that police brutality hurts everyone.

I don't think officers are dicks universally to people. Using Ben's example, it was obvious to him that the officer was not being a dick to the other drivers in front of him. Now maybe there are reasons other than race for the change in approach but I don't think it is unreasonable for him to believe that race played a large role in that situation. On the other hand, I would not expect the drivers of the vans in front of him to believe that race would not have played a role in the officer's decision based on their interaction with said officer. But to me, the important part of that story was all the prep work he did prior to his interaction with the officer. To do all that prep work to avoid being considered a risk is bad enough. To do it and still be treated as potential high risk candidate is worse.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

100%, but that interaction represents maybe .001% of police interactions. My point in sharing that was simply to illustrate the sorts of things that happen. The fact that he was on heightened alert doesn't even mean that *he* is racist, for that matter. Given where he lives, dude probably goes for weeks at a time without seeing a black person where he doesn't need to be on heightened alert. That's the tough reality there.

Note that I am not calling this officer a racist. Only that race played a large role in his decision making in that particular situation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't think officers are dicks universally to people. Using Ben's example, it was obvious to him that the officer was not being a dick to the other drivers in front of him. Now maybe there are reasons other than race for the change in approach but I don't think it is unreasonable for him to believe that race played a large role in that situation. On the other hand, I would not expect the drivers of the vans in front of him to believe that race would not have played a role in the officer's decision based on their interaction with said officer. But to me, the important part of that story was all the prep work he did prior to his interaction with the officer. To do all that prep work to avoid being considered a risk is bad enough. To do it and still be treated as potential high risk candidate is worse.

I'm certain race played a role in it. That's part of an officer's assessment. They look for things out of the ordinary. They play statistics. I don't think that's racism. It's unfair to Ben. He shouldn't have to go through all that to show he isn't a risk. Like I said, cops shouldn't assume the worst at every stop.

But I do understand some of it. If we were TSA agents for instance, we would all look at the 25-year old Muslim differently than the 80-year old woman in a wheelchair. I don't think that makes us racist.

I also disagree on the cops being dicks to all people. I think if Mike Brown was a 300-pound white guy who grabbed an officer's gun and charged at him, he would be dead too. This idea that a white guy can do whatever he wants to police and they just allow it is comical.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My offer would be that you get a little more money and benefits, but every dime we lose in lawsuits comes out of that. Would help with the self-policing I'd imagine.

No, it would close ranks and make it even less likely any officer came forward when a fellow officer did something egregiously wrong, because it would be taking money out of his pocket and every coworkers pocket.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also disagree on the cops being dicks to all people.

Lets not lump all cops as dicks though, I hardly consider my son a dick, but at the end of the day he is going to do what he needs to do to get home safely. Big difference between that and being dicks to all people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

No, it would close ranks and make it even less likely any officer came forward when a fellow officer did something egregiously wrong, because it would be taking money out of his pocket and every coworkers pocket.

Ranks don't get much more closed than they are now. At least now it comes oht of their checks and not taxpayers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Lets not lump all cops as dicks though, I hardly consider my son a dick, but at the end of the day he is going to do what he needs to do to get home safely. Big difference between that and being dicks to all people.

I didn't mean all cops are dicks. I meant the cops that are dicks are going to be dicks to everyone regardless.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm certain race played a role in it. That's part of an officer's assessment. They look for things out of the ordinary. They play statistics. I don't think that's racism. It's unfair to Ben. He shouldn't have to go through all that to show he isn't a risk. Like I said, cops shouldn't assume the worst at every stop.

But I do understand some of it. If we were TSA agents for instance, we would all look at the 25-year old Muslim differently than the 80-year old woman in a wheelchair. I don't think that makes us racist.

I also disagree on the cops being dicks to all people. I think if Mike Brown was a 300-pound white guy who grabbed an officer's gun and charged at him, he would be dead too. This idea that a white guy can do whatever he wants to police and they just allow it is comical.

I dread entering this area of conversation but here we go. If a TSA agent is looking for 25 years old Muslim men (my distinction on gender) differently, can you really say that the TSA agent being a dick to all people? That seems to suggest that all Muslim men should be viewed as suspect until proven otherwise. Isn't that what you said should not be done to white police officers?

We are just going to have agree to disagree on your last point. Personal experiences lead me to a different conclusion.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I didn't mean all cops are dicks. I meant the cops that are dicks are going to be dicks to everyone regardless.

I think that is the most dicks I have ever seen in so few words

[ColtCrazy]

Members of the UN now expressing concern over recent events in the US according to the BBC.

[Buccaneer]

In my opinion, the real concern is not in the actions of the perpetrators (people have been and will always fight each other) but in the legal system that seems to not indict when it is obvious to do so; therefore, not giving consequences for those actions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Members of the UN now expressing concern over recent events in the US according to the BBC.

Members of the U.N. are welcome to take their worthless asses home & bitch all they want.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And hell, it was only 1985 when the the United Supreme Court first held that it was a 4th Amendment violation for an officer to use intentionally lethal force on a fleeing felon suspect.

Another tragic mistake by SCOTUS, but hey, they've made a ton of those in my lifetime alone.

today we'd sympathize much more with the drug dealer than the officer.

I won't disagree with you ... but it's a prime example of why this country really is beyond repair.

[RainMaker]

Why doesn't the UN express concern when 30 people get shot every weekend in Chicago?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why doesn't the UN express concern when 30 people get shot every weekend in Chicago?

Because if one of the murders is caught on video then you can bet the murderer is going to spend a good deal of time in prison.

ETA: Unless of course the murderer is a cop.

[RainMaker]

Clearance rate is 25% in Chicago. Hundreds of unsolved murders every year. Maybe if someone busts out a smartphone the UN will care about them too.

The message being sent is that black lives matter only when a white cop kills them. Otherwise, just another day at the office.

[RainMaker]

College student shot and killed by Loyola tonight. How many of the protesters will know his name?

Alderman: Loyola Student Fatally Shot During Attempted Armed Robbery « CBS Chicago

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Because if one of the murders is caught on video then you can bet the murderer is going to spend a good deal of time in prison.

ETA: Unless of course the murderer is a cop.

Bingo. But let them keep banging the black on black drum, to distract from cops getting beneficial treatment when killing folks. It was really funny when a few months ago when these folks were saying "where's the rally for black on black crime in Chicago" and then they were shown a rally held by civil right leader, including Al Sharpton, in 2013 in Chicago which, of course, they didn't care to notice. There was another one by Chicago churches this July. Again, not noticed.

Offense intended, y'all just sound like a bunch of racists when you miss the point that completely.

[RainMaker]

What's the point? That you value the life of a black person only when he's killed by a white cop. I mean police killings are terrible, but they're a tiny fraction of the homicides in this country. A tiny fraction of the killings in the black community.

I'd actually like to see the homicide rate in those communities fall, which is why I think the focus should be on the issues that would help that number fall. That's of course racist.

[RainMaker]

And there are definitely people who are trying in Chicago. Mainly religious leaders that genuinely care and are doing the best they can with limited resources. They can't get the same size of protests or the attention from the media. Maybe because they actually protest in the affected neighborhoods and not in the Loop where the protest tourists feel safe enough to come in from the suburbs to participate.

And Sharpton is a race-hustling bigot who comes to the city to raise money for his organization. Don't mix him in with anyone who is actually trying to enact change in this city.

[Dutch]

Well, it doesn't help that when black people "step out of line" by speaking their individual opinion they are decimated by the media.

Charles Barkley, wrong on race (Opinion) - CNN.com

This article could have easily been titled --> "Woah, woah, woah, black man, get back in line..."

[Dutch]

Here's a way that Ferguson (for instance) can turn things around...and no cop (black or white) is going to have an effect on this. It's completely up to that community to fix.

Ferguson Schools - Ferguson, MO | GreatSchools

If the black community can fix this, that's 90% of the battle right there. If a white cop rolls into a "Black Mayberry" racism dies (or more accurately, prejudicial/fearful thoughts).

[JPhillips]

It's not as simple as the community fixing their schools.

Michael Brown graduated from Normandy High School, which was located, until recently, in the Normandy School District. The facts here are a bit complex, but note that I said “until recently.” That is because the Normandy School district lost its accreditation in 2012 due to dismal standardized test scores. (Normandy was one of only three out of 500 school districts in Missouri to lose its accreditation.) The state school board took over the Normandy School District and renamed it the “Normandy School Collaborative.” By 2013, though, the new district also had lost its accreditation. Missouri law allows students of failed districts to transfer to higher-performing schools in surrounding suburbs, but the failing school district has to pay tuition and transportation costs to get the kids to their new schools. The 1,000 transfer students of Normandy obviously had no desire to remain in the “new” failed district, but the cost was high, so, incredibly, the state board voted to waive accreditation of the Collaborative rather than classify the new district as unaccredited. Ferguson’s teenagers were therefore trapped in a failed school because state politicians didn’t want to pay for them to transfer out.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's not as simple as the community fixing their schools.

Oh snap, you're absolutely right, Ferguson, you just keep doing your 1 out of 10 rated high schools then. Is that what you are saying?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Oh snap, you're absolutely right, Ferguson, you just keep doing your 1 out of 10 rated high schools then. Is that what you are saying?

You are grossly oversimplifying a complex situation. In the huge majority of cases, schools don't fail because they need to be "fixed" in terms of better teachers, more resources, etc. They fail because the communities they serve are struggling. Put a bunch of kids in school who are underprepared, often undernourished, and usually don't get the encouragement/motivation that kids in schools that are doing well get, and that school usually performs poorly.

My daughter goes to an elementary school that is a "9" by Great Schools. The district to the southeast of us (a little closer to the "city') is an 8. The district to the northwest of us is a 10. The 8 district has more poor kids of all races than our 9. And our 9 district has more poor kids of all races than the 10. It's not that the teachers and resources are any different. It's the clientele. Sure, poorer kids CAN perform well, but they very frequently start out behind and don't get the support/motivation from home that kids who come from homes of more means do.

In short "fix the schools," quite often means "fix poverty." Sure, I can point to kids who grew up in poverty who made it out. My father is one of them. But for every one I can point to who made it out, I can point to 20ish more who didn't.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What's the point? That you value the life of a black person only when he's killed by a white cop. I mean police killings are terrible, but they're a tiny fraction of the homicides in this country. A tiny fraction of the killings in the black community.

I'd actually like to see the homicide rate in those communities fall, which is why I think the focus should be on the issues that would help that number fall. That's of course racist.

Why can't the focus be on both? Why do we have to ignore the former to concentrate on the other? This is the issue for me. We are not asking the other communities to focus exclusively on crimes based on proximity (as most murders are) at the expense of abusive actions taken by the authorities on that community.

I do agree with you on one point with one slight change. There is a real perception that black lives do not matter whether the killer is black OR white.

[SackAttack]

Say, Dutch. I don't suppose that maybe part of why schools fail has to do with resource allocation; they're often funded by property taxes, and wealthier enclaves pay more tax. That tax, in turn, provides better funding for the local schools, which in turn pays for better teachers, more classrooms, computers, and other necessaries.

I wonder whether schools in predominantly black areas have similar property values to their analogues in predominantly white areas. I wonder if they have the resources available to provide a comparable quality of education to that which white students in other areas receive.

I wonder whether citizens of wealthier parts of Missouri (or other states) might be willing to pay higher state income taxes in order to provide a baseline of funding for schools in poorer areas so they can be "fixed."

I wonder whether wealthier citizens are more likely to spend money on their local schools' fundraisers, or more likely to have significant dollars to contribute to candy bar sales, book sales, 50/50 raffles, or anything else.

Hint: I don't actually wonder those things. That is how things actually work. Ferguson's ability to "fix its schools" is almost entirely dependent on factors it does not control.

Now, to be sure, "Fixing the schools" is a fantastic way to provide better opportunities for underprivileged children. Actually DOING SO has all kinds of moving parts involved, and even if none of them involve active racism, many of them still involve racial roadblocks. It turns out, see, that while "separate but equal" was anything but, the same effect can be achieved without the state actively mandating it - all that's required is for the wealthy to move away from the poor. You don't need deadlines to keep minorities out of richer white neighborhoods. You just need to exercise social mobility to remove yourself from "that element."

You want some ways to fix the schools? Here's a few suggestions:

1) have property tax collected by the state and have the state then distribute those dollars equitably among the various counties. Yes, that means you'll see the "blue state/red state" phenomenon on a micro scale, where wealthier districts are subsidizing poorer districts.

2) Require any teacher who wants to teach in the state to first spend some period of time - five years, say - teaching in "at-risk" districts before they can transfer to another district. That's not going to stop the best teachers from fleeing to the wealthier schools, but it will at least expose at-risk children to them.

3) Require the same for tenure. If you haven't at some point previously spent a certain amount of time teaching in low-income areas, the amount of time it takes to qualify for tenure is longer by the pro-rated equivalent period. If it normally takes 5 years, and the requirement is 3 years teaching in a low-income area, but you've only put in 1 year? You need 7 to qualify for tenure. Waive that requirement for teachers in low-income areas.

4) Tie at least some portion of eligibility for pay increases to time spent teaching in an "at-risk" district. There are a variety of ways you could do that. You could have things on a sliding scale where your eligibility for a particular increase above COLA was based on that service time. 1-3 years, 4-6 years, 7+ years, say. You might check off every other box on the list for your pay raise, but if you haven't also spent time in an at-risk district, you don't get more than basic COLA.

5) Have the state assign student attendance so that you get a racial and economic mix in each school. And, yes, the student has to live within the district boundaries. No busing the rich white kids in from the suburbs.

#5 is radical enough that you will never see it happen in this country. #3/4 probably have some collective bargaining ramifications. #2 could be accomplished by any given state's legislature. #1 is probably the "easiest" of the bunch, but would a) be denounced by a certain element as punishing whites so that blacks can have handouts and b) probably has little chance of happening in a "red" state. Too socialist!

Poverty's kind of a pernicious sonofabitch, isn't it? When the schools suck, it's tough for the kids to get the education they need to lift themselves out of poverty, and if they somehow manage to accomplish that, they're probably not going back home to raise the standard of living for their community. The jobs aren't there because the education base isn't there.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You are grossly oversimplifying a complex situation. In the huge majority of cases, schools don't fail because they need to be "fixed" in terms of better teachers, more resources, etc. They fail because the communities they serve are struggling. Put a bunch of kids in school who are underprepared, often undernourished, and usually don't get the encouragement/motivation that kids in schools that are doing well get, and that school usually performs poorly.

My daughter goes to an elementary school that is a "9" by Great Schools. The district to the southeast of us (a little closer to the "city') is an 8. The district to the northwest of us is a 10. The 8 district has more poor kids of all races than our 9. And our 9 district has more poor kids of all races than the 10. It's not that the teachers and resources are any different. It's the clientele. Sure, poorer kids CAN perform well, but they very frequently start out behind and don't get the support/motivation from home that kids who come from homes of more means do.

In short "fix the schools," quite often means "fix poverty." Sure, I can point to kids who grew up in poverty who made it out. My father is one of them. But for every one I can point to who made it out, I can point to 20ish more who didn't.

This is also an excellent point. That's not to take away from the resource issue I raised, but yeah - kids who are hungry, who don't get enough sleep because they live in a rough neighborhood, who have to get up earlier to take the bus to school because their parents can't drive them, or who have to walk to school and expend that energy (while still being undernourished), etc...those are all kids whose academic performance is going to suffer to begin with. Then you have the resource issue that limits the quality of the education they can absorb, so far as they're able to absorb an education at all.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

In short "fix the schools," quite often means "fix poverty." Sure, I can point to kids who grew up in poverty who made it out. My father is one of them. But for every one I can point to who made it out, I can point to 20ish more who didn't.

Thank you. This is exactly where the issues are. Fix poverty.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd actually like to see the homicide rate in those communities fall, which is why I think the focus should be on the issues that would help that number fall. That's of course racist.

Except that the biggest thing you can do, over time, to bring down homicide numbers is to tackle poverty. Give kids something resembling a future, and gang affiliations don't look so attractive. Give them a way out and a way up, and they're not hanging around as the 24-year-old high school dropout who chose a life of crime because the unemployment rate is triple for young black men what it is for the country at-large.

And the biggest thing you can do to attack poverty is to address the schools, but you can't leave it up to a poor community to do the things a poor community's schools need in order to improve. It takes a collective societal effort to make that happen.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You don't need deadlines to keep minorities out of richer white neighborhoods.

No, but sometimes red lines help with that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Oh snap, you're absolutely right, Ferguson, you just keep doing your 1 out of 10 rated high schools then. Is that what you are saying?

Don't be purposefully obtuse.

The state set up a system with the goal of allowing students to move to better schools if their school was a failure. When that happened in Ferguson the state refused to spend the money to send the students to better schools and changed the rules so the failing school passed. How is the Ferguson community supposed to fix that?

As others have said, fixing the schools requires collective action beyond poor communities. I'm all for that, but politicians have spent the past decade reducing resources for schools. How do you see Ferguson changing that?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No, but sometimes red lines help with that.

Ah, right. Thanks. I was mixing that up with another term that also has racial connotations, but not the one I was going for.

[nol]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No, but sometimes red lines help with that.

Coincidentally speaking, care to take a guess where the circled region in 1937 St. Louis happens to be located?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Except that the biggest thing you can do, over time, to bring down homicide numbers is to tackle poverty. Give kids something resembling a future, and gang affiliations don't look so attractive. Give them a way out and a way up, and they're not hanging around as the 24-year-old high school dropout who chose a life of crime because the unemployment rate is triple for young black men what it is for the country at-large.

And the biggest thing you can do to attack poverty is to address the schools, but you can't leave it up to a poor community to do the things a poor community's schools need in order to improve. It takes a collective societal effort to make that happen.

It is only going to get worse because of the movement to online education. Poor won't have access to any way to get connected. Those with money get the tech needed to learn tech jobs and therefore get them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

This is also an excellent point. That's not to take away from the resource issue I raised, but yeah - kids who are hungry, who don't get enough sleep because they live in a rough neighborhood, who have to get up earlier to take the bus to school because their parents can't drive them, or who have to walk to school and expend that energy (while still being undernourished), etc...those are all kids whose academic performance is going to suffer to begin with. Then you have the resource issue that limits the quality of the education they can absorb, so far as they're able to absorb an education at all.

Kids that are hungry? Our poor are the fattest in the world. Waking up earlier than others is typically a sign of successful people. So I think you may be overstating that one. Walking and exercising is also misplaced here! I'll give you the rough neighborhood thing though...drugs and gangs are a huge problem for those who do not want any part of it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Waking up earlier than others is typically a sign of successful people.

Heh - yeah, I'd much rather get up for my 6AM migrant farmworker job than my 8:20 IT one.

[Jukeman]

Being fat doesn't mean you are eating well. Most of the cheapest foods are the worst stuff to eat and doesn't help with focus. Eating a grilled cheese for breakfast, school lunch and hot dogs for dinner doesn't scream nutrition...

Heck, you'd be lucky to even get breakfast if your parents aren't even there to fix you anything because they have to leave out for work extra early and there isn't any cereal or milk in the house. Only hope would be to make it to school breakfast on time...Which I can only imagine is impossible in my city now days because they have shut down more than half of the public schools...So That mean more travel time to other areas.

[RainMaker]

It is not expensive or difficult to eat cheap. Terrible myth that gives people an excuse.

[JPhillips]

If there's one thing I can't stand it's all those poor children lying about being hungry.