We ought to bus them all by lottery. Randomize the entire school system's population into units of equal size by grade level. We have enough hours in the day to spend an additional hour transporting them each way. We need to do something to put an end to this disgusting racism once and for all.
Maybe you should hire someone with Math skills to help y'all check these figures before you publish. We have many people in the community who could use the work. Only a small number of our Math majors are going to be able to find work teaching or working at an insurance company. Surly you can get some help with the numbers.
Responding to a survey implies that this is convenience sampling: college classes in statistics have been teaching for years the weaknesses of those methods.
The editorial misuses the word "population." I believe the word you're looking for is "sample." There's a big difference in stats between those two terms. The descriptions of the math used in a survey will often be so specific, I don't see how you're going to summarize or abbreviate it and still have it mean something. Maybe just show us the study instead.
It sounds like any of the Math majors at UTC and Chattanooga State could have helped Vandy come up with something that looked like a better experiment. The whole poll sounds like a wreck from start to finish.
It'll be Obama in 2012 anyway. The Republicans didn't provide a candidate with the vision, viewpoint, goals, or the intellectual and ethical capacity to hold office. Obama 2012.
Was Jesus "spawned" or "born"? How about your own kids? If feeding them required the community's help, would you characterize the birth of your own children with words usually applied to lower life forms?
Using the cost of providing help as an excuse for denigrating someone's existence is a low blow. That's what this editorial is really about: insulting people over survival bills.
We accepted everyone else, regardless of cost, so far. We didn't ask the editorial writer what his birth cost our people. Almost no one lives today who won't need help from the group at some point in their lives.
While it's obvious that those two people cited in the essay have gone overboard with their choice to have unprotected sex and reproduce, it's not acceptable to insult the existence of those children who are the result of that conduct.
As I read this editorial, that was one of the messages I received: that the Free Press thinks that if your life is not profitable, then it's not worth having or witnessing. I think those kinds of priorities are out of whack.
Would you have our elderly residents apologize for their existence? If their parents had thought things through better, then maybe they wouldn't have lived to be old and poor.
People over 65 make up a rapidly growing segment of our impoverished population. It might serve the editors well to recognize that by insulting the value of life of the poor, you may be insulting a significant sample of this paper's readership.
As a community, we value the lives of all of our citizens equally. Implying that some people's lives are a burden on the community because they are poor is not the right example to set for our community.
The very choice to use the word "spawned" in the editorial above was offensive to me. Would you treat rich white people's kids like fish? It's okay, though, if the people involved are poor and black, though, huh?
"Born" or "raised" would be the term a professional journalist might have used. Please avoid using animal-related words when referring to the poor. Especially avoid using animal-related words when referring to ethnic minorities. Thanks.
If you want to understand just what a disaster this Littlefield administration plan is for sewers, then look no further than Cleveland, Tennessee.
Yep, Cleveland.
Ask those residents about how they felt about moving into communities where $125,000 to $250,000 homes were packed shoulder to shoulder: all on septic tanks.
All on ground that doesn't perc'.
Then, after the people moved in, it was time to get some city sewer in there. New homeowners hit the roof. They thought they were moving to a community with lower taxes. Instead, they were moving to a community where no one had paid the bills until new people moved in. When it was time for a major project overhaul, the expenses were sky high and the list of tasks to be done was lengthy. It dragged on for months, if not years, in some residential lots. That's the story of mid-90s community development in some of the middle class neighborhoods in Cleveland.
It's analogous to what's being described here with the stormwater runoff plans. The observable reality is that our city is elevated: underground Chattanooga is not only a rat's nest of utility tangles, but it's also a major drainage problem.
Think about it. Does anyone know how water flows through that maze? What about groundwater not immediately contained by a pipe? I doubt anyone has a good answer. It's a major problem.
Once again, our elected officials are trying to cheap their way out of building a solution. We can't just ignore problems forever.
UT Chattanooga and other colleges in our state are churning out engineers every semester. We have people around who can be smart enough to help us understand these problems and come up with an answer. We don't have to hide from the truth. We can find a way to take this on and come up with a plan that makes sense.
But, we won't do that if Littlefield gets his way.
Have a reporter call up Cleveland Public Works and check out Cleveland's troubles in the 90s. I forget the name of the man who ran the place back then, but there was one kingpin who had to whip that sewer problem into shape. I'm sure he got an earful daily from residents about how that kind of planning was much, much more expensive than maintaining and improving an existing sewer.
It pays for communities to invest in sewers because everyone's got to flush the toilet.
Littlefield's plan: cheap enough to be expensive. Exercise leadership and come up with a real plan to solve real problems. We don't elect people to be ignorant and to ignore problems the community has. We need solutions.
When you vote for a mayor next time, ask yourself: is this person smart enough to get help when we need it?
His donors include: Unum ($28,000), a Republican PAC called the Freedom Project ($15,000), Check Into Cash ($12,700) and others. Businesses that sound local include: Blalock Construction, Ingram Industries, Blue Cross Blue Shield, McKee Bakery, Astec, Republic Parking and US Express.
Representative Fleischmann has apparently accepted almost as much in PAC contributions alone as the other candidates are raising altogether. Apparently, 30% of his campaign has already been bought off by outside interests.
We don't need superpacs when Senator Corker was paid $61,000 by J.P. Morgan during his campaign. Today, he sat on a committee "regulating" them.
"Not regulating them" might be a better way of describing it.
Senator Corker apparently spent all $61,000 of their money on remembering why he should not protect the financial health of this country. Instead, he sided with the corrupt bankers who paid him off.
Instead of saying that J.P. Morgan was irresponsible in its dealings that lost $3 Billion, he blamed the CFTC. Republicans had defenestrated that agency back in the 1990s.
Their subsequent illegally weak insurance deals cost us dearly as Baby Boomers retired with the close of the Bush Administration: the house of cards built to pump up paper trade profits with an extra-thick layer of insurance fraud crashed. Today, Senator Bob Corker covered those Big Bank CEOs instead of holding them to account.
When Senator Corker accepts $61,000 in open campaign contributions, and then sides with corrupt banks: the superpacs are not our only worries. Outright corruption is the result of poor character and poorer choices on the part of our elected officials.
Bill Senator Corker for all $61,000 in corrupt campaign contributions he received from J.P. Morgan. Insist that he regulate those disgustingly greedy bankers who damaged our economy.
Senator Bob Corker: bought off with $61,000 from J.P. Morgan.
The editorial's statistic does not describe the time frame involved. They don't mention the scope or intensity of the effect of the 18 prescriptions per resident. Over a lifetime, it'd be easy to get 18 'scripts. Also, they don't discuss what those 'scripts are for. It's just a trick of numbers, I think.
De facto segregation a threat
We ought to bus them all by lottery. Randomize the entire school system's population into units of equal size by grade level. We have enough hours in the day to spend an additional hour transporting them each way. We need to do something to put an end to this disgusting racism once and for all.
Voters beware
Maybe you should hire someone with Math skills to help y'all check these figures before you publish. We have many people in the community who could use the work. Only a small number of our Math majors are going to be able to find work teaching or working at an insurance company. Surly you can get some help with the numbers.
Voters beware
Responding to a survey implies that this is convenience sampling: college classes in statistics have been teaching for years the weaknesses of those methods.
The editorial misuses the word "population." I believe the word you're looking for is "sample." There's a big difference in stats between those two terms. The descriptions of the math used in a survey will often be so specific, I don't see how you're going to summarize or abbreviate it and still have it mean something. Maybe just show us the study instead.
It sounds like any of the Math majors at UTC and Chattanooga State could have helped Vandy come up with something that looked like a better experiment. The whole poll sounds like a wreck from start to finish.
It'll be Obama in 2012 anyway. The Republicans didn't provide a candidate with the vision, viewpoint, goals, or the intellectual and ethical capacity to hold office. Obama 2012.
Abysmal behavior and a lack of personal responsibility
"Spawned," huh?
Was Jesus "spawned" or "born"? How about your own kids? If feeding them required the community's help, would you characterize the birth of your own children with words usually applied to lower life forms?
Using the cost of providing help as an excuse for denigrating someone's existence is a low blow. That's what this editorial is really about: insulting people over survival bills.
We accepted everyone else, regardless of cost, so far. We didn't ask the editorial writer what his birth cost our people. Almost no one lives today who won't need help from the group at some point in their lives.
While it's obvious that those two people cited in the essay have gone overboard with their choice to have unprotected sex and reproduce, it's not acceptable to insult the existence of those children who are the result of that conduct.
As I read this editorial, that was one of the messages I received: that the Free Press thinks that if your life is not profitable, then it's not worth having or witnessing. I think those kinds of priorities are out of whack.
Would you have our elderly residents apologize for their existence? If their parents had thought things through better, then maybe they wouldn't have lived to be old and poor.
People over 65 make up a rapidly growing segment of our impoverished population. It might serve the editors well to recognize that by insulting the value of life of the poor, you may be insulting a significant sample of this paper's readership.
As a community, we value the lives of all of our citizens equally. Implying that some people's lives are a burden on the community because they are poor is not the right example to set for our community.
The very choice to use the word "spawned" in the editorial above was offensive to me. Would you treat rich white people's kids like fish? It's okay, though, if the people involved are poor and black, though, huh?
"Born" or "raised" would be the term a professional journalist might have used. Please avoid using animal-related words when referring to the poor. Especially avoid using animal-related words when referring to ethnic minorities. Thanks.
Strong sewer system plans needed for an efficient, green future
Littlefield's tie is in Clemson colors.
Apparently "Make money from real estate" infomercials don't provide school necktie colors.
Strong sewer system plans needed for an efficient, green future
If you want to understand just what a disaster this Littlefield administration plan is for sewers, then look no further than Cleveland, Tennessee.
Yep, Cleveland.
Ask those residents about how they felt about moving into communities where $125,000 to $250,000 homes were packed shoulder to shoulder: all on septic tanks.
All on ground that doesn't perc'.
Then, after the people moved in, it was time to get some city sewer in there. New homeowners hit the roof. They thought they were moving to a community with lower taxes. Instead, they were moving to a community where no one had paid the bills until new people moved in. When it was time for a major project overhaul, the expenses were sky high and the list of tasks to be done was lengthy. It dragged on for months, if not years, in some residential lots. That's the story of mid-90s community development in some of the middle class neighborhoods in Cleveland.
It's analogous to what's being described here with the stormwater runoff plans. The observable reality is that our city is elevated: underground Chattanooga is not only a rat's nest of utility tangles, but it's also a major drainage problem.
Think about it. Does anyone know how water flows through that maze? What about groundwater not immediately contained by a pipe? I doubt anyone has a good answer. It's a major problem.
Once again, our elected officials are trying to cheap their way out of building a solution. We can't just ignore problems forever.
UT Chattanooga and other colleges in our state are churning out engineers every semester. We have people around who can be smart enough to help us understand these problems and come up with an answer. We don't have to hide from the truth. We can find a way to take this on and come up with a plan that makes sense.
But, we won't do that if Littlefield gets his way.
Have a reporter call up Cleveland Public Works and check out Cleveland's troubles in the 90s. I forget the name of the man who ran the place back then, but there was one kingpin who had to whip that sewer problem into shape. I'm sure he got an earful daily from residents about how that kind of planning was much, much more expensive than maintaining and improving an existing sewer.
It pays for communities to invest in sewers because everyone's got to flush the toilet.
Littlefield's plan: cheap enough to be expensive. Exercise leadership and come up with a real plan to solve real problems. We don't elect people to be ignorant and to ignore problems the community has. We need solutions.
When you vote for a mayor next time, ask yourself: is this person smart enough to get help when we need it?
Tennessee 3rd District debate in a vacuum
Find out who's paying Representative Fleischmann: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030815&type=I&newmem=N
His donors include: Unum ($28,000), a Republican PAC called the Freedom Project ($15,000), Check Into Cash ($12,700) and others. Businesses that sound local include: Blalock Construction, Ingram Industries, Blue Cross Blue Shield, McKee Bakery, Astec, Republic Parking and US Express.
Other candidates: http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2012&id=TN03
Representative Fleischmann has apparently accepted almost as much in PAC contributions alone as the other candidates are raising altogether. Apparently, 30% of his campaign has already been bought off by outside interests.
Super-PACs' firepower
Reference: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000103&lname=JPMorgan+Chase+%26+Co
Senator Corker is listed as receiving $59,750 from JPMorgan Chase from 2011 to 2012. They spent more on him than they did on Sentoar Mitch McConnell.
Super-PACs' firepower
We don't need superpacs when Senator Corker was paid $61,000 by J.P. Morgan during his campaign. Today, he sat on a committee "regulating" them.
"Not regulating them" might be a better way of describing it.
Senator Corker apparently spent all $61,000 of their money on remembering why he should not protect the financial health of this country. Instead, he sided with the corrupt bankers who paid him off.
Instead of saying that J.P. Morgan was irresponsible in its dealings that lost $3 Billion, he blamed the CFTC. Republicans had defenestrated that agency back in the 1990s.
Their subsequent illegally weak insurance deals cost us dearly as Baby Boomers retired with the close of the Bush Administration: the house of cards built to pump up paper trade profits with an extra-thick layer of insurance fraud crashed. Today, Senator Bob Corker covered those Big Bank CEOs instead of holding them to account.
When Senator Corker accepts $61,000 in open campaign contributions, and then sides with corrupt banks: the superpacs are not our only worries. Outright corruption is the result of poor character and poorer choices on the part of our elected officials.
Bill Senator Corker for all $61,000 in corrupt campaign contributions he received from J.P. Morgan. Insist that he regulate those disgustingly greedy bankers who damaged our economy.
Senator Bob Corker: bought off with $61,000 from J.P. Morgan.
Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/senators-put-federal-regulators-not-jpmorgan-on-the-hot-seat/2012/05/22/gIQAPmv8iU_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
Reference: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/lawmakers-invested-in-jpmorgan-chase.html
Doped up
The editorial's statistic does not describe the time frame involved. They don't mention the scope or intensity of the effect of the 18 prescriptions per resident. Over a lifetime, it'd be easy to get 18 'scripts. Also, they don't discuss what those 'scripts are for. It's just a trick of numbers, I think.