| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/12 |
| 2005/7/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38795 Activity:very high |
7/23 50% of Americans think that the the Atomic bombing of Japan
was a bad idea:
http://csua.org/u/ctr
Take the poll again in another 20 years and most of the people alive
during WWII will be dead, then it will be 70%. I'll bet in 1945 that
number was a lot lower. What percentage of Japanese think
bombing Pearl Harbor was a good idea? -ax
Put that in your pipe and smoke it emarkp -ausman
\_ My anonymous troll has a name! -emarkp
\_ On the flip side, this is what Japanese think of the Pearl
Harbor invasion:
http://photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/slanted.jpg
\_ The exhibit gets some key points wrong, but there does
seem to be some indication that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor
to happen despite some knowledge of a Japanese attack
in order to rally America behind a war that he WANTED
to join.
\_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking sucks.
\_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking lies.
\_ Yeah, and the FDR forced Japan to commit Nanjing Massacare,
atrocities of Unit 731, and all the other good stuff it did to
other Asian countries. Oh, or was it the Chang Kai-Shek of the
Chinese govt that forced Japan to do those things? Also, Japan
was already at war with Britain even before Pearl Harbor. FDR
could have used the same excuse to declare war on Japan
\_ 50% of Americans voted for W.
\_ That, and the below bit about "not being able to find Japan on
a map" are my sentiments exactly. I'm glad someone's using their
brains tonight. -John
\_ What about Americans who were actually around back then?
\_ 50% of Americans can't find Japan on a map. The other 50% don't
know what a map is. Thanks to the teacher's unions for the
quality public schools that brought us here.
\_ thanks to the california senate which doesn't allocate enough
funds to the public school system and the people who voted for
prop 37.
\_ Schools are the biggest line item in the budget and CA
teachers are among the highest paid anywhere. There's money.
It's not a money issue.
\_ Even if it was the case the CA teachers are the highest
paid in the country, why would anyone want to teach
in CA? You wouldn't be able to make a decent living.
\_ Isn't California like 43rd on average spending per
pupil? Of course it is about the money. You can't
totally scrimp on spending like that and have
a good outcome. Teacher salaries are high, but
not on a purchasing parity basis (adjusting
for California's high cost of living).
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG186
\_ The average spending per pupil number is not
meaningful. The fact is that CA spends almost 60%
of all tax revenues on education. Should it
increase to 90%? The fact is that the urban areas
of CA are difficult to teach in. Throwing money at
the problem won't help. King/Drew in LA has some of
the highest paid doctors and a large budget and yet
it provides far worse service than other hospitals.
The same principles are at work in education.
\_ California used to spend 4.5% of state income
on education, now we spend 3%. Not surprisingly,
the quality of the education has gone down. We
need to raise taxes.
\_ Uhm... Doesn't the state law say they have to
spend 40% of outlay on education, minimum?
\_ Where are you getting these crazy numbers?
\_ From the Rand report cited above. "In the
early to mid-1970s, California spent about
the same share of its personal income on
public education as the rest of the country
did, about 4.5 percent. However, in the late
1970s, the share of personal income that
Californians devoted to their public schools
fell to about 1.2 percent below the national
average and remained well below the national
average through 2000."
\_ http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2005/opd_05-03-03li.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/7vxl7
\_ Ok that's nice n all but has nothing to do
with total state outlay to education. The
State is paying 40% of the total budget at
a minimum, by law. How much more of the
budget would you like to spend on education
in this state? At what level of budget
spending do you think we'd magically have a
real school system again? You're just
playing with statistics that favor your
"pay my mom more money!" position. I've
*never* heard or seen anyone, reputable or
not, use a "percentage of personal income"
measurement to determine anything before.
Ever. Join the rest of us using a useful
number and we'll talk. In the meantime,
the evil teacher's unions can take a hike.
\_ Exactly. CA has a higher income. Why
does the % matter? Likewise,
spending per pupil. If I have a
school district of 10 and a school
district of 100 they both need, say,
an administrator. The district of 10
is going to pay more per pupil for
that administrator, but they are not
getting anything more for it. You
can't argue this with teachers,
though. They just like to bitch.
\_ Prior to prop 13, California had some of the best public
schools in the nation. Post prop 13, it ranks near the
bottom. It is at least a very strong data point.
\_ Once judges ruled that local money couldn't be spent
locally, Prop 13 was inevitable.
\_ Getting rid of Prop 13 won't help anything. Don't
believe the propaganda.
\_ Yeah, prop13 was so great. The schools were just
awesome... for anyone not getting taxed out of their
home and forced to move out of state.
\_ Spoken like either a true union cultist or someone who has
no idea how the teacher's unions work in this country.
\_ spoken like someone who went through public schools and
saw almost every helpful and effective program for
connecting with students fought and eventually dissolved
because of financial reasons. Spoken like someone who
has family working in public education being jerked around
by an administration focused on standards based assessment
and transfered or laid off at least once a year due to
financial reasons.
\_ yes, everyone in teaching is just like your anecdotal
experiences. go look at how the unions behave and come
back and shed a bitter tear about all those poor
teachers who just want to educate the next generation.
\_ actually, every teacher I know winds up spending
hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on books
and office supplies that the school system refuses
to pay for.
\_ They can deduct this on their taxes. It sounds
to me like they need to take this up with their
school district. The money is there, but teachers
are such pathetic whiners I can't blame most
districts for tuning them out at this point.
\_ The same article says:
"Two-thirds of Americans say the use of atomic bombs was
unavoidable"
So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea? Hmm.
So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea?
\_ The same article says a number of other things but taking a
single line out of context makes some people feel good.
\_ Okay here is some context. Preceding lines:
"President Truman decided to try to end the war by
dropping atomic bombs ... Those bombings led to
Japan's announcement on Aug. 15 that it would
surrender."
And then the article says 2/3 of Americans felt that
the use of the bombs of unavoidable - ie there was
no way to end the war OTHER than to use the A-Bomb.
The line following says that 20% of Japanese agreed
that use of the A-Bomb was the only way to end the
war while 75% felt that the war would have ended
w/o the A-Bomb. Then comes the sentence so promiently
quoted above. I find it inconsistent to not approve
of something that you find was the ONLY possible
option.
\_ A lot of Japanese don't even know about Pearl Harbor. Japanese
textbooks only talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
\_ Do Americans now about the crippling naval blockade that
made the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
\_ But Japan attacked without declaring war.
\_ yea, America should continue to supply Japan with the
resources to undertake more Nanjing Massacres.
\_ The point was that it was something foreseeable.
\_ If not others, the 1970 Hollywood movie "Tora! Tora!
Tora!" by 20th Century Fox talked about all that. |
| 7/12 |
|
| csua.org/u/ctr -> news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050724/ap_on_re_us/world_war_ii_poll AP Poll: Americans Say World War III Likely By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 24, 5:14 AM ET WASHINGTON - Americans are far more likely than the Japanese to expect an other world war in their lifetime, according to AP-Kyodo polling 60 year s after World War II ended. Most people in both countries believe the fi rst use of a nuclear weapon is never justified. Those findings come six decades after the United States dropped atomic bo mbs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war claimed ab out 400,000 US troops around the world, more than three times that man y Japanese troops and at least 300,000 Japanese civilians. Out of the ashes, Japan and the United States forged a close political al liance. Americans and Japanese now generally have good feelings about ea ch other. North Korea and the American military presence in Japan. Some of the widest differences came on expectations of a new world war. Six in 10 Americans said they think such a war is likely, while only one- third of the Japanese said so, according to polling done in both countri es for The Associated Press and Kyodo, the Japanese news service. When that will be, I don't know," said Gaye Lestaeghe of Freeport, La. "I feel like we're in a world war right now," said Susan Aser, a real est ate agent from Rochester, NY The Japanese were less likely than Americans to expect a world war, less worried about the threat from North Korea and less inclined to say a fir st strike with nuclear weapons could be justified. "The Japanese people take peace for granted," said Hiroya Sato, 20, of To kyo. "The Japanese people are not interested in things like war." President Truman decided to try to end the war by dropping atomic bombs o n Hiroshima on Aug. The first two atomic bombs killed tens of thousands in Hiroshima and Naga saki; thousands more gradually died with severe radiation burns. Two-thirds of Americans say the use of atomic bombs was unavoidable. Only 20 percent of Japanese felt that way and three-fourths said it was not necessary. Just one-half of Americans approve of the use of the atomic b ombs on Japan. Asked whether using the atomic bomb was appropriate, he said wi thout hesitation: "Absolutely!" But military instructor Hugh "DJ" Carlen, who lives near Fort Knox, Ky. "I often hear the bombings were not necessary," said Toyokazu Katsumi, a 27-year-old engineer from Yokohama. For 63-year-old Masashi Muroi of Tokyo, the attacks with atomic bombs "we re mass, indiscriminate killings and perhaps violated international law. " For younger people, World War II is something seen only on newsreel foota ge, in the movies and in history books. Hideko Mori, a 71-year-old Tokyo housewife, said that as a child in Nagan o in central Japan, she and her neighbors had to take refuge to avoid Am erican air raids. "Around the time I was in the 5th grade, when we went to school, instead of attending classes, we plowed the school grounds and planted potatoes and pumpkins, and we dug up bomb shelters," she said. People in both countries overwhelmingly perceive the other country favora bly now. Four in five Americans have an upbeat view of Japan and two-thirds of Jap anese feel that way about the US But older people were not quite as en thusiastic. Some of the good feelings may stem from the close cooperation between the US and Japan in postwar rebuilding and from America's financial suppo rt. During the years when American troops occupied Japan, economic reforms en abled Japanese farmers to own their own land. "The Americans contributed so much to the reconstruction of Japan after t he war. I think their influence was very significant and positive," said 62-year-old Yasuzo Higuchi of Tokyo. "Even now, because of their presen ce in our country, North Korea can't attack us." Americans' good will about the Japanese extends to their government, with six in 10 in the US regarding it as trustworthy. But more than half o f the Japanese distrust Washington. Asked whether a first strike with nuclear weapons ever could be justified , a majority in both countries said no. But Americans were twice as like ly as the Japanese to think such a strike might be justified in some cir cumstances. Since the war, the US military presence in Japan has come to be accepte d in most of Japan, but stirs resentment on the island of Okinawa. The Japanese are evenly split on whether the US troops should stay or g o, the polling found. Three-fourths of Americans said this country shoul d keep its military in Japan. "Any country that will allow us to keep a base there as a forward lookout post, I think we ought to do it," said Wade Hill, a copier technician w ho lives near Dallas. The strongest rivalry between the US and Japan now is economic. The pre sence of Americans products has increased in Japan, though Tokyo continu es to have a large trade surplus with Washington. Japanese are most likely to name the US as the most important country f or their economy, possibly a reflection of the success among Americans f or Japanese automobiles and electronics. Americans were most likely to n ame China as most important for the US economy. Trade tensions have increased between the United States and China after A merica ran up a $162 billion deficit with China last year, the largest e ver with a single country. Some see economic competition as the most important battle between countr ies these days. "I don't think it will be like World War II," said James DiVita of Sandus ky, Ohio, who works in manufacturing. "It will be more of a silent takeo ver with dollars, buying up companies." The poll of 1,000 adults in the United States was conducted for the AP by Ipsos, an international polling company, from July 5-10 and the poll of 1,045 eligible voters in Japan was conducted for Kyodo by the Public Op inion Research Center from July 1-3. Each poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sailors stand among wrecked airplanes at Ford Island Naval Air Statio n as they watch the explosion of the USS Shaw in the background, during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on Dec. T he attack, which left 2,343 Americans dead and 916 missing, broke the ba ckbone of the US Pacific Fleet and forced America out of a policy of i solationism. According to AP-Kyodo polling 60 years after World War II ended, six in 10 Americ ans said they think another world war is likely, while only a third of t he Japanese said another world war is likely. The informati on contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewr itten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associ ated Press. |
| www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG186 -> www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG186/ RAND Education for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monog raphs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous pe er review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objec tive analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponso rs. Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Cover: California's K-12 Public Schools Abstract: This report describes Californias K-12 public schools specifically, their student population, the resources they are provided (finances, teachers, facilities), and their outcomes. It describes both student academic achievement and outcomes that schools may influence and that are inadequately captured in test scores. The report analyzes trends within the state and compares California to other states and to the nation as a whole . |
| www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2005/opd_05-03-03li.html Lance T Izumi A recent RAND report showing that California's per-pupil spending lags be hind the national average has become a key weapon for education interest groups. Yet, there are problems with the report that should warrant cau tion. First, RAND uses comparative data collected by the National Education Ass ociation and the National Center for Education Statistics. RAND acknowle dges that data collected by these organizations often omit significant s pending items: "Comparisons with other states provide a valuable but lim ited perspective. States may put large investments into activities that are not counted in the NEA data or other data. For example, California h as directed substantial funds to professional development for teachers a nd additional instructional time outside the regular school day. These m onies are not included in the NEA data for California or any other state ." For example, in the current fiscal year, California will spend more than $360 million for i nstructional programs conducted outside of the regular school day. Further, for part of the time period used in RAND's study (the years prio r to 2000), California alone among the states counted excused absences i n its Average Daily Attendance calculations. ADA measures the number of pupils attending school each day averaged over the course of a year. RAN D acknowledges that by counting excused absences in its ADA figures, "Ca lifornia's ADA totals are relatively higher than other state's ADA total s" The result, says RAND, is that "comparisons between California and other states likely overestimates differences in revenues per student." In addition, there is also the issue of spending versus revenue. RAND obs erves: "Expenditures can be categorized based on whether they are funded from state, local and/or federal revenues. And, clearly, per-pupil esti mates will vary widely depending on the extent to which these sources ar e included or excluded." In California, the oft-cited Proposition 98 per-pupil funding figure incl udes state general fund and local property tax dollars, but excludes oth er state funds, such as the lottery, and federal money, which accounts f or 10 percent of California's education revenues. Finally, the RAND report says that since the passage of Proposition 13, t he 1978 property-tax-limitation measure, California's per-pupil funding "has been consistently at or below the national average." The implicit a rgument being that California should be at or above the national average and that Proponents 13 is responsible for preventing the achievement of that goal. Proposition 13 opponents have seized on this argument, with the head of the Los Angeles teachers union saying: "We thought Propositi on 13 would kill us all at once. According to the Legislative Anal yst's Office: "While comparisons to the national average may have illust rative value, the analytic basis for pursuing the national average as a spending goal is unclear. The level of spending necessary for California to provide quality K-12 programs depends on many variables, and may be higher or lower than the national average." The LAO concludes that California "should be concerned more with how its students perform rather than on how state spending compares with other s tates." "Research and experience," says the LAO, "suggest that how we spend avail able education resources is at least as important as how much we spend o n education." Unfortunately, as recent scandals and exposes of state and local education spending have shown, there's significant waste and mism anagement in California education spending. From 1992-93 to 2002-03, inflation-adjusted total education revenues per pupil in California increased by nearly 29 percent. Rather than faulting Proposition 13 and making irrelevant comparisons to other states, the s tate's priority should be to reform the way tax dollars are spent to bet ter affect student achievement. As the LAO rightly points out, the state must reform the structures and incentives in the K-12 system "to assure that all educational funding is spent to maximum effect." Lance T Izumi is Director of Education Studies at the Pacific Research I nstitute. |
| tinyurl.com/7vxl7 -> www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2005/opd_05-03-03li.html Lance T Izumi A recent RAND report showing that California's per-pupil spending lags be hind the national average has become a key weapon for education interest groups. Yet, there are problems with the report that should warrant cau tion. First, RAND uses comparative data collected by the National Education Ass ociation and the National Center for Education Statistics. RAND acknowle dges that data collected by these organizations often omit significant s pending items: "Comparisons with other states provide a valuable but lim ited perspective. States may put large investments into activities that are not counted in the NEA data or other data. For example, California h as directed substantial funds to professional development for teachers a nd additional instructional time outside the regular school day. These m onies are not included in the NEA data for California or any other state ." For example, in the current fiscal year, California will spend more than $360 million for i nstructional programs conducted outside of the regular school day. Further, for part of the time period used in RAND's study (the years prio r to 2000), California alone among the states counted excused absences i n its Average Daily Attendance calculations. ADA measures the number of pupils attending school each day averaged over the course of a year. RAN D acknowledges that by counting excused absences in its ADA figures, "Ca lifornia's ADA totals are relatively higher than other state's ADA total s" The result, says RAND, is that "comparisons between California and other states likely overestimates differences in revenues per student." In addition, there is also the issue of spending versus revenue. RAND obs erves: "Expenditures can be categorized based on whether they are funded from state, local and/or federal revenues. And, clearly, per-pupil esti mates will vary widely depending on the extent to which these sources ar e included or excluded." In California, the oft-cited Proposition 98 per-pupil funding figure incl udes state general fund and local property tax dollars, but excludes oth er state funds, such as the lottery, and federal money, which accounts f or 10 percent of California's education revenues. Finally, the RAND report says that since the passage of Proposition 13, t he 1978 property-tax-limitation measure, California's per-pupil funding "has been consistently at or below the national average." The implicit a rgument being that California should be at or above the national average and that Proponents 13 is responsible for preventing the achievement of that goal. Proposition 13 opponents have seized on this argument, with the head of the Los Angeles teachers union saying: "We thought Propositi on 13 would kill us all at once. According to the Legislative Anal yst's Office: "While comparisons to the national average may have illust rative value, the analytic basis for pursuing the national average as a spending goal is unclear. The level of spending necessary for California to provide quality K-12 programs depends on many variables, and may be higher or lower than the national average." The LAO concludes that California "should be concerned more with how its students perform rather than on how state spending compares with other s tates." "Research and experience," says the LAO, "suggest that how we spend avail able education resources is at least as important as how much we spend o n education." Unfortunately, as recent scandals and exposes of state and local education spending have shown, there's significant waste and mism anagement in California education spending. From 1992-93 to 2002-03, inflation-adjusted total education revenues per pupil in California increased by nearly 29 percent. Rather than faulting Proposition 13 and making irrelevant comparisons to other states, the s tate's priority should be to reform the way tax dollars are spent to bet ter affect student achievement. As the LAO rightly points out, the state must reform the structures and incentives in the K-12 system "to assure that all educational funding is spent to maximum effect." Lance T Izumi is Director of Education Studies at the Pacific Research I nstitute. |