Nike Signs Kaep

[Farfromgeneva]

Easy to do a better job when you're able to screen students by family wealth.

This is true, but it's hard to ignore the fact that people with opportunities to run away from public schools do so and I don't personally believe it's race driven (maybe for a few/some, but not the majority). School systems have fallen down. I'll point out Atlanta nearly being taken over by the Feds because teachers were actively erasing and changing student answers. They retort that it's the fault of No Child Left Behind, but actively cheating and lying is not excused by bad policy and social promotion, there's no defense for that behavior. Reality is no one believes in Civil Service anymore. Everyone screams for more money, more resources and if they don't get it they cut corners. We're all supposed to do our best, not work a system. One can counter that's not practical or realistic, but even if so it still speaks to the behavior of those choosing to make those choices. Same argument with police and fire unions - Visalia, CA is such a great example of this. The superintendent of Dekalb Co schools wrote a garbage childs book and then made every school under his purview buy it. Like anything else everyone bears responsibility on this and other topics, too much finger pointing.

[kramerica.inc]

Ike any hot woman, she’s the one who drove him towards his political stance form what I can tell.

One fair question I think should be considered w Kap is:

Is it ok for a private business owner to avoid hiring a person who’s not critical and certainly replaceable If it’s clear said employee will likely be a distraction and potentially be a net negative to a trans performance?

I applaud the stance he took and his willingness to give up his career which was already at best as a good backup until he started suing and complaining about losing the job. Protests come with consequences sometimes. LeBron James can say whatever and every team would still sell their mother out to sign him, but Kap just wasn’t good enough anymore to justify the related probably costs to the teams performance, having cameras and excessive news up their backside.

I support the guy but don’t support the idea he has to be hired. Wouldn’t mind the antitrust exemption for sports going away. Stupid IMO and this league that setup and failed recently (AAF?) wasn’t bad product in the few games I saw, so I’d like to see that happen but until they are required to play by the rules of every other business (sort of these days, antitrust/monopolies don’t seem To be of importance in our country anymore) I don’t think anyone should be forced to hire him just because he’s better than the worst second string QB in the league.

(stats say Kap was below Replacement level After that one magical year they got beat by the better Harbaugh)

I never thought much of Kaepernick as a QB. Just not the type of QB I liked. He has a right to protest and the teams have a right not to hire him. Not sure if collusion is an issued but pro leagues have gotten away on cases more solid. I don’t think Kaepernick is entitled to an NFL job. If he were a high performer he would have a job.

Agreed. Feel like I’ve felt the wrath of some who immediately would call me racist or respond a bit over the top at the suggestion which is why I ask the question.

If owners had just come out and said, “he is not worth the headache” it may have been more palatable. It wasn’t purely talent. He was good enough to play in the league but not good enough for the headache. It smacked of collusion but that’s a hard case to prove. Athletes get blackballed often. It was really common in the NBA.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2017/08/31/ ... m-protests

https://amp.wbur.org/onlyagame/2019/05/ ... epernick-2

https://medium.com/@Toppic_/blackballed ... 164059f7f2

https://wtop.com/sports-columns/2018/04 ... nicks/amp/

Much like Ray Rice. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze with him either.

Rice wasn't done physically. He was 27-28 y/o when he cold-cocked his wife. The year before he had knee surgery and by all reports looked great in training camp. So the myth that he wasn't signed because he had lost a step just wasn't true. Rice was being punished for his crime. And the PR nightmare wasn't worth it for a position that is a dime a dozen, and has a short shelf-life anyway.

Same is true for Kap. Although any bit of a proven commodity at QB in the NFL is worth a little more than RB.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ike any hot woman, she’s the one who drove him towards his political stance form what I can tell.

One fair question I think should be considered w Kap is:

Is it ok for a private business owner to avoid hiring a person who’s not critical and certainly replaceable If it’s clear said employee will likely be a distraction and potentially be a net negative to a trans performance?

I applaud the stance he took and his willingness to give up his career which was already at best as a good backup until he started suing and complaining about losing the job. Protests come with consequences sometimes. LeBron James can say whatever and every team would still sell their mother out to sign him, but Kap just wasn’t good enough anymore to justify the related probably costs to the teams performance, having cameras and excessive news up their backside.

I support the guy but don’t support the idea he has to be hired. Wouldn’t mind the antitrust exemption for sports going away. Stupid IMO and this league that setup and failed recently (AAF?) wasn’t bad product in the few games I saw, so I’d like to see that happen but until they are required to play by the rules of every other business (sort of these days, antitrust/monopolies don’t seem To be of importance in our country anymore) I don’t think anyone should be forced to hire him just because he’s better than the worst second string QB in the league.

(stats say Kap was below Replacement level After that one magical year they got beat by the better Harbaugh)

I never thought much of Kaepernick as a QB. Just not the type of QB I liked. He has a right to protest and the teams have a right not to hire him. Not sure if collusion is an issued but pro leagues have gotten away on cases more solid. I don’t think Kaepernick is entitled to an NFL job. If he were a high performer he would have a job.

Agreed. Feel like I’ve felt the wrath of some who immediately would call me racist or respond a bit over the top at the suggestion which is why I ask the question.

If owners had just come out and said, “he is not worth the headache” it may have been more palatable. It wasn’t purely talent. He was good enough to play in the league but not good enough for the headache. It smacked of collusion but that’s a hard case to prove. Athletes get blackballed often. It was really common in the NBA.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2017/08/31/ ... m-protests

https://amp.wbur.org/onlyagame/2019/05/ ... epernick-2

https://medium.com/@Toppic_/blackballed ... 164059f7f2

https://wtop.com/sports-columns/2018/04 ... nicks/amp/

Much like Ray Rice. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze with him either.

Rice wasn't done physically. He was 27-28 y/o when he cold-cocked his wife. The year before he had knee surgery and by all reports looked great in training camp. So the myth that he wasn't signed because he had lost a step just wasn't true. Rice was being punished for his crime. And the PR nightmare wasn't worth it for a position that is a dime a dozen, and has a short shelf-life anyway.

Same is true for Kap. Although any bit of a proven commodity at QB in the NFL is worth a little more than RB.

Yes. That’s how it is.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ike any hot woman, she’s the one who drove him towards his political stance form what I can tell.

One fair question I think should be considered w Kap is:

Is it ok for a private business owner to avoid hiring a person who’s not critical and certainly replaceable If it’s clear said employee will likely be a distraction and potentially be a net negative to a trans performance?

I applaud the stance he took and his willingness to give up his career which was already at best as a good backup until he started suing and complaining about losing the job. Protests come with consequences sometimes. LeBron James can say whatever and every team would still sell their mother out to sign him, but Kap just wasn’t good enough anymore to justify the related probably costs to the teams performance, having cameras and excessive news up their backside.

I support the guy but don’t support the idea he has to be hired. Wouldn’t mind the antitrust exemption for sports going away. Stupid IMO and this league that setup and failed recently (AAF?) wasn’t bad product in the few games I saw, so I’d like to see that happen but until they are required to play by the rules of every other business (sort of these days, antitrust/monopolies don’t seem To be of importance in our country anymore) I don’t think anyone should be forced to hire him just because he’s better than the worst second string QB in the league.

(stats say Kap was below Replacement level After that one magical year they got beat by the better Harbaugh)

I never thought much of Kaepernick as a QB. Just not the type of QB I liked. He has a right to protest and the teams have a right not to hire him. Not sure if collusion is an issued but pro leagues have gotten away on cases more solid. I don’t think Kaepernick is entitled to an NFL job. If he were a high performer he would have a job.

Agreed. Feel like I’ve felt the wrath of some who immediately would call me racist or respond a bit over the top at the suggestion which is why I ask the question.

If owners had just come out and said, “he is not worth the headache” it may have been more palatable. It wasn’t purely talent. He was good enough to play in the league but not good enough for the headache. It smacked of collusion but that’s a hard case to prove. Athletes get blackballed often. It was really common in the NBA.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2017/08/31/ ... m-protests

https://amp.wbur.org/onlyagame/2019/05/ ... epernick-2

https://medium.com/@Toppic_/blackballed ... 164059f7f2

https://wtop.com/sports-columns/2018/04 ... nicks/amp/

Much like Ray Rice. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze with him either.

Rice wasn't done physically. He was 27-28 y/o when he cold-cocked his wife. The year before he had knee surgery and by all reports looked great in training camp. So the myth that he wasn't signed because he had lost a step just wasn't true. Rice was being punished for his crime. And the PR nightmare wasn't worth it for a position that is a dime a dozen, and has a short shelf-life anyway.

Same is true for Kap. Although any bit of a proven commodity at QB in the NFL is worth a little more than RB.

Neal Brennan can be utilized for many things. Do football.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DfBvMWB8KOU

[a fan]

Just allow public school choice for all. See what schools fill up and which ones enrollment drops.

That math doesn't make sense, and neither does the illusion of school choice. Not in the sense you're implying here....that choice will "fix" the bad schools.

Let's make the math easy:

School A: capacity of 100 students
School B: capacity of 100 students
School C: capacity of 100 students

There are 300 students that need education. How does giving them a choice as to which school to attend fix the problem if, for example, School C is a "bad" school? 100 kids have to attend School C, correct?

Pretty obvious to me that the schools aren't the problem. It's the environment the kids are in that's the problem. Only way I can think of to fix this? Pull the kids out of their environment, put them in a year round boarding school at age 5-18. THAT would fix the problem.

What we are doing with the illusion of school choice is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. The ship isn't the schools. The chairs are the schools.

The ship is the environment the kids are in.

[6ftstick]

Just allow public school choice for all. See what schools fill up and which ones enrollment drops.

That math doesn't make sense, and neither does the illusion of school choice. Not in the sense you're implying here....that choice will "fix" the bad schools.

Let's make the math easy:

School A: capacity of 100 students
School B: capacity of 100 students
School C: capacity of 100 students

There are 300 students that need education. How does giving them a choice as to which school to attend fix the problem if, for example, School C is a "bad" school? 100 kids have to attend School C, correct?

Pretty obvious to me that the schools aren't the problem. It's the environment the kids are in that's the problem. Only way I can think of to fix this? Pull the kids out of their environment, put them in a year round boarding school at age 5-18. THAT would fix the problem.

What we are doing with the illusion of school choice is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. The ship isn't the schools. The chairs are the schools.

The ship is the environment the kids are in.

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

[a fan]

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

I understand it's a severe solution. And that's why it's not happening.

But until we fix the environment the kids are in? Parenting, poverty, etc? All the "school fixes" in the world won't help the bulk....the bulk...of the at risk population.

All that the current definition of "school choice" does in poorly performing cities is say, "we're going to education A FEW of the kids in this city. The rest are out of luck".

[6ftstick]

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

I understand it's a severe solution. And that's why it's not happening.

But until we fix the environment the kids are in? Parenting, poverty, etc? All the "school fixes" in the world won't help the bulk....the bulk...of the at risk population.

All that the current definition of "school choice" does in poorly performing cities is say, "we're going to education A FEW of the kids in this city. The rest are out of luck".

Empaths like you have already destroyed minority families now you want to destroy mine. To fix the damage you've already done.

Bury that idea now.

[youthathletics]

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

I understand it's a severe solution. And that's why it's not happening.

But until we fix the environment the kids are in? Parenting, poverty, etc? All the "school fixes" in the world won't help the bulk....the bulk...of the at risk population.

All that the current definition of "school choice" does in poorly performing cities is say, "we're going to education A FEW of the kids in this city. The rest are out of luck".

What do you think about the BHO initiative that forced school boards to strongly consider keeping violent and highly disciplinary students in school...or run the risk of de-funding them?

It's a damned if you do, and a damned if you don't situation. I think part of the problem is students should be kicked out of public school, as early is elementary school...otherwise it is not making the parent(s) accountable, which allows the parent(s) to then blame the school(s) for not babysitting their own kids.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just allow public school choice for all. See what schools fill up and which ones enrollment drops.

That math doesn't make sense, and neither does the illusion of school choice. Not in the sense you're implying here....that choice will "fix" the bad schools.

Let's make the math easy:

School A: capacity of 100 students
School B: capacity of 100 students
School C: capacity of 100 students

There are 300 students that need education. How does giving them a choice as to which school to attend fix the problem if, for example, School C is a "bad" school? 100 kids have to attend School C, correct?

Pretty obvious to me that the schools aren't the problem. It's the environment the kids are in that's the problem. Only way I can think of to fix this? Pull the kids out of their environment, put them in a year round boarding school at age 5-18. THAT would fix the problem.

What we are doing with the illusion of school choice is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. The ship isn't the schools. The chairs are the schools.

The ship is the environment the kids are in.

This is a good program. How many people here would sign up to have their public schools participate? A friend was a METCO coordinator. I know a few kids that went through this program. Many from single parent homes. Many have done well.

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/ ... -evaluated

The old Head Start program also has good outcomes. A Healthy economic environment will help more than anything.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the- ... ogram/amp/

I believe investing in kids has a high ROI for the country socially and economically. We are in 2nd gear so that the folks at the top can continue to eat off the top. More and more wealth to fewer and fewer people. That’s a sensible economic policy. We have PE firms getting fat off of PPP / MSLP and the little folk got $1,200.... nice!

[a fan]

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

I understand it's a severe solution. And that's why it's not happening.

But until we fix the environment the kids are in? Parenting, poverty, etc? All the "school fixes" in the world won't help the bulk....the bulk...of the at risk population.

All that the current definition of "school choice" does in poorly performing cities is say, "we're going to education A FEW of the kids in this city. The rest are out of luck".

Empaths like you have already destroyed minority families now you want to destroy mine. To fix the damage you've already done.

Bury that idea now.

? What are you talking about? How did I "destroy" minority families?

And I already told you that my idea would never happen....so you don't have to worry about it.

What's your solution to this problem?

[kramerica.inc]

No my suggestion was to let the parents vote with their feet, and let that dictate funding and support. As it stands now we are throwing money at education, whether it is at a school that is working or not.
But since my idea wont happen either- 15 years ago I was an education reporter for WaPo for a few years. I saw many schools in the district and surrounding counties come and go. I saw tons of grants and one-year programs come and go.
The best program I've seen actually lift students up and imporove grades/test scores?
Year-round school calendar
Mandate it for kids who don't perform.
The reality is many forget what they learned over the summer and it means relearning a lot of material and further stunting their academic growth.
Additionally, many of these kids are in lousy environments at home and would do significantly better being away from their uninvolved parents, away from their homes and in a school building 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 12 months a year.
Want your kid in your own home durign the summer? Get involved and make sure they are learning their sh it

[a fan]

What do you think about the BHO initiative that forced school boards to strongly consider keeping violent and highly disciplinary students in school...or run the risk of de-funding them?

It's a damned if you do, and a damned if you don't situation. I think part of the problem is students should be kicked out of public school, as early is elementary school...otherwise it is not making the parent(s) accountable, which allows the parent(s) to then blame the school(s) for not babysitting their own kids.

These kids----"at risk"-----are prime time candidates for campus schooling. The problem isn't the kids. The problem is the environment. So what I would do, if I were king, is build boarding schools....and have the military run it. Respect. Order. 3 squares. Give the kids a solid, safe environment.

Teach trades, IT, etc in addition to a regular liberal arts education. And watch the kids flourish.

But I'm not King.

[6ftstick]

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

I understand it's a severe solution. And that's why it's not happening.

But until we fix the environment the kids are in? Parenting, poverty, etc? All the "school fixes" in the world won't help the bulk....the bulk...of the at risk population.

All that the current definition of "school choice" does in poorly performing cities is say, "we're going to education A FEW of the kids in this city. The rest are out of luck".

Empaths like you have already destroyed minority families now you want to destroy mine. To fix the damage you've already done.

Bury that idea now.

? What are you talking about? How did I "destroy" minority families?

And I already told you that my idea would never happen....so you don't have to worry about it.

What's your solution to this problem?

Personal responsibility, Choice. Parental involvement. Food. Cops.

Anyone that supported the government usurping the role of father in the black family are to blame. Before Lyndon Johnson blacks had stronger family units than whites. Healthier communities.

[Peter Brown]

Take my kid from me for 13 years. FU

I understand it's a severe solution. And that's why it's not happening.

But until we fix the environment the kids are in? Parenting, poverty, etc? All the "school fixes" in the world won't help the bulk....the bulk...of the at risk population.

All that the current definition of "school choice" does in poorly performing cities is say, "we're going to education A FEW of the kids in this city. The rest are out of luck".

Empaths like you have already destroyed minority families now you want to destroy mine. To fix the damage you've already done.

Bury that idea now.

? What are you talking about? How did I "destroy" minority families?

And I already told you that my idea would never happen....so you don't have to worry about it.

What's your solution to this problem?

Personal responsibility, Choice. Parental involvement. Food. Cops.

Anyone that supported the government usurping the role of father in the black family are to blame. Before Lyndon Johnson blacks had stronger family units than whites. Healthier communities.

Most societal problems today stem from the absence of a father figure in the nuclear family, a condition most democrats seem to bizarrely cheer.,

[a fan]

No my suggestion was to let the parents vote with their feet, and let that dictate funding and support. As it stands now we are throwing money at education, whether it is at a school that is working or not.

Right. But this entire concept is based on the idea that the schools are the problem. They're not. The kids are----or more directly, the environment.

So what "school choice" does, is simply divide and conquer. You pull away the kids with involved parents who care (that's the environment), and put them in a different school. You're changing the environment for the kid.

The problem, obviously, is what happens to the kids left behind? "School choice" advocate's answer is: F them. Not my problem.

And if you're running a country, that's an idiotic way of educating the populace. Anyone can design an educational system that educates the few. That's easy. You pick the most motivated kids from the most motivated families...and boom, their education is no problem. See: rich private schools.

This is easy to prove. All you have to do is picture what would happen if you took the teachers from say, Boys Latin (pick your favorite Private School), and send those teachers to the poorest neighborhood in big cities. What would happen? Do you think you'll get Boys Latin results? Of course not. Why? Because the environment for these kids hasn't changed. The teachers aren't the problem.

The best program I've seen actually lift students up and imporove grades/test scores?
Year-round school calendar
Mandate it for kids who don't perform.

Yep. And if you ask me? Move them to a boarding school.

Additionally, many of these kids are in lousy environments at home and would do significantly better being away from their uninvolved parents, away from their homes and in a school building 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 12 months a year.

My point exactly.

But no one would go for this idea. Too bad, really.

[Peter Brown]

No my suggestion was to let the parents vote with their feet, and let that dictate funding and support. As it stands now we are throwing money at education, whether it is at a school that is working or not.

Right. But this entire concept is based on the idea that the schools are the problem. They're not. The kids are----or more directly, the environment.

So what "school choice" does, is simply divide and conquer. You pull away the kids with involved parents who care (that's the environment), and put them in a different school. You're changing the environment for the kid.

The problem, obviously, is what happens to the kids left behind? "School choice" advocate's answer is: F them. Not my problem.

And if you're running a country, that's an idiotic way of educating the populace. Anyone can design an educational system that educates the few. That's easy. You pick the most motivated kids from the most motivated families...and boom, their education is no problem. See: rich private schools.

This is easy to prove. All you have to do is picture what would happen if you took the teachers from say, Boys Latin (pick your favorite Private School), and send those teachers to the poorest neighborhood in big cities. What would happen? Do you think you'll get Boys Latin results? Of course not. Why? Because the environment for these kids hasn't changed. The teachers aren't the problem.

The best program I've seen actually lift students up and imporove grades/test scores?
Year-round school calendar
Mandate it for kids who don't perform.

Yep. And if you ask me? Move them to a boarding school.

Additionally, many of these kids are in lousy environments at home and would do significantly better being away from their uninvolved parents, away from their homes and in a school building 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 12 months a year.

My point exactly.

But no one would go for this idea. Too bad, really.

That is most definitely not school choice advocate's position on the 'schools left behind'. You can not be involved with a charter school if you believe that to be the case. Their position is, in order to compel public schools to improve (which they want), you must introduce competition. That is it in all of its simplicity. No one I know who is involved with a charter school has anything but the kids' lives as their priority...including students that (in your words) are 'left behind'.

[CU77]

Easy to do a better job when you're able to screen students by family wealth.

This is true, but it's hard to ignore the fact that people with opportunities to run away from public schools do so

Yes, they run to schools that don't have to deal with the students from poor backgrounds with parents/guardians that just don't care about them.

Require the private/charter/whatever schools to take EVERY student, and they will struggle just as much as the publics.

Is there a private/charter school anywhere that has said to a public school district, give us a random sample of your students and your budget, and watch us do better without spending more money?

I would like to see an example of that.

[Peter Brown]

Easy to do a better job when you're able to screen students by family wealth.

This is true, but it's hard to ignore the fact that people with opportunities to run away from public schools do so

Yes, they run to schools that don't have to deal with the students from poor backgrounds with parents/guardians that just don't care about them.

Require the private/charter/whatever schools to take EVERY student, and they will struggle just as much as the publics.

Do you understand the basic fundamental concept of competition?

[a fan]

That is most definitely not school choice advocate's position on the 'schools left behind'. You can not be involved with a charter school if you believe that to be the case. Their position is, in order to compel public schools to improve (which they want), you must introduce competition. That is it in all of its simplicity.

Right. As I said, this entire idea assumes the problem is the teachers. A house built on wet sand. The logic is jawdropping-ly bad.

It's the easiest thing in the world to prove that school choice doesn't work for the overall education of our country. And I already told you how to do it.

Take the best teachers in a given State, and put them in the lowest performing school in a poor urban neighborhood.

Then sit back and watch what happens. I'd wager any amount you'd like that the change would be next to nothing...at best.

If you were right, Pete...the kids would flourish. And everyone reading this knows doggone well that that wouldn't happen.