Slashdot Mirror

Girl is good in math/science. Girl gets picked on/teased for being smart. Girl has no parent/role model to provide support for being smart. Girl succumbs to peer pressure to play 'dumb' in math/science. Girl looses interest in math/science.

Your theory has a big problem in not matching up to reality:
1. Girls do about as well as boys in mathematical and scientific subjects, and may even be doing somewhat better. For instance, look at SAT scores by gender, and notice the utter lack of differences.

2. Female students now outnumber male students in most subjects, including some scientific subjects like medicine. That strongly suggests that there's some issues specific to software development that tend to keep the women out.

An alternate theory proposed by my female classmates: They not-infrequently encountered what they perceived as gender-based hostility in the computer labs, mostly from other students. For instance, there were cases of women being pushed to do the simpler UI work rather than the challenging algorithm work on group projects, no matter what their actual preference or skills. And there were a lot of issues with women getting a lot more male attention than they wanted, and in some cases being treated more as a piece of eye candy than as a student on equal footing to the men.

There's also this issue.

According to this list, 2006 Virginia SAT was 512/513/500 (R/M/W) and ACT was 21.1.

US Average is 503/518/497 and 21.1. So Virginia doesn't look particularly different than the US average, a little worse at math and better at reading and writing.

SAT and ACT test results are of course highly self-selective because not every student takes them. I think more important metrics include actual drop-out rates. Virginia's graduation rate is 74%, which is near the median. Plenty of states with mandatory teacher union bargaining have lower graduation rates.

I will concur that Texas has both low SAT/ACT scores and a low graduation rate (67%)...although Newsweek's best public high school 2010 is Talented and Gifted, Dallas, TX, and #4 is Science/Engineering Magnet, Dallas, TX.

H-B Woodlawn, Arlington, VA is Newsweek's #28 top high school, and George Mason, Falls Church , VA is #45.

Wisconsin has a high graduation rate (85%) - if you are not black (Wisconsin black graduation rate is 40%, compared to 64% in Virginia and 59% in Texas).

Anyone who claims the unrestricted right to abortion is claiming that you have a right to engage in activity that you know is likely to result in pregnancy and still have an abortion, negating the natural consequences of that activity.

This is what you claim is a lie. It can be broken down to:
(1) There are people who claim the unrestricted right to abortion.
http://www.publicagenda.org/discussion-guides/supporting-abortion-rights
PERSPECTIVE IN DETAIL
compare with other perspectives
What Should be Done?
# Pass laws guaranteeing a woman's unrestricted right to abortion.

It would be trivially easy to find other links supporting this, but there is no need, that part of what I said is demonstrated to be true.

(2) pregnancy is a known consequence of sex.
Obviously true.

(3) It is possible by various methods to eliminate or reduce the possibility of pregnancy (have other than vaginal sex, contraceptives, etc. Some are more certain than others). Therefore a woman has the ability to not be pregnant without having access to abortion
Obviously true.

(4) Abortion is a way of terminating a pregnancy, that is it "negates the natural and preventable consequence of sex".
That's what abortion is, it is the whole point of it. Again, obviously true.

Well, that's the entirety of my statement, I don't see a lie there at all. Now I grant that pro-choicers don't phrase it the way I have, but that is what the "unrestricted right to abortion" amounts to and most pro-choicers wouldn't even really dispute it. What they would contend is that a fetus does not have human rights and therefore it is quite ok to terminate it. I admit there are intelligent arguments in favor of this view, even though I don't agree that we should approach the issue that way in the law. However, women who aren't raped or some similar circumstance outside their control have the ability to avoid pregnancy even without abortion. Every other method requires you to make the decision before sex, abortion enables you to make the decision after.

You made the accusation that I'm lying, you can't back it up, so shut up.

Unfortunately, based largely on our reluctance to elect people who will raise taxes coupled with our desire for government programs, it seems the only way out of the recession is with both higher taxes and a cut in government programs.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=economy

Personally, I would rather tax luxuries and those who over-consume.

Fatty.

> I thought Americans didn't care what the rest of the world did? har har.

The Americans interfere all over the world all the time, and have done so for decades. I have no idea who you're quoting there.

> Americans are broadly against any kind of drug legalization (a couple states don't, still not a
> mandate). So maybe a congressman is abusing the mandate to prop up prisons, but it's more of a
> conspiracy theory than fact.

It's not a conspiracy theory if it's true, is it. What does `a congressman` have to do with it - it's current drug policy. Imprison users. Where's the conspiracy?

Americans as a people are pretty much split over drug policy:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals _detail.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&list=7
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals _detail.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&list=8

And that's after billions of dollars of anti-drug propaganda. But it doesn't appear to be working, does it?

> I thought Americans didn't care what the rest of the world did? har har.

The Americans interfere all over the world all the time, and have done so for decades. I have no idea who you're quoting there.

> Americans are broadly against any kind of drug legalization (a couple states don't, still not a
> mandate). So maybe a congressman is abusing the mandate to prop up prisons, but it's more of a
> conspiracy theory than fact.

It's not a conspiracy theory if it's true, is it. What does `a congressman` have to do with it - it's current drug policy. Imprison users. Where's the conspiracy?

Americans as a people are pretty much split over drug policy:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals _detail.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&list=7
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals _detail.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs&list=8

And that's after billions of dollars of anti-drug propaganda. But it doesn't appear to be working, does it?

"Lazy people on social programs", geez, I hope you are being sarcastic and do not honestly believe that "lazy people on social programs" are bogeymen for why we have to pay taxes...at most, Welfare, food stamps, housing assistance take up 8% of the budget, about 80 billion... see here table S-4, under Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (about half goes to education) and see this which breaks down the 2004 budget in a nice little pie chart...

I tire of hearing this "blame the poor" for taxes, when it is not the poor who are busting the budget... plus, the assumption that all poor people are lazy is absurd and groundless. Social programs help this country... it helps people that need it... granted, there those that probably are lazy, but those are few and far between...

If you want to bitch about taxes and be angry, why not take umbrage at the deductions for mortgages on 2nd homes and boats and cap the mortgage deduction, which cost the taxpayers some 70 billion a year, hell, I am all for eliminating the mortgage deduction all together. If home ownership is really THAT important and compelling as Bush pontificates in his "ownership society" babbling, then there does not need to be a mortgage deduction incentive... also, get rid of deductions for state and local taxes which cost taxpayers 50 Billion a year, which in addition to saving the taxpayers money, I figure this will make the Rep and Senators in high tax states more accountable to their constituents in cutting government spending since those constituents in high tax states will not be able to deduct their state taxes... hell, I would even get rid of the child tax credit...if you want kids, then pay for them yourself and not make the rest of us without kids subsidize those with, or those of us that waited until we were financially secure so that we could afford to take care of our kids before we had them... and for heavans sakes, lets not Jettison the estate tax, since it would cost about 90 billion a year if it was eliminated. As the estate tax stands today, it only affects some 2% of the population

Anyway, the whole point is to look else where when bitching about taxes... don't always blame the poor... there are plenty of more substantive ways to cut taxes than simply projecting one's anger on the poor.

Take a look at this site for public opinion research. Basically, pick any issue at will and read a bit. See if their findings reflect the Bush admin's position (who, of course, got the majority of the vote from our present system). See if the opinions reflect even the Democratic platform. Very often you will find they don't.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/issuehome.cfm

Again, very often by the standards of public opinion, the US population is left of the Democratic Party, and that this is very poorly reflected in the electoral process should point out problems in the electoral process.

Curt

Ouch. I hadn't even noticed that it was labeled "Americans" and not women. My fault, even if the data does more or less seem to be equivalent based on that other chart.

Given all the other data, especially those that indicate most people favor illegalizing elective abortions...

Not sure where you got that, though. If you look at this graphic, you'll see that 68% feel that it shouldn't legislated. I interpret 'between woman and doctor' as not meaning 'don't legislate it', which is arguable. However, it matches well with this graph, which has a 65% answer to "should not interfere". If you look at this graphic, you get the lovely contradiction of 57% "only under certain circumstances" as well as 43% "should be generally available". The problems, as Public Agenda points out are mainly in the fact that slight wording differences can draw large disparities in responses, and many people differentiate between what they feel is 'right' and what they feel should be legal.

But I'm with you - the numbers are pretty easy to make say anything you want them to say. Lies, damn lies, and polls.

Adoption-wise, we were indeed talking about different worlds, but I do not believe you're correct when you talk of pre-arranged adoptions. My point is that a fair number of 'economic' abortions, if not performed, would result in children in the child services system. If you can arrange an adoption rather than an abortion, that's your choice - I personally think its a bad idea, because it reduces the chance of a prospective adoptive parent adopting a child already in the system - but there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents in this country to adopt all children who would have been aborted, even if you just exclude the 'economic' and 'reasonless' (i.e. "I just didn't want a kid") abortions. There are roughly 50,000 adoptions per year from the public care system (year 2000 number, it has grown since then) in the US, where adoption is defined as "not placed back with birth parent/family". There were around 1.3 *million* abortions in 2000; this number has dropped since then, but not much. 95% of those are done as a means of birth control - 'economic' or 'reasonless' abortions, in other words. Where would those children go? While I won't argue that all of them, or even many of them, would end up in foster care, if even 5% wound up in foster care, the system would have to absorb a 10% increase in total children, and a large problem in that the inflow rate (which is currently roughly equal to the outflow rate) would increase by 20%, without any likelihood of a corresponding increase in the outflow rate.

While people may hold up "the kid will be adopted prior to birth", I don't see any reason to believe that would be true in a significant number of cases. Again, having worked in the Detroit child services system for a while, and having family who still do, just about anything is better than increasing the numbers of children in the system.

Ouch. I hadn't even noticed that it was labeled "Americans" and not women. My fault, even if the data does more or less seem to be equivalent based on that other chart.

Given all the other data, especially those that indicate most people favor illegalizing elective abortions...

Not sure where you got that, though. If you look at this graphic, you'll see that 68% feel that it shouldn't legislated. I interpret 'between woman and doctor' as not meaning 'don't legislate it', which is arguable. However, it matches well with this graph, which has a 65% answer to "should not interfere". If you look at this graphic, you get the lovely contradiction of 57% "only under certain circumstances" as well as 43% "should be generally available". The problems, as Public Agenda points out are mainly in the fact that slight wording differences can draw large disparities in responses, and many people differentiate between what they feel is 'right' and what they feel should be legal.

But I'm with you - the numbers are pretty easy to make say anything you want them to say. Lies, damn lies, and polls.

Adoption-wise, we were indeed talking about different worlds, but I do not believe you're correct when you talk of pre-arranged adoptions. My point is that a fair number of 'economic' abortions, if not performed, would result in children in the child services system. If you can arrange an adoption rather than an abortion, that's your choice - I personally think its a bad idea, because it reduces the chance of a prospective adoptive parent adopting a child already in the system - but there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents in this country to adopt all children who would have been aborted, even if you just exclude the 'economic' and 'reasonless' (i.e. "I just didn't want a kid") abortions. There are roughly 50,000 adoptions per year from the public care system (year 2000 number, it has grown since then) in the US, where adoption is defined as "not placed back with birth parent/family". There were around 1.3 *million* abortions in 2000; this number has dropped since then, but not much. 95% of those are done as a means of birth control - 'economic' or 'reasonless' abortions, in other words. Where would those children go? While I won't argue that all of them, or even many of them, would end up in foster care, if even 5% wound up in foster care, the system would have to absorb a 10% increase in total children, and a large problem in that the inflow rate (which is currently roughly equal to the outflow rate) would increase by 20%, without any likelihood of a corresponding increase in the outflow rate.

While people may hold up "the kid will be adopted prior to birth", I don't see any reason to believe that would be true in a significant number of cases. Again, having worked in the Detroit child services system for a while, and having family who still do, just about anything is better than increasing the numbers of children in the system.

Ouch. I hadn't even noticed that it was labeled "Americans" and not women. My fault, even if the data does more or less seem to be equivalent based on that other chart.

Given all the other data, especially those that indicate most people favor illegalizing elective abortions...

Not sure where you got that, though. If you look at this graphic, you'll see that 68% feel that it shouldn't legislated. I interpret 'between woman and doctor' as not meaning 'don't legislate it', which is arguable. However, it matches well with this graph, which has a 65% answer to "should not interfere". If you look at this graphic, you get the lovely contradiction of 57% "only under certain circumstances" as well as 43% "should be generally available". The problems, as Public Agenda points out are mainly in the fact that slight wording differences can draw large disparities in responses, and many people differentiate between what they feel is 'right' and what they feel should be legal.

But I'm with you - the numbers are pretty easy to make say anything you want them to say. Lies, damn lies, and polls.

Adoption-wise, we were indeed talking about different worlds, but I do not believe you're correct when you talk of pre-arranged adoptions. My point is that a fair number of 'economic' abortions, if not performed, would result in children in the child services system. If you can arrange an adoption rather than an abortion, that's your choice - I personally think its a bad idea, because it reduces the chance of a prospective adoptive parent adopting a child already in the system - but there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents in this country to adopt all children who would have been aborted, even if you just exclude the 'economic' and 'reasonless' (i.e. "I just didn't want a kid") abortions. There are roughly 50,000 adoptions per year from the public care system (year 2000 number, it has grown since then) in the US, where adoption is defined as "not placed back with birth parent/family". There were around 1.3 *million* abortions in 2000; this number has dropped since then, but not much. 95% of those are done as a means of birth control - 'economic' or 'reasonless' abortions, in other words. Where would those children go? While I won't argue that all of them, or even many of them, would end up in foster care, if even 5% wound up in foster care, the system would have to absorb a 10% increase in total children, and a large problem in that the inflow rate (which is currently roughly equal to the outflow rate) would increase by 20%, without any likelihood of a corresponding increase in the outflow rate.

While people may hold up "the kid will be adopted prior to birth", I don't see any reason to believe that would be true in a significant number of cases. Again, having worked in the Detroit child services system for a while, and having family who still do, just about anything is better than increasing the numbers of children in the system.

Ouch. I hadn't even noticed that it was labeled "Americans" and not women. My fault, even if the data does more or less seem to be equivalent based on that other chart.

Given all the other data, especially those that indicate most people favor illegalizing elective abortions...

Not sure where you got that, though. If you look at this graphic, you'll see that 68% feel that it shouldn't legislated. I interpret 'between woman and doctor' as not meaning 'don't legislate it', which is arguable. However, it matches well with this graph, which has a 65% answer to "should not interfere". If you look at this graphic, you get the lovely contradiction of 57% "only under certain circumstances" as well as 43% "should be generally available". The problems, as Public Agenda points out are mainly in the fact that slight wording differences can draw large disparities in responses, and many people differentiate between what they feel is 'right' and what they feel should be legal.

But I'm with you - the numbers are pretty easy to make say anything you want them to say. Lies, damn lies, and polls.

Adoption-wise, we were indeed talking about different worlds, but I do not believe you're correct when you talk of pre-arranged adoptions. My point is that a fair number of 'economic' abortions, if not performed, would result in children in the child services system. If you can arrange an adoption rather than an abortion, that's your choice - I personally think its a bad idea, because it reduces the chance of a prospective adoptive parent adopting a child already in the system - but there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents in this country to adopt all children who would have been aborted, even if you just exclude the 'economic' and 'reasonless' (i.e. "I just didn't want a kid") abortions. There are roughly 50,000 adoptions per year from the public care system (year 2000 number, it has grown since then) in the US, where adoption is defined as "not placed back with birth parent/family". There were around 1.3 *million* abortions in 2000; this number has dropped since then, but not much. 95% of those are done as a means of birth control - 'economic' or 'reasonless' abortions, in other words. Where would those children go? While I won't argue that all of them, or even many of them, would end up in foster care, if even 5% wound up in foster care, the system would have to absorb a 10% increase in total children, and a large problem in that the inflow rate (which is currently roughly equal to the outflow rate) would increase by 20%, without any likelihood of a corresponding increase in the outflow rate.

While people may hold up "the kid will be adopted prior to birth", I don't see any reason to believe that would be true in a significant number of cases. Again, having worked in the Detroit child services system for a while, and having family who still do, just about anything is better than increasing the numbers of children in the system.

Sorry, it isn't at all obvious and I had a bookmark to the direct page so I didn't realize.

Direct link. Left hand graph.

Because while many women don't identify as pro-choice (pro-choice identification is roughly 50% of women), somewhere between 60 and 80% of them believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. (link)

Why were they honest about it now? Simple: this is the best political climate the FBI could have asked for to reveal something like this.

Surveys show that most people, given the 9-11 attacks, are more than willing to trade freedom for security.

"A recent ABC/Post survey found two out of three people expressing willingness to surrender 'some of the liberties we have in this country to crack down on terrorism.' Cole attributes this not only to a heightened concern for safety, but to the fact that the majority are not generally affected--that is, it's not their relatives being detained and questioned." (Taking Liberties: Fear and the Constitution)

"At times like this, a democracy must balance its need to protect itself with the freedoms that define it. Last week's terrorist attacks have raised the debate pitting homeland defense against civil liberties to a level not seen since World War II." (For now, security trumps liberties)

"From the very first surveys after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, most Americans told pollsters that the country would have to give up some rights to fight terrorism (79 percent in a CBS/New York Times poll in September). A Gallup survey conducted Nov. 26-27 found six in 10 Americans who said the Bush administration has been 'about right' in its limits on civil liberties, as opposed to 10 percent who said the administration had gone too far and 26 percent who think it hasn't gone far enough." (Public Supports Domestic Crackdown on Terror)

After all, if you're innocent, what do you have to worry about anyway? :grin:

The Judi Bari case occurred in the 1990. I would also be surprised to find that the FBI didn't try and tap some phone lines of anti-WTO organizers (especially after the reasonably successfull work in Seattle. I know of one person, here in Canada, who had her phone tapped for political activity in 1995. As she put it, "About the only interesting thing they got out of it was some really nice recipes". Other people can probably point to other recent examples.

Taking civil and political rights for granted is probably our greatest risk in losing them. Fighting to maintain such rights is far easier than a fight to get them back. Unfortunately it's not easy to see the value of the fight until we're obviously in the latter situation.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø