This is kinda funny. I figured I was regardless to you.
No, not really. But when you have obvious double standards, and a clearly hypocritical stance, plus snide remarks like "only the GOP would create the department of homeland security, and not fund it", when it clearly has been funded for 7 years, then I have no choice but to assume you are just another political hack, not worth listening to.
Id like to see than fraction, what 94/100? Either way, there is no question that modern school buildings have higher achievement than those who are outdated. We arent talking about a higher operations budget as of yet, but instead an increase in capital investment.
Typically, well funded school system exist in communities that are middle class, and thus can afford them. At the same time, students from middle class families tend to be more motivated to achieve, and less involved in gangs and drugs, which is the key factor in better results.
Lower-class and poverty areas, tend to have students more into drugs and gangs, and less interested in achievement and school work. Similarly, they tend to be poorer, and less able to purchase newer school buildings.
Giving students not interested in a school, a better school, does not help their achievement. I'll give two examples.
First is Eastside High School, Paterson, NJ. In 1970s to 1982, Eastside High had fallen to a place of being a gang hang out, drugs everywhere, broken windows, lights, damaged walls sprayed with graffiti. A regular urban dump site.
In came Joe Louis Clark. Joe didn't require more money. He didn't ask for a new building. He simply laid down a tough law, made education the primary concern, eliminated students not wanting to work, and kicked out lazy staff. From 1982 where a student was stabbed on the first day of school, by 1987, the school was called a model of education nationally, and hailed by Times magazine.
Another example is Dunbar High School in Washington D.C. This was a well funded black only high school started in 1899, that was consistently giving high results. After 85 years, of high achievement, forced desegregation caused thousands unmotivated, under educated, disruptive students to flood Dunbar. The modern high quality building did nothing to stop the spiral of Dunbar into just another lousy ghetto school.
In both examples, the building did little to nothing to promote or hinder academic success.
Obviously we live in different places, but I havent heard anything about less auto traffic on the roads, but only further increases.
If there is an increase, we should be seeing an economic upturn in collation to it. In California, during their private recession in 01-04 (I think), traffic was so light, it caused headlines in the national media. People don't drive all over the place when they don't have jobs to go to, or money to spend.
Maybe not now, but considering the speculation based commodity market that oil is now traded on, it could go even higher than $4.50, and for no particular reason except, well speculation. The consumer is at the whim of the market.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Speculation can't force the price up, when in fact it is going down. You do understand what speculation is right?
Speculation, is a contract to purchase a shipment of oil at a pre-determined price. If I'm a speculator, and I bid up the shipment of oil at $50/barrel, and the price is $40/bar, I lose $10 per barrel. I can't just bid up forever, or I'll go bankrupt. In fact, when you consider a shipment of oil contains millions of barrels, I could go broke in one single shipment.
Speculation has never "driven" the market, today or in the past. It's a media myth, created to generate more ratings. The media is always interested in finding someone to blame for every bad thing that happens in the world, because there's nothing people like more than to pass blame for all their problems onto something or someone.
Speculation is actually a very good thing, for both consumers and producers.
