The following exchange on the alt.education news group in September 2000 is a great example of why and how the woman voter drove this once-great country into the ground, in every way it can be measured.
Subject: Hey John Knight, high school grad rates equal the "50's
I heard on CNN that high school graduation rates are back to where they were in the
1950's. 89% of all white 17/18 year old high school kids graduated from high school in
1999. (In Alaska the state average is 95%.)
What a great job these kids are doing.
Now this disinformation from the fountain of smart comes from the typical American woman voter who has unlimited access to the internet on which she could have checked her facts before she made a fool of herself. First, before assuming that having an 89% graduation rate is an accomplishment, she should have checked what the graduation rate is for other countries, which of course she did not. Had she dones so, she would have discovered that the percentage of 25-34 year olds who have completed secondary education is 81% in Austria, 84% in Canada, 86% in France, 89% in Germany, 88% in Norway, 88% in Sweden, and 88% in Switzerland http://nces.ed.gov/timss/twelfth/appnds/images/tblA514.gif
89% isn't all that great, EVEN if we were comparing apples to apples, but we are not. We are comparing the graduation rate of American children who were IN high school to the gratuation rate of the entire populations of those above countries. She could have easily discovered, but obviously did not, that the total population of 18 year olds in the US in 1998 was 3,879,900 http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/stats/st-99-11.txt
This might have led her to ask "how many high school graduates were there in the US in 1999", but she obviously did not ask. If she had, she would have discovered that only 2,653,000 Americans graduated from high school in 1998 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/pj2008/p98t26.html which means that only 68.4% of our 18 year olds are graduating from high school today.
Hardly "a great job these kids are doing". Rather, it means that 1,126,990 of American 18 year olds, or almost ONE THIRD of them, did not even graduate from high school, which is a DISMAL track record.
This is even worse than the 68.4% who WERE in high school scoring dead last in TIMSS at the same time that we had the world's smallest class sizes and highest education expenditures.
Do you wonder why I question the wisdom of women voters who can be so easily misled by a CNN sound byte without the slightest qualm about her passing on disinformation?
In 1972, the number of high school graduates was 3,001,000, which was 76.4% of the number of 18 year olds in 1972.
Why did the percentage of 18 year olds who graduate in the US drop 8%, from 76.4% to 68.4% in only 26 years?
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Kavking<email@example.com> No, actually you brought up how women trump up charges about abuse, and that only a few women really die of abuse. I happen to think that even if one woman dies of abuse it is too many. However, what I wrote was, "men and women who suffer from abuse". I wrote this at least twice. Had you ever bothered to read what I write you might have picked up on it. I also wrote that I would harp about men abusing their wives if men were the only abusers. Didn't pick up on that one, either, did you? Or do you think that only women can be abused? K
firstname.lastname@example.org You "forgot" to answer the question about which is more egregious, didn't you? Do you think 199 or 296 wives being murdered by husbands is more egregious than the 1,170 children who are murdered each year by their mothers, or the 1,337 who are murdered in SMHs? Do you think we should just ignore the "abuse" [read: murder] of 7 times more children than wives who are murdered?
Relative to wives who were murdered by husbands, mothers murdered 7 times as many children, 17 times as many women were murdered by those other than husbands, 66 times as many men were murdered, 7 times as many men were murdered by women, 29 times as many women comitted suicide, 134 times as many men comitted suicide, non-marriage killed 1,357 as many women, auto accidents claimed 211 times as many total lives and 67 times as many women's lives, the additional lives lost solely to women drivers exceeded it by 32 times, and cancer claimed 2,711 times as many total lives and 1,876 times as many women's
lives. At a loss to society of $1 million per life for the 199 wives who were murdered, the extra economic cost of imprisoning the children of SMHs exceeded the loss to domestic violence by 1,568 times, the cost of repairing auto accidents exceeded it by 1,005 times, the cost of repairing the accidents due only to women drivers exceeded it by 152 times, and the extra money spent attempting to educate women in just one year exceeded it by 1,281 times.
Altogether, these factors alone cost 4,923 times as many lives and 4,003 times as many dollars as the annual loss to domestic violence. http://fathersmanifesto.net/vawaanalysis.htm
Kavking<email@example.com> I wasn't going to respond to this at all after your women and Nobel Prize in Literature fiasco, except for this last question. You are a real asshole when you imply that if somebody abuses somebody else, but it isn't bad enough to send them to the hospital, or kill them, then it isn't "abuse". Fuck you, John Knight, fuck you for every man and woman out there who suffers "abuse" that you won't even admit is real. K.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> Only to you John.
Moral indignation for the rights of people who have been abused is usually
considered a good thing. Stomping on people who are already down, like men and women
who have been abused is condisered cowardly, and bullying tactics. But I'm
sure you already know that, don't you? K.
<email@example.com> Trying to take
credit for other people's actions again, John. First of all, it wasn't just white
American men who created a decent standard of living, and by 1965 any increase in
standards they did establish was created, in part, at the expense of everyone who
was not white and male.
Are you going to say that this high standard of living was at the expense of American
blacks, whose 900 million cousins in Africa earn a whopping $650 per year?
<firstname.lastname@example.org> I said in part, John,
try reading what I wrote. And yes, it was in part due to white treatment of blacks in the
1940's and 1950's. You may not think of the treatment they received back then as
discriminatory, but it was. When you are building an economy on the backs of cheap labor,
when you don't pay the true value of that labor, sure, it's really easy to have a high
standard of living. Taking advantage of cheap black and hispanic labor back in the 50's
was common, and don't even try to tell me that it did not happen.