Brutus_buckeye

So, I question some of the conclusions drawn from this data. Some of the cities with a large net + migration could be attributed to the fact that they do not have a major university in their town to draw graduates and cities with larger out-migration could also be attributed to the fact that they have a major university and receive a large influx of students during the college and grad school years who will eventually move elsewhere. My main example are cities like - Indy, KC and Oklahoma city. For example Indy has Purdue and IU which are large drivers of employment in those cities but would not necessarily be located IN the city, rather they are 90 minutes away. Indy being the largest market as well as the main employment driver of the state is certainly going to grab the largest share of grads from those universities. Same with Kansas City with KU and Mizzou around a hour away in each direction (especially KU). In OKC, we OU is about an hour outside of the OKC area. To me, the + influx of college grads is mainly attributed to that fact. On the flip side, Columbus, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Philly have out migration of students. All these cities have large research universities that are urban (in the case of Philly, they have numerous research universities). The students who want to stay in the area certainly have a home, but there are many other opportunities for students who are just drawn there to study and leave. Pulling people from all over the state and country because you offer nationally recognized programs will lead to people looking to leave the region when they graduate. Point being Columbus, Cincinnati (are both growing) yet losing college grads. Could it be that the main employers in the area have the ability to fill their needs with local grads already and do not need to spend the resources to import them from other schools. Whereas, Cleveland, does not have a large amount of universities in the area and needs to potentially import more from other areas of the state and country?

Jeffrey's heart may be in the right place, but he lacks practical thinking. His proposal is fraught with a lot of issues especially the legal bills that will have to be paid for defending against property owners rights in the area in some cases.

I believe they changed the laws about 15-20 years back. These specialists are still employed by the public school district but they no longer have to be in vans parked outside the building. They may not have an office or classroom space in the building, however, I believe that office space needs to be segregated from classroom space where religious studies take place.

My neighbor just flew Breeze to SF and raved about it.

Because 1) State schools offer a lot of value 2) State schools offer proximity to in state residents 3) Out of state scholars may go there for scholarship money because it is affordable, 4) maybe their parents went to such school and it is nostalgic for them, 5) ..... etc, etc. etc. Point being, there are a multitude of reasons why people would attend a particular school and having to take a mandatory civics course would be extremely low on most of their lists. I went to a college that required an extensive liberal arts core. At the time, I hated much of what I was "required" to take. It did not really factor into my decision when it came time to choose that particular university. Most likely the department is already in place. You just take a professor in place (likely a non-tenured one) and get a few TA's and have them teach a large lecture hall. It really would not burden resources to do this.

The one thing that I think is really good about the bill is allowing standing to donors and their families to recover monetary gifts when the school does not follow through on the donor's initial bequest. This stems from Ohio State abusing the Moritz family and not following their bequest to grant 30 scholarships to students for the money but Ohio State only used about 1/3 of the money and then charged a hefty endowment fee to "manage" the endowment. It really was a scam on OSU's part.

People are not moving to areas based on whether their state and local governments are gerrymandered nor is it likely the majority of people relocating to the area (outside of academia, and even that affect would be marginal) because of this. This is the same type of argument you hear whenever a Republican wins an election in a state or the White House, all the progressives talk about moving to Canada or some other country and of course they never do.

I did not say it isnt' or it wont ever again. But it is rare today and it continues to be exposed. Daylight is the best disinfectant. However, for every "bad priest" that public school proponents like to trot out, you seem to overlook all the public school teachers/coaches/administrators etc that molest their students, have sexual relationships with students, etc. There are many more stories on the news about teachers having inappropriate relationships with students than priests. Keep that fact in mind.

That is not correct. Most Catholic school teachers (the vast majority) have a college degree. Most Catholic schools pay less than their public school counterparts but that being said, they are competitive and have many teachers who prefer that environment over the corresponding public school in the area. There are always some teachers in a competitive environment who will choose the money at a public school over the Catholic school, but it is not universal and not necessarily because they have a college degree or masters. Secondly, at my children's catholic school, I sit on the teacher compensation committee. In our situation, we target teacher pay at 75% of what the corresponding public school teacher earns with the same level of education. This often leads to strong retention because the tradeoff in salary often comes with similar benefits (in some cases slighltly better). Some teachers are willing to take less pay in exchange of having to deal with more unruly students, uncooperative administrations, etc. Sometimes, teachers will take less money for better quality of life. Interesting, I think you probably need to expand from your bubble some. I speak with many people who have attended Catholic Schools, especially Catholic high school and they have a great experience from it. I know a lot of people sending their kids to good public schools now to prepare them for Catholic High School. Certainly, to your point, many public schools have better facilities than Catholic Schools in the area does ring true, however, facilities do not necessarily make an education and you should not put too much emphasis on the bells and whistles of facilities when looking at overall results. I find this argument weak and non-compelling and against over 70 years of precedent. On the Federal level, there are decades and decades of Supreme Court precedent from 1950s on that have often sided with religious schools over the limitations placed on them by either Federal or even State officials. This established case law grounded in First Amendment principles pretty much guarantees that the outcome you suggest wont happen, or will be extremely difficult to accomplish by any left wing administration. It is almost comical that the people who hate Catholic schools always go back to the pedophile priests from years ago. That was a horrible stain on the church but Catholic schools are far more than priests or bad priests who worked there 20+ years ago. The vast majority of teachers are not religious and to continue to trump up the priest abuse scandal does a disservice to the many lay professionals who serve in the catholic school environment. You should really be ashamed of yourself to keep bringing up that argument. Regarding your point about paying into the public school system. Everyone still pays into the public school system even those with vouchers. The voucher only covers the cost of the individual student portion that the state will allocate to the student. The taxpayer still pays to fund other aspects of the public schools even though their child is not going there. So yes, the public school may get less money from that taxpayer, but that taxpayer is still funding the public school system too. t

You don't pay for them. They pay. They pay taxes too. their share is going toward the school of their choice.

Catholic schools offer a different product than public schools. They have the ability to kick out disruptive kids and send them elsewhere. That is a key benefit of Catholic Schools. Also, they have the benefit to teach the religious doctrine to those who want their kids to receive such education. For parents who find these important, then Catholic Schools provide a great service. Generally, the results tend to support that in the outcomes of the kids too. However, Catholic school is not for everyone nor should it be. The biggest argument I hear from people who do not like Catholic Schools is that they are not subject to the same rules as public school counterparts. That is the whole point. People go there because they cant find what they want in a public school. It helps to offer choices. Public School proponents tend to want to get rid of choice and have everyone in the same homogenous system for education. Children learn differently. Having an educational marketplace with many options is a good thing. Many Catholic schools do offer some level of these services. My kids school has a psychologist, reading specialist, speech therapist as well as other specialists for the students. They may not have the same capabilities as the public schools, but can offer some level of additional services.

You also forgot to mention that the life goal for nearly all the people you were working with at the time was to be featured on the Jerry Springer show.

Are they holding church services down there or something?

I get it that it is bad optics to flash a gun on instagram, but 1) Assuming he owns the gun legally, 2) He was not on team time and was at his home or other private residence, 3) nothing illegal occurred with that gun, then I agree, the Grizzlies acted a bit heavy handed. Given it is the offseason for him, it could be just a headline grabbing move by the team in the offseason to make it look like they are doing something but not actually doing anything. It is not like he would actually miss any paychecks (From what I understand, players are only paid in season), so locking him out of team offseason activities for a month at the beginning of the offseason is likely something that really is an optics only type punishment.

I do not see the issue with a regular Con Con, but they are logistically challenging given the expense and time involved and the possibility that they often may not yield any results. However, there is nothing wrong with an occassional Con Con to revisit changing values. This is a much better way to handle it than getting frustrated and simply ignoring the Constitution that is in place when it is too hard to amend.

Certainly there have been. However, it is a bit more complicated when talking about home rule between state and municipalities. Federalism is between the Federal/State government. For example, state government controls various matters such as property rights, etc. Sometimes local cities may (in their infinite wisdom and poor discretion) try and pass ordinances that overrule various state rights under the justification that they are doing what is best for their area, but are actually trampling on existing rights of other parties that have been guaranteed by the state. The Home Rule provisions in Ohio have always been very limited in nature and should never be viewed by liberal or conservative enclaves as a way to escape state laws and regulations that they did not agree with. THat was never how it was intended to operate

I have never disputed that fact. It makes sense. As areas become more urbanized, the need for shared services increases. Right, wrong or indifferent, the urbanization certainly leads to more collectivist thinking. There is a huge disconnect by rural Republican voters that urbanites who may lean or have certain conservative sympathies in many areas share the same concerns of more urban dwelling conservatives and there is a huge disconnect amongst the progressive class who is concentrated heavily in the cities that the societal problems that they perceive from their urban vantage point are homogenous nationwide and apply the same in rural and suburban environments the same way they apply in urban areas. It is why Republicans have lost the cities the way they have and the Democrats cant compete in the tertiary and rural markets. I get why this is the case for Democrats who preach more big government national policies but Republicans should recognize that their long time biggest appeal has been from the failures of a large national bureaucracy to effectively solve local problems and the need for local governments to have the freedom and flexibility to decide what is best for their regions. They have completely abandoned that platform since Trump in favor of a policy that simply wants to act as a national counterweight to the Democrats bigger government is better approach.

This has been demonstrated by numerous people over and over and over again yet you act like it does not exist. I get it, you know what you know and no amount of facts will change your mind or convince you otherwise.

As stated above, your conclusions are incorrect and you interpret your data wrong. you can continue believing this but I would suggest you go back to the data and work on your analysis skills before drawing your conclusions. Just because you want a certain answer to be true does not make it true.

johhnyo , Its amazing how you have nothing to present to support your point about progressive policies. O wait, you cant and never could.

Its amazing how the data has been presented to demonstrate otherwise yet you still keep promoting that false assertion about progressive policies.

I never specifically argued conservative policy. What I said was that it could be argued that many years ago when these clusters of growth cities started to develop, many of the policies laid in place were placed by more conservative minded politicians that sought to foster business growth through pro growth policies which laid the foundation for what happen to occur. Now, in some sense, these decisions amounted to educated bets at the time and they materialized and made those past leaders look good. I do not think you could point to a specific point in history or specific decision, it was likely a combination of hundreds of decisions. But as I have said all along and many other people pretty much have said, geography, state capitals and research universities are what has led to growth in many markets vs others. Progressive policies have never had anything to do with that growth.

Neither does Columbus, Indy, Raleigh Durham. Certainly good transportation helps things, but I almost think the seat of government combined with a large research university has more strength. You can always expand and airport and add more flights as demand dictates.

unfortunately, you are good at drawing flawed conclusions from the facts that are presented to you. If you look at many of the key growth cities over the last 50 years you see some themes in all of them 1) Many are state capitals or the seat of government (Denver, Salt Lake, Atlanta, Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, Raleigh Durham, Austin, Phoenix) 2) Many have large research universities that generate hundreds of millions in research and potential spin offs into the corporate sector from their research (Ohio State, Emory/Ga Tech, Utah, Univ of Colorado, Vanderbilt, Duke/UNC, Texas, ASU) 3) There are advantages to being in the Sun belt as it is a growing area. People are moving down there and like being in warm humid weather 4) Other cities that are growing that may not be in a capital/large R1 University have certain other characteristics. Charlotte has developed a strong concentration of banking, Miami has been huge in the crypto and also has a large port, Houston again has a huge port as well as oil. It also does not hurt that these cities are in the sunbelt as well. As many other people have been able to determine, the growth of cities in this country in the 21st century has followed certain trends that have been highlighted above. Progressive social policies is not part of that. SOmehow, you seem unable to see that or admit the obvious.

He certainly would prefer Charlotte it seems, but it would be much cheaper to keep in Mason, so we will see. I have always hated Charlotte.