The War on Cuba Part I and II - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15169909
Potemkin wrote:Ted Cruz understands what the American political system requires from him: to sell his soul in exchange for power, status and money. And if you're going to sell your soul, then at least get a good price for it, eh? ;)

Ted also pretends to be a true Texan by wearing jeans and boots. He tells people what they want to hear. BTW, Alan Dershowitz said he is the best student he ever had in Harvard Law School.
BTW, Kamala Harris told Biden he was a raging racists and he picked her as VP to secure the black vote.
#15169910
XogGyux wrote:Pfff. Bay of pigs. That is mostly propaganda. A couple thousand angry exiled Cubans hardly makes a real attempt at invasion by the us.

Go back to school.

1400 CIA trained mercenaries sent ashore in an "invasion" designed to fail so that the two battalions of marines waiting offshore on US warships could be called in for a "rescue" concurrently with US air power. All that was needed was JFK's ok which America's dogs of war took for granted ………… they kinda misjudged JFK , he withheld his approval which sent them into fits.
#15169914
jimjam wrote:Go back to school.

1400 CIA trained mercenaries sent ashore in an "invasion" designed to fail so that the two battalions of marines waiting offshore on US warships could be called in for a "rescue" concurrently with US air power. All that was needed was JFK's ok which America's dogs of war took for granted ………… they kinda misjudged JFK , he withheld his approval which sent them into fits.


Which adds fuel to the fire as to whom was behind the murder of JFK. You know a lot about the subject, please go on.
#15169917
Julian658 wrote:
BTW, Kamala Harris told Biden he was a raging racists and he picked her as VP to secure the black vote.



You are so very good at missing the obvious.

When the country changes, politicians usually change along with it. Because Biden has been around a long time, some of the things he did don't look so good now.

But, as I was saying before the election, Black voters are the most pragmatic voters in the country. There's a reason Clyburn made him president. He knew his heart was in the right place.

I've been surprised. Remember when you were calling him Sleepy Joe? He's not sleepy now...

He sees a chance to achieve his highest ambition, one that he will likely never say. He wants to go down in history as one of the greats. All Trump did was show up. Biden isn't just stepping up to the plate and swinging at pitches. He is trying to hit it out of the park.
#15169920
Julian658 wrote:Which adds fuel to the fire as to whom was behind the murder of JFK. You know a lot about the subject, please go on.

Allen Dulles
#15169922
Tainari88 wrote:Yes @Potemkin you are correct about it Bellísimo, but that is the precise reason why they will lose the status and the power in their own society. You allow that to be the standard operating procedure, when some other nation's powerful and influential group comes along and you got to risk losing it to be faithful to your own nationalism first? You sellout to them as well. They lack any kind of dignity, self respect or principles to live by. They are for sale. TO ANYONE.

A nation winds up in the dustbin of history with those type of leaders Potemkin.

Then they wonder how their {powerful nation} wound up with the same has-been status of ex Empire like it happened to England, Spain, France and Holland, etc. Lol. Estupidos.

Indeed, @Tainari88 - if the ruling elite put their own personal interests ahead of the interests of their nation, then that nation is doomed. Given another half century or so of this sort of behaviour, and the USA will end up as a de facto colony of China. Britain colonised India because it wanted a large captive market for its manufactured goods; why wouldn't China do the same to the USA for similar reasons?
#15169933
late wrote:You are so very good at missing the obvious.

When the country changes, politicians usually change along with it. Because Biden has been around a long time, some of the things he did don't look so good now.

But, as I was saying before the election, Black voters are the most pragmatic voters in the country. There's a reason Clyburn made him president. He knew his heart was in the right place.

I've been surprised. Remember when you were calling him Sleepy Joe? He's not sleepy now...

He sees a chance to achieve his highest ambition, one that he will likely never say. He wants to go down in history as one of the greats. All Trump did was show up. Biden isn't just stepping up to the plate and swinging at pitches. He is trying to hit it out of the park.

I think you are overblowing this. ALL POLITICIANS behave in this manner. In the primaries they go at each other and then they do whatever is needed to buy votes. Biden is no different than Cruz in that regard.

The black vote elected Biden, they have a lot of power, I agree. However, I am afraid Biden will do more of the same maneuvers that were tried in the past. He is proposing Head Start 2.0 which did not work. Good luck with that! I admit it sounds awesome on paper, but a new paradigm is noted. I am more optimistic about infrastructure!

BTW, Biden is on pace to spend in one year more than what Trump spent in four years. And the Dems want to spend more! At some point the dollar will lose its value and we will have massive hyperinflation. Our retirement accounts will be nothing thanks to an old man that wants to make a mark in history and will not suffer the consequences. I blame both Trump and Biden. BTW, in retrospect Bill Clinton was the man. However, he would be considered a NAZI if he was running in this era.
#15169938
Potemkin wrote:Indeed, @Tainari88 - if the ruling elite put their own personal interests ahead of the interests of their nation, then that nation is doomed. Given another half century or so of this sort of behaviour, and the USA will end up as a de facto colony of China. Britain colonised India because it wanted a large captive market for its manufactured goods; why wouldn't China do the same to the USA for similar reasons?


That is why I say? You have to really be a nation with principled leadership if you want to have a hope of becoming a society of stability. Without that? It is from bad to worse the decay.

Sovereignty always starts with self-sufficiency and backing your own farmers, workers, adminstrators, professionals and inventors, engineers, doctors, etc.

You need capital as well or a big enough nation to pick up the slack.

Cuba if it had a CUC or Cuban peso that was accepted by international banking? It might be able to build up a consumer goods, and manufacturing goods economy with its own medical supply chain and standard drugs like metformin, aspirin, penicillin, etc.

Frankly I think the more economically independent Latin America becomes of the USA market the better it is going to be for all of us. Being pressured by more powerful nations to follow rules and standards by Empires who want total control is creating enormous issues in both friendly places (Puerto Rico) and unfriendly ones (Cuba). Because it is about captive markets and force and coercive tactics that only benefit the primary sharehoders or stockholders of lucrative corporations. It is a net loss thing for everyone else. Puerto Rico used to be the main pharmaceutical industry supplier for many Big Pharma industries. They had to pay either very very low capital gains taxes or no taxes to either Uncle Sam or the Puerto Rican government. But they had to pay federal minimum wage to the Puerto Rican employees. They wanted to pay them less than that so they decided to move to other nations with lower minimum wages.

The greed never stops @Potemkin .
#15169944
late wrote:I was wrong!

You have an absolute genius at screwing up.

Btw, Head Start worked.

¡Compañero, gracias por lo de genio!

Head Start had minimal benefits that disappeared after grade 1. There were some positives in the 3 and 4 year old cohorts, but once they went beyond first grade the impact was marginal at best.

In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the
social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely
absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole


The above from page 34 of the report.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/f ... al_508.pdf

Of course, the media or left wing politicians will never mention this. A very astute and wise compañero* like you did not know this. This is a bit like the 1990s school fiasco in Kansas City where they spent up to 40k USD per student in a school that had a planetarium. NO RESULTS. A new paradigm is needed.

* the word "compañero" is used to honor the Cuban revolution.
#15169949
Julian658 wrote:
Head Start had minimal benefits that disappeared after grade 1.



"A new report from the Brookings Institution reanalyzes the results of the 2010 “Head Start Impact Study,” which some have used to cast doubt on Head Start’s effectiveness. Brookings’ examination of the Impact Study exposes crucial flaws in methodology, while suggesting that, “Counterintuitively, perhaps, Head Start Impact Study’s imperfections can teach us a lot about the effect of Head Start.”

“While some have taken the initial Head Start Impact Study reports at face value, the new and carefully designed reanalyses of the Head Start Impact Study teach us not only about the positive impacts of Head Start, but about research design considerations as experiments in education become more prevalent. The Head Start Impact Study reanalyses and the decades of research on Head Start show that on a variety of outcomes from kindergarten readiness to intergenerational impacts, Head Start does work, particularly for students who otherwise would not be in center-based care.”

Meanwhile, the overwhelming body of research on the effects of Head Start show that Head Start causes better health, educational, and economic outcomes over the short and long term as a consequence of participation."
https://www.ffyf.org/another-major-study-debunks-head-start-fadeout-myth-from-flawed-impact-study/

Lauren Bauer, an Economic Studies Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of this new analysis, writes:

"Decades-spanning longitudinal studies of experimental preschool programs like
HighScope/Perry Preschool and
Abecedarian find those who participated in these early childhood educational interventions persist in education, have higher earnings and commit fewer crimes than the control group.
New research on the intergenerational effect of Perry Preschool by Nobel laureate James Heckman and Ganesh Karapakula finds that participants were more stably married, that their children were less likely to be suspended from school, and more likely to graduate from high school and be employed."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/06/14/does-head-start-work-the-debate-over-the-head-start-impact-study-explained/

As I said, you have a genius at getting it wrong.
#15169953
jimjam wrote:Go back to school.

1400 CIA trained mercenaries sent ashore in an "invasion" designed to fail so that the two battalions of marines waiting offshore on US warships could be called in for a "rescue" concurrently with US air power. All that was needed was JFK's ok which America's dogs of war took for granted ………… they kinda misjudged JFK , he withheld his approval which sent them into fits.

Yeah... 1400 people taking control of a whole country. My high school had more people than that. :lol:
#15169955
late wrote:"A new report from the Brookings Institution reanalyzes the results of the 2010 “Head Start Impact Study,” which some have used to cast doubt on Head Start’s effectiveness. Brookings’ examination of the Impact Study exposes crucial flaws in methodology, while suggesting that, “Counterintuitively, perhaps, Head Start Impact Study’s imperfections can teach us a lot about the effect of Head Start.”

“While some have taken the initial Head Start Impact Study reports at face value, the new and carefully designed reanalyses of the Head Start Impact Study teach us not only about the positive impacts of Head Start, but about research design considerations as experiments in education become more prevalent. The Head Start Impact Study reanalyses and the decades of research on Head Start show that on a variety of outcomes from kindergarten readiness to intergenerational impacts, Head Start does work, particularly for students who otherwise would not be in center-based care.”

Meanwhile, the overwhelming body of research on the effects of Head Start show that Head Start causes better health, educational, and economic outcomes over the short and long term as a consequence of participation."
https://www.ffyf.org/another-major-study-debunks-head-start-fadeout-myth-from-flawed-impact-study/

Lauren Bauer, an Economic Studies Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of this new analysis, writes:

"Decades-spanning longitudinal studies of experimental preschool programs like
HighScope/Perry Preschool and
Abecedarian find those who participated in these early childhood educational interventions persist in education, have higher earnings and commit fewer crimes than the control group.
New research on the intergenerational effect of Perry Preschool by Nobel laureate James Heckman and Ganesh Karapakula finds that participants were more stably married, that their children were less likely to be suspended from school, and more likely to graduate from high school and be employed."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/06/14/does-head-start-work-the-debate-over-the-head-start-impact-study-explained/

As I said, you have a genius at getting it wrong.


Compañero: If I am wrong I will learn something new. Thanks for the references.

From the second reference above:

In 2005, the first report about the Head Start Impact Study found that one year of Head Start improved cognitive skills, but the size of the effects was small. While this first report affirmed Head Start’s impact on school readiness, the final HHS report published in 2010 showed that by the end of first grade, the effects mostly faded out. According to the 2012 HHS report on third grade follow-up, by the end of primary school there was no longer a discernible impact of Head Start. Due in part to these reports, some have concluded that while Head Start has some initial impact on kindergarten readiness, the fadeout in impact over early elementary school qualifies attempts to invest more in early childhood education.

In the next paragraph they say:

Yet, these reports are not the final word on the Head Start Impact Study, in part because of the ways in which the experiment played out in the field. New research reanalyzes the Head Start Impact Study and finds that Head Start does improve cognitive skill. Let’s take a closer look at the problems with the experiment and what we can learn from the evidence in retrospect.

Then they say:

1. “Random assignment” was not always random.

2. A substantial share of the control group received the treatment; a substantial share of the treatment group did not.


The above is an awful way to do a study! :knife: :knife: :knife:

They came up with this conclusion:

if a child would otherwise be in home-based care, Head Start caused a larger increase in cognitive skill than the baseline. Head Start caused more than a third of a standard deviation increase in cognitive skill in the Kline and Walters analysis and almost a quarter of a standard deviation increase in Feller, Grindal, Miratrix, and Page. For children who otherwise would have gone to preschool, going to Head Start did not make an additional difference in cognitive skills.


In short, by remembering that what parents want for their children mattered more for where they went to preschool than random assignment.

It seems the program benefited kids with better parenting. What else is new? Why do you think Asians kids do well?. Great parents!

Thanks for providing this. I learned something new! Nevertheless, this reaffirms the point that having great parents is the most important factor in a kids education.
Last edited by Julian658 on 29 Apr 2021 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
#15169956
XogGyux wrote:Yeah... 1400 people taking control of a whole country. My high school had more people than that. :lol:


You come from a long line of Cuban doctors XogGyux and you worked hard on becoming one that works in the USA and has to attend patients during crisis.

You will always be an asset to the USA and to your family.

I wish all health professionals in Latin America were treated like what they are. A big asset and people who do for society.

Every doctor in Latin America who cares about medicine and has ethics and standards of care that benefit the patients they serve? Deserve excellent pay, vacation, self care and a high standard of job satisfaction. Being respected, and heard. And to be considered in all government decisions.

You are happy being in the USA. I am glad. And I am happy for you.

Para mi siempres serás un éxito XogGuyx.

;)
#15169963
XogGyux wrote:Yeah... 1400 people taking control of a whole country. My high school had more people than that. :lol:


And yet you think 82 people arrived on Granma and took over the country.
#15169964
Pants-of-dog wrote:And yet you think 82 people arrived on Granma and took over the country.


Most of them got shot. Or captured and imprisoned. Only about one dozen made it into hiding in the Sierra Maestra Pants.

This dozen that later grew into 21, included Che, Fidel, Raul, and a few others. They were able to survive due to the guajiros and guajiras of the mountains. Also they had strict rules.




Fidel bluffed and said there were many fighters when Batista's men had an overwhelming advantage.

The rebel army grew with the contributions of the peasants in Cuba. Many who never got any real help from Havana or Batista's government and only got taxed or burdened with bad policy. This goes to show again like in Tenotchitlan (Mexico City in 1521) that if you make internal enemies due to bad policies? Your ass is grass.
#15169968
late wrote:Yes, Head Start works better than anyone expected.

Yes, you are correct, but the improvement correlated with better parenting at home. Compañero*, if you make a valid point I will let you know.

So why not try to improve the quality of parenting? Is it because it sounds too much like a conservative talking point?
Why do you think Cuban exiles did so well in America? Why do you think Asian and immigrants from India have a greater degree of education and earnings than the Anglo Saxons? Could it be quality parenting?

*the term compañero is used to honor the Cuban revolution.
#15169970
Julian658 wrote:
Yes, you are correct, but the improvement correlated with better parenting at home.

So why not try to improve the quality of parenting?



Of course, but as always, you are still dodging the obvious.

That there were not only benefits, they were multi-generational. So while you flap your gums about parenting, that is a concrete way to improve it for the next generation...
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]