Second Short Quiz

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Second Short Quiz

Post by johnkarls »

.
Question 38 of the First Short Quiz was --

So with all this demonstrated success with inner-city children and with such political support, why did America turn its back on THE PROMISED LAND and WANDER IN THE WILDERNESS for 30 years WHERE IT CONTINUES TO WANDER???

Answer 38 said this would be addressed by the Second Short Quiz.



PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

1. Has it really been 30 years since the 1986 New York Times front-page article and the 1986 “60 Minutes” Program that featured the self-made multi-billionaire who had returned 5 years earlier to his alma mater, Harlem P.S. 121, to address the graduating 6th graders whom, on sudden inspiration, he had challenged to stay in school and he would pay their college tuition?

2. Had Eugene Lang then provided each of those “Dreamers” with a tutor and a mentor for the past 5 years? And were the New York Times and “60 Minutes” reporting that approximately 2/3 of the original 1981 Sixth Grade Class of Harlem P.S. 121 were now headed for college?

3. Why did the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of the 1990’s and its 178 projects in 51 American inner-cities (most of which sent 90% of their original THIRD graders to college) bear virtually no relationship to the post-2000 “I Have A Dream”® Foundation which appears to have concentrated on suburbs and appears to have lost all of the institutional knowledge about inner-cities that was accumulated by the 178 inner-cities projects of the 1990’s?

PART I: BILL AND MELINDA GATES AND THEIR FOUNDATION

4. Following the 1986 reports in the New York Times and “60 Minutes” did Bill and Melinda Gates and their Foundation “brainwash” America into worshipping for 10 years the “false idol” of breaking up inner-city schools into smaller units?

5. After admitting that failure, did Bill and Melinda Gates and their Foundation “brainwash” America into worshipping the “false idol” of school choice (aka charter schools)?

6. Did Stanford University conduct in 2009 a study of 2,403 charter schools (about half of all charter schools and 70% of all charter-school students) which found that 37% had learning gains that were SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW those of local public schools, 46% had gains that were NO DIFFERENT, and ONLY 17% showed growth that was significantly better?

7. This despite charter schools typically selecting only students of parents who were functional enough to have their children apply -- and despite charter schools typically expelling under-performing students?

8. Was the Stanford University study funded by PRO-CHARTER groups including the Walton Family Foundation, and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation?

9. Did this force us to conclude at our 9/12/2012 meeting that treating inner-city school results as an EDUCATION problem rather than a SOCIOLOGY problem makes no more sense than shutting down an inner-city police precinct in which a crime is committed and hiring amateurs in its place?

10. BTW, did Prof. Diane Ravitch (N.Y.U.’s Research Professor of Education, a historian of education, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education) like so much our analogy to an inner-city police precinct in which a crime is committed that she included it (without attribution) in her next book “Reign of Error: The Hoax of the School Privatization Movement” (Alfred A. Knopf 2013)?

11. Did we approve unanimously at our 9/12/2012 meeting a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to President Obama which concluded with --

“Since the reckless behavior of Bill and Melinda Gates are ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ as defined in the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court at The Hague, it is respectfully requested that you petition the U.N. Security Council to provide the ICC with jurisdiction to prosecute the Gates. After all, they are condemning more inner-city children to a ‘fate worse than death’ than the number of victims involved in all of the prosecutions at the ICC combined.”

PART II: PRESIDENT OBAMA AND 20 OTHER U.S. AND CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS + GWEN IFILL AND 42 OTHER NEWS-MEDIA SUPERSTARS

----------------
NB: The information in this Part II is documented by hundreds if not thousands of documents posted in the Third and Fourth Sections of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org under the Section Headings of “Inner-City Holocaust and America’s Apartheid ‘Justice’ System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin).”
----------------

12. When Yours Truly took early retirement in 1997 from Ernst & Young to become an investment banker, did he inform his Ernst & Young partners and did he inform the other 177 Sponsors of “I Have A Dream” projects in 51 American inner-cities (most of whom were CEO’s of major corporations) that he was doing so in order to devote every penny that he might earn as an investment banker to funding IHAD or IHAD-style programs?

13. Since quite a few of my Ernst & Young partners and since virtually all of the 177 Sponsors of other IHAD projects made THEREAFTER contributions to IHAD, do courts routinely treat such SUBSEQUENT contributions as the “quid pro quo” that makes a promise such as that of Yours Truly to donate every penny he might earn as an investment banker AS A LEGALLY-ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT?

14. Did Yours Truly learn from a front-page article in the 6/30/2006 Wall Street Journal that one of his financial products had been stolen by Barclays Capital which had used it to save billions for some of the world’s largest financial institutions?

15. Did the Wall Street Journal article say that the financial institutions involved had refused to answer any questions on the grounds that the financial product was a “Trade Secret” and did the WSJ article say that the WSJ had been unable to find any experts who were not privy to the “Trade Secret” who were able to “reverse engineer” the “Trade Secret” to figure out how it worked?

16. Is “conversion” the civil-law name for the crime of “theft”?

17. Is “conversion” regularly applied, for example, in the case of fine art stolen by the Nazis to return it (or its then fair market value at the option of the plaintiffs) to the heirs of the Holocaust victims who owned it?

18. Were there in fact 15 of the world’s largest financial institutions who acquired Yours Truly’s “Trade Secret” from Barclays Capital and who were able to save an estimated $21 billion courtesy of the “Trade Secret”?

19. Did Yours Truly sue 15 financial institutions who were “in receipt of stolen property” for “conversion” for $84 billion, which included treble damages for a reckless failure to ascertain who owned the “Trade Secret” because they hadn’t even asked Barclays Capital for a standard warranty that Barclays Capital owned the “Trade Secret”?

20. Did the California courts rule on a preliminary basis that no lawsuit could be permitted in California for “conversion” of “property” even though (A) the same trial court that so ruled had recently permitted a lawsuit for “conversion” of “property”, and (B) two California appellate courts were simultaneously permitting lawsuits for “conversion” of “property”?

21. Did all of the courts involved in Yours Truly’s lawsuits rule that their decisions could NOT be published? And rule further that their decisions could NOT be cited as precedent?

22. Was the “Question Presented For Review” in our Petition For Certiorari (i.e., Request To Accept An Appeal) to the U.S. Supreme Court --

“Can state court judges order their decisions which they know are diametrically-opposed to well-settled law, not to be published or cited (a strategy labeled ‘the segregated toilet’ in correspondence with 51 inner-city clergy who represent the 10 million inner-city children who have been disclosed from the outset as the ‘real parties at interest’ in this law suit) in order to flush away the rights of the 10 million inner-city children without disturbing the rights of first-class American citizens -- without violating the ‘Equal Protection of the Law’ requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

23. Had numerous letters been sent over several years to President Obama and 20 other U.S. and California Governmental Officials imploring them to file Amicus Curiae Briefs?

24. Had numerous letters been sent over several years to Gwen Ifill and 42 other news-media superstars imploring them to shine a light on what the California courts were doing?

25. Did President Obama, the 20 other governmental officials, Gwen Ifill and the 42 other news-media superstars ALL REFUSE TO LIFT A FINGER even though each of them knew that any one of them lifting a single finger might have been sufficient to enable THE 10 MILLION INNER-CITY CHILDREN TO AVOID “A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH”?

26. Had Yours Truly been corresponding during the entire imbroglio with 51 inner-city clergy from Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland, NEVER ASKING FOR A PENNY but only for THEIR PRAYERS and the prayers of their congregants?

27. Was one of the reasons for corresponding with the 51 inner-city clergy to be able to create quickly IHAD and IHAD-style programs with their congregants as tutors and mentors?

28. Was the final letter to the 51 inner-city clergy sent on 10/5/2011 to (A) inform them that the US Supreme Court on 10/4/2011 refused to hear our appeal, (B) thank them for their efforts with the solace that each of us would be able to say at The Pearly Gates with St. Paul (II Timothy 4:7): “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” and (C) request them and their congregants to pray for the souls of the 43 news-media superstars, the 21 governmental officials, the California judges and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices?

PART III: POPE FRANCIS

29. Did Pope Francis visit the U.S. last fall?

30. Did we approve unanimously at our 6/17/2015 meeting a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to Pope Francis with e-mail copies to the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who was helping to organize the Pope’s visit?

31. Did our E-mail Campaign call attention to the fact that UNICEF reports that the rate of American children living in poverty is at least DOUBLE THE RATE tolerated by any other industrialized country and TRIPLE the rate in Germany, Austria and France and QUADRUPLE the rate in such nations as Denmark, Slovenia, Norway, The Netherlands and Finland?

32. Did our E-mail Campaign also contain most of the other information set forth in the First Short Quiz?

33. Did our E-mail Campaign note that “It would appear that America is failing to obey Christ’s Second Commandment to Love Your Neighbor As Yourself when it comes to America’s inner-city children. This despite the overwhelming majority of Americans self identifying as Christians and despite the Roman Catholic Church’s 78.2 million baptized members comprising 24% of the U.S. population.”?

34. Did our E-mail Campaign implore Pope Francis to “Carpe the Diem during your impending U.S. visit to challenge U.S. clergy to organize such programs and…..challenge their congregants to become the Surrogate-Parent tutors and mentors to minister to the 23% of American children that UNICEF confirms live in poverty”?

35. Did Pope Francis and the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops shun America’s poor by blocking WITHIN A MATTER OF HOURS the e-mails that were being sent to them as a result of our campaign?

36. Do you think God will be able to forgive Pope Francis and the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for this behavior?

CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE

37. Will the current political proposal to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for poor and middle-class families cure the problem?

38. Isn’t it true that the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of the 1990’s had agreements with virtually all of America’s colleges and universities (including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT) that the IHAD tuition promise would be ignored in determining their scholarship grants -- so that IHAD dollars could be stretched to cover more inner-city children?

39. As a practical matter, wasn’t there so much scholarship money available at that time for inner-city children because Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc., were so desperate to provide diversity in their student bodies, that very little tuition money had to be provided by IHAD sponsors on a per-capita-student basis? And that the “last dollar” tuition promise of the IHAD sponsors enabled them to adopt considerably more “Dreamers”?

40. So wasn’t THE REAL PROBLEM focusing inner-city children on higher education and careers?

41. AND, as previously described, the IHAD tutors and mentors BECOMING SURROGATE PARENTS who would tell their “Dreamers” that they could make something of themselves with the IHAD program and it would “break the heart” of the Surrogate-Parent tutor/mentor if the “Dreamer” did not do so?

42. AND, as previously described, adopting EVERY student in the third-grade of an inner-city school or EVERY third-grade resident in a public-housing project IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A PROTECTIVE COCOON IN WHICH LEARNING IS REVERED RATHER THAN RIDICULED?

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments – Helping Children Succeed: What Works and Why - Oct 19”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests