The comparison I made was between children of non-immigrants in California, and the rest of the US, some of which states have very low immigrant populations and still approximately a 60% fail rate. The highest states were only about 44% passing.

Comparing immigrant children to immigrant children is a completely different tactic and one of the links in TFA already did it, so if that tickles your fancy, it'll probably be more relevant to your interest than my comment was.

If you have never, ever read Firstname Lastname (Rep) and not mistakenly extended that abbreviation into "Republican" rather than Representative, you are some kind of superhuman, because I know I have to do a mental check every damn time I see it.

...which would put them about on par with the rest of the US, actually...

I find it hard to believe that the first can't understand that you can't swim under a continent for the same reason you can't swim underwater from my swimming pool to the one next door. And there is nothing wrong with living with your parents. Having money doesn't mean you have to spend it. Some people can actually stand to be around their parents.

Anyway, here's a few less-impressive but still revealing facts:

41% of public school students in California live in homes where the most frequently spoken language is not English. [1].doc

English fluency rate in the LA school district has risen from a mere 16% in 2001 to an unsatisfying 49% in 2005. [2]

If the test was given in English, then everyone who took it was an English learner, and, unless they've stopped learning, is still an English learner.

The problem appears to be that they have defined "English learner" as "child who spoke a language other than English at home prior to learning English". That is not what "English learner" means.

I, for one, would appreciate if people writing English would write in such a way for fluent English readers to understand what they're saying.

85% of California students speak fluent Spanish [PDF]

Related? Unrelated? You be the judge.

That's what I thought you meant. And yeah, I disagree with the logic behind those laws.

Pretty screwed up, yes, but not punishable, I don't believe, unless they're first offered counseling to help them avoid acting on their desires and/or shift their fantasies into more acceptable domain, without the severely life-altering consequences that are presently not only likely but almost certain. If they're unresponsive or uncooperative, then perhaps more severe actions should be taken.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. And then masturbate. Both of which make them feel better about their own miserable selves. And as long as they're not starting fires, I don't see the harm. People will do desperate things when they're suffering from severe depression. Self-harm or drinking your liver to death are probably more harmful physically; bizarre and socially unacceptable fetishes are probably more damaging to the psyche. All of it just tends to build a moat around the depressed individual and distance him/her from society, fostering a growing illusion of a desert island - far from any help, and more importantly, not worth helping anyway. Yes, some counseling would probably help, but prison certainly won't.

I don't believe that most pedos are happy about the way they are. And the ones who're complacent in the fact are that way because they've been hardened by hiding it for so long. My opinion. Probably could be backed up by medical fact, but I don't have the facts, so ... take it for whatever you think it's worth.

Not a problem. Thanks too for a reasoned conversation; often as not it's just trolls throwing accusations of pedophilia to see if they strike a nerve.

I'll brag a little, I beat him by 4 hours.

If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul.

In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.

The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.

No, I've not. The "intent" is to produce the thoughts. The thoughts themselves are why it's illegal. Hence thoughtcrime.

Pleasure is nothing but a thought. As I said: the intent is merely to produce the thoughts. Thoughtcrime.

It is a thought crime.

You see, viewing child porn is not illegal for everyone. In fact, viewing child porn is only illegal for people who have bad, nasty thoughts while viewing it.

This conveniently translates to "anyone who intentionally obtains and views child porn, with the exception of cops and FBI agents who are paid to do so".

That's right! We need to send someone up there to make something that's not there out of what is there! And then it'll still be what's not there! And with any luck we can send somebody up there later to make what wasn't there before and what's still not there into an even bigger thing that isn't there! And maybe take something else that is there and put it into where there isn't something there, and make another thing that's not there!

I don't believe you.

Actually, no. I believe society can, should, and had better have the resources to chaperone children at all times. And the chaperone generally shouldn't be left alone with the child either.

I'm not convinced that it's an impractical fantasy. I believe it would be very difficult to change the entrenched status quo, and that is why the cold hard reality is the cold hard reality that it is.

Are you assuming that people have not done so? Usually "volunteered" after they're caught, so not exactly volunteered, I'll grant you. But "volunteering" it beforehand has dire consequences.

The "imagine why" bit is revealing. I can also imagine a world where we would know, because the ramifications of admitting something like this - before any children are actually harmed - would be that they're afforded counseling if they want it, and they're not allowed to be alone with children; no more, no less. If other adults are around, as I said before - I have no problem with that, unless the person is openly lewd toward children - in which case I'm sure the other adults would take immediate steps to stop it.

So, in what way is our current state of affairs better than the imaginary one I just described?

As it is, there are few instances where you should ever leave your children alone with someone. One of those is if it's their relative. Sadly, most child abuse occurs by the child's relative. And it is tragic when it happens. However, I still can't help but feel that it's caused primarily because they are driven underground by shame and the fear of people knowing. If anyone knew, they would almost certainly have loved ones taken away and never be permitted to see them - for a very long time.

Looking at a picture is a seemingly victimless crime. Abusing a child results in a young individual who may be scarred for life. The difference between the two is not necessarily a simple matter of variable willpower.

Copying is not theft.