jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Finally, since when is mpmcgraw 'liberal'?

When he's reciting claptrap? He's not mine to be embarassed by, caps or not it's a liberal argument he's making.

I figured this out: he's actually the world's youngest Perot voter.

Bahahaha. That's awesome.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'm not against vouchers per se any more than I am faith-based programs. Just want to see more to suggest that they work.

Do private schools have a higher failure rate than public schools? What if they're completely even? Why is that standard thrown out from the get-go? Isn't that the obvious first place to look for suggestions as to whether or not they work?

The Red Tornado wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'm not against vouchers per se any more than I am faith-based programs. Just want to see more to suggest that they work.

Do private schools have a higher failure rate than public schools? What if they're completely even? Why is that standard thrown out from the get-go? Isn't that the obvious first place to look for suggestions as to whether or not they work?

I cant find it, but I know John Stossel in his book cited a community that gave it a try. Not only did the parents overwhelmingly like it and the private school performed better with less money but the public school also improved quite a bit due to the competition.

VoxOrion wrote:Really, if you think about it - he's also a McCain circa 2000 kind of guy too.

VoxOrion wrote:
Competition, I've heard, is chief among the list of evils according to some perspectives though.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Finally, since when is mpmcgraw 'liberal'?

When he's reciting claptrap? He's not mine to be embarassed by, caps or not it's a liberal argument he's making.

I figured this out: he's actually the world's youngest Perot voter.

Bahahaha. That's awesome.

Right? The angry centrism, the military fetish, the disdain for religious types... actually it's a great political place to be for a pissed-off teenager.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Really, if you think about it - he's also a McCain circa 2000 kind of guy too.

Wait, wait--you're not implying there's a difference between McCain now and McCain earlier, are you?

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I've told the story on here before how my dad was the vice chair of Perot in Burlington County in 1992. I remember helping him, going around in our Ford Taurus wagon, putting up lawn signs all over the sides of highways in the county on some fall weekends. Good times. My introduction to electoral politics, as a seven year old, working for a kook.

The Red Tornado wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:
Competition, I've heard, is chief among the list of evils according to some perspectives though.

a shame, competition is always better

do you remember how bad cable service was before DishTv and DirectTV?

Are you old enough to remember the long distance rates of AT&T before the break up? (They were much higher than they are now!!)

competition creates better value and better service- I will believe that with my libertarian soul until the day I die

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Really, if you think about it - he's also a McCain circa 2000 kind of guy too.

Wait, wait--you're not implying there's a difference between McCain now and McCain earlier, are you?

I've never claimed that. Don't lump me in with the McCainiacs, cause I've never been one.

I do think going from being America's favorite Republican to being a Bush clone is a real stretch, but that comes from my disliking him (for the most part) over the past 8 years.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Really, if you think about it - he's also a McCain circa 2000 kind of guy too.

Wait, wait--you're not implying there's a difference between McCain now and McCain earlier, are you?

I've never claimed that. Don't lump me in with the McCainiacs, cause I've never been one.

I do think going from being America's favorite Republican to being a Bush clone is a real stretch, but that comes from my disliking him (for the most part) over the past 8 years.

No, I know you aren't in that boat. Just having some fun. Werth homered!

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think I've told the story on here before how my dad was the vice chair of Perot in Burlington County in 1992. I remember helping him, going around in our Ford Taurus wagon, putting up lawn signs all over the sides of highways in the county on some fall weekends. Good times. My introduction to electoral politics, as a seven year old, working for a kook.

Nice. Do you remember if you actually expected him to win, or was it just that it was fun to do?

I think Perot made a lot of good points, and one easily could argue that "his" voters have dominated the politics of the country the last sixteen years--they were the flood time in '94 and '06 for sure. The press always talks about "Reagan Democrats," and there's overlap, but the Perot Voters is probably a more significant/descriptive group at this point.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Well sometimes more money does equal better service.

I'm not talking about sometimes - it's always a complaint about money. Always. That's my problem. And, there's almost always a pattern of increased funding with no significant change in results, and the answer is still: more money and it would have worked/would be working.

pacino wrote:And it's kind of silly to expect teachers to be 'judged' by any sort of standard other than peer review. Currently we look at failure rates of kids, test scores, etc. What do either have to do with TEACHERS, rather than kids or parents?

Wouldn't we all love to have our cronies evaluate us? I know I would. There's no real separation of duty there, no risk management, no nothing. It's a system so prone to corruption it would be unthinkable in 90% of other professions, what makes teachers special?

As for the other hyperbole, all I can say is: Holy $#@!. Are you saying there is no correlation between the subject taught, the success of the students, and the quality of the teacher? I can't even debate that it's so outrageous.

Dumb kids, undisciplined kids (both socially and in terms of doing homework, preparing, studying, etc), I can get behind because I'm in agreement with in terms of contributing factors - but eliminating all responsibility from the teachers and acting as if that's not only rational but obvious? Can't drink that kool-aid, brother.

pacino wrote:Finally, since when is mpmcgraw 'liberal'?

When he's reciting claptrap? He's not mine to be embarassed by, caps or not it's a liberal argument he's making.

pacino wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Well sometimes more money does equal better service.

I'm not talking about sometimes - it's always a complaint about money. Always. That's my problem. And, there's almost always a pattern of increased funding with no significant change in results, and the answer is still: more money and it would have worked/would be working.

pacino wrote:And it's kind of silly to expect teachers to be 'judged' by any sort of standard other than peer review. Currently we look at failure rates of kids, test scores, etc. What do either have to do with TEACHERS, rather than kids or parents?

Wouldn't we all love to have our cronies evaluate us? I know I would. There's no real separation of duty there, no risk management, no nothing. It's a system so prone to corruption it would be unthinkable in 90% of other professions, what makes teachers special?

As for the other hyperbole, all I can say is: Holy $#@!. Are you saying there is no correlation between the subject taught, the success of the students, and the quality of the teacher? I can't even debate that it's so outrageous.

Dumb kids, undisciplined kids (both socially and in terms of doing homework, preparing, studying, etc), I can get behind because I'm in agreement with in terms of contributing factors - but eliminating all responsibility from the teachers and acting as if that's not only rational but obvious? Can't drink that kool-aid, brother.

pacino wrote:Finally, since when is mpmcgraw 'liberal'?

When he's reciting claptrap? He's not mine to be embarassed by, caps or not it's a liberal argument he's making.

We are speaking in huge hypotheticals. No one's responded to my question about a way to go about merit pay.

I also fail to see how peer review is 'cronyism'. It works pretty well in academia in regards to papers.

VoxOrion wrote:There isn't an answer so contracted raises based on no qualifying criteria except getting the job in the first place is the only way to go. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

FTN wrote:Its a shame this will get buried at the end of this thread, but this makes me really sad.

Olbermann and Matthews removed