And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

dajafi wrote:And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

I forgot the most recent S.C. appointment, and had to give educated guesses on a couple others.

Augustus wrote:I don't understand why teacher's unions are routinely demonized for doing their jobs.

I didn't really have the energy to respond to this in the middle of the Phils game Sunday, so away we go.

They're regularly demonized for doing their jobs because many aspects of their job are harmful to society. The public education system exists to educate America's children. The second most important stakeholder in the system is the taxpayer, not the teacher. The public education system does not exist primarily or even secondarily so teachers can have comfortable lifetime employment. By advocating for their members, and refusing in most cases to compromise regardless of how dire the situation is fiscally, the unions end up hurting both the taxpayer and the children. Rather than accept a one year pay freeze and kick in a little for benefits, the unions are holding the line at what their contracts state. The result is huge layoffs in most districts across the state. It hurts the students because the low teacher on the totem pole is being fired so the tenured teachers can receive their 4% pay bump following a year where the CPI actually went down. It hurts the students that layoffs will be conducted in such a way that ignores how good the teacher is at their job, placing far greater emphasis on seniority. They hurt taxpayers on a year to year basis because unions consistently demand wage increases that outstrip inflation, adding more weight to the already straining state and local tax burden.

Does increasing teacher pay have some merits? Sure, it would be nice to attract and keep more highly qualified folks to educate our young people. Generous benefits, summers off and other perks are key to getting qualified educators. So teachers unions are not 100% bad things, but in a case like this, especially when they disingenuously claim that what they're doing is always "for the good of the children," they're doing a hell of a lot more harm than good. They need to be vilified publicly.

Let's use another example of a special interest advocate. Why do big oil lobbyists get demonized? They're only doing their jobs when they push lawmakers to open up areas to drilling regardless of environmental consequences, rail against windfall profit taxes as hindering future innovation, and complain that raising CAFE standards might make cars less safe. They're looking to increase both supply and demand, and ultimately their company's profit margin. Just doing their job. Much of what they do is helpful, in my opinion. We need to increase the supply side, and punishing successful businesses with windfall profit taxes seems counter to what our system should stand for. But increasing supply needs to be tempered by environmental concerns, and finding ways to curtail usage like raising fuel standards is important for the long term economic and environmental health of this country. And so oil lobbyists are rightfully distrusted and demonized for their more extreme stances because in doing their job, many of the things they do are hurting the country on the whole.

In the case of the oil lobbyist though, there is a counterbalance. Environmental groups pressure lawmakers from the other side to protect areas from drilling and to increase fuel standards. These groups also have a ton of money, and are politically active in targeting lawmakers who disagree with them with ads. Public interest groups and liberal policy folks will nudge lawmakers and say, "Hey why don't you slap a 10% tax hike on ExxonMobil, so I can pay for this expansion of health care for children." There are organized voices on both sides of these issues.

With teachers unions, there is no real organized opposition, just disparate taxpayers in the state who are getting fed up. Now finally it looks like New Jersey has elected a leader who is willing to stand up to their political muscle and call them to the fore and see if they're really doing what they do for the children, or to protect their members at the cost of educational quality and taxpayer dollars. I'm not sure it's a fight Christie is going to win, and I don't know if he's going about it 100% the right way, but it's a fight that needs to be fought for the good of the future of this state.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

I forgot the most recent S.C. appointment, and had to give educated guesses on a couple others.

Woohoo! 12 of 12! It would have been rather embarrassing to get one wrong, and I wouldn't have posted my result.

I got 11 of 12 and only because I misread the oil question and did the opposite of what they were asking

jerseyhoya wrote:

Augustus wrote:I don't understand why teacher's unions are routinely demonized for doing their jobs.

I didn't really have the energy to respond to this in the middle of the Phils game Sunday, so away we go.

They're regularly demonized for doing their jobs because many aspects of their job are harmful to society. The public education system exists to educate America's children. The second most important stakeholder in the system is the taxpayer, not the teacher. The public education system does not exist primarily or even secondarily so teachers can have comfortable lifetime employment. By advocating for their members, and refusing in most cases to compromise regardless of how dire the situation is fiscally, the unions end up hurting both the taxpayer and the children. Rather than accept a one year pay freeze and kick in a little for benefits, the unions are holding the line at what their contracts state. The result is huge layoffs in most districts across the state. It hurts the students because the low teacher on the totem pole is being fired so the tenured teachers can receive their 4% pay bump following a year where the CPI actually went down. It hurts the students that layoffs will be conducted in such a way that ignores how good the teacher is at their job, placing far greater emphasis on seniority. They hurt taxpayers on a year to year basis because unions consistently demand wage increases that outstrip inflation, adding more weight to the already straining state and local tax burden.

Does increasing teacher pay have some merits? Sure, it would be nice to attract and keep more highly qualified folks to educate our young people. Generous benefits, summers off and other perks are key to getting qualified educators. So teachers unions are not 100% bad things, but in a case like this, especially when they disingenuously claim that what they're doing is always "for the good of the children," they're doing a hell of a lot more harm than good. They need to be vilified publicly.

Let's use another example of a special interest advocate. Why do big oil lobbyists get demonized? They're only doing their jobs when they push lawmakers to open up areas to drilling regardless of environmental consequences, rail against windfall profit taxes as hindering future innovation, and complain that raising CAFE standards might make cars less safe. They're looking to increase both supply and demand, and ultimately their company's profit margin. Just doing their job. Much of what they do is helpful, in my opinion. We need to increase the supply side, and punishing successful businesses with windfall profit taxes seems counter to what our system should stand for. But increasing supply needs to be tempered by environmental concerns, and finding ways to curtail usage like raising fuel standards is important for the long term economic and environmental health of this country. And so oil lobbyists are rightfully distrusted and demonized for their more extreme stances because in doing their job, many of the things they do are hurting the country on the whole.

In the case of the oil lobbyist though, there is a counterbalance. Environmental groups pressure lawmakers from the other side to protect areas from drilling and to increase fuel standards. These groups also have a ton of money, and are politically active in targeting lawmakers who disagree with them with ads. Public interest groups and liberal policy folks will nudge lawmakers and say, "Hey why don't you slap a 10% tax hike on ExxonMobil, so I can pay for this expansion of health care for children." There are organized voices on both sides of these issues.

With teachers unions, there is no real organized opposition, just disparate taxpayers in the state who are getting fed up. Now finally it looks like New Jersey has elected a leader who is willing to stand up to their political muscle and call them to the fore and see if they're really doing what they do for the children, or to protect their members at the cost of educational quality and taxpayer dollars. I'm not sure it's a fight Christie is going to win, and I don't know if he's going about it 100% the right way, but it's a fight that needs to be fought for the good of the future of this state.

Many of the complaints regarding teachers unions are legitimate. However, states with weak teachers unions also tend to have crappy schools. (And at least in Arkansas, the main villains in the piece in my view are superintendents and very passive and accomodating school boards.)

In any event, it appears that there has been a kind of iron triangle in American education, of which teachers unions are but one element. The iron triangle includes local and state school administrators, higher ed teacher education programs and the "research" they produce (if you were ever to look at what these PhDs and EdDs publish in professional journals, you'd be scandalized. In terms of methodological soundness, they're at Joe Morgan levels) as well teachers unions. The whole system is designed to produced standardization and routinization, where teachers have little control over how and what they teach. New programs are trotted out every few years, regardless whether there's data supporting their implementation. The notion of "learning styles" is an example. It seems largely bogus.

But there's other stuff--charter schools, it appears, are often simply ways for enterprising people to skim money from public education and then skedaddle. Fraud may be epidemic in charter schools.

The reality is simple--no education system will work if children are unmotivated and educational efforts aren't supported at home. That's both a collective and an individual problem.

Yeah, baby, 12 of 12! If I can get 12 of 12 (as I am not nearly as "up" on things as you guys/gals), Joe and Jane American must really have their head buried in the sand to "average" less than six correct on those 12 questions.

Now, how much of a j/o is Chris Christie going out there and telling everybody to vote down their school budgets (granted, he specified the move in districts where teachers didn't freeze their pay, but still)? First, he takes schools' surpluses, then he cuts state funding anywhere from 0% to 100% and now he wants voters to put schools even further behind the eight-ball by having voters vote "No". He had my full support early on but it is drifting away quickly. I really think he is taking this demonization of teachers too far now. I am sort of on the outside looking in, though, as the teachers, administrators and support staff in my district did make concessions to help things along.

I don't know why but this just feels like something Christie should be keeping his nose out of. Trenton keeps trying to push things down to the locals and this year was no different. So, let us handle our own business and you worry about yours. The kids in my district will be getting a "Yes" vote from me.

dajafi wrote:And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

11 out of 12. Guessed wrong on the Xmas bomber one, wasn't paying attention to that cuz it corresponded with my dad's ordeal and passing.

dajafi wrote:And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

i only got 7 right. but i avoid almost all political stuff. my only exposure to politics is this forum when i come into it.

dajafi wrote:And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

I got 11 of 12. The one I got wrong I was sure I had it right. I had totally forgotten about Ginsburg. I was thinking about O'Connor, who I knew retired, and Sotomayor. I had to make educated guesses on 2 or 3 others.

Looking at the breakdown, I can't believe how many people don't know about the filibuster rule. Where do they teach you this, isn't it in grade school?

TheAAGuy wrote:

dajafi wrote:And speaking of "people are stupid" (or uninformed, I guess):

Americans fail politics quiz

I got them all right, but will admit I guessed on one or two.

I got 11 of 12. The one I got wrong I was sure I had it right. I had totally forgotten about Ginsburg. I was thinking about O'Connor, who I knew retired, and Sotomayor. I had to make educated guesses on 2 or 3 others.

Looking at the breakdown, I can't believe how many people don't know about the filibuster rule. Where do they teach you this, isn't it in grade school?

It could be in grade school but if anybody opened a newspaper, clicked on the Internet or watch 30 seconds of TV during the health care debates they are sure to have heard about the 60 vote thing.

traderdave wrote:Yeah, baby, 12 of 12! If I can get 12 of 12 (as I am not nearly as "up" on things as you guys/gals), Joe and Jane American must really have their head buried in the sand to "average" less than six correct on those 12 questions.

Now, how much of a j/o is Chris Christie going out there and telling everybody to vote down their school budgets (granted, he specified the move in districts where teachers didn't freeze their pay, but still)? First, he takes schools' surpluses, then he cuts state funding anywhere from 0% to 100% and now he wants voters to put schools even further behind the eight-ball by having voters vote "No". He had my full support early on but it is drifting away quickly. I really think he is taking this demonization of teachers too far now. I am sort of on the outside looking in, though, as the teachers, administrators and support staff in my district did make concessions to help things along.

I don't know why but this just feels like something Christie should be keeping his nose out of. Trenton keeps trying to push things down to the locals and this year was no different. So, let us handle our own business and you worry about yours. The kids in my district will be getting a "Yes" vote from me.

It's the state's money, not the school districts. He didn't "take" surpluses, he forced the school districts to use them. It's a large scale equivalent of, "I got a pay cut, but I don't want to use my savings to pay my mortgage!"

I'm not saying that every school district is bloated, but when you've got a state government with a deficit, and local school district with a surplus, why hand them more money to spend willy-nilly?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Augustus wrote:I don't understand why teacher's unions are routinely demonized for doing their jobs.

I didn't really have the energy to respond to this in the middle of the Phils game Sunday, so away we go.

They're regularly demonized for doing their jobs because many aspects of their job are harmful to society. The public education system exists to educate America's children. The second most important stakeholder in the system is the taxpayer, not the teacher. The public education system does not exist primarily or even secondarily so teachers can have comfortable lifetime employment. By advocating for their members, and refusing in most cases to compromise regardless of how dire the situation is fiscally, the unions end up hurting both the taxpayer and the children. Rather than accept a one year pay freeze and kick in a little for benefits, the unions are holding the line at what their contracts state. The result is huge layoffs in most districts across the state. It hurts the students because the low teacher on the totem pole is being fired so the tenured teachers can receive their 4% pay bump following a year where the CPI actually went down. It hurts the students that layoffs will be conducted in such a way that ignores how good the teacher is at their job, placing far greater emphasis on seniority. They hurt taxpayers on a year to year basis because unions consistently demand wage increases that outstrip inflation, adding more weight to the already straining state and local tax burden.

Does increasing teacher pay have some merits? Sure, it would be nice to attract and keep more highly qualified folks to educate our young people. Generous benefits, summers off and other perks are key to getting qualified educators. So teachers unions are not 100% bad things, but in a case like this, especially when they disingenuously claim that what they're doing is always "for the good of the children," they're doing a hell of a lot more harm than good. They need to be vilified publicly.

Let's use another example of a special interest advocate. Why do big oil lobbyists get demonized? They're only doing their jobs when they push lawmakers to open up areas to drilling regardless of environmental consequences, rail against windfall profit taxes as hindering future innovation, and complain that raising CAFE standards might make cars less safe. They're looking to increase both supply and demand, and ultimately their company's profit margin. Just doing their job. Much of what they do is helpful, in my opinion. We need to increase the supply side, and punishing successful businesses with windfall profit taxes seems counter to what our system should stand for. But increasing supply needs to be tempered by environmental concerns, and finding ways to curtail usage like raising fuel standards is important for the long term economic and environmental health of this country. And so oil lobbyists are rightfully distrusted and demonized for their more extreme stances because in doing their job, many of the things they do are hurting the country on the whole.

In the case of the oil lobbyist though, there is a counterbalance. Environmental groups pressure lawmakers from the other side to protect areas from drilling and to increase fuel standards. These groups also have a ton of money, and are politically active in targeting lawmakers who disagree with them with ads. Public interest groups and liberal policy folks will nudge lawmakers and say, "Hey why don't you slap a 10% tax hike on ExxonMobil, so I can pay for this expansion of health care for children." There are organized voices on both sides of these issues.

With teachers unions, there is no real organized opposition, just disparate taxpayers in the state who are getting fed up. Now finally it looks like New Jersey has elected a leader who is willing to stand up to their political muscle and call them to the fore and see if they're really doing what they do for the children, or to protect their members at the cost of educational quality and taxpayer dollars. I'm not sure it's a fight Christie is going to win, and I don't know if he's going about it 100% the right way, but it's a fight that needs to be fought for the good of the future of this state.

I partially agree with what you wrote, but think it misses the larger point. I think it fine for teacher's unions to advocate for higher pay and to oppose cuts in education funding and reduction of services to students, during times of fiscal crisis. In my own district a decade or so ago, the union did agree to givebacks when the contract became untenable as inflation fell quite a lot from what was expected as did economic growth.

The big problem with teacher's unions is that they have succeeded in changing a profession into the equivalent of assembling automobiles and in so doing have greatly damaged the quality of education in this country. They are opposed to almost all of the things which would improve education: basing salary increases upon performance rather than tenure, giving higher salaries to skills that are more in demand (science, math, foreign language should earn more than phys ed), a reasonable way to fire teachers who simply don't teach well or have lost the desire to teach, a cooperative school-based team between teachers-administrators-students, demanding a quality educational result.

allentown wrote:
The big problem with teacher's unions is that they have succeeded in changing a profession into the equivalent of assembling automobiles and in so doing have greatly damaged the quality of education in this country.

A lot of people, not just, and probably not primarily, teachers unions, are complicit in this.

But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

jeff2sf wrote:But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

Don't get me wrong--I don't think that my diagnosis is really actionable. Indeed, to the contrary. I'm saying reforms are pretty much doomed from the get go.

Depending on how cranky I am, I am willing to tell parents who care that they're on their own. And they need to tell their children that the day after high school graduation until the end of their lives it will be revenge of the nerds.

I don't know how I missed this last week, but I know the new RNC Chief of Staff relatively well. Got hammered drunk at work outings with him more than once in the 08 cycle. He's not very good at table shuffleboard. Red Sox fan.

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't know how I missed this last week, but I know the new RNC Chief of Staff relatively well. Got hammered drunk at work outings with him more than once in the 08 cycle. He's not very good at table shuffleboard. Red Sox fan.

And what about BDSM strip clubs?

As far as I know, we always spent our own money when out at the bars. If he wants to go to lesbian bondage clubs on his own dime, more power to him.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't know how I missed this last week, but I know the new RNC Chief of Staff relatively well. Got hammered drunk at work outings with him more than once in the 08 cycle. He's not very good at table shuffleboard. Red Sox fan.

And what about BDSM strip clubs?

Where do you think those "work outings" were?