Still Hating America.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Law firms also provide pro bono services for Guantanamo inmates. But, that's right, you guys think those firms should be boycotted.

On a personal level, why shouldn't we?

On a business level, tell me why my Fortune 100 company should have to pay ludicrous BIGLAW hourly rates, if that money is going to subsidize this loathsome behavior?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
'

You have apparently (I haven't got time to read your articles right now) established that teachers weren't fired. Not that they can't be fired. They are not the same thing.

And no one said that it it was absurd that the idea that it is difficulr to fire teachers was absurd.

Give me a break. One teacher in ten years (out of 35,000). Of course they wanted to get rid of them. . I have heard testimony to such effect. How can there not be tons of bad teachers that they wanted to fire? Why would they keep these teachers if all the parents are complaining?

You guys said my arguments were simple and not backed up by the facts. One of the three things I cited was inability to get rid of bad eggs. This fact was questioned. Specifically, the idea that teachers that don't teach can't be fired. Clearly the bad eggs are staying put in LA, and under the current rules it is next to impossible to get rid of them. If that were not the case why did they just get rid of one in ten years under their dismissal system. LA Unified covers many affluent neighborhoods, where you know the parents complained. These bad teachers were just moved to bad neighorhoods? Why would the administrators not get rid of them unless it was next to impossible to do so?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's the most important part of Spank's post:

• Michael Levin, an attorney for several suburban Philadelphia school districts, says, “I’ve been in this business for twenty-five years. Nothing surprises me any more. I just had my first cannibalism case.”

I've been warning you all that Sebby's "Philly is full of fat windbags" commernts are a feint away from the real problem. Philadelphia is a hotbed of Cannibalism.

Shhhh. Let's not toy with this developing fad.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On a personal level, why shouldn't we?

On a business level, tell me why my Fortune 100 company should have to pay ludicrous BIGLAW hourly rates, if that money is going to subsidize this loathsome behavior?

Is your Fortune 100 company also subsidizing the personal financial decisions of its top executives by over paying them to the point where they can throw money away?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On a personal level, why shouldn't we?

On a business level, tell me why my Fortune 100 company should have to pay ludicrous BIGLAW hourly rates, if that money is going to subsidize this loathsome behavior?

It shouldn't have to. You are more than welcome to boycott those firms.

I think the controversy over this subject was the Bush Administration's hint that what those firms was doing was wrong and should be punished via boycott. I view that as heavy handed and an uncomfortably fungible notion, applicable to areas including firms' providing defense for impoverished and wrongly convicted people.

But do I think most fo the crusaders for Gautanamo detainees are anti-American horses asses who need a fucking hobby? Yes, I am with you there.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is your Fortune 100 company also subsidizing the personal financial decisions of its top executives by over paying them to the point where they can throw money away?

Maybe his Fortune 100 company audits the charitable activities of all suppliers. You know, checks out whether they bought a table at an event benefiting an entity that supports gay marriage, or whatever.

I keep seeing articles/hearing pieces on how top execs making millions upon millions really are worth that much. I just don't see it. I can see how it got that way, with the one-upping and the pissing contests that go on between heads of rival companies, and with even the outside directors on the comp committees having an interest in raising top executive comp because they want the norm to go higher so they get more too, but I just cannot see how someone is worth $20m + a year.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is your Fortune 100 company also subsidizing the personal financial decisions of its top executives by over paying them to the point where they can throw money away?

Lessee, what are top executives supposed to do?

Stock price up - check
Dividends up - again, check
Employee Bonii - I'll let you know in a month

So no, they probably aren't being overpaid. Unlike some around here - I have no problem whatsoever with executives earning the big cash, so long as the company is doing well.

Hell, its inspirational.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is it possible for you to even once make an argument that is not such an obvious fallacy? Who cares if Rush Limbaugh endorsed his book? If we discounted books by who endorsed them, no book would have any validity.

Address the validity of their arguments. But if you are going to go the credentialed routes here is who these guys are. You may not like the PRI or the Hoover institute but it is not like they hire idiots or people that don't back up their articles with research.


K. Lloyd Billingsley is Editorial Director at the Pacific Research Institute. He can be reached via email at lbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. A former consultant to NBC News, he also served as a member of the Ultraterrorism Study Group at the U.S. government's Sandia National Laboratory.

Spanky, you were citing articles by paid conservative hacks that give no sources but lots of opinion, of course we're going to look at their credentials!

Those weren't arguments, they were conclusions - unions are bad, the process is bad, the process is the unions fault! It is soooo easy!

How about this - you have one citation that you are very excited about - one teacher fired through the process in 10 years. Can you find me an original source, not an op-ed without footnotes or an editorial, but an actual verifiable sources, that gives that fact? I'd be interested in that source, because it would probably have some answers to some of my other questions.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On a personal level, why shouldn't we?

On a business level, tell me why my Fortune 100 company should have to pay ludicrous BIGLAW hourly rates, if that money is going to subsidize this loathsome behavior?

If you've got a Fortune 100 company and want to boycott Wilmer Hale, have at it! So far, the general sense I get is that most Fortune 100 companies aren't eager to be seen as actively opposing representaiton for anyone who is incarcerated.

Something about the rule of law and the system that they just don't want to piss on.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Lessee, what are top executives supposed to do?

Stock price up - check
Dividends up - again, check
Employee Bonii - I'll let you know in a month

So no, they probably aren't being overpaid. Unlike some around here - I have no problem whatsoever with executives earning the big cash, so long as the company is doing well.

Hell, its inspirational.

Evidence that decisions made will benefit the company over the long term, and not just push the stock price up and increase dividends in the short term?

Comparison of company's stock price increase to others in the industry, and tto he overall stock market, to tell whether the company is just a ship on a rising tide?

Knowledge that if the company starts to go in the shitter because of emphasis on short-term returns and/or perception of execs doing well because the industry did well, and the execs get sacrified, they will suffer at all financially and not get either an amount just under the golden parachute line, or over the golden parachute line but with a gross-up?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course the liberals on this board will believe me about the prison guards, but because of their ideological bias, can't believe the same is true of the teachers union.

Why do you even bother to write this crap?

Your first paragraph was actually reasonable, made a point and was worth listening to. The second paragraph (above) was completely unnecessary, overgeneralizes, and designed to shove a thumb in peoples' eyes.

Does being involved in politics absolutely require a "dickhead" gene? If not, there seems to be a lot of self-selection.

S_A_M

P.S. When you admit that problems aren't so black and white, and try to rationally discuss them, your posts can be interesting. You actually know a lot of things, and have interesting stories. Far too often though, you have to undergo 3-4 rounds of attack posts before you even acknowledge that something is not black and white. Why do you start in an attack mode?

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On a personal level, why shouldn't we?

On a business level, tell me why my Fortune 100 company should have to pay ludicrous BIGLAW hourly rates, if that money is going to subsidize this loathsome behavior?

Because it isn't loathsome?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Give me a break. One teacher in ten years (out of 35,000). Of course they wanted to get rid of them. . I have heard testimony to such effect. How can there not be tons of bad teachers that they wanted to fire?

Re-read what I said. This is a non-sequitor.

One of the three things I cited was inability to get rid of bad eggs.

Not all students who fail are incapable of passing.

Why would the administrators not get rid of them unless it was next to impossible to do so?

Because they are as lazy as the teachers you hate?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the controversy over this subject was the Bush Administration's hint that what those firms was doing was wrong and should be punished via boycott.

He also implied that maybe the firms are really being paid by the terrorists.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Maybe his Fortune 100 company audits the charitable activities of all suppliers. You know, checks out whether they bought a table at an event benefiting an entity that supports gay marriage, or whatever.

I'm sure. And not just the suppliers' activities, but those suppliers' employees activities. The idea that pro bono increases law firm rates is ludicrous. It's charitable giving that comes out of the partners' take-home pay (and, increasingly, out of the associates' time, because it's not counted like billable hours). That's why there's so little of it at most firms. If it were true corporate largess, as it is at most Fortune 100 companies who give to charities left and right, thereby reducing profits and dividends, there might be an issue. But it's not.