Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Poisoning their top nuke scientist was a start.

Indeed. But I was trying to get at the idea that while such tactics may work well for a while, planning to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons by poisoning their scientists won't work in the long run.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Again, you keep talking about this test like it was something instituted by Republicans, and Democrats have come along only as they could gradually free themselves from the yoke of their CTA masters.

And, again, this is wrong.

O'Connell, a Democrat, wrote the bill that instituted the exit exam.

Gray Davis, a Democrat, made passing the bill a centerpiece of his work as governor.

Republicans at one point threatened to derail the bill, possibly because they believed it wasn't tough enough, but ultimately they did not have the votes for it.

I have been unable to find a vote count, but obviously the bill would not have passed without at least some Democratic support -- and I'm guessing that it was pretty strong Democratic support. I don't know if Repubs voted for or against, generally.

The CTA was mightily opposed, yet somehow the Democratic Party managed to slip from their ironclad grasp.

All of this happened in 1999. The law was then stuck in the courts as a result of a challenge by Public Advocates, which appears to be based on an alleged failure to consider sufficient alternative tests.

What are you trying to argue here?

Yes Davis talked about it but it was his way of reaching towards the center. To show he was not completely beholden to the teachers Unions.

Yes - not all Democrats are beholden to the teachers union, just like all Republicans are not beholden to the NRA. But that is generally the trend.

When the Governator comes out for gun control, or when a Republican legislator pushes for gun control does that mean that the NRA does not have a strong influence in the Republican Party?

Where to you think the phrase "teaching to the test" comes from? Republicans? The liberals on this board (and liberals everywhere) constantly say that testing is a waste of money and the money could be better used other places (I think Adder said that yesterday) and use the dumbest mantra of time over and over "teaching to the test". Those same arguments were used against the exit exam. Where do you think that opposition was coming from? Yes the Republicans caused problems, but that was because they wanted more tests and stronger tests.

First, when I said that we did not have enough testing, I was accused of oversimplifying, and that testing really is not that much of a cure all. Plus I am accused of not backing up by argument with any facts. Once I point to the exit exam, then you tell me "well that was really a Democrat thing". Does that mean it doesn't work, or does that mean it is not a good argument for testing?

My original thesis was that there are three obvious things that need to be done that will help improve our education system. 1) Testing - the exit exam proves that testing helps. 2) The end of social promotion - I think adder even admitted that the idea is waning in popularity. You have argued that at one time there were strong arguments but you have never supported its continued use 3) Getting of tenure and turning to a merit system for teaching- the only argument against this has been that the stats I am using are bad. In addition, it has been argued that teachers don't really have tenure (or much job protection), which I have shown they clearly do in California, and the example of Los Angeles.

I have argued that the teachers Union and their Democrat allies stand in the way of these three things. Are you saying the ending of the three things: no testing, social promotion, teacher tenure will not help? Are you saying these things are really not a problem and I have not shown evidence that they are? Are you saying that the teachers unions do not fight these things? Or are you arguing that the Teachers union strongest support base is not the Democrats? I will make it simple.

1) Testing

a) Do you think more testing does not help?
b) Do you think the exit exam improved education in California?
c) Do you think the teachers unions are not fighting against more testing?


2) Social promotion

a) Do you thing ending social promotion will not help education in California?
b) Do you think social promotion does not exist anymore in California?
c) Do you think the teachers unions are not fighting the discontinuing of social promotion?

3) End of tenure and getting rid of bad eggs

a) Do you think I am wrong when I say it is hard to get rid of teachers who are bad?
b) Do you think my evidence supporting the idea that you can't get rid of incompetent teachers in LA Unified and elsewhere is faulty?
c) Do you think the existence of bad teachers is not a problem?
d) Do you think the teachers are not fighting to preserve tenure and are making it more difficult to fire bad teachers?

4) Do you not think that the teachers union does not have a strong influence over the Democrat party in California?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
My thought on that is that Iran and Syria are already involved and acting in Iraq (mostly under the table). We haven't been able to stop them and won't be able to do so in the future. Simple fact.

So, lets bring them to the table and get them involved to some extent publicly with others in the region and internationally to try to compel some useful/responsible behavior.

Not that Iran can afford to donate much cash, since the Saudis have depressed the price of oil to screw Iran.

S_A_M

Baker when asked about Iran, said, yes it is true that they are refusing to help and probably won't help. But lets expose them to the world that they won't help by reaching out to them. So even Baker doesn't think that Iran will help, his argument was to just expose them.

These countrys want to see the US fail. That is their goal. Once that happens then they will deal with Iraq. But as long as the US is there they will do everything in their power to make it worse. Yes that is bad for them, but they see that negative as outweighed by the benefits they will receive by a US failure. A US failure is more important to them than a failed Iraq state.

Do you not believe that?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
There has been diplomacy tried for almost 30 years. These terrorist nations don't react to diplomacy, they manipulate it. If the US had used diplomacy like the kind your Ds love, Hitler's final solution would have been realised. Of course,. the Ds policy in the ME may yet do that for him.

We've been trying diplomacy with Iran for 30 years?

Other than Reagan arming them, what are you referring to?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.

I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."

- Neville Chamberlain

When did you mind-meld with Bilmore?

Not every diplomat is Neville Chamberlain. I'm not suggesting ceding portions of Iraq to Iran -- although that, of course, is what your brilliant President's strategy has accomplished. I'm suggesting that keeping a dialog open tends to be more valuable in the long run than saying fuck you all the time.

Unlike Chamberlain's UK and Hitler's Germany, we actually have one interest in common with Iran -- neither of us really wants chaos in Iraq (though, again, that's what your brilliant President has accomplished). The same is true for Syria.

Equating "diplomacy" with "surrender" or "appeasement" is the mark of an idiot. Hell, Reagan negotiated with the USSR (and, of course, he armed Iran). Was he the heir to Neville Chamberlain?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
What are you trying to argue here?

Yes Davis talked about it but it was his way of reaching towards the center. To show he was not completely beholden to the teachers Unions.

Yes - not all Democrats are beholden to the teachers union, just like all Republicans are not beholden to the NRA. But that is generally the trend.

When the Governator comes out for gun control, or when a Republican legislator pushes for gun control does that mean that the NRA does not have a strong influence in the Republican Party?

Where to you think the phrase "teaching to the test" comes from? Republicans? The liberals on this board (and liberals everywhere) constantly say that testing is a waste of money and the money could be better used other places (I think Adder said that yesterday) and use the dumbest mantra of time over and over "teaching to the test". Those same arguments were used against the exit exam. Where do you think that opposition was coming from? Yes the Republicans caused problems, but that was because they wanted more tests and stronger tests.

First, when I said that we did not have enough testing, I was accused of oversimplifying, and that testing really is not that much of a cure all. Plus I am accused of not backing up by argument with any facts. Once I point to the exit exam, then you tell me "well that was really a Democrat thing". Does that mean it doesn't work, or does that mean it is not a good argument for testing?

My original thesis was that there are three obvious things that need to be done that will help improve our education system. 1) Testing - the exit exam proves that testing helps. 2) The end of social promotion - I think adder even admitted that the idea is waning in popularity. You have argued that at one time there were strong arguments but you have never supported its continued use 3) Getting of tenure and turning to a merit system for teaching- the only argument against this has been that the stats I am using are bad. In addition, it has been argued that teachers don't really have tenure (or much job protection), which I have shown they clearly do in California, and the example of Los Angeles.

I have argued that the teachers Union and their Democrat allies stand in the way of these three things. Are you saying the ending of the three things: no testing, social promotion, teacher tenure will not help? Are you saying these things are really not a problem and I have not shown evidence that they are? Are you saying that the teachers unions do not fight these things? Or are you arguing that the Teachers union strongest support base is not the Democrats? I will make it simple.

1) Testing

a) Do you think more testing does not help?
b) Do you think the exit exam improved education in California?
c) Do you think the teachers unions are not fighting against more testing?


2) Social promotion

a) Do you thing ending social promotion will not help education in California?
b) Do you think social promotion does not exist anymore in California?
c) Do you think the teachers unions are not fighting the discontinuing of social promotion?

3) End of tenure and getting rid of bad eggs

a) Do you think I am wrong when I say it is hard to get rid of teachers who are bad?
b) Do you think my evidence supporting the idea that you can't get rid of incompetent teachers in LA Unified and elsewhere is faulty?
c) Do you think the existence of bad teachers is not a problem?
d) Do you think the teachers are not fighting to preserve tenure and are making it more difficult to fire bad teachers?

4) Do you not think that the teachers union does not have a strong influence over the Democrat party in California?

I'm arguing that your insistence that a bill written by a Democratic legislator, advocated by a Democratic governor, and passed by a Democratic leglislature some 8 years ago was a Republican idea that Democrats are only now starting to support because of the obvious, overwhelming brilliance of this Republican idea.

As for your questions:

1. Testing helps. More testing may help, but not necessarily. Would you support weekly testing? Daily? There is a point of diminishing return.

The exit test was a good thing --- another example of a good piece of Democratic legislation.

I don't follow what CTA does as obsessively as you pretend to, but a quick perusal of their website indicates that they opposed aspects of it, supported others, and have supported amendments and changes to improve it.


2. Generally, I think social promotion is not a good idea. That said -- unlike you -- I recognize that this is not a black-and-white issue, and that there are relative benefits to social promotion depending on the alternatives. Simply holding kids back may create greater problems, for those kids and for the students in classes. Many teachers recognize this.

You seem unwilling to listen to teachers about the actual, on-the-ground effect of policies. That's fine -- you can reject anything that any teacher's union says, on the ground that it's a teachers union so it must be evil. But this is not a good way to study or understand policies.

The habit of simply rejecting out-of-hand what people in the field say, and doing so based on what you perceive to be their motivations, is the hallmark of the armchair policy-maker (and, recently, the hallmark of the neocon. What could General Shinseki possibly know about a proposed military operation, that Paul Wolfowitz didn't know 10 times better?)

In this context, I think it's very important to understand why it is that many teachers, and many school districts, support or have supported social promotion. Not because understanding this will lead to retaining or reinstituting social promotion -- but because understanding this will lead to finding a way to get rid of social promotion (because that policy has many obvious problems) while making sure that you accomplish the good things/avoid that bad things that social promotion did in fact accomplish/avoid.


3. My conference call is ending so I'll make this quick: I've heard anecdotes about it being difficult to get rid of bad teachers. I've also heard anecdotes to the contrary. I haven't read your evidence (I was out one day this week). The people who've told me the contrary anecdotes have ample reason to know, because they are professionals working with schools, including LAUSD (and not on the side of the teachers).

Existence of bad teachers is of course a problem. Duh. And of course teachers fight to make their jobs more secure. Also, duh.

4. far less strong than you seem to think. If their control were that strong, and if they indeed threw all their weight against the exit exam, how did it pass, and with such ample Democratic support?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Unlike Chamberlain's UK and Hitler's Germany, we actually have one interest in common with Iran -- neither of us really wants chaos in Iraq (though, again, that's what your brilliant President has accomplished). The same is true for Syria.

Why do you say this?

Of course Iran wants instability in Iraq. This is why they have sent hundreds, if not thousands, of "troops" (if you will) over the border to help with the insurgency.

A stable Iraq becomes a challenge to Iran's growing dominance in the region (see Syria, Lebanon) - while a chaotic Iraq not only strengthens Iran's hold on the region, but it diverts all international attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions (and - to quote Ahmadinejad - "to wipe Israel from the map" )

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
These countrys want to see the US fail. That is their goal. Once that happens then they will deal with Iraq. But as long as the US is there they will do everything in their power to make it worse. Yes that is bad for them, but they see that negative as outweighed by the benefits they will receive by a US failure. A US failure is more important to them than a failed Iraq state.

Why do you believe this? Don't you think that Iran would be happier with a stable, successful, Shi'a dominated Iraqi state than an unstable mess in the throes of a civil war?

For his part, it's not like Assad is a religious zealot out to destroy the U.S. U.S. failure is not necessarily good for him.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why do you say this?

Of course Iran wants instability in Iraq. This is why they have sent hundreds, if not thousands, of "troops" (if you will) over the border to help with the insurgency.

A stable Iraq becomes a challenge to Iran's growing dominance in the region (see Syria, Lebanon) - while a chaotic Iraq not only strengthens Iran's hold on the region, but it diverts all international attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions (and - to quote Ahmadinejad - "to wipe Israel from the map" )

What Ty said.

Iran does not send troops because an unstable Iraq is in Iran's interests. Iran sends troops to Iraq for two reasons: First, it helps tie down US military forces. Second, when the country on your border is in a civil war, you want to support the side that favors you.

Ultimately, talking with Iran may not lead directly to much of anything -- in all likelihood, that's the case. But rejecting diplomacy, and refusing to talk to a country that we have made a central power in this civil war, doesn't accomplish much either, and only makes us look worse and worse.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
3. My conference call is ending so I'll make this quick:

Note to Slave: It was a conference call for my volunteer work. I wasn't billing the time (though if your employer will pay it, let me know.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Baker when asked about Iran, said, yes it is true that they are refusing to help and probably won't help. But lets expose them to the world that they won't help by reaching out to them. So even Baker doesn't think that Iran will help, his argument was to just expose them.

These countrys want to see the US fail. That is their goal. Once that happens then they will deal with Iraq. But as long as the US is there they will do everything in their power to make it worse. Yes that is bad for them, but they see that negative as outweighed by the benefits they will receive by a US failure. A US failure is more important to them than a failed Iraq state.

Do you not believe that?

I do tend to believe that.

So, lets reach out -- and expose Iran/Syria when they refuse to cooperate. Maybe that effort, and their lack of response, will help us diplomatically in Europe, etc., in terms of winning more support and resources to try to stabilize and build Iraq. I have heard no reasonable argument that this would hurt anything.

Quoting Neville Chamberlain ignores the possibility that we may wish to pursue diplomacy for our own ends, even if we do not expect the negotiations to "bear fruit" in the conventional sense of reaching an agreement. We may even know that the discussions are bound to stall because Iran will want "X", which is a non-starter for us.

To conceive of such things apparently requires a subtlety of thought lost on too many people, including many in the Administration and on this Board.

S_A_M

[eta: The Iranians are crafty and thoughtful policymakers, so I'd expect them to pretend to cooperate and string us along for a good while, to try to win concessions while still trying the same old crap under the table. We should not give them the concessions, and try to do our bit while reining them in to the extent we can. Meanwhile, an appearance of diplomacy and cooperation can only be positive in ther long run -- directly or indirectly.]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm arguing that your insistence that a bill written by a Democratic legislator, advocated by a Democratic governor, and passed by a Democratic leglislature some 8 years ago was a Republican idea that Democrats are only now starting to support because of the obvious, overwhelming brilliance of this Republican idea.

When it was passed, the Democrats controlled all houses. Before Davis, Wilson pushed for smaller class sizes. He reduced class sizes all the way up to junior high school. He also pushed for testing. That was one thing Davis picked up on.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
1. Testing helps. More testing may help, but not necessarily. Would you support weekly testing? Daily? There is a point of diminishing return.

Just yearly. I said this before (and people wonder why I repeat myself) but if you test every year you know which teachers are doing their job. It is very easy to collect the test from last year and compare them to this year for all the students in a class to see if the teacher taught anything. That is just one day out of the school year, and teachers are testing anyway, are they not? So why not just make one of their tests a state wide test? This is what O'Connel was talking about when he said we need data to see if what we are doing is good or bad.

The exit test was a good thing --- another example of a good piece of Democratic legislation.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch I don't follow what CTA does as obsessively as you pretend to,

People talk about poisoning the well. Does it get any naster than this?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
but a quick perusal of their website indicates that they opposed aspects of it, supported others, and have supported amendments and changes to improve it.

You know as well as I do that when a group opposes something that is clearly in the publics interest, but not in their special interest they come up with problems like that. The bottom line is they opposed it. Actions speak much louder than words.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
2. Generally, I think social promotion is not a good idea. That said -- unlike you -- I recognize that this is not a black-and-white issue, and that there are relative benefits to social promotion depending on the alternatives. Simply holding kids back may create greater problems, for those kids and for the students in classes. Many teachers recognize this.


You seem unwilling to listen to teachers about the actual, on-the-ground effect of policies.

Where do you come up with this stuff? That is pure B.S.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That's fine -- you can reject anything that any teacher's union says, on the ground that it's a teachers union so it must be evil. But this is not a good way to study or understand policies.

There is a massive difference between what teachers say on the ground and what the teacher's union says. When you get teachers to testify they can be reasonable. It is the hired lobbyist and experts from the CTA that are not reliable.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch The habit of simply rejecting out-of-hand what people in the field say, and doing so based on what you perceive to be their motivations,

Cite? Now you are just making stuff up to argue about.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch In this context, I think it's very important to understand why it is that many teachers, and many school districts, support or have supported social promotion. Not because understanding this will lead to retaining or reinstituting social promotion -- but because understanding this will lead to finding a way to get rid of social promotion (because that policy has many obvious problems) while making sure that you accomplish the good things/avoid that bad things that social promotion did in fact accomplish/avoid.

You make it sound like Politics is just figuring out what is right and then passing it. That is not the way it works. The first step is to figure out what is good for the public, the second is to get the publics interest past the special interest. That is the tough part. No matter how much research you do, and how good your evidence is, the CTA will oppose you.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
3. My conference call is ending so I'll make this quick: I've heard anecdotes about it being difficult to get rid of bad teachers. I've also heard anecdotes to the contrary. I haven't read your evidence (I was out one day this week). The people who've told me the contrary anecdotes have ample reason to know, because they are professionals working with schools, including LAUSD (and not on the side of the teachers).

So I guess you missed that little tid bit about from 1990 - 1999 that only one teacher was dismissed through their dissmissal process. And there are thirty some thousand employees of LA unified.

.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
4. far less strong than you seem to think. If their control were that strong, and if they indeed threw all their weight against the exit exam, how did it pass, and with such ample Democratic support?

Because sometimes eventhough the most powerful special interest groups can't stop something that is so obviously popular and in the public's interest. The Schools are a mess and when Davis got elected it was the number one issue on most voters minds. The exit exam had like 80% public support.

Do you think the CTA was looking out for the public's interest when they opposed the exit exam? If you don't, then does that mean you are unwilling to listen to "people from the field".

And Arnold, in a compromise tried to change tenure for California teachers from two years to five years. He wanted to get rid of it but that was a compromise bill he thought he could get through the Democrat legislature. The bill still failed and he put it in a proposition and the CTA put millions to stop it.

Do you think tenure for K-12 teachers is a good idea?
If not, don't you think it shows how powerful the unions are to keep it?

Do you think teachers getting tenure in two years is a good idea, or do you think extending it to five is a good idea?
Don't you think that shows how powerful the CTA is that they were able to defeat this bill. And shows they have a strong influence on the Democrat party?

When the proposition came out it had like seventy percent support from the public but the teachers unions spent like fifteen million to turn that around?

Do you think that its defeat was in the public interest? Do you think that doesn't show that they are a very powerful political institution?

You say you any persuasive evidence that it is hard to fire teachers. Do you think the existence of the policy of tenure in itself makes it hard to fire bad teachers?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you believe this? Don't you think that Iran would be happier with a stable, successful, Shi'a dominated Iraqi state than an unstable mess in the throes of a civil war?

For his part, it's not like Assad is a religious zealot out to destroy the U.S. U.S. failure is not necessarily good for him.

Yes. I believe if very strongly and I am surprised you don't. What they want most is for US influence in the region to diminsh. A defeat in Iraq would certainly do that.

Assad does not have to be a religious zealot to want the US to lose. I has nothing to do with zealotry. It is pure power politics. The US constantly works against Iran and Syria, and so our defeat would benefit them both immensely.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Indeed. But I was trying to get at the idea that while such tactics may work well for a while, planning to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons by poisoning their scientists won't work in the long run.

Its not like they have got any other options. Or is there an option I have not thought of?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
GHWB and James Baker are Ds now?

RiNOs.