Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I didn't realize the unions were holding a gun to their members heads to force them to send their kids to private schools.

Seriously, the unions are a red herring. The same arguments could be made for owning a Honda while working at a GM plant, but I'd hate to be a Honda dealer in Flint, MI.

Of course, the car you drive is certainly an issue of lesser importance than the education your kid receives.

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying, I doubt that Club hates all teachers (which was the title of his post). Rather, I bet Club hates the teachers union.

Ya see, we who are Right believe that Teachers Unions are a big part of the problem. You know, the whole ATLA/NEA kickback scheme that funds democratic candidates (warning: that last sentence is slightly over the top).

Its not to say that Teachers Unions are the whole problem with failing public schools. Nooo, it ain't even close to that. Hell, I'd put my Section 8 concentration at least as high on the list as the Teachers Unions for some schools.

But, insofar as Clubby should really hate the teachers unions (as do all Right people), I'm just saying, please try not to make it sound as if they are completely representative of view adopted wholesale by each and every one of their members.

Y'all must be reading something into it to disagree with that.

Hello

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Originally posted by Kos...

• George W. Bush, President of the United States
  
  given documents he thought were true
  
  failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
  
  reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
  
  when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and stonewalled an investigation
  
  number of Americans dead: 1100

Although I find every one of Kos's idiotic assertions false:

• [Rather] should be fired as CBS News Anchor
  
  [W] should be given four more years as President of the United States

It's nice to see I agree 110% with his conclusions

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think the points been made, but are you saying that lawyers earning hundreds of thousands a year but sending their kid to public school while bitching about a $5,000 a year property tax bill have a right to complain when a teacher making $50,000 a year decides to spend $20,000 of it on education for their kid?

What, Club, people have a right to choose to do with their money whatever you tell them to do?

I find this a very confusing issue. While I certainly agree that people should have the freedom to send their kids to private schools, I still think the statistics club cites are a shame. It shows a lack of belief in the product one is producing. But it also compounds the problems in the public schools. Teachers kids tend to be smarter and more stable. Taking these kids out of the public school environment destablizes the schools even more.

I don't think this requires some sort of mandate against teachers sending their kids to private school, but do think it's a regretable phenomena.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I find this a very confusing issue. While I certainly agree that people should have the freedom to send their kids to private schools, I still think the statistics club cites are a shame. It shows a lack of belief in the product one is producing.

It's more than a lack of belief in the quality; it probably reflects a pretty good assessment of the quality.

That said, I wonder whether there is to some degree conflation of two phenomena. We all know teachers are underpaid--so how do they afford private schools? Perhaps a number of teachers are either independently wealthy or married to high-income spouses. Either would skew the data from the average american, just as would looking at the percentage of, e.g., fortune 500 CEOs whose kids go to private school, although in that case we wouldn't make much of a conclusion other than "duh--rich people go to private schools".

Then again, maybe it's the quality (and it's worse than buying Honda if working for GM, unless GM still gives free cars to its employees).

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying, I doubt that Club hates all teachers (which was the title of his post). Rather, I bet Club hates the teachers union.

Um... Yeah. I just don't see where you get to that from the quote Club posted. The choice to send one's kid to private school is personal. I interpreted Club's post to be a rant against the hypocracy of teaching in public schools but not believing in them enough to send your own kids there. You took it as a screed against the teachers' unions. I suppose we will have to wait for him to correct one or both of us.

It may be that 1 in 4 teachers in DC sends their kid to a private school because they think the teachers unions have screwed up the schools, but I doubt the level of abstraction is there: the DC schools suck, and I wouldn't send my kids there either; nevermind the cause.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Although I find every one of Kos's idiotic assertions false:

Hunh?

You mean Bush believed the documents he received re: WMD to be true?

You mean Bush thoroughly investigated the facts?

You mean Bush didn't report the content of the reports re: WMD to the people to make his case?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Hunh?

The comparison is fucking idiotic.

BTW - I'm having a great time reading about how the Sunday 60 Minutes guys are hanging Rather out to dry. Blood in the water and all that.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I interpreted Club's post to be a rant against the hypocracy of teaching in public schools but not believing in them enough to send your own kids there.

I'm going to be quite ashamed of Clubby if this is what he meant.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's more than a lack of belief in the quality; it probably reflects a pretty good assessment of the quality.

I think this is probably correct. Both DC and Baltimore City have notoriously bad schools. I imagine the surrounding counties have much, much lower rates.

I've just gone back and read the whole original article and find its conclusions, um, interesting. Especially in light of my prior comment that teachers kids are disproportionately good for a school, relative to their socioeconomic status. "School choice" is the answer. Uh huh. So the best way to deal with the fact that teachers think that schools are failing is to make it EASIER financially for teachers and others to opt out the kids who stablize the school and make it functional. Okay then.

I agree I'd like to see comparatives against families with similar economic status. While you're correct teachers are underpaid, they're not exactly living in a box, either, especially once they've gotten to their kids being school age. And that's assuming there's not a trend that the teaching spouse isn't the lower income in a dual income house. If the average teacher in DC [I'm making these numbers up] makes say $50k and has a household income of $120k, it would be interesting to know whether what percentage of the general population making that money sent their kids to private school. My guess is higher, at least in DC, but I suppose we'll never know.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm going to be quite ashamed of Clubby if this is what he meant.

No fair trying to shame him into your anti-union camp now. Not that I would be surprised if he were anti-union, or that I disagree with you about the damage teacher unions have done. I just don't think it's what he meant.

Let me put it another way: I thought Club was expressing outrage at the hypocracy of teachers suckling at the government teat, lounging about their schools not caring about their charges and overpaid (yes, tangentally, all thanks to their union) while going out of their way to ensure that their own progeny were not victims to their laziness and ineptitude. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's more than a lack of belief in the quality; it probably reflects a pretty good assessment of the quality.

That said, I wonder whether there is to some degree conflation of two phenomena. We all know teachers are underpaid--so how do they afford private schools? Perhaps a number of teachers are either independently wealthy or married to high-income spouses. Either would skew the data from the average american, just as would looking at the percentage of, e.g., fortune 500 CEOs whose kids go to private school, although in that case we wouldn't make much of a conclusion other than "duh--rich people go to private schools".

Then again, maybe it's the quality (and it's worse than buying Honda if working for GM, unless GM still gives free cars to its employees).

There are towns -- lawyers live in them -- where public school teachers cannot afford to buy a house, and have no choice but to send their kids to (presumably inferior) public schools in other districts, or to (gasp) private schools. When club gets agitated about that, and insists that the wealthy suburbs pay their teachers (and policemen, etc.) enough to live in them (oh, the hypocrisy!), sign me up for the crusade.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's a special post for club on Kerry's Iraq position. Someone at Slate has been reading my posts here and decided to do the leg work for me:

The reason so many people are confused about his position, Kerry says, is because they interpret his vote, incorrectly, as "a vote to go to war." "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through a process," to give the president leverage at the United Nations and to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Kerry emphasizes on several occasions that he's been consistent on this point. "I said so all along," he says, sounding irritated. "Every one of you throughout this knows I have said there's a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this, and the president every step of the way has chosen the wrong way."

Kerry's right on this one. From the beginning, he's been consistent, if complicated, on the meaning of his 2002 vote. The Boston Globe's Kerry book quotes his mouthful from the Senate floor: "The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint conference with our allies." Kerry added of President Bush, "I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days—to work with the United Nations Security Council ... and to 'act with our allies at our side' if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.' " Four days later, Kerry said, "What's happened is every single member of the United States Senate moved to take it to the U.N. with a willingness to enforce through the United Nations if that is the will of the international community. ... There is no justification whatsoever for sending Americans for the first time in American history as the belligerent, as the initiator of it, as a matter of first instance, without a showing of an imminent threat to our country." Walter Shapiro's chronicle of the early stages of the 2004 campaign, One-Car Caravan, confirms this point. Shapiro hears Kerry say in October 2002, "My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I'm voting for you to do what you said you're going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process. If you go unilaterally, without having exhausted these remedies, I'm not supporting you. And if you decide that this is just a matter of straight pre-emptive doctrine for regime-change purposes without regard to the imminence of the threat, I'm not going to support you."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are towns -- lawyers live in them -- where public school teachers cannot afford to buy a house, and have no choice but to send their kids to (presumably inferior) public schools in other districts, or to (gasp) private schools. When club gets agitated about that, and insists that the wealthy suburbs pay their teachers (and policemen, etc.) enough to live in them (oh, the hypocrisy!), sign me up for the crusade.

whatwehavehereis failuretacommunicate.
Ty you think any city where the average household income is less than 200K is poor. There are plenty of cities where the people are middle class and the schools fine. Most people (breeders at least) factor school district into their home search. Why would you not think a teacher would? I would think a teacher in an urban district who lives inthat district, might go out of his/her way to ensure em's kid gets a decent teacher, butt to claim thatsomeonewho earns em's bread by subjecting kids to the district should avoid the district? How is that not disturbing? If you knew little Ty's teacher lived down the road but sent her kids to St. Vitus, you wouldn't wonder WTF?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here's a special post for club on Kerry's Iraq position. Someone at Slate has been reading my posts here and decided to do the leg work for me:

huh? can you do that in a 30 second spot?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
whatwehavehereis failuretacommunicate.
Ty you think any city where the average household income is less than 200K is poor. There are plenty of cities where the people are middle class and the schools fine. Most people (breeders at least) factor school district into their home search. Why would you not think a teacher would? I would think a teacher in an urban district who lives inthat district, might go out of his/her way to ensure em's kid gets a decent teacher, butt to claim thatsomeonewho earns em's bread by subjecting kids to the district should avoid the district? How is that not disturbing? If you knew little Ty's teacher lived down the road but sent her kids to St. Vitus, you wouldn't wonder WTF?

Cheers!