|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 10, 2012 8:00:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jun 10, 2012 8:09:06 GMT -8
Clueless.
Plus: "Tell you what. You don't qualify for admissions but if I get you in, you have to promise if you ever make it big, you'll get me a job on the Supreme Court."
Oh, sorry, mye bad. I'm suppose to use the acronym. Okay. "...a job on the SCROTUM."
There fixed it.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 10, 2012 8:18:03 GMT -8
I really had to laugh at Obama when I saw his stammering and stuttering while trying to roll back his comments about the economy. That guy Axelrod is really a Dilbert. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 15, 2012 17:20:35 GMT -8
That was pretty clueless. However, how much of a clue does Mitt have?
It seems both richie riches are far out of touch with the plight of average Americans. Just like the last election and the one before that and so forth...etc...etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2012 6:27:55 GMT -8
That was pretty clueless. However, how much of a clue does Mitt have? It seems both richie riches are far out of touch with the plight of average Americans. Just like the last election and the one before that and so forth...etc...etc. I think that we have to find out if Mitt has a clue. We know Obama has none. If you can draw any conclusion from what Mitt has accomplished in his work life, you would say he is a better option. Part of the problem for me is that in addition to some real inspired leadership from our President, we need him and the public to put pressure on Congress to make some fundamental changes starting with reforming the tax code and getting entitlement programs on solid ground. I lived and worked in Hawaii for years. That was a clue to me and a lot of folks that living in a union dominated locality where both spouses have to work often multiple jobs just to afford to live in "paradise" does not work. People go to work when it is dark and don't return home till it is dark. Is that anyway to enjoy living in that beautiful place? Part of the problem is a service sector dominated economy and part is union domination of that work force. It seems to me that a location like Hawaii would be a great place for clean industry if the business environment was more even handed. I equate union domination with Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 18, 2012 11:46:31 GMT -8
That was pretty clueless. However, how much of a clue does Mitt have? It seems both richie riches are far out of touch with the plight of average Americans. Just like the last election and the one before that and so forth...etc...etc. I think that we have to find out if Mitt has a clue. We know Obama has none. If you can draw any conclusion from what Mitt has accomplished in his work life, you would say he is a better option. Part of the problem for me is that in addition to some real inspired leadership from our President, we need him and the public to put pressure on Congress to make some fundamental changes starting with reforming the tax code and getting entitlement programs on solid ground. I lived and worked in Hawaii for years. That was a clue to me and a lot of folks that living in a union dominated locality where both spouses have to work often multiple jobs just to afford to live in "paradise" does not work. People go to work when it is dark and don't return home till it is dark. Is that anyway to enjoy living in that beautiful place? Part of the problem is a service sector dominated economy and part is union domination of that work force. It seems to me that a location like Hawaii would be a great place for clean industry if the business environment was more even handed. I equate union domination with Democrats. I grew up on the rock and have many friends and family who still do, including my parents. I know that life. Hence me living in AZ, working one main job. The other sources of income are optional. I don't need them, but it's great to have cash flow. A huge problem is the Hawai'i economy is dependent on tourism. That's why it's so service-dominated. So when people don't come, the people of Hawai'i don't make money. That has nothing to do with unions. If you got rid of all unions in Hawai'i, they would still have this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jun 21, 2012 10:51:07 GMT -8
I think that we have to find out if Mitt has a clue. We know Obama has none. If you can draw any conclusion from what Mitt has accomplished in his work life, you would say he is a better option. Part of the problem for me is that in addition to some real inspired leadership from our President, we need him and the public to put pressure on Congress to make some fundamental changes starting with reforming the tax code and getting entitlement programs on solid ground. I lived and worked in Hawaii for years. That was a clue to me and a lot of folks that living in a union dominated locality where both spouses have to work often multiple jobs just to afford to live in "paradise" does not work. People go to work when it is dark and don't return home till it is dark. Is that anyway to enjoy living in that beautiful place? Part of the problem is a service sector dominated economy and part is union domination of that work force. It seems to me that a location like Hawaii would be a great place for clean industry if the business environment was more even handed. I equate union domination with Democrats. I grew up on the rock and have many friends and family who still do, including my parents. I know that life. Hence me living in AZ, working one main job. The other sources of income are optional. I don't need them, but it's great to have cash flow. A huge problem is the Hawai'i economy is dependent on tourism. That's why it's so service-dominated. So when people don't come, the people of Hawai'i don't make money. That has nothing to do with unions. If you got rid of all unions in Hawai'i, they would still have this issue. Exactly. There's no need for a union. They really don't have any use for the unions in the State of Hawai'i. Another fine example of why we don't need unions for govt employees, and sometimes in the real world. HAM |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 21, 2012 11:47:11 GMT -8
I grew up on the rock and have many friends and family who still do, including my parents. I know that life. Hence me living in AZ, working one main job. The other sources of income are optional. I don't need them, but it's great to have cash flow. A huge problem is the Hawai'i economy is dependent on tourism. That's why it's so service-dominated. So when people don't come, the people of Hawai'i don't make money. That has nothing to do with unions. If you got rid of all unions in Hawai'i, they would still have this issue. Exactly. There's no need for a union. They really don't have any use for the unions in the State of Hawai'i. Another fine example of why we don't need unions for govt employees, and sometimes in the real world. HAM I needed to be part of the teacher's union for legal reasons. If I got sued, I could not afford a good lawyer. They could. That, and the pressure to join to get/stay employed. But, that's not really a use. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 21, 2012 16:07:12 GMT -8
Exactly. There's no need for a union. They really don't have any use for the unions in the State of Hawai'i. Another fine example of why we don't need unions for govt employees, and sometimes in the real world. HAM I needed to be part of the teacher's union for legal reasons. If I got sued, I could not afford a good lawyer. They could. That, and the pressure to join to get/stay employed. But, that's not really a use. I understand why you must join and belong. Do you have the energy to try to work from within the union to do some reforming? Were I a teacher, I would do that. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 21, 2012 16:28:38 GMT -8
I needed to be part of the teacher's union for legal reasons. If I got sued, I could not afford a good lawyer. They could. That, and the pressure to join to get/stay employed. But, that's not really a use. I understand why you must join and belong. Do you have the energy to try to work from within the union to do some reforming? Were I a teacher, I would do that. I'm no longer an educator. And no, it wouldn't be worth the effort and risk of losing my job. I tried when I was teaching. Wall after wall, until I was "hinted" not to shake leaves. Now, if I had money and political clout...in a heart beat. Strange a lib having a disdain for unions...at least the teachers union I belonged to....ain't it? ;D They encourage lazy, tenured teachers and get rid of the good ones without tenure when layoffs come around. Education would be much better if we paid teachers like the private sector...based on performance and not on tenure. Eliminate hundreds of thousands from the budget by firing useless admin folks who don't do much but Facebook all day with the exception of a few weeks a year. Make them part timers. Get rid of 2,500 student schools with 6 VPs all making 6 figures when we were fine with just one VP. At bigger schools, you might be able to save a million just in salaries. Or divert those into investing in better educators. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 21, 2012 20:22:50 GMT -8
I understand why you must join and belong. Do you have the energy to try to work from within the union to do some reforming? Were I a teacher, I would do that. I'm no longer an educator. And no, it wouldn't be worth the effort and risk of losing my job. I tried when I was teaching. Wall after wall, until I was "hinted" not to shake leaves. Now, if I had money and political clout...in a heart beat. Strange a lib having a disdain for unions...at least the teachers union I belonged to....ain't it? ;D They encourage lazy, tenured teachers and get rid of the good ones without tenure when layoffs come around. Education would be much better if we paid teachers like the private sector...based on performance and not on tenure. Eliminate hundreds of thousands from the budget by firing useless admin folks who don't do much but Facebook all day with the exception of a few weeks a year. Make them part timers. Get rid of 2,500 student schools with 6 VPs all making 6 figures when we were fine with just one VP. At bigger schools, you might be able to save a million just in salaries. Or divert those into investing in better educators. Don't know much about unions, never belonged to one. It is not hard to imagine what it would be like for a teacher without a union. I know that my grandparents were both teachers until they became farmers. Their politics did not suit the new school board. I would be interested to know how you judge teacher performance. The heart of the NCLB fiasco is based on measuring teacher performance by standardized tests. I don't see that is a valid measure. Do you have an idea of how to do it? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 22, 2012 13:42:52 GMT -8
I understand why you must join and belong. Do you have the energy to try to work from within the union to do some reforming? Were I a teacher, I would do that. I'm no longer an educator. And no, it wouldn't be worth the effort and risk of losing my job. I tried when I was teaching. Wall after wall, until I was "hinted" not to shake leaves. Now, if I had money and political clout...in a heart beat. Strange a lib having a disdain for unions...at least the teachers union I belonged to....ain't it? ;D They encourage lazy, tenured teachers and get rid of the good ones without tenure when layoffs come around. Education would be much better if we paid teachers like the private sector...based on performance and not on tenure. Eliminate hundreds of thousands from the budget by firing useless admin folks who don't do much but Facebook all day with the exception of a few weeks a year. Make them part timers. Get rid of 2,500 student schools with 6 VPs all making 6 figures when we were fine with just one VP. At bigger schools, you might be able to save a million just in salaries. Or divert those into investing in better educators. I do not think it is strange at all for a person who feels like or describes himself as a liberal to have positions that do not fit the mold. I say many times that there are very few single issue voters so you could be anti-union and still be a liberal on some social issues. You could be a Conservative on tax and money issues but still go for gay marriage. Not strange at all. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 22, 2012 13:46:13 GMT -8
I'm no longer an educator. And no, it wouldn't be worth the effort and risk of losing my job. I tried when I was teaching. Wall after wall, until I was "hinted" not to shake leaves. Now, if I had money and political clout...in a heart beat. Strange a lib having a disdain for unions...at least the teachers union I belonged to....ain't it? ;D They encourage lazy, tenured teachers and get rid of the good ones without tenure when layoffs come around. Education would be much better if we paid teachers like the private sector...based on performance and not on tenure. Eliminate hundreds of thousands from the budget by firing useless admin folks who don't do much but Facebook all day with the exception of a few weeks a year. Make them part timers. Get rid of 2,500 student schools with 6 VPs all making 6 figures when we were fine with just one VP. At bigger schools, you might be able to save a million just in salaries. Or divert those into investing in better educators. Don't know much about unions, never belonged to one. It is not hard to imagine what it would be like for a teacher without a union. I know that my grandparents were both teachers until they became farmers. Their politics did not suit the new school board. I would be interested to know how you judge teacher performance. The heart of the NCLB fiasco is based on measuring teacher performance by standardized tests. I don't see that is a valid measure. Do you have an idea of how to do it? Hate to bring up once again the issue of vouchers. That is a way to get competetion into the Education equation and perhaps force some streamlining. Measuring performance is a tough nut. Maybe a look at not the standard tests for the better performers but look at the poor performers on standard tests and try to see why. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 22, 2012 13:54:19 GMT -8
I'm no longer an educator. And no, it wouldn't be worth the effort and risk of losing my job. I tried when I was teaching. Wall after wall, until I was "hinted" not to shake leaves. Now, if I had money and political clout...in a heart beat. Strange a lib having a disdain for unions...at least the teachers union I belonged to....ain't it? ;D They encourage lazy, tenured teachers and get rid of the good ones without tenure when layoffs come around. Education would be much better if we paid teachers like the private sector...based on performance and not on tenure. Eliminate hundreds of thousands from the budget by firing useless admin folks who don't do much but Facebook all day with the exception of a few weeks a year. Make them part timers. Get rid of 2,500 student schools with 6 VPs all making 6 figures when we were fine with just one VP. At bigger schools, you might be able to save a million just in salaries. Or divert those into investing in better educators. Don't know much about unions, never belonged to one. It is not hard to imagine what it would be like for a teacher without a union. I know that my grandparents were both teachers until they became farmers. Their politics did not suit the new school board. I would be interested to know how you judge teacher performance. The heart of the NCLB fiasco is based on measuring teacher performance by standardized tests. I don't see that is a valid measure. Do you have an idea of how to do it? It's valid as part of the measuring stick. Not all of it. As much as I hate standardized tests, they're a evil that needs to exists as an assessment tool. However, using only them leads to teachers teaching towards the tests rather than teaching kids how to think. I need to generalize here for the sake of people who read this or it will be too long. Generally, those tests are only good for testing what facts students know. There's not many how or why type questions that force students to analyze and think. I also believe students should demonstrate application of knowledge. In a nut shell turn our schools into a place kids learn to think. Not learn to memorize. Teaching for mediocore intellectuals who think in groups and love the status quo drove me out. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 22, 2012 14:01:02 GMT -8
Don't know much about unions, never belonged to one. It is not hard to imagine what it would be like for a teacher without a union. I know that my grandparents were both teachers until they became farmers. Their politics did not suit the new school board. I would be interested to know how you judge teacher performance. The heart of the NCLB fiasco is based on measuring teacher performance by standardized tests. I don't see that is a valid measure. Do you have an idea of how to do it? Hate to bring up once again the issue of vouchers. That is a way to get competetion into the Education equation and perhaps force some streamlining. Measuring performance is a tough nut. Maybe a look at not the standard tests for the better performers but look at the poor performers on standard tests and try to see why. Not for vouchers. They divert money away from schools that actually need it for those that do not. Public school money given to private schools is going to force more public schools to fix their attendance numbers to get more money because it's a per pupil distribution. When I taught, we were NOT allowed to administer any type of official punishment for kids until the 100th day of class. That was because the state calculates how much each district and school gets on that day on the per pupil count. Imagine the power a kid with this info has over any teacher? Vouchers would make this much, much worse. Also if schools shut down due to low attendance due to vouchers, where would their students go? Now you have crowded schools with bussed students. So more money out of the budget to pay for busses, and also some $$$ out of the facilities fund too in order to afford these new students some space. As far as why many schools perform better, there are way too many factors: Demographics, culture, and access to information. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 22, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -8
Hate to bring up once again the issue of vouchers. That is a way to get competetion into the Education equation and perhaps force some streamlining. Measuring performance is a tough nut. Maybe a look at not the standard tests for the better performers but look at the poor performers on standard tests and try to see why. Not for vouchers. They divert money away from schools that actually need it for those that do not. Public school money given to private schools is going to force more public schools to fix their attendance numbers to get more money because it's a per pupil distribution. When I taught, we were NOT allowed to administer any type of official punishment for kids until the 100th day of class. That was because the state calculates how much each district and school gets on that day on the per pupil count. Imagine the power a kid with this info has over any teacher? Vouchers would make this much, much worse. Also if schools shut down due to low attendance due to vouchers, where would their students go? Now you have crowded schools with bussed students. So more money out of the budget to pay for busses, and also some $$$ out of the facilities fund too in order to afford these new students some space. As far as why many schools perform better, there are way too many factors: Demographics, culture, and access to information. I think you are wrong in general but have some valid points. I think that vouchers would be a win/win affair provided that the amount of the voucher was less that the amount spent on each child in the public school system. I know there are problems but the idea has worked. Washington D. C. was a success when that idea was tried under Rhee. |
|
