Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[duper]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

that does not change the fact that teachers unions ARE more bad than good

Nothing could ever make me understand this opinion. Not just about teachers unions but unions in general. It's just so plain to me that we still need them, it's hard to believe that people actually believe otherwise. It just all sounds like nonsense to me.

Edit: I would also like to point out that quoting the number of teachers who have been fired is really misleading. The most common thing that happens in THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS (although perhaps not NY or LA) is that a teacher is suspended indefinitely for the bad stuff. Then, the teacher is not offered a new contract for the following year. They weren't fired, but they also never stepped back into the classroom. Then, on any app they fill out, they either have to explain why they weren't offered a new contract, or lie. And the unions will not be able to stop that. With general incompetence, again, they don't get fired, but they also don't get a new contract.

So "fired" is a bit of a loaded term. I guarantee, a heck of a lot more than 4 teachers were let go by LA schools in the time period you reference.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Discussion of the political philosopher (and ideologue) who either directly or indirectly trained virtually all of the past 50 years of neoconservatives.

My impression of Strauss has always been that he was better than his descendents. Actually he reminds me more than anybody else of Marx: original, deliberately provocative, often facile, sometimes obviously making it up as he went along, and the forefather of several generations of either incompetent or malicious followers who picked up a few catch phrases and discarded any of the intellectual rigor.

Still, when he talks in particular about Plato you can tell he loves it and is in it very, very deeply. Like Harold Bloom talking about Shakespeare, the literary understanding is so profound and humanizing that it more than makes up for the rancid politics.

Here is a wonderful passage from the review on which the blog post is based:

The results of the Straussian method read like they were written by the intellectual offspring of Madame Blavatsky and Edgar Bergen. It may seem difficult to distinguish between the oracular pronouncements and the intellectual ventriloquism, but that’s because there is no real distinction to be made. As Gottfried notes, there is uncanny similarity between the Straussian reading of texts and the postmodern deconstruction of language. The esoteric claims provide cover for Straussian interpretive preferences and shield against criticism from anyone outside the clique. Cleanth Brooks once imagined what postmodern literary critics could have made of “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” and it makes just as much sense to ask what the Straussians could do with the nursery rhyme.

The two primary conclusions associated with Strauss’s esoteric reading of past texts are that all philosophers from the time of Plato onward were atheistic hyper-rationalists and that the United States emerged fully formed from the forehead of John Locke.

The Comments following that review are excellent and a pleasure to read.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Nothing could ever make me understand this opinion. Not just about teachers unions but unions in general. It's just so plain to me that we still need them, it's hard to believe that people actually believe otherwise. It just all sounds like nonsense to me.

There is a problem with public sector unions in general which is the conflict of interest between union leaders and union members. There also is a problem with the outsize influence public sector unions have.

So the problem is not, as you put it, with unions "in general." The problems lie in particular elements of how unions operate, especially in relation to the public fisc. Unions DO offer some benefits to their members which still are valuable for them. It is not "whether" it is "how much" and the tables are tilted way too miuch in the public-sector unions favor right now.

Problem one: the state automatically collects dues from the paycheck of every state employee up to a certain level, whether said employee wants to be in the union or not*.

Problem two: the union leaders want to keep maximum dues revenues flowing in. Therefore their efforts to maintain maximum membership conflict with the best interests of rank-and-file union members, who generally would benefit from a system in which the most flagrant violators of work rules can be fired. If you have not worked in a state union environment, you have no idea how bad it is for morale to have a few slackers around who so obviously flaunt the system and get away with it. It also is bad for most existing union members to have under-funded pensions. One of their highest priorities is to have pensions fully funded; however union leaders put other priorities first.

Problem three: I myself attribute this to our political system more than to the unions, but because of mandatory dues, the unions have lots of cash, which they use to buy elections, so that generally when there are contract negotiations, you have politicians pandering for union votes on one side of the table and unions on the other side of the table and no one representing the taxpayer.

Yes this is an oversimplification and no it does not apply in all states.





* this is the crux of the WI unions' beef with Walker; his reforms included the termination of automatic dues collection from every state employee's paycheck.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I agree with most of this (I don't think a lot of wa-hoo injuns have been abusing the system). Affirmative action separated from means testing is a bad idea -- I don't want society to subsidize some rich guy's daughter.

Wealth inequality is America's killer problem. Means test everything. If some Appalacian derp-a-derp freakishly spawns a gap-toothed genius son, that kid should get preferential admission to Harvard over Alan Keyes' son or Dick Cheney's daughter.

But is wealth inequality the cause or the effect?

While you guys can whine that Paris Hilton is keepin you down with her pink chihuahua and plastic boobs, the larger percentage of wealth is earned either through salary or investments.

So, keep demonizing everybody who works to earn money by pasting Paris and Warren's secretary out there...that certainly will lead to a plethora of jobs for future graduates.

If my oldest gets straight A's I don't see how I'm helping the younger ones by making that sound bad, implying all straight A students cheat, clamoring for revisions in grade distributions and claiming it is all fixed from the beginning. Short-term it is a coat of whitewash and a lollipop, long-term I'm doing them no good.

Capability inequality and ambition inequality are bigger problems than wealth inequality.

And that crosses borders...I guarantee you there are young kids in India and China that have nothing compared to our kids and aren't whining about income inequality or taxes as they prepare for jobs in medicine and technology.

Meanwhile, we have kids spending $200k to get a degree in Philosophy and then whining that they aren't even qualified to be Warren Buffet's secretary.

So, by all means, lets win the battle on gimmick tax rates for billionaires while the war is being won in classrooms thousands of miles away.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Capability inequality and ambition inequality are bigger problems than wealth inequality. .

That is a great insight!

I was going to post "envy over wealth inequality" is a big problem today, and a much bigger problem than wealth inequality.

I think the proposed solution, to turn the US into something like Haiti, is far worse....so wealth inequality is such a problem, we'll solve it by making everyone poor? (except of course for those exalted ones who run the government, who always seem to escape our outrage...)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Capability inequality and ambition inequality are bigger problems than wealth inequality.

Those aren't problems, they're solutions. People with high ability and high ambition should be and are rewarded by a meritocracy. That's all well and good. The problem we have is that there are legions of people with high ability and high ambition trapped at the bottom with no way up the ladder. Racism and sexism (and religious and ethnic intolerance) used to be the most significant barriers to those people. In many ways those barriers have now been overcome (because of liberals, fighting conservatives every inch of the way). Now the unequal starting point from economic inequality is the major obstacle. It's the biggest waste of talent and the biggest inefficiency in our system. Releasing the energies of all our people is best push we can give the country.

America was transformed from a backwoods agricultural oligarchy to a superpower because of capitalism and social welfare policies. Both are required to make a strong (and livable) country. All the simplistic cartoon arguments about incentives are missing the point -- nobody wants to remove incentives. What we want to do is make sure everybody has them.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

nobody wants to remove incentives.

The current administration seems actively to want to punish success as a sacrifice on the altar of an undefined "fairness" that seeps into the Obsessive One's speeches all the time.

Or are you playing more word games with us by saying that just because the Anointed One continues to add disincentives, he's not actually removing incentives??

 

[duper]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Those aren't problems, they're solutions. People with high ability and high ambition should be and are rewarded by a meritocracy. That's all well and good. The problem we have is that there are legions of people with high ability and high ambition trapped at the bottom with no way up the ladder. Racism and sexism (and religious and ethnic intolerance) used to be the most significant barriers to those people. In many ways those barriers have now been overcome (because of liberals, fighting conservatives every inch of the way). Now the unequal starting point from economic inequality is the major obstacle. It's the biggest waste of talent and the biggest inefficiency in our system. Releasing their energies is best push we can give the country.

For a lot of kids born into the wrong neighborhood and the wrong family, there is no way but dumb luck to legitimately overcome this obstacle.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

barriers have now been overcome (because of liberals, fighting conservatives every inch of the way).

They were able to overcome barriers because they are liberals. Liberals are responsible for the good things here on this earth. Conservatives are evil and try to stop the good things, and must be overcome by the higher morality and inner light of the liberals. TO WAAAAAAAAR!!!!11!

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

They were able to overcome barriers because they are liberals. Liberals are responsible for the good things here on this earth. Conservatives are evil and try to stop the good things, and must be overcome by the higher morality and inner light of the liberals. TO WAAAAAAAAR!!!!11!

So you think conservatives were actually secretly behind the civil rights movements, the women's movement, worker's rights, etc? And they were only pretending to scream at the top of their lungs that those things were communist plots to destroy America?

I guess this study really is true.

“The study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly,” wrote Cassino and his colleagues. “The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly—a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

* this is the crux of the WI unions' beef with Walker; his reforms included the termination of automatic dues collection from every state employee's paycheck.

Yes, let's have people getting the benefits of being in a union without having to pay to be in the union. I'm sure AAA works the same way, right? Even though I'm not a member I can just call them when I get a flat tire and they'll send a truck right out.

The goal of Walker's "reforms" are to kill the unions so a) his pals like the Koch Brothers won't have to pay people as much for their labor and 2) assure Wisconsin's 10 Electoral Votes go to Romney. They have said as much.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eLJdijPEBJE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Subscribed because my post doesn't count.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

All the simplistic cartoon arguments about incentives are missing the point -- nobody wants to remove incentives. What we want to do is make sure everybody has them.

You'd have to live in a cave / be born under a rock not to know of the plethora of incentives that are widely available to people in this country. ****, just look at the tax code's litany of deductions and credits.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'm sure AAA works the same way, right? Even though I'm not a member I can just call them when I get a flat tire and they'll send a truck right out.

AAA members don't get pensions for life funded entirely by other people.

 

[duper]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

AAA members don't get pensions for life funded entirely by other people.

?

 

[duper]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You'd have to live in a cave / be born under a rock not to know of the plethora of incentives that are widely available to people in this country. ****, just look at the tax code's litany of deductions and credits.

Actually, being born and raised in a neighborhood where neither your family nor those around you understand money would do it quite nicely.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

AAA members don't get pensions for life funded entirely by other people.

Union members don't pay taxes? Damm! That's a hell of a perk!

Which pensions are funded entirely by the person who gets it? I suppose it's possible if you stuck your money in a coffee can buried in the backyard, but I don't think that would qualify as a pension.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Those aren't problems, they're solutions. People with high ability and high ambition should be and are rewarded by a meritocracy. That's all well and good. The problem we have is that there are legions of people with high ability and high ambition trapped at the bottom with no way up the ladder. Racism and sexism (and religious and ethnic intolerance) used to be the most significant barriers to those people. In many ways those barriers have now been overcome (because of liberals, fighting conservatives every inch of the way). Now the unequal starting point from economic inequality is the major obstacle. It's the biggest waste of talent and the biggest inefficiency in our system. Releasing their energies is best push we can give the country.

And therein lies the disagreement.

Whenever I suggest people can work their way up the ladder you suggest I'm longing for days of yore and refer to the myth of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Mind you, I've never said it works for everyone, nor do good people sometimes fail despite their best efforts.

You believe there is a another (maybe not new) barrier that prevents people from succeeding despite high ambitions, high capability and improved racial and gender opportunity. "NO WAY UP THE LADDER"

So, even if you were capable and wanted to, there is no way to succeed. And that is because somebody else has more wealth than you? So people from countries with a lower per capita wealth level have even less than NO chance of coming to the US and being successful?

I couldn't disagree more.


So what HOPE is being sold out there? When I see the bumper sticker, what is being hoped for?

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So you think conservatives were actually secretly behind the civil rights movements, the women's movement, worker's rights, etc? And they were only pretending to scream at the top of their lungs that those things were communist plots to destroy America?

I guess this study really is true.

You must have missed the part where I was agreeing with you. Did you think I was sarcastic? There is never any gray area. The only smart and/or good people are self-defined liberals. Conservatives are always wrong about everything. It's an easy way to define good and evil. For example, slavery and farts were invented by conservatives. Sunshine and strawberries were invented by liberals. easy-peasy.

And again, don't have a TV, don't watch TV. My stupidity is more because I'm a conservative than any eeeeeeeeeeeeevil influence by TV corporations.

Although Rush Limbaugh has corrupted my thinking quite a bit over the years. It turns out he's on for 10 seconds in the morning now too. I liked this morning's quote for the day: "There is no limit to the depravity of the liberal mind." (something about sending boxes of condoms to 12 year olds in CA to try to encourage more sex...)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You believe there is a another (maybe not new) barrier that prevents people from succeeding despite high ambitions, high capability and improved racial and gender opportunity. "NO WAY UP THE LADDER"

So, even if you were capable and wanted to, there is no way to succeed.

That's putting it too strongly. I believe that the deprivations caused by wealth inequality weigh heavily on talented, ambitious underprivileged people, and so far fewer of them can climb the ladder than would be the case if they had better access.

The classic example is the smart kid from the household and neighborhood with no appreciation of education. There are certainly kids who still break through. Nobody can know the number -- 1 in 50, 1 in 500, whatever it is. All I want to do is improve their odds.

As with most real world problems, perfect equality (like zero friction) is neither possible nor desirable. My focus in on incremental reforms. The only thing that really gets me irritated is when opponents of even incremental reform respond with intellectually dishonest "punish the successful," "politics of envy," "class warfare," "entitlement society" sound bites. Those play well to the crowd, but they don't address either real problems or tempered solutions.

BTW, I think the "Hope" thing in 2008 was a very good slogan (it had nothing to do with the preceding discussion, but you threw it in as if it did so I'm responding). It spoke to the general feeling after 8 years of Dubya that even beyond all the anger at the destruction of basic American values there was just a feeling of tremendous sadness at what had been done in our name. The "hope" was that we would no longer be such an ugly byword in the world. That's been achieved, at least mostly. Drone strikes on weddings are still pretty ugly, but they beat torture and wars of whim.