Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[LynahFan]

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

It isn't, you're concentrating on the Haves side which I don't care about. Have them send their kids to prep schools and buy them expensive tutors to goose their SAT scores to justify their admission to Harvard. God bless them. What I'm saying is all of our interests, even theirs, is also served by freeing gifted Have Nots from the rubble of the bombed out portions of the economy. It will actually disproportionately help the Haves, since they have the money to enjoy (and for that matter, probably even own) whatever new discoveries and inventions come from those who otherwise would not get a leg up.

Perhaps, but admission to Harvard is a bad example, because that *is* a zero sum game. For every have-not that the government ushers across that finish line, someone else will necessarily fall short. You say you're okay with the Haves goosing their scores to get into Harvard, but you're actually not, because you think there are Havenots who should be getting those slots instead.

 

[leswp1]

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

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

This.

It's very reasonable to say that you put the same person in a tough neighborhood and family that doesn't emphasize education and in a nice suburban setting in a family that emphasizes education, and in the second situation they are more likely to succeed. While you certainly can't make all opportunities and situations equal, it is also reasonable to take some steps to try to provide opportunities to all. Exactly how that is done is where things get messy.

and this.

I agree with Kepler that there are so many kids that do not reach their potential because they never get to the next step.

I think it is very easy to dismiss the premise that $ mean nothing and can be overcome by perserverence. In order to ask the question you need to know there is a question to ask. Unless you are a truly extrordinary person that is capable of thinking way out of the box, in order to know to strive for more you have to have some exposure to what the more is. For those of us who grew up exposed to higher education, white collar occupations and the concept that finances are something to be leveraged this knowledge seems so intuitive that everyone should have it. Until I was exposed over years to my patients who come from backgrounds that do not have that I was of the opinion everyone should now how to get there, they just didn't have the umph to do so.

Probably the best analogy I have heard is of the elephant that is chained to a log as a youngster. He can't move the log and learns that being tied means he can't move the object. When the elephant gets older they can use things that the elephant could break away from but it never tries because is ingrained that it will not succeed.

Having exposure to some of my patient families has been eye opening. These are good, hard working people who have hearts of gold. Their kids do not dream of college, owning a home, saving for retirement. This isn't even discussed. If I broach the subject of them trying for it they are truly baffled. I realize there are many places to go for financial aid but it isn't often that I see a kid try. The kids that do the best are the ones who have teachers who latch on to them and mentor them thru it or the athletes that are so talented that they garner attention and that opens doors. Otherwise in some of the larger schools it isn't even on the radar screen.

 

[Kepler]

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

Perhaps, but admission to Harvard is a bad example, because that *is* a zero sum game. For every have-not that the government ushers across that finish line, someone else will necessarily fall short. You say you're okay with the Haves goosing their scores to get into Harvard, but you're actually not, because you think there are Havenots who should be getting those slots instead.

I actually think the top tier schools are a good example of a different effect, which is that an institution that fills its ranks with mediocrates with good breeding will eventually be plowed under by a competitor that admits talents with dirty fingernails. You and I both know the advantages of an elite school that casts a wide net.

I'd call this the 1890 Oxford Latin Requirement Effect, except I actually think universities jumped the shark right about the time they wiped out their Classic Languages requirement. The one damn thing the Jesuits were good for was keeping it alive for another 50 years, but alas, they too have fallen for the fad of the 6-figure voc tech education.

 

[LynahFan]

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

I actually think the top tier schools are a good example of a different effect, which is that an institution that fills its ranks with mediocrates with good breeding will eventually be plowed under by a competitor that admits talents with dirty fingernails. You and I both know the advantages of an elite school that casts a wide net.

Of course. And I agree that universities, public and private, absolutely should do that (as with my earlier anecdote about my relatives in an admissions office). One of my great pleasures in college was secretly knowing that the kid from an east Tennessee public high school was setting the curve for all the Choate and Bronx Science wannabes.

The only part we disagree on is the degree to which the government ought to go to ferret out those diamonds in the rough.

 

[Kepler]

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

The only part we disagree on is the degree to which the government ought to go to ferret out those diamonds in the rough.

There's a Jerry Pournelle* story about a rich guy combing the ghettos for poor geniuses and then investing in them by buying their full education and seed money, in exchange for 50% of their lifetime earnings.

(* or one of those other libertarian sci-fi dudes)

 

[pirate]

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

But you do get votes by saying "everybody should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps," because everybody believes that's what they did.

The pandering goes both ways. The excesses of the "nobody owes anybody anything" gambit are every bit as dopey as the excesses of "it takes a village."

You'd have to define what bootstraps means today. If the amount of support available today equates to people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, then bootstraps have evolved. And yes, I think it is appropriate the support is there. I'd change a few things if it was up to me, but who wouldn't.

Which philosophy do you think gets more popular votes?

And which one would be more likely to create an outcome that continues to generate more popular votes?

Somehow I don't see anybody getting elected on the "fair doesn't mean equal" platform.

As for "nobody owes anybody anything"...I know there is no shortage of SOBs in the world but somebody is building wings on hospitals, funding museums, endowing universities and donating to charity. And they aren't all George Clooney.

I'm sure there is a way to diminish all that simply as tax cheating (at least for non-liberals, liberals don't cheat because their form has no deductions, only places to add more taxes).

 

[Old Pio]

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.

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.

To be precise, 19th century nonsense. Let's just stick with teachers unions. We don't need to get involved with, say, the Teamsters, who were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mafia. Or the United Mine Workers, who had some novel ideas on how to conduct elections. You can defend them on another occasion.

So what you're saying is I (and everyone who has viewed the clip) am misunderstanding Bob Chanin's remarks. He didn't say what he appeared to have said. Or, he didn't really mean it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdgzBNh6kEM

Any improvement to class room instruction in unionized school systems is an accident, not due to any effort by the unions to improve the education kids get. It's the difference between correlation and causation. You can say you don't understand all you want. But explain to me why teachers walk out when kids are taking state mandated tests or schedule strikes at graduation time, so as to make applications to and acceptance by colleges more difficult, if not impossible. There's a priority there, all right, but the kids ain't it. By the way, you really ought to read the article I posted rather than relying on a statistic I pulled from the text, to get the idea. It is a long, statistics dense piece, impossible for me to accurately summarize here. And you might find it eye opening.

Are there still plenty of good teachers out there? Dedicated to their students? Working like mules in a system that makes their lives difficult? Of course. But what does that have to do with union bosses tossing around huge sums of money (in the words of Al Barkum, the former head of the AFL-CIO "Committee on Political Education") "to reward our friends and punish our enemies?" Unionized teachers walked out on the kids of Wisconsin to protest pending changes in the state law which would mandate modest increases in their pension contributions and health care co-pays (increases which would still keep those payments well below what other workers in Wisconsin pay). And this helped the kids, how? Unionized teachers have an absolute right to act in their own economic best interests. But the rest of us shouldn't swallow the line that they're "doing it for the kids." Bollocks. They're doing it for themselves.

 

[geezer]

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

So now Romney's running around promising to reduce unemployment to 6%. Hm, why does this arbitrary and probably unrealistic goal sound familiar?
Idiot politicians.

 

[bronconick]

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

So now Romney's running around promising to reduce unemployment to 6%. Hm, why does this arbitrary and probably unrealistic goal sound familiar?
Idiot politicians.

Dang. I was hoping he'd take up Newt's causes of $2 gas and a moon base.

 

[Old Pio]

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

Dang. I was hoping he'd take up Newt's causes of $2 gas and a moon base.

If reducing unemployment was a simple as flipping a switch. Why would any president not flip that sucker?

 

[bronconick]

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

They must all spend the first month in office looking for one of these

When they don't find it, their hair inevitably goes gray.

 

[Priceless]

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

Dang. I was hoping he'd take up Newt's causes of $2 gas and a moon base.

9
9
9

 

[mookie1995]

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

everybody thinks they pay too much in taxes.
everybody thinks the other congressmen should go.
everybody thinks those poorer than them get too much for free (off their backs).
everybody thinks other people are using benefits they get to better themselves while keeping them down.
everybody thinks the people that are doing better than them should pay their "fair share".
everybody thinks those people are not currently doing so.
everybody thinks they're right.
everybody thinks you're wrong.

 

[leswp1]

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

everybody thinks they pay too much in taxes.
everybody thinks the other congressmen should go.
everybody thinks those poorer than them get too much for free (off their backs).
everybody thinks other people are using benefits they get to better themselves while keeping them down.
everybody thinks the people that are doing better than them should pay their "fair share".
everybody thinks those people are not currently doing so.
everybody thinks they're right.
everybody thinks you're wrong.

That about covers it.

 

[Old Pio]

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

everybody thinks they pay too much in taxes.
everybody thinks the other congressmen should go.
everybody thinks those poorer than them get too much for free (off their backs).
everybody thinks other people are using benefits they get to better themselves while keeping them down.
everybody thinks the people that are doing better than them should pay their "fair share".
everybody thinks those people are not currently doing so.
everybody thinks they're right.
everybody thinks you're wrong.

No doubt about it, Rock, I gotta get a shredder.

 

[FreshFish]

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

everybody thinks the other congressmen should go..

I'd love to be rid of our Congressional representative and one of our Senators. The other Senator is a keeper, and of course that's why he is retiring at the end of his term.

 

[duper]

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

The Secretary of State is a state government office, totally separate from a county sheriff's office. Bennett has no connection that I've seen to anything Arpaio is doing as county sheriff. But, hey, kick dust in the air if it helps you breathe.

I wonder if the dust kicked up when a county sheriff independently conducts an "investigation" into federal election fraud helps anyone breathe. Or a county sheriff trying to participate in Federal border protection in a county that he is NOT the sheriff of. The fact is, I don't know much about Bennett, and maybe he really is just a misguided fool who genuinely thought that what he was doing wasn't stupid, butJoe Arpaio... Good lord, I can't believe he can still get elected.

To be precise, 19th century nonsense. Let's just stick with teachers unions. We don't need to get involved with, say, the Teamsters, who were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mafia. Or the United Mine Workers, who had some novel ideas on how to conduct elections. You can defend them on another occasion.

So what you're saying is I (and everyone who has viewed the clip) am misunderstanding Bob Chanin's remarks. He didn't say what he appeared to have said. Or, he didn't really mean it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdgzBNh6kEM

Any improvement to class room instruction in unionized school systems is an accident, not due to any effort by the unions to improve the education kids get. It's the difference between correlation and causation. You can say you don't understand all you want. But explain to me why teachers walk out when kids are taking state mandated tests or schedule strikes at graduation time, so as to make applications to and acceptance by colleges more difficult, if not impossible. There's a priority there, all right, but the kids ain't it. By the way, you really ought to read the article I posted rather than relying on a statistic I pulled from the text, to get the idea. It is a long, statistics dense piece, impossible for me to accurately summarize here. And you might find it eye opening.

Are there still plenty of good teachers out there? Dedicated to their students? Working like mules in a system that makes their lives difficult? Of course. But what does that have to do with union bosses tossing around huge sums of money (in the words of Al Barkum, the former head of the AFL-CIO "Committee on Political Education") "to reward our friends and punish our enemies?" Unionized teachers walked out on the kids of Wisconsin to protest pending changes in the state law which would mandate modest increases in their pension contributions and health care co-pays (increases which would still keep those payments well below what other workers in Wisconsin pay). And this helped the kids, how? Unionized teachers have an absolute right to act in their own economic best interests. But the rest of us shouldn't swallow the line that they're "doing it for the kids." Bollocks. They're doing it for themselves.

What I am saying is that whoever that guy is, and whatever he says on that video, he does not represent all, or even a majority of teachers unions. You will disagree with me about this, but you will be wrong. You will raise another anecdote that will be solid proof because everyone knows that whatever they do in New York and LA is just like the rest of the country (as long as it's what we already believe) but I won't care.

I will go ahead and say what I know you believe. My mind is made up about this, and it will take a great deal more than your anecdotes to change it. Just as it will take a great deal more than my anecdotes to change yours. You can rest easy in your superior knowledge, age, wisdom, and intelligence while I rest easy in my greater understanding of the education industry. (For the record, I am not being sarcastic here: most of us on this board have a firm opinion that no evidence presented by anyone else on this board will change.)

 

[Priceless]

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

everybody thinks they pay too much in taxes.
everybody thinks the other congressmen should go.
everybody thinks those poorer than them get too much for free (off their backs).
everybody thinks other people are using benefits they get to better themselves while keeping them down.
everybody thinks the people that are doing better than them should pay their "fair share".
everybody thinks those people are not currently doing so.
everybody thinks they're right.
everybody thinks you're wrong.

When MY Congressman gets federal money he is "bringing home the bacon" but when any other Congressman does he is loading up on pork.

 

[duper]

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

When MY Congressman gets federal money he is "bringing home the bacon" but when any other Congressman does he is loading up on pork.

May Ted Stevens rest in peace...

 

[Old Pio]

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

gnQUOTE=duper;5449305]I wonder if the dust kicked up when a county sheriff independently conducts an "investigation" into federal election fraud helps anyone breathe. Or a county sheriff trying to participate in Federal border protection in a county that he is NOT the sheriff of. The fact is, I don't know much about Bennett, and maybe he really is just a misguided fool who genuinely thought that what he was doing wasn't stupid, butJoe Arpaio... Good lord, I can't believe he can still get elected.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a native here, but if I had to guess I might conclude what Arpaio's doing is to influence or even intimidate the Justice Department to back off. I don't give a sh*t about this "birther" business, but Obama's got an election to win and at some point, this nonsense may gain some traction. It's already mutated into the question of whether Obama himself claimed foreign birth to gain admission to Columbia, etc (again, I don't give a sh*t). But you can bet his campaign people are keeping a very close eye on this stuff, if not, they're not doing their jobs.

Arpaio plays for keeps. Let me give you a very recent example. He had been having a beef with the Airport Authority over the allocation of parking spaces at Sky Harbor. He said he had official business there (dropping off or picking up the odd prisoner who would require security. You don't just turn some guy you're returning to another jurisdicition loose to wander around 'til his flight is called). For some reason, the Airport Authority refused. He wanted two or three spaces out of the hundreds that are set aside for one reason or another. And he had figures showing how much his department was paying to park at the airport.

So fast forward to when Phoenix opened its sparkling new, billion dollar light rail system. Arpaio announced since his deputies were having to pay full fare parking at the airport and didn't have preferred close-in spaces, henceforth he would begin to transport prisoners on the trains. And he staged some photo-ops where dull looking people in handcuffs were being loaded into the brand new trains. Didn't take the media long to start calling the system "Con rail." And "man on the street" interviews with rail passengers expressing concern about riding on the train with criminals. Of course, they would be accompanied by armed deputies, on balance probably safer, but I digress.

Ultimately, the Airport Authority relented, and Arpaio got his parking spaces. My sense is the Airport Authority was just jerking him around. It seemed like he had a legitimate need for spaces, just as other law enforcement agencies do. And it's interesting to speculate about the 'phone calls from the transit people to the airport people begging them to knock it off and give Joe his spaces.

It is a mistake to underestimate this guy. He is as good at keeping his name in the media as any local official I've ever seen. Personally, I just tune him out, since in a huge county like Maricopa, the sheriff's job is almost entirely administrative and has little to do with day to day enforcement of the law. He's full of publicity stunts, but he seems to know his intended audience and has for several elections now.