Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[duper]

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

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.

With this I could not agree more. I remember living in Flagstaff (Coconino County) and I have never seen a sheriff with so much presence. I have lived in a grand total of five counties in my life; one in Illinois (Cook), two in Colorado (Denver and Jefferson), and two in Arizona (Coconino and Navajo) and I can not name one single sheriff of any of those counties EVER. Not one. (For those keeping score at home, Alaska has no counties, and so no sheriffs) But you couldn't possibly live in Coconino County fifteen years ago and NOT be able to name the sheriff of Maricopa county. In fact, I'm pretty sure a lot of people thought he was Sheriff of Arizona. I would say he thinks that, but I think he's much too sharp for that.

 

[Old Pio]

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

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.
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.)

Quote Duper: "Nah, nah, nah I can't HEAR you." Whatever you do, continue to be steadfast in your refusal to watch or read anything that challenges your views. That's impressive and doubtless improves your credibility. That "guy" you refer too worked for NEA for 41 years and was their general counsel. As such, a reasonable person would believe his views accurately reflect the views of the top goons at the NEA, since as general counsel he was right in there, helping to make policy and advise locals. And his views are reflective of the views of the union coast to coast, not just in NY and CA. This is not some guy from Colorado Springs, this is the General Counsel for the NEA. And his validictory address to the national NEA convention is not an "annecdote." You can chose to ignore or downgrade his opinion if you wish, but IMO it makes you look a little like a Kamikaze pilot. Although I'll confess it's far easier to ignore him than to argue in support of his position.

Again, you seem to be unable to separate the goons who run the unions from the individual members. As to all that sarcasm about my "superior knowledge, age and wisdom," there are two ways of looking at it. One is that it doesn't reflect terribly well on you or your arguments. The other is how grateful you should be that I even take time to respond to your posts.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

Wait, what just happened there...? Two replies to the same post?

 

[duper]

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

Quote Duper: "Nah, nah, nah I can't HEAR you." Whatever you do, continue to be steadfast in your refusal to watch or read anything that challenges your views. That's impressive. That "guy" you refer too worked for NEA for 41 years and was their general counsel. As such, a reasonable person would believe his views accurately reflect the views of the top goons at the NEA, since as general counsel he was right in there, helping to make policy and advise locals. And his views are reflective of the views of the union coast to coast, not just in NY and CA. This is not some guy from Colorado Springs, this is the General Counsel for the NEA. And his validictory address to the national NEA convention is not an "annecdote." You can chose to ignore or downgrade his opinion if you wish, but IMO it makes you look a little like a Kamikaze pilot.

Again, you seem to be unable to separate the goons who run the unions from the individual members. As to all that sarcasm about my "superior knowledge, age and wisdom," there are two ways of looking at it. One is that it doesn't reflect terribly well on you or your arguments. The other is how grateful you should be that I even take time to respond to your posts.

And you are surely entitled to your view, kettle.

 

[Old Pio]

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

And you are surely entitled to your view, kettle.

You can wriggle and squirm and refuse to address the issues I've raised all you wish. But you are the one refusing to engage. Not me. You are the one calling names. Not me. You are the one with fingers shoved knuckle deep in your ears, proudly proclaiming that no amount of evidence would ever change your mind. Not me.

Let's get out our Weavers albums and sing "Union Miners."

 

[duper]

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

You can wriggle and squirm and refuse to address the issues I've raised all you wish. But you are the one refusing to engage. You are the one calling names. Not me. You are the one with fingers shoved knuckle deep in your ears, proudly proclaiming that no amount of evidence would ever change your mind. Not me.

I did engage. I told you that that opinion does not reflect teachers unions (you assumed I meant individual teachers, I didn't say it) everywhere, and you refuse to accept it, because obviously the general counsel for the national organization covering many (not all) of those unions is the last and final word. I disagree. I disagree because I have experienced too many locals that do their business in a way that keeps the best interest of students in mind ALWAYS. You don't want to hear that, though. Because you already know.

No wriggling. No squirming. Just positive certainty on my part that you are wrong about this. Very very similar to your positive certainty that I am wrong, and the fact that anything I do say is countered with but but but but I showed a video! And if you'll notice, I was no kinder to myself than I was to you. If you are the kettle, who do you suppose is the pot? Might it not be me?

As for proclaiming, no amount of evidence will change your mind. You just don't come out and admit it.

 

[Old Pio]

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

I did engage. I told you that that opinion does not reflect teachers unions (you assumed I meant individual teachers, I didn't say it) everywhere, and you refuse to accept it, because obviously the general counsel for the national organization covering many (not all) of those unions is the last and final word. I disagree. I disagree because I have experienced too many locals that do their business in a way that keeps the best interest of students in mind ALWAYS. You don't want to hear that, though. Because you already know.

No wriggling. No squirming. Just positive certainty on my part that you are wrong about this. Very very similar to your positive certainty that I am wrong, and the fact that anything I do say is countered with but but but but I showed a video! And if you'll notice, I was no kinder to myself than I was to you. If you are the kettle, who do you suppose is the pot? Might it not be me?

As for proclaiming, no amount of evidence will change your mind. You just don't come out and admit it.

Which opinion? The video you didn't watch or the article you didn't read? Hard for me to keep track of your unwillingness to hear even criticism, let alone opposition to teahers unions. I really don't understand how you can suggest the General Counsel of NEA's opinion on matters is not shared by the locals. That just doesn't make any sense. Of course, there are other teachers union out there and it's theoretically possible they don't agree with the positions Mr. Chanin took. But, come on, the NEA is the 800 pound gorilla of teachers unions.

And while I'm certain some locals of NEA, just like locals of all unions, occasionaly have different points of view and different levels of trust and different levels of professionalism, the fact is, the national NEA significantly calls the shots and sets the tone. And if these independent minded locals (like Tito in Yugoslavia) need a little legal help, who do they go to? Franklin and Bash?

And finally, reluctantly, in your third post, you assert your point about locals. What prevented you from mentioning it earlier? I made no mistake about you conflating individual teachers with the national unions. I did not get your point about locals vs. national. It wasn't clearly stated. You relied instead on your withering sarcasm calling me "Walter Kronkite (sic) light" at one point. Not a serious argument, you ask me.

If you are saying locals with which you are familiar would disagree with the specifics or tone of Chanin's points, then why not simply say it? Although you've indicated you haven't watched it. If you want to separate those locals from Chanin, have at it. Why can't'/didn't you just say so? BTW, the relevant question here, IMO is do these locals put the needs of the kids first? Certainly, nationally, the NEA does not.

As to my closed mind, I have not said "never" regarding a change of opinion. You have. And I've offered some specific information which supports my position. You have refused to consider it. Instead, offering glittering generalities about locals you're familiar with. And it was not exactly accurate to suggest you're coming off like a Kamikaze pilot. I think Monty Python's black knight is closer to the mark: "tis but a scratch."

 

[duper]

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

Which opinion? The video you didn't watch or the article you didn't read? Hard for me to keep track of your unwillingness to hear even criticism, let alone opposition to teahers unions. I really don't understand how you can suggest the General Counsel of NEA's opinion on matters is not shared by the locals. That just doesn't make any sense. Of course, there are other teachers union out there and it's theoretically possible they don't agree with the positions Mr. Chanin took. But, come on, the NEA is the 800 pound gorilla of teachers unions.

And while I'm certain some locals of NEA, just like locals of all unions, occasionaly have different points of view and different levels of trust and different levels of professionalism, the fact is, the national NEA significantly calls the shots and sets the tone. And if these independent minded locals (like Tito in Yugoslavia) need a little legal help, who do they go to? Franklin and Bash?

And finally, reluctantly, in your third post, you assert your point about locals. What prevented you from mentioning it earlier? I made no mistake about you conflating individual teachers with the national unions. I did not get your point about locals vs. national. It wasn't clearly stated. You relied instead on your withering sarcasm calling me "Walter Kronkite (sic) light" at one point. Not a serious argument, you ask me.

If you are saying locals with which you are familiar would disagree with the specifics or tone of Chanin's points, then why not simply say it? Although you've indicated you haven't watched it. If you want to separate those locals from Chanin, have at it. Why can't'/didn't you just say so? BTW, the relevant question here, IMO is do these locals put the needs of the kids first? Certainly, nationally, the NEA does not.

Which opinon? The one you have clearly stated dozens of times over the years that unions are bad period, and that any good that comes of them is far outweighed by the mountains of bad. I really don't think I'm overstating it, you have made that opinion abundantly clear.

My opinion, which I have also stated, is that the bad does NOT outweigh the good. In the past, not necessarily this incarnation of the debate, I have asserted pretty unequivocally my believe that if unions go away, so will rights of workers. Not immediately, maybe not even soon, but as surely as the sun comes up in the east.

The thing is, when someone does present actual evidence to you, I have seen time and again, as have many others, that your typical reaction is NOT to engage, but to resort to fallacious arguments, and bombastic refusal to see any value in their arguments. So no, I don't really bother. Arguing in these threads is fun, but I will surely never take seriously anything that is said here, by anyone.

 

[Old Pio]

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

Which opinon? The one you have clearly stated dozens of times over the years that unions are bad period, and that any good that comes of them is far outweighed by the mountains of bad. I really don't think I'm overstating it, you have made that opinion abundantly clear.

My opinion, which I have also stated, is that the bad does NOT outweigh the good. In the past, not necessarily this incarnation of the debate, I have asserted pretty unequivocally my believe that if unions go away, so will rights of workers. Not immediately, maybe not even soon, but as surely as the sun comes up in the east.

The thing is, when someone does present actual evidence to you, I have seen time and again, as have many others, that your typical reaction is NOT to engage, but to resort to fallacious arguments, and bombastic refusal to see any value in their arguments. So no, I don't really bother. Arguing in these threads is fun, but I will surely never take seriously anything that is said here, by anyone.

Dear boy, how do my alleged misdemeanors and felonies excuse yours? Is there some sort of club of people (the "many others") who keep track of my posts and compare notes about what an a*shole I am? Got decoder rings? Secret handshakes? Newsletter?

So it's my fault you didn't argue your points particularly well, refused to consider evidence supporting my arguments and resorted to ad hominem argumentation? Your resonse to all of that is tu quoque?

Whatever you do in the future about taking seriously what anybody (including me, presumably) says here seriously, is up to you of course. But you really should reconsider sulking.

Is the IWW still taking new members?

 

[duper]

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

Dear boy, how do my alleged misdemeanors and felonies excuse yours? Is there some sort of club of people who keep track of my posts and compare notes about what an a*shole I am? Got decoder rings? Secret handshakes? Newsletter?

So it's my fault you didn't argue your points particularly well, refused to consider evidence supporting my arguments and resorted to ad hominem argumentation? Your resonse to all of that is tu quoque?

Whatever you do in the future about taking seriously what anybody (including me, presumably) says here seriously is up to you of course. But you really should reconsider sulking.

Dude, this is an internet message board. Neither you nor I is under any expectation of being reasonable. And it's a good thing, too, because when it comes to politics, neither of us would live up to that expectation here.

No tu quoque for me thank you, because I charged you with neither misdemeanors nor felonies and I have committed none. I didn't argue my points badly, I didn't argue them AT ALL because I am totally confident that you would have dismissed them. That is not presumption or arrogance on my part, it is the ability to learn from history. I will not be told by you or anyone else that my opinion is stupid and worthless twice, and you have already told me that once. You may not remember, but that;s because insulting someone is generally less memorable than being insulted. And to repeat, you are under no obligation to be reasonable. I am not sulking, nor will I. However, when someone treats me badly once, I don't give them the chance to do it again, even if they were within their rights.

 

[Old Pio]

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

Dude, this is an internet message board. Neither you nor I is under any expectation of being reasonable. And it's a good thing, too, because when it comes to politics, neither of us would live up to that expectation here.

No tu quoque for me thank you, because I charged you with neither misdemeanors nor felonies and I have committed none. I didn't argue my points badly, I didn't argue them AT ALL because I am totally confident that you would have dismissed them. That is not presumption or arrogance on my part, it is the ability to learn from history. I will not be told by you or anyone else that my opinion is stupid and worthless twice, and you have already told me that once. You may not remember, but that;s because insulting someone is generally less memorable than being insulted. And to repeat, you are under no obligation to be reasonable. I am not sulking, nor will I. However, when someone treats me badly once, I don't give them the chance to do it again, even if they were within their rights.

If I didn't know what utter swill that is, I'd be on my feet cheering. Nathan Hale's got nothing on you. Please remind me of the occasion(s) when I've called you or your opinions either worthless or stupid. I don't recall. IMO, you're taking this argument way too personally and as a consequence, have made your responses very personal.

Again, you claim not to be arguing tu quoque, followed by claims that at some unspecfified point in the past (which I don't recall) I classified your arguments as "stupid" or "worthless," thus justifying your current churlishness and name calling. Sounds a lot tu quoque to me. If I understand you correctly, you're nursing some sort of grudge from a prior discussion and now you want to whip it out to justify your bad manners here?

Meanwhile, in Chicago, this. Question: Was today a school day? And if so, who was teaching the kids?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ers-rally-in-chicago-20120523,0,1314979.story

edit: evidently an evening demonstration.

 

[leswp1]

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

Dude, this is an internet message board. Neither you nor I is under any expectation of being reasonable. And it's a good thing, too, because when it comes to politics, neither of us would live up to that expectation here.

No tu quoque for me thank you, because I charged you with neither misdemeanors nor felonies and I have committed none. I didn't argue my points badly, I didn't argue them AT ALL because I am totally confident that you would have dismissed them. That is not presumption or arrogance on my part, it is the ability to learn from history. I will not be told by you or anyone else that my opinion is stupid and worthless twice, and you have already told me that once. You may not remember, but that;s because insulting someone is generally less memorable than being insulted. And to repeat, you are under no obligation to be reasonable. I am not sulking, nor will I. However, when someone treats me badly once, I don't give them the chance to do it again, even if they were within their rights.

Can you two get a room? Having OP on ignore (for the reasons you have so eloquently stated) is supposed to serve the purpose of shortening what I scroll past. If you keep quoting him it makes things so much more tedious.

 

[BassAle]

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

Meanwhile, in Chicago, this. Question: Was today a school day? And if so, who was teaching the kids?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ers-rally-in-chicago-20120523,0,1314979.story

edit: evidently an evening demonstration.

you're a dumb ***. My parents were both educators for over 30 years, and were union members. While they had a few contract disputes over the years they did not affect their classroom (but it isn't like they could just walk out of the classroom anyway, by Maine law teachers are not allowed to go on strike). I remember the worst contract dispute involved a rally outside a school board meeting, and not putting in unpaid hours at school before or after their official work hours until they had a new contract.

 

[Old Pio]

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

you're a dumb ***. My parents were both educators for over 30 years, and were union members. While they had a few contract disputes over the years they did not affect their classroom (but it isn't like they could just walk out of the classroom anyway, by Maine law teachers are not allowed to go on strike). I remember the worst contract dispute involved a rally outside a school board meeting, and not putting in unpaid hours at school before or after their official work hours until they had a new contract.

Another well thought out opinion. Let's see: "My parents are great teachers who would personally never do anything to hurt students, therefore unions per se would never do anything to hurt kids. Yup, that's airtight logic all right. Your parents should have been teaching in Madison, to take up the slack left by goon teachers who were "looking out for the kids" at the state capitol.

 

[Old Pio]

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

Can you two get a room? Having OP on ignore (for the reasons you have so eloquently stated) is supposed to serve the purpose of shortening what I scroll past. If you keep quoting him it makes things so much more tedious.

Life's a b*tch. And then you die.

 

[Kepler]

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

9
9
9

 

[Rover]

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

I'm struck by how the anti-union rhetoric is straight out of the air traffic controllers strike circa 1981-82. Teachers unions, made up of teachers themselves, are meant to advocate for their position. Given that teachers are continuously asked to take on bigger classrooms and deal with more and more special needs kids, its a good thing they have an organization pushing their view.

The problem with anti-unionism unless its just based in partisan hackery is that it makes no sense. How has the decline of union membership over the last 30-40 years strengthened the bargaining power of the American worker? Answer: it hasn't. Furthermore, there's zero evidence high union membership states fare worse than low membership ones in terms of unemployment. Check out Massachusetts unemployment rate sometime compared to so called right to work state havens out there and get back to me. Any union-management negotiation is a give and take, and there's nothing wrong with that. What I find odd is that the zero union society our righty friends would like to see actually exists...in China, a communist state with a planned economy where workers have no rights. Funny to see conservatives holding this up as a model for the US to aspire to.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

you're a dumb ***. My parents were both educators for over 30 years, and were union members. While they had a few contract disputes over the years they did not affect their classroom (but it isn't like they could just walk out of the classroom anyway, by Maine law teachers are not allowed to go on strike). I remember the worst contract dispute involved a rally outside a school board meeting, and not putting in unpaid hours at school before or after their official work hours until they had a new contract.

My dad was a career teacher and union member, though not by choice as all teachers were forced to be members. He really disliked the union. He basically said they'd take members' money and use most of it for political purposes he didn't agree with. Even when problems came up, he said the union officials were pretty useless.

 

[LynahFan]

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

I'm struck by how the anti-union rhetoric is straight out of the air traffic controllers strike circa 1981-82. Teachers unions, made up of teachers themselves, are meant to advocate for their position. Given that teachers are continuously asked to take on bigger classrooms and deal with more and more special needs kids, its a good thing they have an organization pushing their view.

The problem with anti-unionism unless its just based in partisan hackery is that it makes no sense. How has the decline of union membership over the last 30-40 years strengthened the bargaining power of the American worker? Answer: it hasn't. Furthermore, there's zero evidence high union membership states fare worse than low membership ones in terms of unemployment. Check out Massachusetts unemployment rate sometime compared to so called right to work state havens out there and get back to me. Any union-management negotiation is a give and take, and there's nothing wrong with that. What I find odd is that the zero union society our righty friends would like to see actually exists...in China, a communist state with a planned economy where workers have no rights. Funny to see conservatives holding this up as a model for the US to aspire to.

Wow, no crows near you with a whole field of strawmen like that.

Who has argued that the decline in union membrership has strengthened workers' bargaining power? Who has argued that right to work states ought to have lower unemployment?

The only issue I recall being brought up recently in this thread boils down to: teachers' unions are effective at getting governments to overpay/overbenefit teachers compared to the quality of the results delivered.

 

[Kepler]

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

teachers' unions are effective at getting governments to overpay/overbenefit teachers compared to the quality of the results delivered.

When I think of the overpaid professions of this country, the first one that pops into my head is teaching.