Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Miscellaneous 136

1) So, what "academic freedom" does a second grade reading teacher require? I mean, seriously.............2) Tenure is an untenable concept for a number of reasons. a) It insulates/protects lousy teachers, b) it often prevents good teachers from being hired long-term (this, in that a lot of colleges let people go just prior to them earning tenure), and c) any organization or business has to have the right to fire bad people OR THEY WILL PERISH.............3) Conventional wisdom is that Eleanor Powell is the greatest female tap-dancer ever. My (obviously much more unconventional) wisdom counters this by specifying, not so fast, my friend! I mean, yeah, maybe Powell was the most precise and all but Ann Miller in the late '40s and early '50s had a caliber of athleticism that few dancers of either gender has ever given us. And if you don't believe me, just check out her numbers in "Kiss Me Kate" (the "Too Darn Hot Number" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CYjE9Gv3A4) and "Deep in My Heart" (that phenomenal Charleston number - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1UbWf_vbg&feature=fvwrel). Those just might convince you.............4) School summer vacations are an anachronism. In fact, the only reason that they existed in the first place was because families needed the children at home to help with the planting and the harvesting. There is no academic reason for them and, if anything, they're actually harmful (students forgetting a lot of what they learned the year before) to the students. BUT because the teacher unions want to retain them as a benefit to their employees, they continue....just like the damn bells.

41 comments:

dmarks said...

If you are good at what you do, you don't need tenure.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: There is no academic reason for [summer breaks] and, if anything, they're actually harmful [to] students...

So how are families supposed to plan vacations if their kids are in school all year long? Let me guess... you'd do away with workers earning vacation time too?

Will: Tenure is an untenable concept for a number of reasons...

Getting rid of tenure is part of the plutocrats' plan to destroy all good paying middle and upper middle class jobs. That way there is more money for them. It's all about greed.

Doing away with earned vacation time is also a part of that plan.

dmarks: If you are good at what you do, you don't need tenure.

There are many reasons why someone who is good at what they do might need tenure. Tenure "protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort..."

Will has claimed previously that scientists/academics with minority opinions are often proven right. Getting rid of tenure could case people with these minority opinions that are right to be fired... and have a negative impact on valuable research.

Will: ...colleges let people go just prior to them earning tenure.

Tenure is something that is earned automatically? Not so, according to Wikipedia, which states that, "Universities... exercise great care in offering tenured positions, first requiring an intensive formal review of the candidate's record of research, teaching, and service. This review typically takes several months and may include the solicitation of confidential letters of assessment from highly regarded scholars in the candidate's research area. Some colleges and universities also solicit letters from students about the candidate's teaching. A tenured position is OFFERED only if the tenure-granting groups on campus... judge that the candidate is likely to remain a productive scholar and teacher for life".

You don't get tenure if you haven't been around awhile and PROVEN you're a good teacher.

dmarks said...

"Getting rid of tenure is part of the plutocrats'"

Again with calling school principals and school boards "plutocrats".

Any connection between the real meaning of the word and WD's use of it vanished over the horizon a looong time ago.

And yes, it is true: unless you are a lazy pathetic sluggard, you don't need tenure to keep your job.

"Tenure "protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion....."

In the case of teaching, what you describe is simply wildcatting, going rogue. Not doing what those who know better about the situation (managers) require. So at least you are admitting that it is lousy teachers who don't follow management who need it.

"openly disagree with authorities of any sort"

Yeah, like those lazy classroom-occupiers (hard to call them teachers) who disagree with authorities' requirements to actually teach students, and rely on lesson plans 20+ years old.

Thanks, WD, for providing some more convincing arguments why tenure must go.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I understand what tenure is, wd. And I'm telling you, a lot of colleges and univerities let people go just so they don't have to offer it and be burdened with it............And teachers can have a vacation; 2-4 weeks like the rest of us.............And I ask you yet again, what academic freedom does a grammar school teacher need?............College professors? No decent university is going to get rid of a professor simply for being cutting edge (unles he's a total wack job like Ward Churchill).

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Again with calling school principals and school boards "plutocrats". Any connection between the real meaning of the word...

I have only ever referred to actual plutocrats. Any other people you say I'm calling plutocrats... that's just you lying. I never said school principals or school boards are plutocrats, although some of them may be.

dmarks: Thanks, WD, for providing some more convincing arguments why tenure must go.

Another example of your reading comprehension problem. I discussed reasons why tenure is a positive thing and should be expanded.

dmarks: Yeah, like those lazy classroom-occupiers...

Teachers with tenure who abuse that tenure are a tiny minority. dmarks and Will both imagine the problem is larger than it actually is. They do this because they want to get rid of all protections for working people. They always want employers to have the upper hand so wages can be kept artificially low.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I have only ever referred to actual plutocrats."

Which from your point of view includes all small business owners, and anyone hiring teachers who wants to pay them a fair wage.

"Any other people you say I'm calling plutocrats... that's just you lying."

We all saw you do it.

"I never said school principals or school boards are plutocrats, although some of them may be."

We were discussing people who hire, fire, and pay teachers. You slammed these people as "plutocrats".

"Another example of your reading comprehension problem. I discussed reasons why tenure is a positive thing and should be expanded."

None of those reasons were valid. Especially your support of rogue teachers who don't follow their supervisors.

"They do this because they want to get rid of all protections for working people."

It is clear that your priority is in wasting money on bad teachers. You put education last.

"They always want employers to have the upper hand so wages can be kept artificially low."

No, we don't. Neither of us has aruged for this. And both have consistently argued for fair wages (real value) to be paid in all situations.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: I understand what tenure is...

It doesn't sound like it.

Will: ...a lot of colleges and universities let people go just so they don't have to offer [tenure] and be burdened with it.

You're referring to bad schools... which they certainly are if they're firing good teachers for dumb reasons.

Will: No decent university is going to get rid of a professor simply for being cutting edge...

BS. What if they aren't "cutting edge" in the university's opinion? The university may decide that "cutting edge" is actually controversial and not something they agree with.

How about we get rid of tenure and fire all the global warming denying professors (if there are any)?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Which from your point of view includes all small business owners, and anyone hiring teachers who wants to pay them a fair wage.

That isn't my point of view.

dmarks: We all saw you do it.

People can't see things that didn't happen. Except in their imaginations, which is obviously what you're referring to... something you "saw" in your imagination.

dmarks: We were discussing people who hire, fire, and pay teachers. You slammed these people as "plutocrats".

We were discussing people who oppose tenure. I referred to a certain group of people who oppose it and gave their reason.

dmarks: None of those reasons were valid. Especially your support of rogue teachers who don't follow their supervisors.

They all were valid. I don't know what a "rogue teacher" is or what "not following their supervisor" would entail... so I can't possibly support them.

dmarks: It is clear that your priority is in wasting money on bad teachers. You put education last.

I have no such priority. I put education first with my support of free college education for all who qualify.

dmarks: No, we don't. Neither of us has aruged for this.

You argue for it constantly.

BB-Idaho said...

Tenure is part of the university
reseach/teaching process. My daughter attained tenure in a biology department: it is far from easy. The universities have a vested interest in retaining core
departmental staff, but while adjuncts and instructors are less expensive-turnover is high and student access minimal. As a physicist who failed to acheive tenure notes, the concept and practice is far from
simple. K-12? Nope, a quite different situation.
"If you are good at what you do, you don't need tenure" Worked for me, but even being the best at what you do is no protection against unemployment these days...

dmarks said...

WD: "That isn't my point of view.

You actually did call them plutocrats. I welcome you rescinding this.

"We were discussing people who oppose tenure. I referred to a certain group of people who oppose it and gave their reason."

And thus you slammed those who hire teachers as plutocrats.

"They all were valid. I don't know what a "rogue teacher" is or what "not following their supervisor" would entail... so I can't possibly support them."

So now you oppose tenure. Good!

"I have no such priority."

You did when you supported tenure.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: You actually did call them plutocrats. I welcome you rescinding this.

I can't rescind something I never said.

dmarks: And thus you slammed those who hire teachers as plutocrats.

I didn't.

dmarks: So now you oppose tenure. Good!

I support it. You're suggesting that all teachers with tenure are "rogue". This is obviously false and any rational person would disagree with your blanket condemnation.

dmarks: You did when you supported tenure.

No, the opposite is true. Me supporting tenure indicates that I place a high value on education.

BB-Idaho: Tenure is part of the university reseach/teaching process.

Right. So why did Will say "I understand what tenure is", but then ask "what academic freedom does a grammar school teacher need?"

I strongly suspect Will is BSing.

CheyenneBella said...

WD - I recently graduated high school and I know for a fact jack that tenure is a real ludicrous idea. I had some of the worst teachers possible and I would report them for their wrong doings and they were not able to be disposed out of the system because of tenure. Tenure does not benefit the students and needs to be taken away for that reason solely.

Eric Noren said...

I forget what the rule is called, but basically the first person to invoke Hitler or Nazis is said to have immediately lost the argument, by rule. Let's creat the "dervish rule" whereby the first person to use the word "plutocrat" immediately forfeits the argument.

That way everyone is required to articulate an actual argument instead of falling back on rhetorical short hand like "plutocrat."

Rusty Shackelford said...

Are "plutocrat's" named for that dog in the Disney cartoons?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

CheyenneBella: I recently graduated high school and I know for a fact jack that tenure is a real ludicrous idea.

I guess since you recently graduated from HS your opinion MUST be correct. Also, it is a shame that those teachers who are guilty of "wrong doings" were not immediately "disposed" of on your say so alone.

HR: ...the first person to invoke Hitler or Nazis is said to have immediately lost the argument...

So what you're saying is the plutocrats are very much like the Nazis? Maybe you have a point, since they do seek a "genocide" for the middle class. Although many do die as a result (those in poverty die earlier), I'd still say it isn't quite the same as gas chambers and ovens. Therefore I reject your proposed rule.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I was a teacher for 15 years and wd knows more about tenure than I do. What a frigging stooge. Tenure has absolutely NOTHING to do with academic freedom and everything to do with job security and protecting deadwood. Get your head out of your ass for once, wd. And it isn't just bad schools who get rid of teachers because they don't want to deal with tenure. Even frigging Ivy League schools do it.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And Cheyenne is a pre-med student with honors, wd. I certainly give her opinion more credence than somebody who does little more then scour the internet all day looking for like-minded views while eschewing all others.

dmarks said...

Cheyenne said: "I had some of the worst teachers possible and I would report them for their wrong doings and they were not able to be disposed out of the system because of tenure"

Yes. Only lousy teachers fear getting rid of tenure. The terrible ones who would be fired in a hiring/promotion/etc system based on ability and competency love it.

Come on, WD. Put education first. Rather than putting protecting the careers of marginal so-called "educators" first.

dmarks said...

Will said: "Tenure has absolutely NOTHING to do with academic freedom and everything to do with job security and protecting deadwood. "

Deadwood has a staunch champion in WD.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, when I worked for the state, there was this one teacher who abused and neglected the students and all that they did was put her in a room for a while while they pleaded some bogus disability defense. She's currently retired at about $60,000 a year plus benefits.

dmarks said...

Will: Reminds me of all those times teachers are caught sexually assaulting students. The school board/principles/etc (WD's "plutocrats") try to fire the teacher, but the NEA goes to bat to try to keep them in the classroom.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: I was a teacher for 15 years and wd knows more about tenure than I do.

And all I did was read an article on Wikipedia! You'd THINK he'd know more, but obviously not.

Will: Get your head out of your ass for once, wd.

I'm keeping my head in my ass, thank you. Why?, because my head being in my ass clearly just means that I'm disagreeing with Will. When I know he's wrong I'll continue to disagree even after he breaks out the ad hominem insults.

Will: She's currently retired at about $60,000 a year plus benefits.

Was there a criminal conviction? If so I don't believe your story. If not then I don't think her benefits could legally be taken away.

dmarks lied: Deadwood has a staunch champion in WD.

Tenure can be revoked for cause.

dmarks lied: The school board/principles/etc (WD's "plutocrats")...

I said, "Getting rid of tenure is part of the plutocrats' plan to destroy all good paying middle and upper middle class jobs".

WHERE did I say the plutocrats are school board members or principles? I obviously did not... you're a bald-faced liar. I stand by the statement.

dmarks: Reminds me of all those times teachers are caught sexually assaulting students. The school board... try to fire the teacher, but the NEA goes to bat to try to keep them in the classroom.

You were "reminded" of something that never happened? If teachers are caught sexually assaulting students they couldn't stay in the classroom because they'd be in jail. Sexual assault is against the law.

dmarks said...

This has happened so many times. Now I see you support tenure for teachers who abuse students. Not only that, you support handing them generous benefits as a reward for this.

Not only do you support deadwood teachers staying on, you also support keeping teachers on the job who are caught raping children by school personnel, parents, or the victims...as long as they haven't been convicted in a court of law yet.

You are one scary dude.

Kind of fits with your defense of Scott Ritter's sex crimes.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: ...you support tenure for teachers who abuse students. Not only that ... you also support keeping teachers on the job who are caught raping children... as long as they haven't been convicted in a court of law yet.

Absolutely not. They should be suspended pending an investigation. Then, if found guilty they should lose their jobs and go to jail. Obviously if they are caught in the act it's pretty assured that they'll lose their jobs and go to jail.

I support the rule of law. Clearly you support firing people and don't care if the person is later vindicated. dmarks says guilty until proven innocent. He is one scary dude.

dmarks: Kind of fits with your defense of Scott Ritter's sex crimes.

I never defended him on this even once. You're lying. Clearly dmarks can't debate honestly. His arguments are so weak he feels he has to lie... he can only "win" when he's debating a straw man. How pathetic.

dmarks said...

Above, WD argues for keeping the worst people on the job/being paid, unless they are convicted of crimes. Only then can they be fired. Ridiculous.

As for Ritter, you defend him and his crimes every time he is mentioned.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

First off, wd, you lied about what I said. I NEVER said that tenure was earned automatically (though in many districts it essentially is idiot).............And I don't give a fuck if you believe me or you don't. The fucking woman slapped profoundly retarded children and frequently left them unattended. They tried to unload her and the union said that she had some sort of anxiety disorder and stonewalled. Thank you, unions.............And what have I said about tenure that is factually inaccurate?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And you fucking challenged me on the existence of tenure for K-12! What an idiot!

BB-Idaho said...

According to world rangkings, Finland ranks 2nd in reading, 2nd in math and 1st in science. The
US is 14th, 26th and 17th. Since
Finland has teacher tenure, there
must be a few other critical factors at play....

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Maybe one of them is that they, the Fins, take education more seriously.....and efficiently (we spend more and get lousier outcomes).

dmarks said...

Happens all the time, Will. In my district, a school bus driver was caught beating defenseless handicapped children in wheelchairs. They tried to fire her... and the union tried to keep her getting paid and/or driving.

Thank you, unions, indeed.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Above, WD argues for keeping the worst people on the job/being paid, unless they are convicted of crimes. Only then can they be fired.

I made no such argument. We were discussing child rape SPECIFICALLY. I support people receiving their Constitutional rights and strongly disagree with dmarks who says fuVk the Constitution: the mere existence of allegations means the teacher is guilty and who cares if they are later proven innocent... they're already fired and have lost their tenure.

dmarks: As for Ritter, you defend him and his crimes every time he is mentioned.

I defend only this truth-telling regarding Iraq's non-existent WMDs. The other things you say I defend him on... that's just you lying.

Will: ...you lied... I NEVER said that tenure was earned automatically...

I did not lie. I said, "tenure is something that is earned automatically?" Notice the question mark? I was asking a question. You claimed that, "colleges let people go just prior to them earning tenure". If they don't get it automatically then they don't need to fire them, they can just not offer it if they think the teacher hasn't earned it.

Will: ...you fucking challenged me on the existence of tenure for K-12! What an idiot!

I fucking did not. BB-Idaho challenged you. I only said "right" when BB-Idaho said "Tenure is part of the university research/teaching process... K-12? Nope, a quite different situation". So you fucking ignore that, but fucking attack me?!

dmarks: school bus driver was caught beating defenseless handicapped children in wheelchairs. They tried to fire her... and the union tried to keep her getting paid and/or driving.

*If* this really happened (and the proof is solid) then the union leaders who defeneded her should be voted out. The bad union leaders are to blame, not the concept of union representation.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Tenure is a part of both K-12 and college (and I noticed that you put a bunch of .... in between BB Idaho's words) and, yes, it's easier to acquire for the former than the latter. What's your frigging point? My criticism of tenure applied to both.......And they let the people go because they don't want to even give them the opportunity to apply for tenure. They hate it that much.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And the tenure process can vary greatly depending on the state, the school district, the college, and even the department. To try and draw any definitive conclusion about the ease or difficulty of attaining tenure is futile (though try, I'm sure that you will).

dmarks said...

"I support people receiving their Constitutional rights and strongly disagree with dmarks who says fuVk the Constitution"

You are not doing this here. If you did, it would be a marked contrast from your strong hostility to Constitutional rights, especially the First Amendment.

But this matter does not relate to the Constitution at all. We are not talking about criminal punishment and courts of law: We are talking about the ability of employers to fire bad employees.

And no, your suggestion that in order to do this, it has to be taken to trial in a court of law, is really proposterous.

"the mere existence of allegations means the teacher is guilty"

Not at all. I never mentioned that the allegations which justify a teacher being fired mean that this person is guilty in a court of law.

"and who cares if they are later proven innocent... they're already fired and have lost their tenure."

There are lots of good reasons to fire bad workers that have nothing

"I defend only this truth-telling regarding Iraq's non-existent WMDs."

We know the WMD exist. I showed you extensive documentation of them. You behaved like an immature brat, basically sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the facts and saying that they were "bullets".

Ritter told the truth when he said they were WMD. After Saddam paid him to lie, he lied and said there were none.

"The other things you say I defend him on... that's just you lying."

You get all defensive when I point out that he's a serial child molestor

"*If* this really happened (and the proof is solid)"

It really happened, and the proof is solid.

"then the union leaders who defeneded her should be voted out."

That is ludicrous and unrelated. Since this DID happen, and the union defended this person, the ability of the union to go to bat for people who assault children should be curtailed.

"The bad union leaders are to blame, not the concept of union representation."

Thankfully, the school managed to get rid of this union and contract with a non-union bus company.

They pay the workers fairly, and are able to fire bad ones easily.

dmarks said...

For WD's benefit, I will repeat an earlier comment, which shows the approval by the ICC and UN of George W. Bush's actions in regards to the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their dismissal of false 'war crimes' charges:

WD, the UN and ICC disagree with you on Bush being a war criminal.

Here are the facts. Close to three years ago, Francis Boyle officially "... requested that the International Criminal Court Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales.[6]"

The ICC's response? Nothing. It was not worthy of handling. Beneath contempt: a silly letter from a loony that gets filed away. Ignored by the authorities because it's all bogus.

And looking beyond Boyle... from Wikipedia: "The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed"

That's hundreds of cranks sending their form letters to the ICC over the years. The ICC saw them, read them, and tossed them out. If they had any merit, the ICC would have acted. But none of them did.

The years roll by not because the ICC is investigating a case. But because there's no case at all, and nothing to prosecute.

You use the ICC's chilling dismissal of Boyle's poorly thought out case as proof somehow that Bush is guilty. I let this insanity of yours speak for itself.

There is similar silence from the UN.

You claim Kofe Annan's off-the-cuff statement as some sort of support for your side. When it really does little or nothing. The Secretary General is not a dictator who formulates and puts forth UN policy on the fly, especially in side comments in interviews. The UN has specific procedures for its resolutions. And after all Bush has done, all of times Bush said that he is acting in proper intepretation of the existing UN resolutions, the UN has not objected. Not at all. It has chosen to side with Bush. Also from Wikipedia:

"The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so"


The ICC and the UN have said one thing. WD says another. I believe the actual authorities, thank you.

So there we have it. The so-called "Bush's wars" legal, as determined by the UN and ICC, which, given plenty of opportunity to go after Bush, refused. Because he did nothing wrong.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

First you say, "The ICC's response? Nothing". And from that you conclude that, because they did not act, bush is innocent. They did not act because they have no power to do anything except piss off the world's only super power. They haven't acted for political reasons. Their inaction has nothing to do with approval.

There was no "chilling dismisal" nor was there any evidence to suggest that Boyle's case was "poorly thought out". These conclusions are non-sequitors. Neither the ICC nor the UN security council have said anything of the sort. These conclusions are purely products of your deluded imagination.

bush clearly violated international law, even if those who wrote the law choose to ignore his violation.

dmarks said...

He clearly didn't. Those who wrote the law find no violation to ignore.

And nice try with the silly 'superpower' thing, which is not found in international law. You are simply lying about it.

And yes there is a dismissal. Claims presented, considered, and tossed out due to no other reason than lack of merit and lack of evidence.

dmarks said...

And yes you are delusional and arrogant on this. The informed opinions of those who "wrote the law" and rule on it mean nothing to compared to the rantings of WD the almighty armchair attorney.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: You are not doing this here. If you did, it would be a marked contrast from your strong hostility to Constitutional rights, especially the First Amendment.

I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment as written. As written it does not grant special extra speech rights based on a person or corporation's wealth (more free speech for people who can afford it).

dmarks: But this matter does not relate to the Constitution at all. We are not talking about criminal punishment and courts of law: We are talking about the ability of employers to fire bad employees.

The two are related. Someone is not a "bad employee" if false allegations are made against them.

dmarks: And no, your suggestion that in order to do this, it has to be taken to trial in a court of law, is really preposterous.

It's only "preposterous" if you take the wealthy-worshiping view that workers should have no rights and be able to be fired simply because allegations are made.

dmarks: Not at all. I never mentioned that the allegations which justify a teacher being fired mean that this person is guilty in a court of law.

Then why fire them?

dmarks: There are lots of good reasons to fire bad workers that have nothing

"Have nothing" what? You didn't finish your sentence. What happened, did you suffer some kind of "episode"?

dmarks: That is ludicrous and unrelated. Since this DID happen, and the union defended this person, the ability of the union to go to bat for people who assault children should be curtailed.

So why didn't management negotiate for such a clause then?

dmarks: Thankfully, the school managed to get rid of this union and contract with a non-union bus company. They pay the workers fairly, and are able to fire bad ones easily.

I'd bet that wages were cut. Management screwed up by not negotiating with the unions for better rules that would make it easier to get rid of bus drivers that abused kids. That sure as hell isn't the fault of all the good, hard working drivers who did nothing wrong... yet dmarks wants to punish them as well.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: We know the WMD exist. I showed you extensive documentation of them. You behaved like an immature brat, basically sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the facts...

The WMD that bush hyped were never found... because they didn't exist. The weapons inspections worked. You are behaving like an immature brat, sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the facts that even bush admits to.

dmarks: Ritter told the truth when he said they were WMD. After Saddam paid him to lie, he lied and said there were none.

Impossible, since Ritter was never paid even $1 to lie. He told the truth about Iraq not having WMD because he wanted to stop an unnecessary war.

dmarks: You get all defensive when I point out that he's a serial child molester.

My defensiveness is in regards to the truth, and the truth is that Scott Ritter never molested a single child.

dmarks: [bush] clearly didn't [violate international law]. Those who wrote the law find no violation to ignore.

He clearly did. All one has to do is read the UN Charter. Specifically, Article 33, of the UN Charter, which says "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".

The UN never signed off on bush's invasion that he said was to disarm Iraq. Iraq couldn't be "disarmed" because they had no WMD. The IAEA confirmed this just prior to bush's illegal invasion.

dmarks: And nice try with the silly 'superpower' thing, which is not found in international law. You are simply lying about it.

You're lying. I never said international law gives the leaders of superpowers special rights or abilities to ignore the law. What silly is your suggestion that the US would turn over bush for trial if the UN or ICC said so. The US would not, which is why they aren't bothering to file charges. They would be ignored.

dmarks: And yes there is a dismissal. Claims presented, considered, and tossed out due to no other reason than lack of merit and lack of evidence.

There is no evidence at all. Charges were never considered and tossed out due to no other reason than lack of merit and lack of evidence. You simply made that up. It never happened.

dmarks: And yes you are delusional and arrogant on this. The informed opinions of those who "wrote the law" and rule on it mean nothing to compared to the rantings of WD the almighty armchair attorney.

You are delusional on this. There was no ruling. I called you on this before and you got flustered and admitted you lied. Then you added some nonsense about you lying not mattering because the UN or ICC not ruling was the same as if they had ruled and found bush innocent.

dmarks the almighty armchair attorney is wrong. If he were right he'd have linked to a copy of a statement by the UN or ICC in which they said the charges are without merit and they threw them out for that reason. He also could have linked to a news article discussing such a statement being issued. But he can't because no such statement was ever issued. And not hearing a case is not the same as throwing it out because the charges have no merit.

dmarks said...

"The WMD that bush hyped were never found... because they didn't exist."

WMD were found. We know they exist. I showed you a listing. You read it, and lied about them being bullets.

"The weapons inspections worked."

They failed, as Saddam was able to hide these WMD from the inspectors.

"You are behaving like an immature brat, sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the facts that even bush admits to."

No facts are being ignored.

"Impossible, since Ritter was never paid even $1 to lie."

He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent Saddam Hussein, and he did nothing but lie about matters after he got this payment.

"He told the truth about Iraq not having WMD because he wanted to stop an unnecessary war."

He lied about Saddam's WMD because he wanted to protect Saddam's regime.

"He clearly did. All one has to do is read the UN Charter."

I did. And the UN charter has nothing to do with your wild claims.

"Specifically, Article 33..."

Bush and his predecessors for over a decade tried all of these methods to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the cease-fire agreements and stop his aggression. Saddam refused. But yes, the extensive efforts by Bush and those before him meet the requirements.

"Iraq couldn't be "disarmed" because they had no WMD."

Caught you lying again.

"The IAEA confirmed this just prior to bush's illegal invasion."

You refer to an event that never happened.

"What silly is your suggestion that the US would turn over bush for trial if the UN or ICC said so."

It's all hypothetical. The UN and ICC reject the silly claims of any Bush war crimes, so they won't. No evidence, no reason, no cause.

"The US would not, which is why they aren't bothering to file charges. They would be ignored."

That is preposterous. If there were any validity to the idea of Bush war crimes, they would file charges. You are making stuff up.

"There is no evidence at all. Charges were never considered"

They were. The ICC has said it got the charges and considered them. They got them all years ago.

"You are delusional on this. There was no ruling."

Of course: because the "charges" were so poorly reasoned and had a complete lack of evidence that a ruling is not necessary. Simply rejecting the bogus claims means the same thing.

"I called you on this before and you got flustered and admitted you lied."

I always told the truth on this.

"...because the UN or ICC not ruling was the same as if they had ruled and found bush innocent."

It isn't the same. It's far worse for your side. Bush is so innocent, in fact, that any claims of his guilt are so baseless as to be a joke. Not worthy of wasting the time of the ICC other than to read the crank letters, laugh, and file them away somewhere.

"dmarks the almighty armchair attorney is wrong."

Actually, I side with the real attorneys. I know I have no standing as an attorney, but unlike you I defer to my betters.

"He also could have linked to a news article discussing such a statement being issued."


Do you know any law enforcement agency that goes to great lengths to publicly dismiss bogus claims from every crank that contacts it? Hahahah

"But he can't because no such statement was ever issued."

Such statements aren't necessary when the "charges" are so baseless that it is not necessary to waste time on them.

"And not hearing a case is not the same as throwing it out because the charges have no merit."

It is exactly the same thing.