Thursday, August 9, 2012
Miscellaneous 137
1) In New York City, teachers can earn tenure after just three years and less than 4% are refused. That sure as hell doesn't sound difficult to me.............2) If the top 1% is so damned powerful, then how is it that more than half of them are out of it in less than a decade? The system can't be rigged all that much.............3) A 67 year-old woman sells her house for $600,000 and moves into a condo. That would put her in the top 1% for that year. Is that woman also a plutocrat?............4) Close to 70% of all new jobs are created by small businesses. And, yes, some of those entrepreneurs pull down $200-300,000 a year. But to say these people are somehow not contributing greatly to society (by hiring folks and paying taxes) is an absolute insult, I think (and probably a fair degree of sour grapes, too)....And they're certainly not "plutocrats", either.............5) This, from Wikipedia - "Some argue that modern tenure systems actually DIMINISH ACADEMIC FREEDOM, forcing those seeking tenured positions to profess conformance
to the same views (political and academic) as those awarding a tenured professorship. According to physicist Lee Smolin, '...it is practically career suicide for a young theoretical physicist not to join the field [of string theory].'[2]
This may be even more so now that many universities require several
years in non-tenure track positions (e.g. Visiting Assistant
Professorships or Post-Doctoral Fellowships) before beginning the 5-6
year process preceding tenure." Academic freedom, academic shmeedom.............6) Doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, physical therapists, physical therapy assistants, occupational therapists, occupation therapy assistants, social workers, psychologists and counselors, speech therapists, respiratory therapists, therapeutic recreation directors, certified nursing assistants, medical assistants, residential staff, VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE DISCIPLINE IN THE HUMAN SERVICES ARENA has to keep up with their training, certification, etc.. But none of these particular professions gets not just an 11 week vacation in the dead of summer but 3-4 more weeks off during the rest of the school year. I'm telling you, folks, it is absolutely absurd what these teachers unions have been able to secure for their workers. Absolutely absurd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
The 1% is probably somewhat of a misnomer. The power is In the hands of the people making 20, 50, 100+ millions of dollars per year. To say 1% is convenient. In reality, it is the 0.01% or less where the real power is -- the Koch's of the world.
Don't get hung up on mobility. It is not the issue.
The Buffets, too, Jerry. That dude invested 5 billion in Goldman Sachs and he only did it because he knew that there was going to be a bailout. Both sides are entirely filthy and I'm voting for the only decent fellow running; Johnson.
Hear, Hear Will. Those really interested in change will see the potential value of doing so.
But unfortunately we will move closer to the cliff and begin the cycle all over again.
The United States spends an average of $91,700 per student between the ages of 6 to 15....by far the highest in the world.Yet,math and science results continue to decline in our public schools.
Still the teachers unions and liberals cry out for more spending.
Jerry does make a good point, fellows. I would just counter by saying that the lobbyists are crawling around on both sides and the money continues getting dirtier and dirtier. Maybe the progressives and the libertarians can get together and craft some real campaign finance reform....Not that I'm holding my breath, of course.............Russ, I'm a big supporter of charter schools and school choice (as are a lot of African-American families, so it seems).
Rusty said: "Still the teachers unions and liberals cry out for more spending."
Of course. Because they have it set up so that money won't improve education. They drain it right out.
Will: Jerry does make a good point, fellows.
He did, but I don't believe that you actually think this. Whenever I make similar points you make fun and deny the plutocrats even exist. So you're clearly lying.
wd, Jerry made a distinction between the top 1% (which is comprised predominantly of honest and hard working people) and the gazillionaires who try and buy elections. If you in fact make that same distinction, then I agree with you, too.
Will, why did you leave teaching
afte fifteen years?
My district got fazed out and I really needed a change anyway.
Will: If you in fact make that same distinction.
I always have. You and dmarks are the ones who started lying about me thinking plutocrats include not just these people, not just the top 1 percent, but the frigging top 10 percent! I said I most definitely did not mean that, but you said didn't believe me... you just kept adding people you said I included in the "plutocrat" group: small business owners and now (even more ridiculously) school board members!
NOW you're acknowledging that there actually are gazillionaires who try and buy elections? When you say, "buy elections", you mean by carpet-bombing with ads to influence people right?
If so, then dmarks thinks you should just grow up and ignore people exercising their free speech rights (if you don't agree with what they're saying). We can't do anything about it because that would be fascism. Also, it shows your arrogance, as you don't trust the voters to decide for themselves. They know their interests and their lives, not an arrogant a-hole like Will Hart (if you actually are disagreeing with dmarks).
You always drone on about the 1% and how everything is "rigged" in their favor. And you DID put "" around "make" when dmarks brought up the top 10% paying 70% of the total income tax.............And I believe that dmarks knows that I am in favor of campaign finance reform and wouldn't object to publicly financing elections. What, you think that we're robots like you and Keith Olbermann agreeing on everything?
Also, maybe if you operationalized your definition of plutocrat to specify who exactly it includes and doesn't include that would help and leave you a lot less open to ridicule. Just a suggestion.
WD said: "NOW you're acknowledging that there actually are gazillionaires who try and buy elections?"
Still waiting for any evidence of this. Do you have a friend of a friend who was slipped a check by the Koch brothers to vote a certain way?
WD said "We can't do anything about it because that would be fascism."
Censoring poliical dissent as you demand over and over and over and over again is a major part of the definition of fascism. But we have been talking about lobbying here. You are changing the subject.
"They know their interests and their lives, not an arrogant a-hole like Will Hart (if you actually are disagreeing with dmarks)."
It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with me. I know the fact that Grayson is a man of only 30% of the people, because that is what the informed voters said.
dmarks, if it ever gets to point where you're agreeing with me on everything, I'm going to have to really start worrying about you. wd seems to have this ridiculous notion that everybody fits neatly into these ideal camps and that when we do disagree we have to do it vitriolically. I mean, I know that he doesn't like Reagan and all but there is in fact one thing that the fellow said which IS appropriate, I think; "We have political opponents, not political enemies."
Will: wd seems to have this ridiculous notion that everybody fits neatly into these ideal camps and that when we do disagree we have to do it vitriolically.
That's hilarious Will. You're the one who swears, calls names and makes up lies about my personal life when I disagree with you. In any case, I was talking about all the incredibly DUMB crap dmarks writes which you always ignore.
Like a majority of people agreeing with him about the Iraq war already being "on" or that WMD was found even when bush admitted it wasn't. And how about his assertion that socialism is the economic aspect of fascism? What if I made a claim that moronic?
O.K. WD,thats enough for tonight....you mommy wants you to turn off the computer,go take your shower and get ready for bed.
I proved all of the claims you laugh at, WD. You are the one being 'moronic'. You have a reputation for minimal veracity and maximum mendacity.
wd, dmarks and I disagree on Iraq and WMD but we agree that socialism is hell. So what. He debates civilly with me and I reciprocate. You really need to get a grip, dude.
Will: And your disagreements are reasonable and fact-based. Not based on the spoiled-brat sour-grapes thing of Bush daring to have won in 2000, so hate everything he does after.
Your Tariq Aziz alternative, for example, has a lot of merit.
Will: we agree that socialism is hell. So what?
So now that that you're voting for Johnson, you're no longer a moderate but a Libertarian? That's strange considering you wrote the post making the case for Gary Johnson BEFORE you declared you supported socialism by authoring a post explaining you were FOR extending unemployment benefits, a negative income tax, publicly financing elections, universal health-care coverage including subsidies, doing away with the special consideration for capital gains, raising the cap on Social Security payroll deductions, funding Planned Parenthood, and Medicare negotiating directly with the pharmaceutical companies.
Now you say all these things are "hell" and have reversed yourself on all of them???
Will: wd, dmarks and I disagree on Iraq and WMD... He debates civilly with me and I reciprocate.
Bullshit. Your idea of "civil debate" is that you ignore it when dmarks makes demonstratively false claims. And there is still the swearing, name calling, and lying about my personal life. That's your idea of "civil"?!
dmarks: I proved all of the claims you laugh at, WD.
I laugh at them because they are false, and have been proven false.
And I don't know what you mean when you say bush "dared" to win in 2000. He certainly tried, but he lost to Al Gore. But the Supreme Court annointed him, and we all know the rest (bush allowed 9/11 to occur, launched two illegal wars, and stole the election again in 2004).
I do not consider speaking out agaist election theft to be "sour grapes". Sour grapes is when someone is angry about a legitimate loss.
WD said: "Bullshit. Your idea of "civil debate" is that you ignore it when dmarks makes demonstratively false claims."
"And I don't know what you mean when you say bush "dared" to win in 2000. He certainly tried"
And he did. He got more votes. Despite your lies about dimpled chads (voteless ballots).
"But the Supreme Court annointed him"
Yet, that did not happen. The Supreme Court let the will of the voters stand.
"and we all know the rest (bush allowed 9/11 to occur, launched two illegal wars, and stole the election again in 2004"
Talk about crybaby sore loser. Poople win elections fair and aquare, but because WD only believes in democracy if it goes his way, he won't accept it. What a lousy citizen you are.
"I do not consider speaking out agaist election theft to be "sour grapes"."
Sorry, when people get more votes it is not 'theft'.
"Sour grapes is when someone is angry about a legitimate loss."
Then you have no reason to be angry at all.
Also, some more fact checking:
""and we all know the rest (bush allowed 9/11 to occur"
So did the Democrats in Congress. So did Bill Clinton, by not taking the threat seriously.
"launched two illegal wars"
The retaliation against two regimes that attacked us was quite legal, despite the claims of liars like you who act like you are in the terrorists' back pocket.
"and stole the election again in 2004"
What a scumbag you are, to think that in 2004, the man who had more of the people vote for him "stole" something. This fits in with your irrational hatred of Bush and your demand that he be murdered, that you have expressed a few times.
dmarks: He got more votes. Despite your lies about dimpled chads (voteless ballots).
Gore won even if you don't count dimpled chads. But since you bring it up: what a scumbag you are to say ballots should be thrown out because the machine did not function properly. A dimple clearly indicates who the voter intended to cast their ballot for.
dmarks: Yet, that did not happen. The Supreme Court let the will of the voters stand.
Yet, it did happen. The Supreme Court disregarded the will of the voters and annoited bush.
dmarks: Talk about crybaby sore loser. People win elections fair and aquare, but because WD only believes in democracy if it goes his way, he won't accept it. What a lousy citizen you are.
We were discussing stolen elections, not elections that "don't go my way". I refuse to accept cheating. dmarks does, which makes HIM the lousy citizen.
dmarks: Sorry, when people get more votes it is not 'theft'.
Sorry, but when all the votes aren't counted that *IS* election theft.
dmarks: Then you have no reason to be angry at all.
I do, and I am. Because the Republican continue on their mission to disenfranchise as many people who traditionally vote Democratic as possible.
dmarks: Also, some more fact checking...
You mean, "opinion checking". That's where you check my facts against your opinions. And if they aren't in harmony then dmarks says my facts are wrong (even though they are right).
dmarks: So did the Democrats in Congress. So did Bill Clinton, by not taking the threat seriously.
Yet this did not happen. When the Clinton administration handed off power to the bush administration they told them that al Qaeda would be their biggest threat. The bushies ignored the Clinton administration's advice and sat on their hands.
dmarks: The retaliation against two regimes that attacked us was quite legal...
Neither regime attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us.
dmarks: ...despite the claims of liars like you who act like you are in the terrorists' back pocket.
dmarks is in the terrorists back pocket. I wonder how big a bribe bin Laden gave him? dmarks argues against capturing bin Laden by any means possible (thus allowing him ten years of freedom), and he argues for the Iraq war... a war bin Laden WANTED us to enter into to drain our resources and convince more Muslims to join the cause.
dmarks: This fits in with your irrational hatred of Bush and your demand that he be murdered, that you have expressed a few times.
Yet, none of this is accurate. I have no irrational hatred for bush, and I have never demanded he be murdered. Zero is not "a few times". It is no times.
WD said: "Gore won even if you don't count dimpled chads."
No, he didn't. He lost every count.
"A dimple clearly indicates who the voter intended to cast their ballot for."
No. It does not at all. Where do you get this? It indicates that the voter was about to vote for someone, but decided not to. But it is no surprise that part of your idea is to imagine voteless ballots as being votes.
"Yet, it did happen. The Supreme Court disregarded the will of the voters and annoited bush."
I read the decision. It did not. Of course, you are ignorant and arrogant and think you know better than the highest court of the land.
"We were discussing stolen elections, not elections that "don't go my way". "
You have yet to mention a stolen election. As I am more mature than you and much less arrogant, when elections don't go my way I don't lie and call them stolen.
"dmarks does, which makes HIM the lousy citizen."
Sorry, bub. Getting more votes than the other guy is not cheating.
"Sorry, but when all the votes aren't counted that *IS* election theft."
If you really believed that, you'd have wanted all the military votes counted. And you are lying anyway: you want ballots without votes (dimple) counted as votes.
'Because the Republican continue on their mission to disenfranchise as many people who traditionally vote Democratic as possible"
The only people being disenfranchised by Republican plans are the dead, illegal aliens, and fake Mickey Mouse voters (as per ACORN election fraud schemes).
I guess it is too bad for you that these groups tend to 'vote' Democratic.
"You mean, "opinion checking"."
Not at all. You stated a bunch of things that were not true. I presented the facts. While it is my opinion that it is bad for you to lie about these matters, it is not my main point.
"Yet this did not happen. When the Clinton administration handed off power to the bush administration they told them that al Qaeda would be their biggest threat."
Yet, the Clinton administration ignored this, even blowing off a chance to apprehend Bin Laden.
"The bushies ignored the Clinton administration's advice and sat on their hands."
Just as the Clinton admin did: ignored its own advice and sat on its hands. Blame Bush of course for doing what Clinton did.
"Neither regime attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us."
Both regimes attacked us. It is well documented. No excuse for you to lie on this one. This is fact.
"dmarks is in the terrorists back pocket."
No. I favor fighting back againt them. You oppose it.
"and he argues for the Iraq war..."
I never argued for it.
"a war bin Laden WANTED us to enter into to drain our resources and convince more Muslims to join the cause."
A retaliatory effort that ended up killing tends thousands of terrorists.
"Yet, none of this is accurate"
Yes it is. You want him to be killed due to your mis-perceptions about his actions.
wd, there is NO candidate that I agree with 100%. Mr. Johnson is for decreasing military spending, corporate welfare, foreign entanglements and he's also pro-choice, pro-civil liberties and pro-gay-rights. And he isn't a crazy-assed anarchist libertarian who doesn't believe in government. He just wants to make it smaller and more responsive. As of this moment, I like him the best.
And the negative income tax is a Milton Friedman idea.
And I said that I was against socialism, not that I was against every single damned government initiative. I'm going to say to you what George Will said to Robert Reich recently, "You're a pyromaniac in a field filled with straw-men."
Will said: "dmarks and I disagree on Iraq and WMD"
Will do you disagree that Saddam retained any WMD at all, that these WMD did not justify the full-blown invasion, or both?
I suspect you are not blind to the truth that Saddam did hide some WMD from inspectors, but don't think it was enough to justify Bush's actions.
I think that he might have still had some WMD but that it was probably degraded. Most of it probably got used up in the Iran-Iraq War, the gassing of the Kurds, and Operation Desert Fox probably blew some of it up, too. But I will give Bush some benefit of the doubt and that after 9/11 maybe he felt that it was necessary. In my opinion, a stronger case (for deposing him) could have been made more on humanitarian grounds. Depose him (and his sons), kill him, and ixnay on the de-Ba'athification. Short and sweet and with limited bloodshed. If it was possible, I'm saying.
Will said; "I think that he might have still had some WMD but that it was probably degraded"
The Wikileaks report and others prove that he definitely still had a bunch of WMD. And that some, but not all was degraded.
Never mind that WD read the report, and in his closed mind, WMD turned into "bullets".
Regardles, given the existence of WMD, it is wrong to say Saddam had none at the time of 2003. Not that I hear you saying that.
"In my opinion, a stronger case...."
And you make a good case. Not like WD, who sounds like he's getting paid by the terrorist, completely makes stuff up on the fly, or some combination thereof.
Post a Comment