# Are Politics in the Non-Shop Talk Forum Becoming LumberFauXX News?



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

While I understand that the large majority of *Non-Shop Talk* is NOT about politics, nearly ALL of the political "discussion" is dominated by a very few individuals who espouse radical/extreme views typical of the FOX "news", without regard to being neither factual nor balanced. Promoters of this same radical/extreme agenda are also of the same party that dismantled the legislation/rules referenced below.

With THAT in mind, I ask:

1. Should we bring back the *Fairness Doctrine*?

2. Should we bring back the *Equal Time Rule*?

3. Should we bring back the *Personal Attack Rule*?


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Yes, all three should be brought back to broadcast, cable and even streaming venues of television and radio.

The internet, however would not be conducive to these rules IMO. And in particular, Lumberjocks should not be held to that. Hypothetical example: cr1 posts 192 lines of R leaning banter bait, then nobody can post until Hmike and Topa spew 192 lines of theirs ? It wouldn't work. ;=) :=)


----------



## jeepturner (Oct 3, 2010)

I don't want a button to hide non shop talk, I just want a button to hide all CR1 posts. I can block some members from posting on my post but I can't block their non shop posts. I would like to see some kind of ratio rule. In that I would like to see that a certain amount of activity be wood/project related.


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

Would a *Don't Lie* rule work? Probably not. I'm thinking if folks are determined to 'pee in the pool' - give them their own pool. To have the non-shop forum contaminated by posts showing no respect for the truth or other members is a shame.

Martin - Please create a *separate forum for political posts* and make it easy to hide for those of us that don't want that to be part of our *Lumber Jocks *experience. -Jack


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I'd love to see all three in effect but like David says, I can't see it happening. I really hate to hear that members would like to entirely block another member's topics. I don't doubt that your reasons are sound; it just saddens me a bit. I don't block anyone but there are a few people who's posts I just skim, to prevent myself from getting worked up. It's pretty clear that something's got to give here; I'll be fine whichever way admin goes. I just like the conversation; I'll talk about knitting if you want to


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Al, I never knew! You secret keeper you !


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Libs love that "Fairness Doctrine"...when they can't compete in the marketplace because their message is not being absorbed the way they want, they want to diminish opposing views.

They want equality in results ( their ideology) as opposed to equality of opportunity ( free market ).


----------



## Gene01 (Jan 5, 2009)

Sorta like telling a grocery store that, if they carry butter brand A they also must carry brand B and C, when B and C may not sell as well.
Kinda dumb, IMO.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Good analogy Gene. More importantly they want to force us to buy one each of A, B and C even if we only like brand A.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I am sorry if I was not clear. What I am actually asking is what is needed "On the National Level", though my analogy was indeed on how things have transpired on LJs as a microcosm.

The dismantling of the above rules CAN, at least in theory, work at all levels and for either party, but the reality of finances has skewed such perceived equality only into the pockets of the rich (1%?) who can afford such expenditures on "freedom of speech" issues. The rest of us appear to be left READING what has been prepared for us by those with the means to pursue ($$$) their freedom of speech in the media. At least that is MY opinion. So, should Congress take this topic up once again?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

There should be no laws that favor one person's or entity's viewpoint over another. The market should dictate what is built, sold and consumed.

For example, (this is not an ideology example just and example) if CNBC wants to increase their viewership they should consider changing the product they deliver as it is clear their ongoing reduced ratings are a result of the consumer not buying what they are selling.

CNBC should be given equal opportunity with their competitors but no one should, via legistlation, be guaranteed equal results as measured normally by their respective industries.

The purchases on Chevy VOLTS has been underwhelming because no one wants what they are selling. FORD F150s are rolling out of the dealerships because it is a product people actually want.

Free markets always produce the best results because free people can do business with other free people and when both can consumate the transaction on mutual terms, they both feel it is beneficial.

We are in the problem we are in because government/politicians (both parties) has been doing too much manipulation of the market.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky, 
To follow your example then, there should be a series of *private* armies in this country and the best one wins control over the USA?... Surely you jest…

National media is NO different than National armies OR National/State Governments. They ALL have *duties beyond* their own profitability and for the National good. You sound very much like someone who does NOT understand national service, be it in the military or civilian, IMO.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Media has no duty to anyone other than to their shareholders.

They should have some responsibility for communicating in the event of a disaster, but in terms of everyday activities, the media owes no person (or government) in this country anything.

They should be granted an approriate license and compete for customers. No subsidies, no special treatment, no nothing. They have a product that people want to buy, it is as simple (or should be) as that.

We need to stop giving preferences. Let the market decide winners and losers, not government.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky SAID:
#1. Media has no duty to anyone other than to their shareholders.
AND:
#2. They [MEDIA] should have some responsibility for communicating in the event of…

Sorry Rocky, you can NOT have it BOTH ways, but thank you for acknowledging that the Media DOES INDEED HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES to the American public.

You are correct that the media should have responsibility toward the American public, BUT you can't cherry pick what you want and don't want. And that is just what the Republican's under Reagan *did* via the FCC and Presidential veto.

Hence my questions regarding the Fairness Doctrine, Equal Time Rule, and Personal Attack Rule regarding the MEDIA.


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

!



!

This tune is dedicated to cr1; a political propagandist extraordinaire , master baiter , and my favorite court reporter . Love ya man !


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I will clarify what I meant Mike…not trying to have it both ways.

In the event of a national disaster the government should be able to get help from the media, railroads, police, firefighters, private pilots etc.

Any media form should not be required to provide such things as a public service announcement on subject X.

I know most do to convey they care about the public in general, but in no way should they be required to do so.

I am all about equal opportunity, but no way should government legislate equal results.

If AIR AMERICA can gain listeners and sell adequate advertising they should exist. If not they should fold.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Any media form should not be required to provide such things as a public service announcement on subject X.*

The *Fairness Doctrine*, I'll grant you, was a mandatory on-air time for matters of public importance.

The *equal-time rule* specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate. The rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections. The only catch here was *IF* one then the other, and that was a far cry from mandatory public service announcements.

The *personal attack rule* was a corollary to the Federal Communication Commission's fairness doctrine that mandated response time for an individual or group attacked during origination cablecasting that focused on a controversial issue of public importance. This also was a far cry from ANY mandatory Public Service Announcement.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

If my listeners (market segment) are not prone to want to listen to a a particular point of view and because I was forced to do so, I lose some listeners and lose advertising revenue, how does that help my investors and/or shareholders?

Is the government (i.e. taxpayers) going to compensate me for this loss?

The format of my media and the content should be up to me and which market segment I am trying to attract as long as I do not commit such crimes as slander and/or libel.

So does this mean we should force radio stations in Harlem to have equal amounts of hiphop and country each day?

The world is not fair, life is not fair…there will never be equality of results. Throwing more money at the problem and creating more laws will not make it so.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I normally try to stay completely out of anything even remotely political on here. However, I had to make a comment here. 
It has been said basically that the media has no responisibility towards th public. Also I noticed than examples of supply and demand as it relates to the media. 
It is my opinion that the media has a very lage responsibility to the general public as a whole if they are to call themselves news sources. That, in and of itself, is a large part of the problem of why we have such an uninformed public these days. I have to watch four different networks and put on my thinking cap to sort through what is fact and what is opinion. Most people don't have the time or the energy to do this. I feel the media ought to have a duty to at least report a somewhat unbiased story on major news events. This just doesn't happen anymore though. Turn to one network and get the opinion slanted to the right, the other is slanted far to the left. Where is the central ground for the average American? If it's out there, I aven't seen it in a long time.
I seem to remember a simpler time. I'm not saying that there was no bias then. When it was though, it was at least cleverly hidden to at least appear unbiased. These days most networks don't even try to hide it. You know by the source who they're going to paint in a good light and who they want. Furthermore, that goes into a deeper issue. News writers these days hang their hat on the ability to spin a story to say whatever the hell they want it to. 
I know I sound like a nutcase, wanting unbiased news sources. To do otherwise though is not news. It is what we get on all the major networks these days. It cannot honestly be called news. It's more like "news related entertainment". I don't know about you guys, but it is a scary thought if you think about the fact that, with all that is going on in the world these days, that our major news sources have degraded to the point of providing little more than "news related entertainment". To make matters even worse, the ones they can spin or the most "shock value" get the most airtime.
I will crawl back into my padded room now and dream about a time when people in general knew something about words such as integrity and ethics.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

These rules/doctrines were put in place with regard to politics, NOT music. I do not understand your position especially if we were to use your earlier claim to require media to assist during times of national disaster. That would appear to nullify your position of NO government interference of the media "business."


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Absolutely William! Well stated, IMO. And yes ALL political parties contribute to this "news related entertainment" environment, not JUST the media corporations (as if they were actually ever politically independent).


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

There never was a time when 'people in general ' lost their knowledge of integrity and ethics . People and groups of People always come to crossroads , where they are presented with moral choices . The comprehension of these choices are determined by financial , political , religious , and complex cultural and sociological factors . History shows that the subversion of ethics and principles to be the real danger . What idealogue in 1939 Munich led to the death of 50,000,000 persons ? What failure of ethics led to the collapse of the worlds' leading banking system in 2008 ? The more difficult the circumstance , the more difficult the choice ..If a person or group is criminal enough ,and powerful enough to override and subvert , their choice is simple ; personal gain and power by any means necessary , at any cost …....until they and their ideas are challenged and defeated….......sometimes at a very specific cost . If we can evolve past debates about fairness and equality , When crime and hunger become antiquarian terms….We will have made it . But even with the lauding of technology , these are barbarous times , and the debate and dilemmas will continue .


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike, it makes sense ( to me at least) that there are exceptions in times of a national (or regional, local, etc.) emergency, but as a general rule under normal circumstances, the government should not legislate content.

If I want to blather all day long about the advantages of free range chicken and people want to listen and advertisers pay me why should the government force me to allow Colonel Sanders equal time?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Not only yes, but HELL YES, YES, YES!!!!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*@moment SAID: ..If a person or group is criminal enough ,and powerful enough to override and subvert , their choice is simple ; personal gain and power by any means necessary , at any cost …*

I think you hit the nail on the head here! "...at any cost…" And who else has such funding to support/buy/pay-for such criminality? ...why it is those who have concentrated the wealth into so few hands/pockets, the top 1% in particular and also the next 19% or Top 20% in total have such a disproportionate amount of the wealth? Top 20% has 85% of net worth. And as WE ALL KNOW $$$ EQUALS POWER, and with that the means to act on one's criminal tendencies. IMO, we are now reaping the result of that more than ever in the history of America.

FROM: 
Power in America
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Table 1: 
Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007

*Total Net Worth*
Year Top 1 % Next 19 % Bottom 80 %
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%

*Financial Wealth*
Year Top 1 % Next 19 % Bottom 80 %
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Topa, I am curious…if the government should force certain opinions on us as you say, then what other activities or requirements, in your opinion, should the government force us to engage in?

Become vegetarians?
Buy health insurance?
Lose weight?
Stop smoking?
Laugh more?
Jog 3 miles a day?
Install power feeders on our tablesaws?
Purchase hybrid vehicles?
Wear only clothes made of synthetics?


----------



## GMman (Apr 11, 2008)

I like you all American LJs and all American but are you so into Politics all the time by now you should know that no matter who you guys vote in nothing will change those people are in for their own good and not for your Country.
Myself politics and religion are not my favourite topics.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*GMman SAID: no matter who you guys vote in nothing will change those people are in for their own good and not for your Country.*

Unfortunately what you say is and has been true for a long time. Consequently, note the non-traditional rise and metamorphosis of the OWS movement into "Occupy the World." America may be the poster-child of financial greed and misuse of power, but it is far from alone. And the seeds of discontent in America were awakened when *Private Army* *Blackwater* mercenaries started deploying/drawing weapons on fellow Americans in New Orleans.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky,
I see that you posted some rather, let's say obscure examples for regulation. However, you entirely MISSED listing *the election of the most powerful person (arguably in the World) that America has.*

I'm sorry, but I find that "National Event" to be much more far-reaching than ANY OTHER public service announcement or national disaster, for ANY such disaster will surely be laid at the feet of the President of The United States to deal with. And it seems to me that you want to treat the election of the President of The United States as a non-event? I just do NOT get that, unless THAT itself, is a "politically motivated" action.

And THAT brings us back to why under Reagan (mid-1980s), and later …another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. And also under the Court of Appeals (when the Personal Attack Rule finally succumbed to the Rightwing in 2000) that the above sited Rules/Doctrines were completely killed/revoked.


----------



## GMman (Apr 11, 2008)

No way I want to hurt anyone it's just the way I see it from here….my opinion only.
Maybe I watch too much TV news, by the way were I live I see the state of Maine and we are acoss at lease one a week to visit or shop.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

If this post is about the media sensationalizing News with biased, politically motivated, highly embellished, "Mole hill to Mountain" gibberish, then in my very humble opinion you are correct.
Broadcast news should be factual, that is what *news* really is, not some other version of the rag sheets you see in the grocery store checkout line.
Again, in my humble opinion I submit that ONLY PBS and the BBC are worth watching if you want factual, no nonsense, Truthful information, all the others are Rubbish.
Both of the media stations mentioned adhere more closely than any of the others when taking into consideration Mike's 3 item list.


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

I think that every customer that gets a pitch from Charles Neil, Tommy MacDonald, and every other professional should also have to hear a pitch from everybody else that makes things from wood. That way he will be better informed of his purchase options, and he'd get a proper balance of fine woodworking and crap built from 2×4s to choose from.

Fair is fair. Where do I sign that petition…

And, thanks for the tables, Mike. Very interesting. Those rich people shure have a lot of cash, no doubt about that. Could you also share the tax tables by precentage too? It would also be interesting to see how much of the total national revenue is paid by the top, middle and low wage earners.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike, do you honestly think that with all the tv cable stations, radio stations and all the internet outlets that each of us can't get the information we both want and need to make informed decisions and choices in the manner we are accustom to without having the government dictate the content on each of these information sources?


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

Rocky- don't you realize that you are stupid. You can't watch the left programing on MSNBC and then the right programming on FOX NEWS and balance it out in your own mind. You have to have the government balance it all out for you in neat little packages on every station. Otherwise you may risk deciding for yourself which side it right and possibly even vote the wrong way!

It's a darn good thing the news coverage in this nation was fully balanced and non political from it's founding up until the last couple decades, or the USA would never have survived! Wait… that's not right…


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Stumps,
Any average "Joe" listening, reading or watching the news media knows that 50% is factual and 50% is rubbish.
However, the "above average Joe" knows which half is real.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So Roger is it the government's job to control the content of the media so the "average Joe" can be as astute as the "above average Joe"?


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

I have more faith in the smarts of the collective population. But, I do have a saying when it comes to business on the internet: "people are stupid". So I am a contradiction. My experiance in business has shown that when you are dealing with people by the millions (which you are on the internet), the reasonable people will balance out the morons. I assume that is also the case with the viewers of the news. But I could be wrong.

Let me say, though, I do not support either the right or the left, either the Repubs or the Dems, either the Hannities or the Schultzes. They are all examples of my "people are stupid" philosophy.

I just think people have the right to be stupid, and that right has been freely enjoyed for the entire history of the nation except for a short time when the government tried to "fix" it. This world is doomed regardless.

And… what the heck happened to my browser's spellcheck feature….


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Stumpy and Rocky, both of you are just engaging in Strawman arguments, NOT factual arguments. You have done this on other threads as well. Please be factual and set aside such absurdities.

Roger, you picked the TWO stations I get my REAL news from, PBS and BBC. All others just "spin" political talking lines regardless of the content being "discussed."


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

I have not gotten involved in political threads before, with only a couple of very tiny exceptions, Mike. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I try, as I said above, to be as neutral as I can at all times. Though sometimes I forget how to keep my mouth shut.


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

I think responsibility to be informed has to rest with the individual. Unfortunately, the US has a lot of intellectually lazy people that prefer to be spoon fed what they want to hear.
Perfect example:
"Obama is a Muslim, and Muslims want to kill all the Jews." 
Did I get that right Rocky?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

OK Stumpy, me too on occasion ;-) But at least fact check try to be believable in your analogies/examples. Even elephants know that they cannot fly unassisted.


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

I will give some examples…

Whenever anyone calls for the fairness doctrine what do they cite? Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the hard right guys. You didn't mention MSNBC or Ed Schultz or the hard left in your title (reference to "faux news"), or your comments. Balance is balance. The left seems to always want the right balanced away. I hardly EVER hear the right trying to balance out the opinions of the left…

For centuries before cable news we had newspapers. EVERYBODY read the newspapers. EVERY little town had one. And they were as blatently political as the worst Hannity or Schultz shows today. They even announced their political leanings in their titles- many calling themselves the "County Democrat" or the "City Republican" They routinely used unsubstiantiated lies and smears freely against the other side. More than one first lady was called a whore without any basis, presidents were called cheats and far worse, with no evidence whatsoever. Those elections were so viscious that the modern day "negative campaigns" look like pleasant conversations.

People seem to have a perspective that only goes as far back as their lifetime. Ask Andrew Jackson, John Adams, Rutherford Hayes- ask (if you could) any of the first 30 presidents if things are less balanced now. You will be shocked!

Yet both the right and the left believe that those times produced some of their most beloved leaders and policies. Go figure…


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Come on Stumpy, are you saying that your statement, "I just think people have the right to be stupid…"
is NOT a Strawman twist in the right to a balanced Political education? These Rules/Doctrines WERE applying to POLITICS and items of national concern.

I agree that "...people have the right to be stupid…", however, I believe you are incorrectly attempting to correlate stupidity with ignorance. Stupidity requires a certain level of intelligence and a conscious decision to act against such intelligence.

You do bring up a good talking point to consider, and that is, *Why are the Republicans so bent on the destroying of The Department of Education?* Is it so the populace will be more stupid, OR more ignorant and thus more impressionable from single-party political propaganda? Hmm…


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

I am not equating stupidity with one side or the other at all! I am saying, in slightly tongue-in-cheek terms, that if you think that people are not properly imformed because they watch only one news source that may not be balanced, they have the right to live in their ignorance. In the long run it isn't going to make a lick of difference because it has always been the case and it never stopped the Left's (or Right's) favorite presidents of the past from getting elected (ie Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, whaever) or their favorite policies of the past (The New Deal, Social security, NAFTA, the great society, whatever) from getting instituted.

It all balances out, and many would argue the nation has become what they feel is the best in history despite unbalanced media.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I asked an honest question Mike…not an argument of any kind.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

I was in radio and television news management for 28 years.

The 'fairness doctrine' did more to discourage public discourse on controversial issues than it did to further it. Rather than deal with the complexities of the fairness doctrine, it was easier for broadcasters to just ignore hot button issues to the greatest extent possible, giving them only the minimum amount of attention that would satisfy the commission.

Topics that you had to devote some attention to were based on the 'ascertainment of community needs'. These community needs topics were derived from 'ascertainment interviews', where station officials would sit down with community 'leaders' of one stripe or another, and talk to them about their perceptions of community needs. It sounds good on the surface, but in practice, it was a joke. I've lost track of the number of days I spent traipsing around rural communities and being told the number one problem was inadequate price supports or the lack of a comprehensive farm bill. How the hell does a local station address those issues? Simple … get on a plane to Washington, tape some interviews with the congressmen and senators from your district where you ask them about the farm bill and price supports, and play them in the wee hours of the morning when nobody is watching TV anyway. Problem solved (so far as the commission's paperwork was concerned).

The 'equal time rule', on the other hand, was fairly easy to manage and, AFAIK, is still in force today. Despite the specific exclusions (documentaries, news interviews, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event), I always made an effort to provide opposing views in news content.

The 'personal attack rule' was a joke … the commission seldom enforced it, and the legal counsels for the various broadcasting companies I worked for paid little attention to it.

Over the years, the various news organizations I ran had a smattering of complaints (fairness doctrine) that were filed. In every instance, the commission dismissed the complaints and we were never fined or disciplined. We were always able to prove, to the commission's satisfaction, that were 'on balance' presenting fair and unbiased programming. Though individual stories or segments might tip one way or the other, in the long view, we were always operating within the spirit of the rule.

-Gerry


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Rocky.
The two news media stations I mentioned : PBS and BBC are *not* government controlled services, in fact they are quite the opposite. PBS is funded "By people like you" and the BBC is funded from consumer TV licence fees.

The BBC is a corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen by the BBC Trust (formerly the Board of Governors).[31] General management of the organisation is in the hands of a Director-General, who is appointed by the Trust; he is the BBC's Editor-in-Chief and chairs the Executive Board.

Both of these services are there to bring you the actual news, in the words of Walter "and that's the way it is". They are not out to make profits, so they cannot be bought and told what they must broadcast in order to facilitate "sales".

You should try these stations for a refreshing change from crap.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Gerry,
Well put statement/observation from the inside. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Roger, I was listening to PBS yesterday and a young lady was clamouring for "income equality". Can anyone tell me what that expression means? I mean, I'm intelligent enough to take it literally. Surely I'm not supposed to take that literally. Any clarification appreciated.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Al, to me it means she wants to see pay for the same work/job should not be defined by race, religion or sex.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Mike … I think one of the things that the public (and a lot of politicians and political consultants) never really understood about the fairness doctrine is that it was not really a tit-for-tat thing. The complaints that I was personally involved in were along the lines of "... on such-and-such-a-program WXXX-TV presented a biased view of issue-du-jour." While that specific broadcast may have presented only one view or side of an argument, we were always able to point to a multitude of other programs or segments that dealt with other, disparate views on the same issue.

As I mentioned, we were always absolved of any wrong-doing by the FCC, but getting that resolution was often an arduous and expensive task. Lawyers (even in-house lawyers like we had at the network) aren't cheap, and the hours spent to research, pull, and copy scripts, logs, videotapes, etc. were a non-billable/non-reimbursable expense that I just had to eat. The response to such filings was always voluminous. I often wondered if anyone at the FCC ever really read the stuff we submitted, or if they just weighed it!

BTW, just to underscore Roger's comments … since I have been out of the 'biz', I am no longer compelled to watch any of the news programming on the major networks (OTA or cable). I watch the PBS Newshour when time permits, but get the bulk of my news online (I subscribe to the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and our local rag's online service).

-Gerry


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

Today, income equality has nothing to do with income discrimination like Roger said. Ask the Occupy Protestors…

The modern defination is spreading the wealth. The top class makes a lot more for their time than the other classes. People who demand income equality are saying they want the wealth evened out among the people, and this is usually done through high taxation of the rich, thus reducing their income. Of course that doesn't increasr the lower incomes, but it makes things more "fair".

That is at least what I have gleaned from my effort to watch a wide veritey of news sources, left, right and middle.

*Nice to see Mike got one last comment in before the Rush Limbaugh show started at noon. He's horizontal in his desk chair listening for his daily news right now! *


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Rog, I think she was suggesting something much more sinister. It was stated in the context of a poorly veiled "redistribution of wealth" argument. I'd just never heard that expression used.

Stumps, by that argument, wouldn't the flat tax be, by definition, most "fair"?

edit for: I don't want to be around Mike, horizontal or vertical, when the Rush show is on, lol The R's need new "face men". The current ones are just too darn easy for the Dems to pick on. But then again, there is Pelosi. Maybe it's all just "clown equality", "fairness in clownery"; I'll have to ask Barnum and Bailey to know for sure.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Gerry,
Why do you suppose that the PBS Newshour can be so much different than the other mainstream American media? What makes them tick, that the others are lacking?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^that's a great, great question.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

I shouldn't talk because I don't have any relevant information to share, but that seems to be the norm for Internet discussions.

I am neutral about bringing back the 3 rules because I can't see that they will accomplish anything significant. It is easy for me to interpret Gerry's experiences as confirming my predjudices <grin>. Getting regulation right - effective but not overbearing - is a really tough job.

I am an occasional consumer of and very occasional contributor to NPR and PBS. The Daily Show always makes me smile, and tells me all I want to know about news networks that I don't want to watch.

I think the mass media is what it is, and probably cannot be changed much. Yellow journalism is not a new phenomena. I think we need to push for something new.

I think we should push our elected officials to tell us in detail why they support the positions that they take. A web site is an exceedingly cheap way to tell us voters in excrutiating detail everyting they ever thought about their position.

Another idea is this site: http://www.americanselect.org/
I'm thinking of throwing a few dollars that way and see what happens. Could be a much better place for my mindless political rants than LJ.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Al SAID:
The R's need new "face men". *

Yuh think?...

*The current ones are just too darn easy for the Dems to pick on.*

And I wonder why… (redundant-not meant to be answered) *;-)*

*But then again, there is Pelosi.*

Ah yes, the first woman in a powerful elected position… While this Liberal does NOT personally like Pelosi, it sure beats having Newt Gingrich as Speaker of The House. Even fellow Republicans wanted him out:

In the summer of 1997 several House Republicans, who saw Gingrich's public image as a liability, attempted to replace him as Speaker. The attempted coup began July 9 with a meeting between Republican conference chairman John Boehner of Ohio and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon of New York. According to their plan, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Boehner and Paxon were to present Gingrich with an ultimatum: resign, or be voted out. However, Armey balked at the proposal to make Paxon the new Speaker, and told his chief of staff to warn Gingrich about the coup.[68]

On July 11, Gingrich met with senior Republican leadership to assess the situation. He explained that under no circumstance would he step down. If he was voted out, there would be a new election for Speaker, which would allow for the possibility that Democrats-along with dissenting Republicans-would vote in Dick Gephardt as Speaker. On July 16, Paxon offered to resign his post, feeling that he had not handled the situation correctly, as the only member of the leadership who had been appointed to his position-by Gingrich-instead of elected.[69]


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Bertha - might I suggest the R's go looking for someone cut in the mold of William F. Buckley.?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*I think responsibility to be informed has to rest with the individual. Unfortunately, the US has a lot of intellectually lazy people that prefer to be spoon fed what they want to hear.
Perfect example:
"Obama is a Muslim, and Muslims want to kill all the Jews." 
Did I get that right Rocky?

-Ron*

Honestly Ron I don't know what Obama is and I think Muslims (according to the Koran, want all non-Muslims (not just Jews) to convert to Islam, be enslaved or be killed.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Pelosi? Gingrich? Boehner?

Gimme someone that has a sufficient understanding of, and respect for, the basic principles of logic, economics, and physics.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Rocky - I haven't found my Muslim neighbors or co-workers coming after me with book, shackles, or weapons. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a diversity of interpretations of the Koran just as there is a diverstity of interpretations of the Bible. Maybe I missed your <sarcasm> tags.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky,
And the christians are any different?
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22.20:


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Someone earlier mentioned "the marketplace of ideas" within the context of selling commodities - it had to be Rocky.

I always cringe whenever I see the Right Wing misuse that phrase because for them it's simply a matter of selling a product via marketing schemes. They're not referring to ideas competing on the basis of facts and reason, which is the only thing on which ideas can compete. They're referring to flooding the airwaves with a *message* using the latest marketing techniques, financial resources, and media manipulations.

Ideas are not ideas to be considered in relation to their factual support or logical import. For the Right Wing, it's entirely a matter of effectively placing your *message* as you would a brand new luxury automobile. For them, ideas are commodities like any other commodity to be packaged and sold, where markets are monopolized, and competition is crushed through outspending and overwhelming the public airwaves.

In short, the marketplace of ideas for the Right Wing is nothing more than running an effective political campaign with all the tricks and techniques used in getting the *message* out. They're selling *messages* not discussing ideas.

Ideas, on the other hand, are to be researched, debated, discussed, reconsidered, updated, improved upon, and discarded for better ideas. The Left Wing obviously have their share of message mongers too. I just haven't seen much of it on this forum comparatively speaking.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Mike-PBS does a different form of journalism. Yes, they do the headline stuff that the others do, but they do more in depth interviews and issue-oriented reports. For example, they did a longer form interview with Richard Epstein a week or so back that (in my never-to-be-humble opinion) gave me some real insight into the wealth redistribution arguments we hear or read about in other media. The others blather about it … they actually explained it to me.

I don't rely heavily on PBS for 'spot news' (earthquakes, fires, etc.), but on major issues, I think they do a pretty good job.

Their non-commercial charter is a benefit in that they are not subject to pressures from advertisers and the sales department. That's not to say they don't have issues to contend with … congressional appropriations for PBS are always grist for the mill, and they have to work hard to line up philanthropic and corporate support (much of their budget is funded by philanthropic foundations, charitable trusts, and corporations).

-Gerry


----------



## danr (Sep 5, 2009)

If I remember correctly Air American as a liberal radio talk station. It was VERY VERY VERY sucsessful if I remember correctly….... O wait a minute, it went bankrupt but then again, I'm sure it failed because the radio/media market place is unfair. What a joke…..... Fairness Doctrine…. PLEASE.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike, I think that utter destruction comes from GOD, not Christians against other humans. But not being a biblical scholar I would not guarantee such.


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

MIKE- The Koran says it is the personal responsibility of Muslims today to kill non muslims, especially Jews (according to the way the majority of middle-eastern muslims interperate it). You need not look far to find LOADS of muslim propeganda saying those very things.

The bible says GOD will destroy evildoers. Christians may interperate that to mean all non-Christians will be killed, but they are patiently waiting on GOD to do it.

HUGE difference, and I suspect you knew that…


----------



## Nofrets1 (Nov 3, 2011)

First things first… Whenever someone pokes a finger at Fox News, it makes me realize that even the liberals know that EVERY OTHER NEWS MEDIA OUTLET in on their side except Fox News. If the only conservitive outlet is Fox News, by your own admission all other are leaning left…

Off my political soapbox… I am brand new to this site and I honestly don't believe politics ahould be represented here AT ALL. We are all woodworkers, not Democratic woodworkers, not Conservative woodworkers, etc. Just woodworkers that enjoy taking something beautiful and making it even more beautiful, useful, unique, whatever. Honestly, I got into woodworking to relax and enjoy my free time, not to spend it caught up in this kind of drama (I have FB for that!).

Having said what I opened up with, I will never post about politics again. You all have a great day, make a truckload of sawdust, and enjoy your passion without being weighed down by distracting thoughts. Distractions and power tools are a bad combination! Since I'm not going to get rid of my power tools, I guess I'll drop the distractions.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

I wish I had a dollar for every time a PO'd viewer screamed "I'll never watch your station again!", slammed down the phone, then called back a few days later with another complaint.

-Gerry


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Gimme someone that has a sufficient understanding of, and respect for, the basic principles of logic, economics, and physics. -Greg D.

Sorry I can't help you, Friedman is dead.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Greg, I went to your mentioned site:
http://www.americanselect.org/

I found it to be an incredibly depressing exercise. For those that haven't been, you answer a simple question via multiple choice answers, then it tallies the cumulative entered answers for each multiple choice and plots their frequency on a U.S. map. If you answer 200 questions, you get….well, you don't get crap.

For example. Should we make pot legal? A) hell yes, B) yes, C) maybe, D) probably not, E) no, F) hell no.
I answered "hell yes" (even though I've never smoked pot) because I could care less about pot. let em have it.
It then tells me that something like 80+% agreed with me and flags every state of the Union on the map.

Then, they get to tough stuff; straight-up, do you trust the President, Congress, etc.? What do you want to do with illegal aliens? Would you pay more for medicare, for the miliatry, for schools?

It became very clear very quickly that I'm no longer in tune with my fellow Americans. I'm almost an outlier on every scale. Like I said, it was depressing.


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

*Mike Morphis*- I want to apologise in behalf of the Lumber Jocks management for what happened to you. I imagine it was a shock when your mouse was scrolling down the main page and it was suddenly SUCKED toward this political thread. The obviously violent tempest that you said you were "caught up in" that brought you here was nothing short of kidnapping and I believe you should contact the FBI immediately so that these dangerous threads can be removed before someone else is victimized. I mean, they are so sneaky, waiting concealed with a hidden title so as to not offend anyone who doesn't like to see words that don't refer to woodworking, you couldn't even have known it was a political thread before you got sucked into here against your will!

*-Just havign some fun with you. Welcome to LJs!*


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

Would I pay for medicare? The military? Schools? Heck no- those are FREE! Nobody PAYS for those, do they?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^it's horrible. Me and Gass are getting together on what we call "ThreadStop". It'll revolutionize the way your mouse controls your life. When you cursor drifts toward an "off topic" thread, your mouse will be sucked into your computer where it will impact your CPU with enough force to destroy both of them. You won't mind paying for our mouse/CPU proprietary replacement kits because you just saved your eyeballs some serious injury. Next time your eyeballs are scalded by one of Cr1's posts, you'll wish you had ThreadStop technology.

As pure lagniappe, you'll instantly become hated by a subgroup of users, the so-called "ThreadMatic" users. They care little about life or limb, so you're better off just making enemies early on.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Love me some lagniappe.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Where's Charlie?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Stumpy, if you would like to pursue the Bible vs. Koran then please do so with me via PM and we''ll have a go.

Personally I would like to continue discussing media's responsibilities, or non-responsibilities to the general public regarding Politics.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Bertha - Sorry, man. I just read the glossy sales brochure type info and expected something interesting might show up sometime in the future. Didn't poke around much. Silly me. As far as being out of tune - there is an app for that (ok, appliance at least, maybe not application). Kanye West uses it a lot. And Einstien was an outlier - so clearly you are a brilliant guy! <grin>.

Rocky - Friedman is dead I was thinking more basic, dare I say conservative economic principles, like spend your money wisely, it's not a good idea to get too far in debt, and don't buy investments that you don't understand. Being a science-oriented guy, I approach non-conservative systems such as economies with a great deal of trepidation.

Edit: and now trying to make a pathetic attempt to get back on-topic….

There has to be a place for The National Enquirer and for Fox News. Don't like 'em, don't watch 'em. And if you hear they do something really offensive, complain to their advertisers. The only way to send a message to Rupert Murdoch is through his revenue streams. My favorite local music radio station switched to a morning show that Glen Beck would probably like. I don't listen to them in the morning anymore.

And The Daily Show wouldn't be near so funny without Fox News.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^No Greg, the exercise was very illuminating. Illuminating as in shining a bright light on my fringe status Lol Kanye West; never seen a more obnoxious dude. They've been picking on old Einstein lately. Apparently, the theory of relativity isn't that impressive anymore. It was timed badly with Jobs passing, so Einstein was eclipsed by an even greater "capitalist" genius, lol. Einstein may have fooled around with the speed of light but Jobs made a lightweight, lightning quick portable music "appliance"

*spend your money wisely, it's not a good idea to get too far in debt, and don't buy investments that you don't understand.*

Hogwash! Big TV's man!


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

Einstein was a JOKE! What has HE done lately? I challange him to a box making contest!!!!!!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

But AL! Then what are you going to watch, more unregulated propaganda?!


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Actually Al, Steve Jobs was only a salesman, he did not invent or make anything, the Woz was the genius.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Mike-In my mind, the quality of reportage (at all levels) has diminished significantly in the last 20 years. Stations in pretty much every market have less resources to work with, and more time to 'fill' each day.

Take a look around … just about every market in the country has 'duops' or LMA's (industry jargon for duopolies and local management agreements).

It is not at all uncommon for one news department (which has probably big personnel cuts in elan times) to be handed the task of producing newscasts for two stations (e.g. the 9 o'clock news on the local Fox station, and the 10pm news on the local XXX affiliate).

Now, take a seat in the News Director's chair at one of those duops … you have more daily programming time that you are responsible for, and fewer people and less money to work with. Where are you going to spend your resources … are you going to take days or weeks to firm up an in-depth report on some major issue, or are you going to knock off easy stuff like news conferences, fender-benders, etc. so you can fill the time? There is no 'pause' button on the clock and you can't call 'time-out' ... the 11pm news has to go on the air at 11pm … so you pick the low-hanging fruit and hope the ratings stay up.

I had content research done in every market I worked in (from small local station news departments to stations run by major newspapers, to stations owned and operated by one of the big three networks). I never once had focus groups or statistically reliable questionnaires come back with a demand for more coverage of politics.

Oh, sure … you have access to 'new technology' and are getting major pressure to make use of 'social media', but all that does is give you the ability to generate content that is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Another factor that comes into play here is content and audience research … basically finding out from viewers what trips their trigger enough to motivate them to watch your station. That's why you see so much 'health news' on every local station … the consultants have determined that health is of major interest to the critical 18-49 demos. Several new business ventures have been started up specifically to produce 'health news' and sell it to local stations as 'syndicated product'. It is cheaper to buy canned stuff than produce it yourself, and you can sell it as a sponsored entity, alleviating some of the front office's cash-flow problems.

The national news organizations (e.g. CBS News, etc.) aren't in a much different spot … they just deal with it on a much larger scale.

-Gerry


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*Mike said: But AL! Then what are you going to watch, more unregulated propaganda?!*

Mike I hope we can agree that both sides of the aisle have their propagandist, so if we know that can we be sure any new regulations will not skewed one way or another?

With any new piece of regulation there always seems to be unintended consequences…usually bad ones.


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

*Roger*- Steve Jobs built the world's most valuable company in his garage! He created countless millionaires. He was personally involved in the creation of the Ipod, which saved the company and took it to amazing heights.

But you're right, he never built anything out of wood that I know of. I CHALLANGE HIM TO A BOX MAKING CONTEST TOO!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't think I'd want to challenge the late Steve Jobs to anything. But seeing how you challenged the man himself (Charles), I don't doubt that you'd go for it, Stumps

Rog, I didn't know that. I just assumed Jobs was a designer.


----------



## steviep (Feb 25, 2011)

Gerry,

Great insight, thanks for sharing. I find it somewhat amusing, that on big news days (ie. Sadam is captured), the most read news story for the day will invariably involve lohan or kardashian.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Thanks Gerry,
I indeed see evidence of the "duops" you are talking about. I am located between to rather large local markets and can see several similarities.

Question for all:
However, one has to wonder that *IF* the non-profit PBS can do it on less $$$ and do a better job of it (news), *then why can't the major for-profit stations do it?*

*Please don't re-post the incorrect mantra regarding the misinterpretation of Dodge vs. Ford. And you all know what I mean, the false premise that the sole purpose of a corporation is for maximizing profit for share holders. The disproportionate CEO multi-million $$$ compensation packages should be proof enough that such an assumption is false.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^Mike, did you read: 2004, Joel Bakan -The Corporation:
The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power? I haven't but I want to.


----------



## danr (Sep 5, 2009)

"However, one has to wonder that IF the non-profit PBS can do it on less $$$ and do a better job of it (news)"

I don't have to wonder about this. PBS is one of the most biased news sources I have ever heard.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky,
I have NO problems acknowledging that ANY regulation should/would affect ALL parties and NOT just the two *Major* parties.

And as far as unintended consequences, absolutely true, just as Gerry has explained in detail.

For Stumpy:
I sure bet that Steve Jobs will win the "grow your own tree without assistance" fertilizer contest though.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Al,
No I have NOT read Joel's book, though I understand the basics of its content. I would probably agree on nearly all of the content but would also probably find it depressing. Probably along the lines of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11:










IN OTHER WORDS, TRUTH HURTS.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Michael Moore, lol. I should have substituted him instead of Pelosi up there


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

What if ALL news media people signed an oath to only report the truth? The mind boggles.
I guess then you would only need one news media "voice", but that would create layoffs which we can't have at the moment, so in the meantime we watch the Circus.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

But Roger, it already SOUNDS like the major NON-POLITICAL "news" *IS* just one voice. I am beginning to think we should be careful what we ask for. Gerry has me doing some deep mental searching for answers…


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

"However, one has to wonder that IF the non-profit PBS can do it on less $$$ and do a better job of it (news), then why can't the major for-profit stations do it?"

PBS is more focused … they don't have 'bureaus' or 'correspondents' all over the globe, and tend to deal more with Washington-based issues. That's why I don't look to them for spot news coverage. It is cheaper to operate the way they do than the other networks.

They also don't have to deal (much) with a distraction called 'ratings', which has a good deal to do with the editorial decisions they make. The other guys have to produce a show that will generate broader viewer interest. PBS averages about 2.7 million viewers nightly, while Brian Williams garners about 8.5 million, Diane Sawyer about 7.5 million, and Scott Pelly just under 6 million.

Put another way, they are only getting a little less than 10% of the evening network OTA news audience and there is no real pressure for them to perform better (even though I'm sure they'd like to).

-Gerry


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Mike, the one voice bit was tongue in cheek because if everyone reported the truth, the only difference would be the voice, sex and looks of the various news reporting people.
You can always tell when these news people are lying, their mouth moves.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Mike - 
And you all know what I mean
I guess you didn't mean me. I had to read your link to see what you were talking about. Interesting. From that source:
Instead, the typical corporate charter defines the corporate purpose as anything "lawful."
That supports the idea that the major news corporations could try to do what PBS does. If they wanted to. Well, maybe they want to do something else.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Right on the money *Gerry*. I like PBS because it never sensationalizes the reports, just sticks to the nuts and bolts.
Other commercial news stations not only invent news but have the audacity to have you "wait until we come back" to complete the subject.
The BBC does have foreign correspondents all over the world, not high powered media stars, but usually local people who understand the subject more and can give honest information.

You may want to look at *WWW.BBC.Co.UK* each day to enhance your world news, and you will find you can select North American news on a separate page. WORTH THE READ.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*PBS is more focused … they don't have 'bureaus' or 'correspondents' all over the globe, and tend to deal more with Washington-based issues. That's why I don't look to them for spot news coverage. It is cheaper to operate the way they do than the other networks.*

That sure sounds right, at least in today's news/media environment. Could you just imagine Walter Cronkite reporting on John Bobbitt's injury OR maybe Boy George some +40-50yr ago? *;-)*


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

@ Gerry ….That sums up some broad issues nicely . (I like the line about 'weighing it ' , heard that one before about fed. and state inspection boards ,still makes me smile ). You can put an altruistic name on any' doctrines ' ,it seems , as long as there is forethought in how to post-modify , circumvent , or ignore them ,....sort of like corporate tax codes . Why , for instance, for decades , did pub.serv. shows….such as 'Black Perspectives ' or ' Latino Connection ' always 
broadcast at say ..the wee hours of Saturday and Sunday morning at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. ? Ascertainment certainly struggled with access in those days .


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

I don't know anyone under 30 years of age who reads a newspaper off-line or watches the evening news on 
T.V. , rexall , they be chilz with the i-phone ,blackberry and fb . The sound ( music? ) between clips on BBC is like soviet mind control experiments of the KGB ....sucks .


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^I prefer the sweet sound of the Melvins or High on Fire myself


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

Let me tube that (' stopthread' ......funny of the day , Al ! )


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

Headbanger devil music ? Tung in cheek? Weight lifting music ? Haven't been hitting the 02 at work,
now have we ? That stuff will make you weird : ) I worry about you sometimes . Here's why…....!



!


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^lol Squire. Major talent. It's true that I have bizarre musical tastes. My iPod might get me committed if reviewed by the right people


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Well we made to ~100 in one day's time before we lost our way. I want to thank Gerry for giving us all an insider's observation of the OP questions and for helping us understand just how much the Devil is in the details.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Mike-I think the thing I would like those following this thread to take away from it is the idea that to be well informed, you need to draw your information from multiple sources … even those that typically support positions you may be opposed to. I spend a good deal of time reading, and a lot of what I read is written by people with political leanings that are 180-degrees opposite of mine.

If you are reading a couple of newspapers, listening to or watching multiple over-the-air (OTA) or online sources, you will have a much better chance of developing your own balanced view, and things like the 'fairness doctrine' will become less relevant.

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." 
-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

-Gerry-I agree with your gathering information, , I do the much the same as yourself by reading and watching varied sources of news reporting.
As far as political reporting goes, I would just prefer to learn of what the candidates have to offer and why you should vote for them, not some squalid stories about things they may or may not have done since they were born. In fact, I would be very suspicious of any politician who claims to be so squeaky clean and never committed a faux pas somewhere along the way.
That does not mean I don't care what they have done in the past, it means that it is secondary suspicious information that does not reflect on their current life. FDR would have never been elected if all the stories about his indiscretions were promoted, and a good President would be lost.


----------



## DMIHOMECENTER (Mar 5, 2011)

Indeed, with the ego required to even want to be the President it's no surprise that some of them were playas. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=playa


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Gerry,
I agree totally. As a retired educator/administrator being "informed", IMO, is every educators' goal, not only for themselves but for their students as well. And IMO, the political agendas to eliminate *The Department of Education* are detrimental to "well informing" the public in general policical issues.

It just seems to me that there are many of the electorate and their parties who try to keep large numbers of Americans LESS educated, and thus less informed and/or less able to know HOW to become educated and informationally balanced as a voter. These less than fully informed voters are prime targets for misinformation and fabricated propaganda. One only has to glance/listen to some of the latest policial campaign "infomercials" to see it.

THAT is MY soapbox… I am done now. *;-)*


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

H-Mike,
I agree. Having done 8 years teaching college myself I concur how little the students seemed to know about the "outside" world. As a teacher you have to be currently informed so that you can keep the students minds in the real world and encourage them to learn.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Both fortunately and unfortunately Al Shanker the (now deceased) president of american federation of teachers has a nice cluster of quotes that are all true.. especially the last one.

"Public schools played a big role in holding our nation together. They brought together children of different races, languages, religions, and cultures and gave them a common language and a sense of common purpose. We have not outgrown our need for this; far from it." (Where We Stand, March 3, 1997)[4]

"..a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent"[5][6]

"It's dangerous to let a lot of ideas out of the bag, some of which may be bad. But there's something that's more dangerous, and that's not having any new ideas at all at a time when the world is closing in on you." (Speech to the AFT QuEST Conference, 1985)[9]

*"When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of schoolchildren." [10]*

*OR going back to pre 1900 - - - progressive thought:*
"[T]he child should be taught to consider his instructor…superior to the parent in point of authority…. The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous…. Parents have no remedy as against the teacher." - John Swett, Superintendent of California Public School System

EDUCATION is a great thing… indoctrination, well, not so much. e.g. have to complete your global warming credits to get a high school diploma in Maryland:
State officials and environmental activists called the vote "historic" and said Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require environmental literacy to graduate from high school. Under the rule, public schools will be required to work lessons about conservation, smart growth and the health of our natural world into their core subjects like science and social studies

While I agree these are great and current topics of interest, but also am certain this is a completely one sided Al Gore docudrama in progress.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*"When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of schoolchildren."*

DrDirt,
What's your point? That the quote contains the word union?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*DrDirt SAID: EDUCATION is a great thing… indoctrination, well, not so much. e.g. have to complete your global warming credits to get a high school diploma in Maryland…*

I guess you never really knew or read much about Al Shanker's work, so here is a small sampling regarding YOUR concerns about students taking unneeded fluff classes:

SOURCE Here:
In April 1983, a commission appointed by Ronald Reagan unveiled a report called "A Nation at Risk," which painted a devastating portrait of American education. Educators - who increasingly were poorly prepared for their jobs and the subjects they were teaching - had lost sight of their academic mission. Students were taking frills like courses in bachelor living rather than focusing on math, science and other staples…

... *Shanker's decision to embrace "A Nation at Risk"* was a watershed moment, because conventional wisdom held that the only cure for education's ills was more money. Anything else was considered fire from the enemy. But Shanker saw that the report wasn't boosting vouchers or privatization. Rather, it spoke of preserving and improving public education, of raising standards and implementing accountability for both students and educators - even as he never stopped reminding politicians that teachers continued to need the resources to do the job… ...Shanker arguably became the nation's best-known advocate for improving education…

... He aimed his sharpest barbs at an educational establishment that stuck ill-prepared teachers in classrooms. If higher standards were needed for students, they also were needed for teachers, he argued…


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

Lost our way , have we ? Well , let's revisit your main question when you began . 
*Are political topics on this forum becoming LumberfauXX news ?*

When cr1 showed up and began inching his political harangues and comments into 
project posts , and forums , a little red warning light went off for me . I could easily tell
that he was fishing for kindred spirits to join him in his political baiting and 'limbaugh' blather.

The Non- shop talk forum was just about to re-open . When it opened, he was out of the gate
and running hard . He had been straining at the bit . Now the polarization could begin ; which led to
some members leaving the site . They were admonished for their 'thin skin ' and uncerimoniously
given a kick in the pants as they exited , in a flurry of insensitive and self righteous and self serving
remarks. He could 'suppose' a question and then ' depose ' ( that's why I refer to him as a 'court reporter')
his responders, and detractors, point by by point . Propose a comment or question and then after the first responder's reply was barely posted , spew out a 1000 to 1500 word response as if he had that sh-t on speed dial -up .
Real Lawyer-ball . Some comments about genocide were not removed when I flagged them . I spoke with a moderator who professed " I almost never read the NST forum ." Let's just keep all the crazies over there in the corral and let them do their thing, was a para phrase and impression I recieved . Fine with me . If they can espouse radical right wing ideas in NSTF , they should be expecting some radical opposition . I have just as much concern for first ammendent rights and civility on the net as they do , which is negligible most days , in regards to ." Can't we all just get along ?" .........no , no room for compromise , only reproach , from we " fluff and puff,and weak minded people " ; as cr1 likes to demograph his opposition .

Rexxal : I don't care if you taught cooking lessons on the moon for 8 years . I'm surprised that women and minority members of this club don't call you to task for some of your' views' that you think can be veiled as Humor.
Are we back on track Mike ?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

moment,
Well, I am not going to comment on cr1 other than to say that after the SECOND time cr1 threatened to block me in post#55 on his thread, I then openly informed him not to bother and that I would handle the blocking which I did. Cr1 is blocked from participating from any of my threads as was clearly stated here in post #58.

CORRECTION-I AM GUESSING THAT *Rexxal* MAY ACTUALLY MEAN "REX & AL" AND NOT ME?
*I'm surprised that women and minority members of this club don't call you to task for some of your' views' that you think can be veiled as Humor. Are we back on track Mike ?*

I guess you have your opinion. Personally, I TRY to ignore most of the inflammatory and TRY to stay focused on topic, though I too have been known to "take-the-bait" on occasion.
And to answer your question: Apparently NOT. I really think it has to do with getting to ~100 where threads seem to drift.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

*JUST A MOMENT*, Moment. You obviously do not know me. *IF* you did, you would know what I am all about. FYI, I did *CARE* very much when I taught at College, in fact I was awarded several commendations for my teaching and methods, and also promoted to Program Chair. I have absolutely no nasty feelings or put down ANYONE, whoever they are. Yes, I do jest most of the time, that is me and folks who know me understand that.
Re-Reading your message:
*How dare you even suggest that I have a problem with women and other races - shame on you for thinking such a thing and even saying it.*

Are we back on track? Well you sure have put us on a track for insinuations.
Suggestion: *GET LOST*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike my point is that the teachers and unions are all about their jobs, benefits, tenure and such. It is of course, a LABOR organization (not a student one).

However in establishing its rules and trying to work with administrations on changing the failing system Reagan described aptly in "a Nation at risk" the solutions did nothing for the students. Also I wouldn't choose as a primary source the website of the founders organization for any kind of critical assessment. The UFT.org site is obviously going to portray Al as this Super bipartisan problem solver that reached across the divide to embrace Reagans assessment of education in america….cough… i just threw up in my mouth a little. Anyway UFT isn't going to say "we throw the kids education under the bus for a better prescription drug copay"

The organizations that really run the schools have an agenda - DOE would be testing and no child left behind…. while the union prevents accountability in the classroom.

As a result things never improve.
Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries on a math test and scored in the middle in science and reading, while China's Shanghai topped the charts, raising concern that the U.S. isn't prepared to succeed in the global economy.

*What we seem to lack is anyone that is an actual advocate of education of students…. rather than protecting the failing system.*

Ill say it again since you like to pick out only tidbits and run on tangents…. My concern is *Advocacy of education*. And those that have the decision/negotiating power are not working on doing a better job for students. And the results year after year show it. We focus on test results - so you get the Atlanta teachers retaking standardized tests for the students … yet there is no accountability of the superintendant that in supporting this which probably (my opinion) prevented the AT RISK kids from being flagged for additional help - - - but so long as the district met its numbers everyone seems happy.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

"I AM GUESSING THAT Rexxal MAY ACTUALLY MEAN "REX & AL" AND NOT ME?"

What the hell did I do? I think I've been fairly easy going. Although I do like the idea of being combined with Rex, we'd fight about who was in front and who was in back during the melding process. Without knowing what Rex said, I feel pretty certain that he was kidding


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

But there is always : This headline
Alabama student earning college credit at Occupy Wall Street
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/9667 for the whole story

Perkins is enrolled in an interdisciplinary program that allowed him to design his own major, replete with independent study. From OWS, he Skypes into class and updates his professors on his project (OWS in the larger context of American civil disobedience).

"I asked my professors and they said to go for it," Perkins told the Daily News. "They're living vicariously through me."

Wow…good thing he got federal student loans to cover this…..


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*"I realized that I never want to be in any system, and you can make it work."*
Lol! Keep studying hard, dudemeister.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

DrDirt SAID: Mike my point is that the teachers and unions are all about their jobs, benefits, tenure and such…

The headline you LOVE TO IGNORE:
*International study: American teacher salaries lag behind other nations, pay a factor in attracting top people to field *

I was one of these underpaid teachers/administrators (in Texas no less) that paid for my own Bachelors, Masters, PhD, PLUS additional teaching and administrator Certifications. And BTW, Texas ranked 38th among the 50 states for teacher pay in 1996-97, mid-way through my career. And U.S. teachers ranked 22nd out of 27 countries just this year, with teachers earning less than 60 percent of the average pay for full-time college-educated workers.

So just to sum that up for you, I personally was working in:

1. One of the worst countries (22 out of 27) for pay/benefits and 
2. In one of the worst States within that near-worst country (in the 38th worst State for pay)
3. WITH three progressively higher college degrees plus
4. Two additional certifications, 
5. Teaching Science
6. And I still managed to get all of my Science students to average from 98 to 100% passing rates on the State Achievement Tests (TAAS at the time) for more than a decade, before going into administration.

DrDirt, I think you know where I am going with my response to you, and such a place is located lower than dirt (pun intended). Your statement above is simply NOT true, at least for the too small investment you and others like you want to pay for education.

Talk about a Republican Talking Point:

*Those like you (Republicans) really DO want something for nothing! *


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Okay Mike I think you and I will agree on this one.

For sure good teachers, and your stated records supports that you are one, should be paid more for their accomplishments and the excellence of their students….but….

1, How do we get rid of those teachers that are simply not performing?

2. Get rid of those teachers that teach an ideolgy (one side or the other) as opposed to teaching academic content?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky,
Your number 2 is a really great question. Here in Texas, the State School Board has allowed the Christian Bible (Creationism) into the Science classroom. They actually wanted to mandate it into the curriculum but didn't quite get THAT far. That is a really slippery slope that is sure to cause some unintended consequences. Now if anyone wants to talk about the history of Muslim creation in the classroom, that too will have to be allowed as would any other "theory" on creation that is not backed with Science.

And then we have Rick Perry running for President:

*RICK PERRY: Creationism is Truth a 7 Year Old is Trusted to Know Commentary *





And as far as #1-Pay for it with competitive salaries and training. See my post #122 above for how teachers rank.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike, I am not going to debate the video as I am a Christian and believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I am not concerned with Rick Perry's faith, that is his business.

I am okay with comparative theories being taught as long as both get fair representation. I look to my church for faith based guidance…not public schools.

I think we are shortchanging poor and minorities by not allowing vouchers so their parents can determine the best school for their needs…i would be interested in your thoughts on this?


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

I support what Mike said about the teachers salaries. Competitive pay for teachers is the single most effective way (return on the investment) to improve quality of education (at least in the US). This subject has been researched ad nauseam. There is rarely lack of building, books, supplies and techno gizmos in US schools. It is ahead of most countries in this regard. Because of low pay (not competitive to be exact) it is hard to attract talent. I am not talking about rare enthusiasts and altruists.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

"Get rid of those teachers that teach an ideolgy (one side or the other) as opposed to teaching academic content?"

Ideology? In public schools, really? Public schools are getting "politically correct" to not much short of paranoia these days. Where did you see ideology there? Unless you consider evolution to be ideological.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Really mike ?

I tried pointing out to you in Bold multiple times that there is no EDUCATION advocacy towards students

Why is 1/2 day kindergarden cost 15K/student?
http://www.usd305.com/usd305/lib/usd305/_shared/2012%20Budget%20Info/Profile_Info-Summary_of_Expenses_2011-12.pdf
Amount per Pupil
$14,566 09/10 school year
$14,556 10/11 school year
$16,247 11/12 school year a 12% INCREASE
That is more than a year tuition at a state university!
How many of the 22 countries you show that indeed pay teachers more than the US - also pay teachers for 12 months work. Not just schools that operate year round like the orient, but those that have the teachers truly ON THE CLOCK/training etc 12 Months of the year? Otherwise you can get the numbers to support any story you would like to tell.

Or average spending per student the USA is #4

1 Denmark: $6,713.00 per student
2 Switzerland: $6,470.00 per student
3 Austria: $6,065.00 per student
4 United States: $6,043.00 per student
5 Norway: $5,761.00 per student
6 Italy: $5,653.00 per student
7 Sweden: $5,579.00 per student
8 Japan: $5,075.00 per student
9 Israel: $4,135.00 per student
10 Australia: $3,981.00 per student
11 Netherlands: $3,795.00 per student
12 France: $3,752.00 per student
13 Germany: $3,531.00 per student
14 United Kingdom: $3,329.00 per student
15 Spain: $3,267.00 per student

*FROM YOUR OWN REFERENCE SPAIN WAS #1 in TEACHERS PAY- - - BUT SPENDING IS ONLY #15 well behind the USA on Spending per student. Maybe we should look at Spain, Germany and the UK who spend only 60% of what the US does but has the best paid Teachers.*Not surprisingly - the only answer from the Dems is *mo money mo Money mo Money * it is the Mantra the one and only solution.

It tried pointing out to you in Bold multiple times that there is no EDUCATION advocacy towards students.. Only organizations that work on pay and benefits, or the bloated adminstration of no childs behind left alone - from Teddy Kennedy and Bush the dumber….nothing being done for STUDENTS.

Please tell me who the student advocacy is, because it is not teachers and parents really have no voice in policy


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Viktor, surely your response was meant as sarcasm?

Global warming
Gay marriage
Green jobs

These are not idelogically driven topics?....I have seen these with my own children's teachers


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

Exactly Rocky, you just proving my point.

So school says people could be straight and gay and lesbian and who knows what, and of any color or religion and they can intermarry, and you should accept them who they are. Is that ideological? It's not just Christmas now but also Hanukkah, Kwanza, and don't forget to mention Chinese new year (just in case, to avoid offending anyone). Its not Halloween, its Fall festival they celebrate (because some Christians are opposed to it, so we just try to please everyone). Oh, did I mention teachers can't mention their political views or conduct any partisan activities in school? School bends over in all directions and then some to the point of been ridiculous to please everyone and not to endorse anything. Is that ideological to you? Its the complete lack of ideology if anything.

What's not ideological? To pretend gays don't exist and if they do they are sinners? Is that non-ideological in your books? To make everyone pray in the morning to Christian God? Does this look non-ideological?

And what's global warming has to do with anything? Are thermodynamics laws also ideological? Just checking.
***
Mike, sorry for hijacking your thread.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Viktor, i am not talking about subject matter but rather how some teachers stress their ideological beliefs to a young captive audience that differ from those of the student and/or the student's parents.

If you think teachers don't have ways of conveying their political beliefs to young unknowing kids, you are kidding yourself.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky SAID: Get rid of those teachers that teach an ideology (one side or the other) as opposed to teaching academic content?
AND:
I am okay with comparative theories being taught as long as both get fair representation. I look to my church for faith based guidance…not public schools.

Religion is an ideology and by your own judgement (*and you are correct here*), it should NOT be allowed and those teachers who do teach ideologies, we should, "...Get rid of those teachers…"

Rocky, you should also realize that a theory and ideology are diametrically opposed and one cannot be the other or vice versa:

A Theory is an explanation of causality that has predictive value and can be replicated and tested. A Theory can never be proven correct, it can only be proven incorrect. A Theory that stands the test of time through experimentation, replication and predictive capacity can gain acceptance within a body of scientists.

An Ideology is a happy thought, a paradigm for explanation that by definition can not be proven wrong. This would apply to any argument that is circular in nature, or simply transcends our ability to measure or experiment.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So would you consider absolute freedom a theory or an ideology?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

DrDirt,
This should help you understand why the U.S. spends more and gets LESS.

ORIGINAL SOURCE HERE:
Maryland's schools have earned top rankings and plaudits in recent years. Yet as students from other countries continue to outscore their U.S. counterparts on international math, science and reading tests, even here the demands for lifting caps on the number of charter schools, tying teacher pay to student performance, and revising or abolishing teacher seniority and tenure rules have grown more insistent.

Can any of these measures - or more traditional proposals, such as increasing education funding or reducing class size - propel the U.S. into the ranks of the top-performing nations? *A study by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) examined the programs of the world's highest-performing education systems* in Finland, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Shanghai, China, and *concludes that the answer is a resounding "NO." *In almost every area, these countries have created the world's most successful educational systems by doing what we are not doing - and vice versa.

These *high-performing nations start by setting shared, rigorous, internationally benchmarked standards for student performance, not just in their native language and mathematics but across all core subjects.* They base their exams on a clearly defined curriculum and have frameworks that specify what topics are to be taught in each subject, at each grade level. (The new Common Core State Standards, adopted by Maryland and most other U.S. states, are an important step toward a system of this kind, but we have a long way to go.)

The *top-performing countries differentiate their educational spending to give the hardest-to-educate students more resources and support than other students.* The U.S. is alone among industrialized countries in providing the most money for the students who have the most advantages. *The top-performing countries spend less than we do on fancy school buildings, glossy four-color textbooks and intramural sports, and more on paying and training teachers well.* Maybe that is why the U.S. spends more per student than all but one other industrialized country - and still gets only average results.

IN SUMMATION, the US should:
1. Set CLEAR and enforceable standards for student performance
2. Have a CLEARLY defined curriculum for all grades/levels
3. Spend MORE on the hardest to teach students and LESS on students who are most advantaged
4. Spend LESS on fancy school buildings, glossy four-color textbooks and intramural sports
5. Spend MORE on paying and training teachers well

*Skip ANY of the above and you end up right where America currently IS, paying more for less.*


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

With reference to my "stint" at teaching, I feel very angry at any suggestion by Moment (and any others out there) that infer detrimental accusations in my job as a Senior Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Design.
When I arrived at the job, to my horror I found the curriculum to be decades out of date and totally useless for graduates who would be seeking a job in the industry.
I wrote my own curriculum based on what industry needed TODAY, and the net results was my students graduated with everything they needed to get right into an engineering job, no extra basic training required.
My best students were female, simply because they learned and studied hard whereas the guys would party too much, the ladies tenacity paid off.
I loved teaching, but why did I leave?
I left Principally because of the lack of response by the Administration to bring the calsses into the 20th century - ruled by old farts who were ignorant of what was needed, and faculty that had no engineering experience or that if they had, it was 30 years old and not current. All this plus the fact of the reluctance to replace antique equipment (not used "today") with items that were current so the students learn, touch and feel what the typical machinery is used "today". I even had "Machinery's Handbook" removed from my book list, - that's the "bible" for engineering.
The last straw came when a new semester started after the summer break and the Lab was empty - no desks, No drafting equipment, no anything. I was told that there was a delay and that I should take the students to another room and have them read their books !! That went on for 5 weeks, That's why I resigned. Disgusted.
I could not stand seeing the students get ripped off after paying their tuition fees.
I feel very sorry for REAL dedicated teachers, they are there but are smothered by incompetent teachers and administration who should definitely come into question. Teaching is a gift and a calling, it is not just another job as many in the teaching industry think.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I am not sure and this is merely my observation, but I would guess those higher performing countries are not allowing passing grades unless the student actually earns the right to pass.

I think we have many school districts that think by allowing a student to pass without earning they are helping the student when the opposite is actually the result.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky SAID: So would you consider absolute freedom a theory or an ideology?

Here you go Rocky. This might help you in answering your question:

*Freedom as Ideal, freedom as Ideology*
Traces spoke with Jean Bethke Elshtain, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago. Prominent political philosopher and author of over 20 books, including Augustine and the Limits of Politics, she will deliver the Gifford Lectures in 2005-2006.

http://www.traces-cl.com/apr05/freedomasid.html


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Roger SAID: Teaching is a gift and a calling, it is not just another job as many in the teaching industry think.

I would only add that that "thinking" is running rampant in the NON-teacher population that wants to tell teachers how to do their jobs when these NON-teachers (parents, non-parent community members, business folks, etc) DO NOT have any of the relevant professional training/education IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION.

This is kind of like asking the KKK to manage the NAACP, or asking the NAACP to manage the KKK. Neither is qualified to run the other though each have strong feelings about the "OTHER" organization.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I was looking for your insight Mike, not a UC prof's viewpoint.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm sorry Rocky. I thought I would give you some added resources since you appear to be struggling with the definitions of Theory and Ideology in post #132. By definition, "Freedom" is a happy thought that cannot be disproved through experimentation. Even prisoners-of-war have reported experiencing "Freedom" from within their cells of captivity. Granted that was some form of mental experience of the individual, but that cannot be disproved, thus it only fits as an ideology.

Posted here again:

*A Theory* is an explanation of causality that has predictive value and can be replicated and tested. A Theory can never be proven correct, it can only be proven incorrect. A Theory that stands the test of time through experimentation, replication and predictive capacity can gain acceptance within a body of scientists.

*An Ideology* is a happy thought, a paradigm for explanation that by definition can not be proven wrong. This would apply to any argument that is circular in nature, or simply transcends our ability to measure or experiment.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I'm not struggling with the subject…do you think "absolute" freedom can be proven incorrect?


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Again, on the teaching subject. Many people simply do not understand that you cannot teach anyone anything unless they have a willingness to learn. Even with that willingness a teacher can only "show the way", advise, coach and support the student's efforts. The student has a pretty good idea if he/she is doing well or not, "outsiders" are not qualified to judge.
It should be noted that many students who find they are not getting what they need, drop out of school or college because the encouragement is not there.
Notable dropouts: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Wozniak, the Google founders, the Facebook founders, - the list goes on. Just imagine how many more success stories we would have if those in education would open their mind?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky SAID: I'm not struggling with the subject…do you think "absolute" freedom can be proven incorrect?

NO. And your use of the term "absolute" to try and modify the ideology of Freedom is irrelevant since Freedom *IS* an ideology, a happy thought that cannot be proven wrong, even in death since those such as you, state that you personally believe in a god, another ideology in itself, that cannot be dis-proven either. And that brings us full circle in that that part of the definition of an ideology, any argument that is circular in nature, further defines ideology.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Roger SAID: Just imagine how many more success stories we would have if those in education *would* open their mind?

Personally, I would replace "would" with the word COULD in your statement since you explained very well and in detail that students are in control of their learning and that, "...a teacher can only "show the way", advise, coach and support the student's efforts…"

Other than that, we are in agreement.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Mike:
That's because you have "been there and done that".
Does the old, old saying; "Empty vessels make the most noise" mean anything when engaging those criticizing education?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Be nice Rex…

*;-)*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Interesting Mike - we actually agree now that you have done a 180 from post#122

Where you posted:
The headline you LOVE TO IGNORE:
International study: American teacher salaries lag behind other nations, pay a factor in attracting top people to field 
then proceeded to go on a tirade on how we are 22 out of 27 for pay and benefits etc etc.

Then in post 134 you flipped to my side and point out that pay and more money would NOT lead to better outcomes
WE need to demand better results from teachers -set agreed on standards for students etc. Yes and Yes
the only thing i disagree with in your post 134 was #3

3. Spend MORE on the hardest to teach students and LESS on students who are most advantaged

To take this approach is to simply continue to only focus resourses to struggling students which is no different than now where the pace of teaching in the classroom is geared towards the slowest student, and we only can get paraeducators in the classroom to help them.

Just as Roger points out his reasons for leaving teaching are the same issues I am poking at and they don't get fixed. The great teachers burn out and leave or just become bitter mediocre teachers.
Goes back to my question to Mike - WHat organization is actually working to address this, and make improvements for the *students*.
Sure I pick on the unions and tenure as part of the problem that keeps us from addressing performance, but my point is more that the *Unions are paid to work on "Teacher Issues" like pay and benefits*. They DO NOT/WILL NOT work on the students behalf. School boards simply give out edicts on performance and "measurable improvement" to keep the gravy train running.

Parent involvement is discouraged. Mikes post 138

"thinking" is running rampant in the NON-teacher population that wants to tell teachers how to do their jobs when these NON-teachers *(parents*, non-parent community members, business folks, etc) DO NOT have any of the relevant professional training/education IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION.

Sorry to bust your bubble - but the sorority sisters getting an elementary education degrees didn't magically become all knowing child development experts with the right to tell parents to go F- themselves as Mike infers.

Where does that leave the student/little pawns?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Sorry DrDirt, I have NOT flipped to "your side" as you seem to think. Do NOTE what I said IN BOLD:

1. Set CLEAR and enforceable standards for student performance
2. Have a CLEARLY defined curriculum for all grades/levels
3. Spend MORE on the hardest to teach students and LESS on students who are most advantaged
4. Spend LESS on fancy school buildings, glossy four-color textbooks and intramural sports
5. Spend MORE on paying and training teachers well

*Skip ANY of the above and you end up right where America currently IS, paying more for less.*

And YOU want to skip #3. Well there you go…

DrDirt ALSO SAID: Unions are paid to work on "Teacher Issues" like pay and benefits. They DO NOT/WILL NOT work on the students behalf.

That simply is NOT true and, in my professional PHD in Educational Administration opinion, beyond belief.

Your statements about dysfunctional/biased school boards is correct in that they spend too much time catering to the non-educator public that thinks they can do better than the educated and trained professionals in the classrooms.

And the rest of your response is pure opinion and uninformed babble, IMO. You prove my point in that the non-educator public should NOT be running the educational systems in our states/country. They are and have been overly represented in the management of schools. BTW, I guess you never had a less than high school educated parent in your office threaten to pull a gun on you, huh? I have. You have NO clue.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So in Mikes world we throw the smart kids under the bus to fend for themselves since they are smart enough already, and pour all available limited resources into remedial education?

Because that is your point 3

Sorry you worked in some ********************hole that someone threatened you but the idea that those who didn't major in education administration….are UNABLE to comment on how the school system is messed up.
Maybe only those of us with PhD's in Science - hence the Dr. in Dr Dirt should comment on the shortcomings of the public schools in preparing incoming students for success in college.

In your world only the Political Science majors should run for public office since they are trained professionals?

And while we are at it only a lawyer can have an opinon about fast and furious, or use of waterboarding, not some Texas educator?

Fact is just because you thump your chest about "in my professional PHD in Educational Administration opinion" doesn't mean your OPINION is correct. You CHOOSE not to believe that the NEA and AFT are focused on the dues paying members… and want to BELIEVE, that they are this caring omnipotent force that only wants to care for the poor little children…...Sorry but wisdom and knowledge are more than a piece of paper on the wall.

I don't need another PhD to validate the fact that the education system is broken and we are NOT moving towards fixing it. These unions continue to block reforms needed to improve our nation's schools by putting their focus on teachers rather than on the students they teach.

By your logic If i had legal troubles I should hire Bush the dumber - because he has his Juris Doctorate from Harvard just like Barack Obama does….the degree is maybe NOT the real measure of intellect???? just sayin!~


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

@ Mike . ' Rexxal ' refers to Rodger Clark . It does not in any way refer to Bertha ( Al ) . It is my response
to him after infering that I must be on drugs , after I posted my ' filibuster ' pictures on one of cr1 's 
other threads . I don't care how many vicodin you are taking Rodger , as long as they keep you typing .
rexxal is my pet name for Rodger….it refers to [email protected] drug stores….get it now ? Feel free to refer to me as anything you wish . 
In a previous thread ,you( Rodger ) were discussing having a feature on LJs …..You propsed to call it 'MY World' where posters would discuss and share various aspects of their culture featured along with their
project posts …...You sited Martins' country of Slovakia as an example .
I replied ( in Czech) that you should take you camera and drive 30 miles to a Czech community here in Texas . Sometimes culture starts at your own back door .Now let me share your reply to me , and I'm loosely quoting your so - called joke : *What do you call an abortion in( Czech **comunity ) ? ..........a canceled check ( Czech ) ."* Not only is that insulting to Czech women , but to the founder of this site as well IMO . So don't tell me that I should feel ashamed about reminding you of this, or protesting that you have not engaged in telling racist jokes about Mexicans and Blacks . They are
there for everyone to revisit and read . You go ahead and justify that by siteing your academia or anything else you wish . But when you start proposing cultural awareness on this site…by you …now that's a joke to me .
* RES IPSA LOCAQUITUR

*


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Moment - oops, *sorry your Grace*. Please excuse me for being a human being. Who is this guy *Rodger* who you keep harping on about, can't be me, my name is *Roger*, it appears on every post I make or isn't that obvious enough. I do have the balls to assign my real name to posts and not use a secret name, that's just to show I am out in the open and not hiding behind a false name.
The joke you cited is a very common joke around the Waco area, maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but I expect everyone has jokes told or sent to them that don't amuse them, it happens to me too. You will notice that your post referring to me that said *"Your a pig and a chicken butt likker"* , I could address the grammar and spelling mistakes, but I won't because it does not bother me, but the text is an insult to pigs, chickens and Butts.
Another nasty remark you made:
*"I don't care how many vicodin you are taking Rodger , as long as they keep you typing .
rexxal is my pet name for Rodger"*

Hey I take Vicodin because I have to. Ever had cancer?, ever known the pain from treatments? or should I writhe in pain all day?
As long as you keep on breathing I also have a pet name for you, unfortunately I can't publish it because it is extremely obscene.

*Heads up LJs. Remember to get all your posts proof read by Moment before being released for posting.*


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I lag behind on some of this. But I did want to comment on a couple things I have read this morning on this thread.

1. Religion Being An Ideology Taught In Some Schools
This, too me, is a moot point. When my child enters a science class, they should be taught science. Scientific theories and religion are like oil and water. They do not mix. It is not the teachers job, or place, to teach my child religion, for or against. They should be teaching my child scientific theories such as what I was taught in school, like the big bang theory (I think I remember that was what it was called). It is MY job, and place, to teach my child religion, whether it be through me or by carrying them to church. Some day, when my child is older and out of my house, he or she can take what I have taught them, what the teacher has taught them, and what common sense tells them, and make up their own minds whether they believe in God or not. They will never truly beieve in God anyway if they are only forced into it. Between teachers, preachers, and parents, a child needs all sides of the argument. It is me and the preacher that has a religious duty. Religious beliefs should not be taught in science class, since it is not science.
If anyone is wondering, by the way, I am a firm believer in God's Word (King James Version). I am NOT a believer in modern organized religious sheeps who think I have to worship anything (preacher, preist, or any certain church) besides God himself.

That leads to…........

2. The Schools Are Broken And What The Government Can Do To Fix Them
I am not a teacher. I never have been. I am fully aware that I lack the patience to be a teacher. I am thankful for teachers who do a job that I feel they must be saints to be able to perform. I do have eight kids, five of them still in school. I am very active in my children's schools, always have been. I don't think the government can fix the schools. They can't fix the government. I have been asked before what (in my opinion) is wrong with schools today. I think the one largest problem in schools today is the lack of parental involvement. It seems to me that somewhere along the way in this country that a majority of people have taken the attitude that we are to send our kids to school and leave it up to the school and governement how to handle them. Where is the parent's responsibility in all this?
Teachers are underpaid. They always have been. This has always been a problem. Teachers used to teach well on limited pay though. So what happened? Well what happened is the students changed. Teachers used to have one basic job, to teach. They taught the material. The kids who were smart enough picked up the material and run with it. The kids who couldn't, or wouldn't, get it, shot spitballs at each other in the back of the class. When smart kids got good grades they took them home (when they had a good home) and were congratulated. The kids who didn't get it got bad grades and went home and got their butts in trouble. In the end though it was between the parent and child how their kid was doing. Unless there was a certain problem with a teacher, everyone took care of their reponsibilities and all was well. 
Now though, teachers are suspected to be a teacher, therapist, religious advisor, and basic all around everything to about thirty or forty kids, all the while watching being responsible for kids with no home training nonewhatsoever and take the blame when said child is falling behind no matter how hard they tried to drive the material into their feable ADD drug softened minds. Meanwhile some parents sit at home and blame the teacher that their child is a complete [email protected]$$.
The only ones who can fix the school systems is for parents to get involved. My kids get a great educations from the Mississippi school system. They come home. My wife and I look at what they're being taught. We help them with it. If there is a problem we set up a meeting between ourselves, the teacher, and an administrator and get to the root of the problem. We never blame our child or the teacher until we get to the bottom of what is going on. The teacher and administrator appreciate this respect and therefore, I get results. All is well. I don't worry about other people's kids though. Those kids are not my problem. My problem is my own kids and I, like every other parent in the nation, have a duty to make sure my kid is being taught properly.

THAT leads into…................

3. What Should We Be Teaching Our Kids
I have eight kids. Three of them (we're talking about book smarts here) are average. Two of them are way above average. Three of them are dumb as a brick. Here's the catch though, the three that I'm calling dumb are only so when it comes to books. They can learn anything that has to do with common sense. They just don't get math, science and such no matter how hard you push them. To demonstrate my point, let's take my oldest child. He is the best example since he has now graduated and is out in the world. 
My oldest child went all through school in the special education program. He can barely read and right his own name. One day (back when I was still in good health and done mechanic work) came down to my shop and decided he wanted to learn to weld. I told home there was the machine, scrap metal, and welding rods: burnem. This was how I learned to weld. He didn't get it no matter how hard he tried though and, as I stated earlier, I am not a good teacher. So my suggestion was that he take metal trades at Vo-Tech in school. So he signed up. The school sent home a letter stating that because he was in special education that they didn't allow students such as him go to Vo-Tech. I was irate. I wound up having to go all the way to the school board to make my simple case that, since it was a cinch that this child was not going to be a book keeper, that he needed to go learn a trade. I don't know if they seen my point or if they just didn't want to deal with an irate parent, but they did allow him to go through four years of metal trades at Vo-Tech. He is now 27 years old and works through an iron worker's union as a welder. I am anti-union, but that is a different topic and I am very (VERY) proud of him. 
My point is, I think it is a huge mistake that we as a society has taken on that all kids need to be prepared for college. Some kids just won't get there no matter how hard you try. What about trades? I think we need to push trade programs such as the Vo-Tech we have here in Mississippi schools. You can tell by the first year of high school that certain kids will never work in an intellectual field. That is alright. We have a need to push trade based jobs in this country anyway. Lets train them to weld, to do carpenter work, to lay bricks, to work on cars. These are things that need to be done anyway. 
Then there is the other side of the coin. Remember my smart kids? Yes, I deal with that end of the spectrum as well. I have a kid in a program called GATES. It is a gifted program. This little program keeps his little expanding mind occupied so he doesn't interupt the teacher who is teaching the average kids while he has finished his work and gotten bored. I think some of you already my know this story. This is a child that people tried to tell me had ADD. When I got to the root of the problem, ADD was so far from the truth is wasn't even funny. The problem was that he was finishing his work in a fraction of the time as everyone else and would get bored. Then, since his mind is always going, he would interrut the rest of the class with pointless questions and observations that he just couldn't keep to himself. The GATES program keeps his mind busy. He is presented with material that is way ahead of everyone else in his regular class. 
So what are we teaching our kids? This government mandated curriculum just doesn't work into today's world. All kids are not carbon copies. Each have different learning needs. Once again, it is the teacher and parent that has to work together to accomplish this. It takes parents who are willing and a governement that will get the hell out of the way though before this can be accomplished. Without these two things, the best teacher in the world will not make one bit of difference.

So in conclusion,

I am sorry to all. I have gotten involved again when I said I don't. I couldn't help it. I seen this discussion directed towards school, and such. Schools, with eight kids, are something I deal with, and have dealt with for a long time, on a regular basis. I have seen a lot in that time. I am often thanked by teachers and principles simply for the fact that I'm an active parent. Something I have been told over and over is the fact that teachers can tell by a child's performance who has an active parent and wo does not. This may not be a popular opinion, but in my kid's schools instance, it is pure fact. 
So with that being said, I want to thank you to those on this discussion that do or have taught in school. You have done a thankless job that you were no where near appreciated or compensated enough for. I wish I had the patience to do what you have done.

Now I'll crawl back into my hole.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Dirt SAID: These unions continue to block reforms needed to improve our nation's schools by putting their focus on teachers rather than on the students they teach.*

The fall in America's educational standing over the past ~40yr or so correlates directly with the fall/decrease in unionism. In other words, unionism in education is DIRECTLY related to improvements in education and NOT inversely related. Sorry your premise is completely false.

*Dirt SAID So in Mikes world we throw the smart kids under the bus to fend for themselves since they are smart enough already, and pour all available limited resources into remedial education?*

More Strawman arguments from you who (with a PhD) should know better. If I were to follow your line of distortion, or informal fallacy, I would recommend that you (Doctor Dirt) get YOUR open heart surgery from someone with a Doctor of Divinity and NOT someone with a Doctor of Medicine because BOTH have Doctor titles attached to their name, right? (redundant question not meant to be answered)

To actually address your concerns as to who needs the most help/assistance in an educational setting, I would point you to Special Needs students. I have directly worked with hundreds, if not thousands, during my career, in the classroom and attending ARD (Admission, Review, & Dismissal) meetings, not only as teacher but also as an administrator who is legally bound/accountable to see that the agreed upon Special Needs Services for the student are actually delivered.

A GOOD DEFINITION OF SPECIAL NEEDS:
*Special Needs* is an umbrella underneath which a staggering array of diagnoses can be wedged. Children with special needs may have mild learning disabilities or profound mental retardation; food allergies or terminal illness; developmental delays that catch up quickly or remain entrenched; occasional panic attacks or serious psychiatric problems. The designation is useful for getting needed services, setting appropriate goals, and gaining understanding for a child and stressed family.

And Dirt, *THESE* are the people that *YOU* want to throw under the bus! How elitist and uncaring of you, and I am NOT being sarcastic here.

You have strung this deflection on and on, trying to "catch" me in something that YOU think, but do NOT KNOW, is a contradiction. You hope and seek something that feeds into your own delusion (opinion?) of how the American education should work, ignoring how things actually DO work in educationally higher performing countries who spend LESS than we in America.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

WOW William! Let me be the first to thank YOU, for sharing so openly and honestly. Just a couple of comments:

1. Teachers are actually responsible for many more than the thirty or forty kids you stated. The number you stated should be "at a time", as teachers may have 30-40 kids in EACH of five or six classes they teach EVERY day. My largest student load, the numbers of 8th grade Science students I was responsible for on a daily basis, was *183 students* over five classes taught daily. Fun fact: That adds up to nearly 33,000 papers/assignments that I graded THAT year alone.

2. I am a very BIG believer in Vocational Education. What I continually sought (unsuccessfully though) was to get the school system to revisit the need for such programs in the curriculum. Thank you for bringing that topic up, as Vocation Education is one of many answers needed to FIX education in America.

3. Let us NOT forget Section 504 Students either. These are students who may not officially qualify for being classified as Special Needs student, but would benefit from certain individualized modifications in the classroom. The whole premise under 504 is to provide education in "the least restricted environment." This can be IN the classroom, or on occasion, IN an individualized environment. The purpose is to provide additional assistance without restricting the students' access to a FULL educational experience.

Again William, thank you for such a detailed, heart felt, post.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

No mike you are the one who made your platform 3 to DEFUND gifted programs in favor of Remedial ones.

That is not the path to success. It is the modern theory to target EQUAL OUTCOMES… work hard on the slow kids and slow down the bright ones so everyone comes out equal.

Your stated position that parents are too stupid to have anything to offer the educational systems they see failing their kids, because they aren't PhD's in administration goes well beyond the pale.

A more apt analogy would be the guy that has an accidental amputation - and says Doctor can my fingers be reattached, and the Reposnse from the doctor is - who the hell are you to diagnose your malady.. you're not an MD.
Sometimes you don't need a high school diploma to take a look at a situation and see that it doesn't work.

Degrees look nice framed on the wall….doesn't make you an expert


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Dirt SAID: No mike you are the one who made your platform 3 to DEFUND gifted programs in favor of Remedial ones. That is not the path to success.*

How many times do I have to say this: YOU ARE WRONG.

Why do you think that the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) who examined the programs of the world's highest-performing education systems in Finland, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Shanghai, China, wrong? ALL of these country's education systems that outrank America in success in education are doing so by spending LESS than America does. HOW-By being focused on those who need help the MOST and not wasting it on those who already know how to learn successfully. Those are the facts and NOT a fallacy like that of the far Right Wing who oppose it. And those facts are not even opinion based.

And YES, I agree that too much is spent on such things as Gifted Programs and Sports. The results of higher performing educational programs in others countries proves that very fact, regardless of how that makes you or I feel internally.

BTW, go back and read about Strawman Arguments because you use them all too frequently and continue to fail in understanding the concept.


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

Here is a great piece on media comparisons:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-7-2011/npr-vs--conservative-talk-radio
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:401659

*The Daily Show with Jon Stewart*
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook


----------



## tom427cid (Aug 21, 2011)

Just a quick(I hope) comment. Education,especially Vocational Ed was IMO one of the first victims of the newer administrators/business oriented goals mind set to streamline the education process.
To me it is appalling the amount of disintergration that has occured in education. The lowering of standards,the notion that everybody passes,and worst of all the restrictions that have been "mandated" to "improve" the quality of education. It seems(to me) that the ultimate goal of much of what has been done to education has been directed to force out the "real" teachers and pile on the mediocre ones.
If this sound like a rant-well it is.
I speak from experience-7 years- when I left education in 1985 I had three current certificates.Two were vocational,Auto mechanics and Building Trades(Cabinetmaking and Millwork.) I also held an IA certificate. When I left I went to work for John Deere and NEVER looked back. 
The closest that I have gotten to education since is to offer at the local High Schools(there are three)
to do a work co-op for a student interested in cabinetmaking. I have also made it clear that I will not suffer foolishness-if the student wants to learn I am glad to teach-it is not play time. In six years now have not had any serious inquiries. Some intrest,until they hear the rules.
IMO not until this country as a whole decides to activly support a meaningful Vocational/Technical education program we will continue on down that slippery slope toward the ultimate mediocrity.
tom


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

Partial transcript from The News Hour regarding education and dropout rates:

DR. CELESTE ADAMS, Riverview Garden High School: We have to look at our students differently now. Classical or traditional education is dead. It's failing our students.

WOMAN: If you taught concentrated phonics to everyone in first grade-they're dying to read-they would stand on their heads. But the problem is, they don't drop out in high school. They drop out in second grade, and they hang around for eight years.

MAN: These children are coming from homes where nobody understands what is positive. No one is educated. So we have a cycle of ignorance, one, two, three, four generations where people don't have the ability to read.

GWEN IFILL: So, it sounds to me like your focus is on the teachers a much as the students?

STEPHANIE KRAUSS, Shearwater High School: Absolutely. I think that the data would tell us and experience and stories would tell us that you can take an extraordinary teacher who is deeply committed to getting to know the community where they serve and place them just about anywhere, and with the proper support and accountability and training, they can show great academic gains in their students and authentic relationships with those kids and their families.

BARRETT TAYLOR, St. Louis Public Schools: I think teachers play an integral part in the education of kids. But I think teachers get a bad rap in the news. Teachers-the teachers that I work with at Metro High School and at Roosevelt High School work hard every day to educate these kids. I think the parents have to educate their kids.

GWEN IFILL: The question was, in your own experience as a teacher, would you say that the level of community support and involvement in your school is high, medium or low? Twenty-one percent of you said high; 24 percent said medium; 55 percent said low. Ouch.

Was that your sense, that there is not enough community engagement in our schools?

MAN: Well, I think there isn't.

And, certainly, we can influence both the kids and the community, if we're given that opportunity. And in this country today, what we're focusing on instead is, can you answer a multiple choice test, instead of, how do we make you love education? How do we get you to feel that this is something that is meaningful to you? And if we don't do that, the rest of this is a waste of time.

GWEN IFILL: Throughout our hour-long conversation, those St. Louis teachers repeatedly touched on concerns that resonate nationally.

John Bridgeland has written widely about all this, and his organization, Civic Enterprises, is a partner in the American Graduate Project. He joins us now.

Give us a sense of the scope, the magnitude of this problem.

JOHN BRIDGELAND, Civic Enterprises: So, Gwen, more than a million young people in this country fail to graduate from high school every year, with huge costs to themselves, society and the economy.

Just for context, a young person who drops out of high school will earn a million dollars less than a college graduate over his or her lifetime. But the cost to our economy must prompt action. If we were to cut the dropout rate in half we would save our economy $45 billion every year as a result of productive work force, increased revenues and a decrease in social services like incarceration costs, public assistance and unemployment.

GWEN IFILL: I was struck by the teacher who said last night, this really begins in second grade. They just hang around until the eighth grade before-eight more years before they drop out.

JOHN BRIDGELAND: I found that one of the more powerful statements as well.

GWEN IFILL: Everybody in the room kind of went, mmm.

Full interview:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec11/americangrad_11-08.html


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Maybe it's time for a separate thread on education in the US?

DrDirt - I won't give Mike many points for patience and diplomacy, but it seems to me he has provided a compelling body of information and reason on the topic of education. A skilled doctor knows that a mother often has important insights into her sick child, that is true, but in the end the competent doctor almost always has a far more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the medical needs of the child. The situation is not so very different with a skilled teacher, from what I have seen from my children's teachers. Education is not a simple process and there is a significant body of study on, for example, how humans learn. The odds are very good, I would think, that someone with a working understanding of the important learnings of this research is going to be a more effective educator than a casual observer such as a typical parent - this parent at least.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike it is no wonder you no longer teach since you cannot grasp the difference between a Straw man and an ANALOGY

What is amazing is you start your rant about pay and benefits #122 with this gem:
Your statement above is simply NOT true, at least for the *too small investment you and others like you want to pay for education.*

I say we spend a lot more money than the top countries do on education and that Money is not the answer….

Then you quote the NCEE that says "money is not the answer" to prove YOUR point???
NCEE has their own mission - they are not guru's sitting on a mountaintop - and their findings are full of OPINIONS. Just because they are a ".org" doesn't make it all facts. 
but on your path here is their presentation of findings….remember they are ONLY FACTS NOT OPINIONS from NCEE pre H. Mike! w.r.t. Union strenth - - 









Or do you dispute CEE's findings that there is NO CORELATION BETWEEN UNION STRENGTH AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE???


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

"Or do you dispute CEE's findings that there is NO CORELATION BETWEEN UNION STRENGTH AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE???"

Which makes it that much tougher to fault the unions, then …. ;-)


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Or as CEE looks at the success in Ontario copared to the US


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

No Neil - Mike made the supposition that the DECLINE OF EDUCATION OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS IS DUE TO A DECLINE IN UNION STRENGTH.

CEE points out that Student success and Union strength are NOT correlated…so a proposed solution of stronger unions has already been shown NOT to be the path to success by Mikes source that is above reproach!


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

But … no correlation would ALSO make it hard to blame the unions.

Were the unions the problem, you would expect to see an INVERSE correlation.

So … "Yes, Neil." ;-)


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

@ Rodger Yes , I understand . I will not refer to you as rexall henceforth . I believe you should be more careful in the kinds of humor you share on this webb site , it somehow does not coincide with the urbane image of an educator you project otherwise . Common ' jokes' that denigrate people are not my cup of tea . Perhaps you have become too accustomed or influenced by the 'good 'ole boy ' *********************************** mentality pervasive here . Again, you ,as well as I , have the right to say anything you wish , apparently , as long as it is not profane or threatening . I was never too fond of your ' humor' even in the years before I became a member . I was never privy to the banter of the 'coffee lounge ' , curiously( and unlike today ) that forum could not be viewed by non-members . Hummm. I'm beginning to understand why . I dislike casual , serious , or inferred racism ; and that's putting it mildly . I tend to react and oppose it when I encounter it ; a few times to my own physical detriment , but it was better than remaining silent . As far as calling you a pig and a chicken butt lickker…...I thought I was being genteel and restrained ….. I thought that might get a 'rise' out of you , and make you stop and think about how some of your 'jokes' affect at least one observer . You defend your joke ,as mentioned above , by referring to it as' common ' , thereby begging the question that it is acceptable . I think ' chicken butt lickker ' is funny….even though you disapprove of it's mispellen , kind of a rural aside….almost a term of endearment . People have called me an asshole , called for my removal , many of my comments and photos have been deleted , the cease and desist orders from higher up when I tried to disrupt cr1's 'meaningful' threads of political bs . Doesn't bother me in the least . Bertha and I are both going to resign , and then re-join this site as woodworking super models . Have a nice day . See ya when the next ringside bell or 'joke' sounds .


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

@ Rodger Yes , I understand . I will not refer to you as rexall henceforth . I believe you should be more careful in the kinds of humor you share on this webb site , it somehow does not coincide with the urbane image of an educator you project otherwise . Common ' jokes' that denigrate people are not my cup of tea . Perhaps you have become too accustomed or influenced by the 'good 'ole boy ' *********************************** mentality pervasive here . Again, you ,as well as I , have the right to say anything you wish , apparently , as long as it is not profane or threatening . I was never too fond of your ' humor' even in the years before I became a member . I was never privy to the banter of the 'coffee lounge ' , curiously( and unlike today ) that forum could not be viewed by non-members . Hummm. I'm beginning to understand why . I dislike casual , serious , or inferred racism ; and that's putting it mildly . I tend to react and oppose it when I encounter it ; a few times to my own physical detriment , but it was better than remaining silent . As far as calling you a pig and a chicken butt lickker…...I thought I was being genteel and restrained ….. I thought that might get a 'rise' out of you , and make you stop and think about how some of your 'jokes' affect at least one observer . You defend your joke ,as mentioned above , by referring to it as' common ' , thereby begging the question that it is acceptable . I think ' chicken butt lickker ' is funny….even though you disapprove of it's mispellen , kind of a rural aside….almost a term of endearment . People have called me an asshole , called for my removal , many of my comments and photos have been deleted , the cease and desist orders from higher up when I tried to disrupt cr1's 'meaningful' threads of political bs . Doesn't bother me in the least . Bertha and I are both going to resign , and then re-join this site as woodworking super models . Have a nice day . See ya when the next ringside bell or 'joke' sounds .


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

[sorry. My post showed up]


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

NCEE is also against any kind of "tracking" or vocational education pathways - everyone gets the same outcome. Nobody excels and nobody is left behind. The will set the bar the same for ALL students….but none of this is an Opinion….right Mike?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Neil that is not inverse it is simply non sequitar logic.

Just because it has been shown that stronger unions do not mean students do better…does NOT mean that they have not obstructed reforms and have been somehow helping all along.

Like saying Billy got an A+ on his test even though a bully was present in the classroom…. therefore Bullys must not be a problem in school.

I interpret their finding that if you have a passionate teacher…. kids do well 
if you have a bitter bunghole watching the clock and playing solitaire while the kids read to themselves…the kids are screwed regardless of union strength.

We have a system that shelters the bad teachers from responsibility… that is a sad Fact, and I wish it were just an isolated opinion.

Luckily there are few such teacher (% wise). With 3 kids we had all but 2 of the elementary teachers. Several were awsome, most were just fine.. 1 out of 17 left you shaking your head as to why she is there.
similar for middle school - though it was her first year teaching solo, so she can likely improve, but still that was 1 out of 14.

I would bet my paycheck that there is at least 1 bad teacher at nearly every school. And *all *the students know who they are and avoid getting "stuck" in their class, and *ALL* their teaching colleagues all talk about them behind their backs and wonder aloud "when are they going to get rid of Mr. X" he makes us all look bad!


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Nope. Can't have it both ways, statistically speaking.

If you're trying to argue that unions aren't of benefit because there's no positive correlation between union strength and educational outcomes, then you'd have to argue that-if there's no negative correlation, either, then they aren't part of the problem.

But … since it isn't that simple, in a multifactoral situation … I'd argue that neither conclusion is particularly valid.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Dirt,
It is obvious that you are ONLY interested in seeing my position/opinion FAIL, nothing more than that. You could care less about improving the state of education in America and use every *red herring* and *straw man* tactic that you can think of to divert attention away from the ACTUAL subject, that YOU YOURSELF know very little to nothing about.

And as Neil pointed out from YOUR assertion: **IF* the state of TEACHER unionism has NO CORRELATION with student success, then why do you so oppose it SO MUCH?

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
"*Red Herring:*" A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point; for instance, "Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things." Another example: "I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me." Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the speaker drive recklessly, and (2) should he pay a fine for it?

Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't follow it herself. For instance, "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"

*Straw Man Argument*: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

*For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." *In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

UPDATED:
Dirt SAID: I interpret their finding that if you have a passionate teacher…. kids do well

*if you have a bitter bunghole* watching the clock and playing solitaire while the kids read to themselves…the kids are screwed regardless of union strength.

WOW, what a GREAT example of another straw man argument Dirt. Well done! (sarcasm intended)


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

By far, the drop outs rates for the poor are the problem. I've mentored two intercity boys for over ten years. During that time it became painfully obvious that the adults in their lives didn't value education as much as they should have. I'm sure there are many reasons including: busy working (single parent working to support three kids), intimidated by educational system (because they themselves are poorly educated). Most importantly, when you start having kids when you're 14 the children are screwed. This pattern has repeated over and over again, as the mother was born to a teenage mother too. 
My wife and I went to parent teacher conferences for the boys multiple times, and we saw only a few parents at the meetings. This is a school with a student body over a 1000 students. The boy's mother seems to view the school as day care, and if the kids failed, it was the teacher's fault.

The guests on the News Hour got it right:

*"But the problem is, they don't drop out in high school. They drop out in second grade, and they hang around for eight years."*

*"These children are coming from homes where nobody understands what is positive. No one is educated. So we have a cycle of ignorance, one, two, three, four generations where people don't have the ability to read."*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike Mike blah blah blah yawn….this is the definition of a red herring… blah blah blah this is a straw man…. YAWN!

Since you obviously just pull quotes from convenient sources when it suits you.
The NCEE comparison regarding unions was compared by country and saw that a weak teachers union like UK, and a strong one in Finland, or a weak one wouldn't correlate.
When you look just INSIDE the US, you have just NEA and AFT - so there is less variation in Union strength across the country, so the Houston NEA represented high school and the Seattle are going to have similar union strengths - but very different outcomes - - some of which is affluence, some is language and immigration, even inside a particular state - all represented by the same LOCAL…..each school has different level of success whether measured by dropout rate or ITBS testing or SAT scores.

As far as your update…. UNFORTUNATELY that is a stated fact and is shown on hidden camera (watch waiting for superman)... and that teacher was NOT disciplined, while the students play dice in the back of the room.
I describe that teacher as a bitter bunghole clock watcher TEACHING the students nothing."

I will admit freely that there is a anti union agenda to the movie - - but we all should be troubled by the footage of the goings on in the classrooms…Using footage to bash the union is indeed spin - however the incidents filmed DID HAPPEN - why are you NOT outraged?
I recognize I am just some parent, not a all knowing *administrator* - so I am not clear that the latest technology where you play solitaire while the kids shoot dice is in reality the LATEST AND GREATEST techinque for teaching differential equations in a multilingual setting…. (Sarcasm intended)

Are you even CAPABLE of admitting that EVERY person in the classroom is NOT gods gift to the profession? Whether it be teachers, police, firemen, engineers, or just waiters in the restaurant - there are good and bad? and that there should be training and eventually discipline including termination for the bad?


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

RZH I agree with your assessment of the news hour - which also points to importance of parents.

If you had Mike as a teacher - he would have told you to go home because you parents are too stupid to know what your kid needs, since you don't have an education degree. Just let him do what he knows is best for your kids. Parent involvement is bad

His POST 138
I would only add that that "thinking" is running rampant in the NON-teacher population that wants to tell teachers how to do their jobs when these NON-teachers (*parents*, non-parent community members, business folks, etc) DO NOT have any of the relevant professional training/education IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION.

How dare parents and community members meddle in education by demanding input into how kids are educated. (unless they have teaching degrees only)

I strongly rebuke the whole "We know what is best for your kids" approach


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

dr dirt said before edit

*How dare parents and community members meddle in education by demanding input into how kids are educated. (unless they have teaching degrees only)*

That's not my experience. The teachers I met in the intercity were surprised to see us and eager to have our involvement. They were sincere and I felt they were doing their best in an environment that was full of chaos. Teachers are not social workers, counselors, or the kid's parent. But in many of these schools that is what is thrust upon them.

To claim that teachers, or their unions, are the cause of this problem is wrong. There is more than enough blame to go around. All parties (teachers, parents, business communities, and society) need to focus on the child instead of political agendas.


----------



## vernonator (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow…you complain about others spouting their "disinformation" and you do the exact same thing from the other side. Pretty typical…

No none of the three items you list should "come back". They are all baltantly unconstitutional and an impingment of free press and free speach.

Don't like what an media outlet says? Then don't tune in/buy the paper/browse their site. No one is FORCING you to listen to anything - but if your three items came back the Gov't would be….and remember, right now YOUR buddies are in charge, but that will change and VIOLA you will be complaining about Blackwater holding you captive and forcintg you to listen to Fox News…..

In the case of the Fed Gov't Less is ALWAYS more…..


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Dirt SAID: Mike Mike blah blah blah yawn….this is the definition of a red herring… blah blah blah this is a straw man…. YAWN!
AND:
I describe that teacher as a bitter bunghole clock watcher TEACHING the students nothing."*

Dirt, I have given you many, many opportunities to offer something constructive, definitive, and concrete examples but you continued to do nothing but bitch and moan with campaign slogans, straw man arguments, red herrings etc.

WITHOUT offering anything constructive other than your very LAST sentence where you said:
I strongly rebuke the whole "We know what is best for your kids" approach
*That* is the first time you have offered your real opinion. The rest of your postings have been deflections and one-liners without any substance to back those posting up.

Yes, I cite a lot of articles and sources for all to consider. I am openly on the Left and never hidden that online. You, on the other hand, don't even hold an educated position/argument for someone who claims to be a PhD in Science:

*Dirt: Maybe only those of us with PhD's in Science - hence the Dr. in Dr Dirt… post #149*

I have read many of your other postings and IMO, you don't speak as if you truly hold such credentials. Being on the Left, I can easily name those on the Right that I would easily acknowledge such high educational achievements:

```
bertha,
```
 RogerAKARex, and even CR1 because all of them AT LEAST speak with knowledge of the content/subject they participate in. I blocked CR1 because of his multiple threats to block me and his history of complete intolerance for any others' opinion.

Please… Offer something concrete to back up your opinions, and please do so without the deflections. Argue with content and not with campaign slogans. The problems in education are much deeper and complex than that. Neither party has done well with this in recent times and things DO have to change. And as Neil alluded to as well, the solution will be as complex as the problem has turned out to be.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

RZH - not my EXPERIENCE EITHER - - but it is mikes Stated Ideal and why I quote his post heavily -

I think that doctors,plumbers, scientists, engineers, business owners, and the rest of the community can share valid concerns and a vision of the community and schools and how curricula should be structured.

Many on this forum as woodworkers and myself included think that vocational education is a good idea, and that not everyone needs to be on a college prep route. However I think there should be courses that also challenge the best and brightest to develop further.
But since my degree is in Science and not Education… Mike thinks anyone without a Ed degree just needs to STFU because they have the wrong background to make recommendations since they just wouldn't understand.

I think that approach in any dialog is really messed up.

I'll use an analogy since that seems to tighten mikes sphincter so much. First Powered Airplane (piloted)

In 1898, based on the success of his models, Langley received a War Department grant of $50,000 and $20,000 from the Smithsonian to develop a piloted airplane, which he called an "Aerodrome" (70K would be a huge sum in 1898)

But the Wright Brothers beat him to it….What the hell did they know they were just bicycle mechanics??

Langly had the funding, and the University pedigree - - but it didn't make him right. The wright brothers didn't have aeronautics degrees but were successful.

Maybe just maybe other fields can indeed cross polinate ideas….. just a thought (and not a right wing talking point ;-) )


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

@vernonator,
How would you address those who don't know how to access alternative points of view, such as the poor and the uneducated who may NOT be computer literate?

BTW, take the time to read the ENTIRE thread, especially Gerry's input. I think you will find it enlightening. I know I did.

THEN, state an informed opinion on what you think my opinion on the three items listed IS, not before. Thank you. The rest of your post is YOUR opinion ON-topic and THAT is fine. It is YOUR opinion.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Dirt SAID: I think that doctors,plumbers, scientists, engineers, business owners, and the rest of the community can share valid concerns and a vision of the community and schools and how curricula should be structured.

I DO TOO. But it is my professional opinion that too much time and weight is being put on this to the detriment of what is right for the student.

Hey Dirt, go back and see where I said: 
*Your statements about dysfunctional/biased school boards is correct in that they spend too much time catering to the non-educator public that thinks they can do better than the educated and trained professionals in the classrooms.*

That DOES NOT mean NO input. Get your facts straight and you will do just fine.

As an administrator, I had to deal with an 8th grade cheer-leading squad that had an alcohol party AT SCHOOL. The consequence spelled out in the student handbook was delineated as 60days attendance in alternative school off-campus (for all five girls). The Asst Supt and my supervisor stepped in and it was reduced to just 7 days off campus, because of parent "complaints about not wanting THEIR girls to be at the alternative school with "THOSE OTHERS."

ADDED: Food for thought-All of the Cheerleaders were White in a school that was >60% Hispanic and a disproportionate amount of the *Alternative School* students were also Hispanic (in other words, MUCH more than the school average of 60%, more like 80-90%).

And THAT is what I mean about parental OVER-representation.


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

*As an administrator, I had to deal with an 8th grade cheer-leading squad that had an alcohol party AT SCHOOL. The consequence spelled out in the student handbook was delineated as 60days attendance in alternative school off-campus (for all five girls). The Asst Supt and my supervisor stepped in and it was reduced to just 7 days off campus, because of parent "complaints about not wanting THEIR girls to be at the alternative school with "THOSE OTHERS."

And THAT is what I mean about OVER-representation.*

WOW…my boys only have to worry about getting shot or stabbed.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Campaign slogans…. mike you're getting desperate or what?

The solution is complex…and it will take a more diverse background than solely the educators to fix it. You claim that if you arent an educator or admin you cannot possibly have anthing of value to contribute towards the solution, that is both arrogant as well as False..


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike where you describe the cheerleading situation is a real cluster.

However what does this have to do with Educational Background?

Are you saying that if the Asst Superintendant only had an MBA, he would not have faced calls from parents.

He made a Moral decision to 'look the other way' (in the wrong direction I would say) that has nothing to do with his credentials.

*Maybe if he/she were a scientist instead they would have made the right decision *


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

"The fall in America's educational standing over the past ~40yr or so correlates directly with the fall/decrease in unionism." Talk about babble… Is this supposed to be seen as some kind of cause / affect? Probably a study out there, paid for by unions, that draws the conclusion. Therefore, repeat it as truth.

Speaking of which: The Times of Texas is an original source? Maybe I need to pour over back issues of the Omaha World Herald for my retorts from this point… Plenty of rhetorical bullying on this thread… BS, too. Congrats to those who are doing their best to exchange ideas over insults; you're better than me / I don't have the patience anymore with closed minds.

"Confusion is the womb of learning, with utter conviction being it's tomb."


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*DIRT SAID: . You claim that if you arent an educator or admin you cannot possibly have anthing of value to contribute towards the solution.*

NO. I did NOT say that , but I am sure that won't stop you from claiming that. Hey Dirt, to bring back YOUR accusation of Neil's purported Non Sequitur in post #170:
*Neil that is not inverse it is simply non sequitar logic.*
Dirt, you are guilty of non Sequitur logic in thinking that I said what you are accusing me of. In plainer words I would call that a quantum leap in judgement.

*Non Sequitur* (literally, "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." There's obviously a step or two missing here.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Smitty: Speaking of which: The Times of Texas is an original source? Maybe I need to pour over back issues of the Omaha World Herald for my retorts from this point

Ah but Smitty, you too like those straw man arguments as well I see…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

This is where I YAWN>>> rather than any discussion of issues you simply spend your day doing copy/paste from wiki, to descibe the Type of argument and not any substance.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Yep Dirt, you been lookin' in the mirror again… Bye now…

Oh yeah, guess you got the news about SB5 in Ohio got shot down in favor of collective bargaining. They WANT unions.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm sure it will work out well for them when they are letting people go rather than deal with the financial issues. They voted to kick the problem down the road.

A problem I attribute to both D and R - that when there are programs that get whacked to balance the budget they all will make sure it is police, fire and teachers that get the axe…. because the couldn't possibly adjust international travel for the governors to visit the National Guard troops in Afganistan, they just make sure an hack at the most VISIBLE and Publicly Painful cuts to ensure te propper emotional response.

look up the Washington Monument syndrome Invented by Herzog (D) in 1969.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Mike, you declared the Times of Texas as a source, which it turned out was not a primary source at all. I prefer to draw my own conclusions, this one was buried in obfuscation. Call it strawman if you wish, but declaring it so doesn't make it so. Your source, bold letters and all, contained conclusions not based on fact but rather on conjecture.

You are well learned and confident, and your positions are supportable. But I prefer my medicine with sugar rather than vinegar, and my discussions on serious topics with respect rather than a condecending attitude.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Smitty,
Maybe I could have said MY SOURCE even though it WAS my original source. This is where I originally got my information so that YOU could do just as you did, and that was to go there and make up your own mind. I see nothing to apologize about, I was hiding nothing and provide links to where I find things that support my opinion. Again, I do NOT hide that I am on the Left, so no surprises there.

As far as having buried in obfuscation anything about that post, I have to disagree, or I would NOT have included the link. And I see no problems in conjecture from an article that is based on facts/truth (even though those specific facts may have been interpreted by the author/journalist and NOT included in the article.

To require EVERYONE to utilize ONLY original data, and ALL of the original data, would grind ANY news organization/media to a halt, much less an individual such as you or I trying to utilize such information. Surely you understand THAT.

Is THIS, from the Baltimore Sun any better?
Marc Tucker is president and CEO of the National Center on Education and the Economy. His email is [email protected] Jerry D. Weast has served as superintendent of the Montgomery County Public Schools for the past 12 years.

OR THIS

June 25, 2011
Amen to Marc Tucker and Jerry Weast for their article* Why U.S. students lag in test scores* (June 20), which clearly and accurately depicted the problems with education in America. The countries whose students outperformed U.S. students get it. They have their priorities straight. They understand that the best investment in their countries' future is in the education of their youth. Our so-called leaders pay lip-service to this idea, but their actions speak louder than words. It has always amazed me that in most states and municipalities education is not a top item on budgets but is the first thing targeted when it comes to budget cuts.

And why is it in a lot of states (Maryland included), the funding of education is tied to gimmicky sources like lotteries and slots. Is medical or scientific research funded this way? The reason is, as the gentlemen pointed out in the article, that education and the teaching profession are not held in high esteem as in other countries. The result: crowded classrooms, lack of essential programs, low pay for teachers, and I could go on. For the important role teachers play, they should be on par with doctors, scientists and other professions we hold in high esteem. If politicians put as much effort in our education system as they do in funding and protecting their pet projects, we would see an improved education system throughout this great nation. As long as our priorities remain backward, U.S. students will continue to fall behind those students in other countries which truly value education and are committed to doing whatever is necessary to maintain its excellence.
Jean Williams, Columbia
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-25/news/bs-ed--lagging-students-letter-20110624_1_value-education-marc-tucker-budget-cuts

*It ALL communicates the same information.*


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

@ Rodger Yes , I understand . *You don't understand how to spell my name even after I corrected you.* 
I will not refer to you as rexall henceforth . *Rexall has now dropped their Lawsuit.* 
I believe you should be more careful in the kinds of humor you share on this webb site , it somehow does not coincide with the urbane image of an educator you project otherwise . *I am not an educator anymore and I don't have a joke filter anywhere - sorry*. 
Common ' jokes' that denigrate people are not my cup of tea . *So elite "jokes" are your cup of Darjeeling?*
Perhaps you have become too accustomed or influenced by the 'good 'ole boy ' *********************************** mentality pervasive here . *Canadians are welcome in my book.* 
Again, you ,as well as I , have the right to say anything you wish , apparently , as long as it is not profane or threatening . *WOW glad about that concession.* 
I was never too fond of your ' humor' even in the years before I became a member . *So you trolled this site for many years without a smile?* 
I was never privy to the banter of the 'coffee lounge ' , curiously( and unlike today ) that forum could not be viewed by non-members . *Hummm. Man you missed out on so much enjoyment, sorry about your privy.* 
I'm beginning to understand why . *Come on, give us a clue.*
I dislike casual , serious , or inferred racism ; and that's putting it mildly . *I think you could put it somewhere else!*
I tend to react and oppose it when I encounter it ; a few times to my own physical detriment , but it was better than remaining silent . *That's your option, you have to learn to control yourself, banging your head against a wall is not good.*
As far as calling you a pig and a chicken butt lickker……*After saying and accusing me of nasty things.*
I thought I was being genteel and restrained ….. *You need to be*.
I thought that might get a 'rise' out of you , and make you stop and think about how some of your 'jokes' affect at least one observer .* If it was said as a line in a humorous post, then yes I would think it was funny.*
You defend your joke ,as mentioned above , by referring to it as' common ' , thereby begging the question that it is acceptable . *With common people I think it is, but I guess some elite beings might not understand.* I think ' chicken butt lickker ' is funny….even though you disapprove of it's mispellen , kind of a rural aside….almost a term of endearment . *Love you too babe.*
People have called me an asshole , called for my removal , many of my comments and photos have been deleted , the cease and desist orders from higher up when I tried to disrupt cr1's 'meaningful' threads of political bs . *I bet that makes you real mad*. 
Doesn't bother me in the least . *Yeah, Right.* Bertha and I are both going to resign , and then re-join this site as woodworking super models . *Does Al know about this?* Have a nice day . *You too.*
See ya when the next ringside bell or 'joke' sounds . *Not if I see you first.*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

It seems to me that some, if not most, teachers, educators and union leaders do not want external interference in children's education is so they can mold young minds into believing unions and central government control are the best ways for society to exist.

I think the objection to vouchers is because parents could then send thie kids to schools that do not indoctrinate.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Tucker is full of crap big time:
It has always amazed me that in most states and municipalities education is not a top item on budgets but is the first thing targeted when it comes to budget cuts.

Really education is not in the top 10 items???

Another lefty talking point goes pffft…K/12+Higher ed spending is 40% of the state budget….


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Facts are such stubborn things
http://www.gov.state.md.us/budgetcuts.asp
For MARYLAND since it was a baltimore sun article the education spend is 50%


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

Corrections is going to eat our lunch in the coming years…


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

They should give that money to the parents and let them use it to educate thier children as they see fit.

Stop the public ( government) schools monopoly on primary and secondary education.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Damn Dirt, you ALMOST amazed me! Almost. Pay attention son, that quote you used:

Dirt SAID:Tucker is full of crap big time:
It has always amazed me that in most states and municipalities education is not a top item on budgets but is the first thing targeted when it comes to budget cuts.

Tucker NEVER SAID that. That was said by another editor, and NOT the source/editor that I had originally quoted in MY first post, but the ANOTHER I added When Smitty was attacking my first source. Turns out MY original source, which was panned as lefty, was better than the Baltimore Sun whose editor *Jean Williams, Columbia* as seen posted in Post #192. Keep up with your *Non Sequitur* buddy boy, you are getting better.

BTW, you are correct in "Jean Williams" interpretation/statement about percentages of spending being WRONG. Just be sure to blame the correct person, and THAT person was *NOT* me. **

ALSO note that I will give points when you are correct, UNLIKE you who is too obsessed with proving any and all things I say or even reference, wrong. Have fun trying…


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

When did this thread become so hateful? It used to be interesting.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky SAID: I think the objection to vouchers is because parents could then send thie kids to schools that do not indoctrinate.

You mean like to a private *Catholic School*? I am sure THEY don't indoctrinate… yeah, sure…


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Hey Al,
Really. And I really mean REALLY! It seems that ALL the Righty Tighty folks thought they smelled red meat and piled on. And I can say that to you, you Right Winger, you…

I say that because at least you and a couple other Righties, know that I tend to do my homework and am pretty good at my fact checking. But the Coyotes circling are STILL waiting on me to misstep. Given enough time we will ALL misstep on occasion, but these Coyotes are setting the record for making their own missteps, IMO.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes Mike, a Catholic school if the parents want that for their child.

An atheist school if that child's parents wanted that for their child.

A totally homosexually oriented school if the child's parents believed in that lifestyle.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

It is about freedom of choice, not religion. Freedom of choice by those who know best for their own children.

Freedom of choice by those whose taxes are used to pay for the education.

Freedom of choice, period.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

But Rocky, YOU said "...send thie kids to schools that do not indoctrinate…."

What you are NOW saying is the direct opposite of that!

BTW, I spent two years as Principal of a private (6-12gr) Charter School, and you REALLY don't want to know how bad you are getting shorted in most of these "Schools of Choice." The CEOs are making a windfall and the ONLY operating funds for these Private schools are from the State and Private schools DO NOT get the additional property taxes that the public schools get that are ADDED to that State fund amount for public schools. Just saying…


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Your right Mike..i do need to clarify my thought.

"government" and " union" indoctrination.

The 2 things public educators covet.

If..and only if, the parents want their children indoctrinated it should be of their choosing.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky,
Then don't expect THE GOVERNMENT to pay for your choices when you withdraw your kid(s) from public schools. Separation of Church and State requires that State funds NOT be used for religious "indoctrination" as you call it. State tax monies is/are collected for "public" schools NOT collected for select, exclusionary, religious indoctrination.

Remember that far Right Wing war cry about NO welfare for those who want something for nothing… I think it may apply here.

I really am now convinced you had/have NO interest in this sub-topic (education FOR students) other than to drive your personal political agenda. You appear willing to risk the entire public education system (or even this country's existence) in order to elect a Republican to office. You did that on other threads recently, and now you are doing it here.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I ran out of time earlier, but have been thinking about it all day. I feel a need for me to come back and explain myself after my last comment. First if all though, even though it is not from my doing, I still wish to apoligize to Mike. My following response has nothing at all to do with the original post. I figured though that since it has flowed so far off topic that it wouldn't hurt for me to revisit this as well.
This reponse has to do with a tiny statement I made in my last comment that said I was anti-union.

My distaste for unions stems from a bad experience I had with them. I have disliked them ever since. If anyone want to hear that story, ask. I'll tell it. If not, I'll move on with the assumption that noone wants to hear it. Luckily, however, I was lucky in my working life. I made enough money and had good enough jobs and the skills I had at the time put me in a position that I didn't need collective bargaining to get the pay and benefits I needed. Others are not so lucky.
Unions, in my opinion.
Let me stop right there. Please read this with one thing in mind. All this is my opinion, and my opinion only. I do not claim any of it to be fact. I only wish to state my beliefs on the matter.
Unions, in my opinion, came about out of neccessity. Because of unions, collective bargaining put an end to a lot of unfair practices in this country. Before unions, if someone tried fighting against pitiful wages, unsafe working conditions, harrassment, and a variety of other issues, they were just fired, or worse, intimidated into keeping their mouths shut and doing the work anyway. If you think corporations are bad now, I shutter to think what they would be like today without unions.
Because of this, unions are still needed. The same need that brought unions about would represent themselves without unions. When people talk about unions, the answer is always that we ought to do away with unions. I disagree. To do away with unions all together would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. You don't scrap the good of something just to get rid of the bad.
I do think that the union concept as a whole is broken, just like governement, morality, ethics, and many other problems today. The funny thing is that the reason I feel they are broken is the exact same reason behind many of the other problems society has today, corruption.
Certain higher up officials in a lot of unions have done the same thing that certain higher up officials in government has done. They have set themselves up in positions that they are making way too much money. While they are getting rich and enjoying lavish perks, the lower members of the unions are still fighting for what they have always fought for, fair treatment.
Now please keep in mind, I'm not referring to each and all unions or union reps. The problem is, it's the worst cases of the worst cases that get the attention, casting a bad shadow over all union members. 
So, I think I may have mistated my position earlier today about unions. I am not anti-union. I do believe though that there are some bad aspects of unions that I have a major issue with. On the other hand, as I've stated though, I also understand the need for unions and truly believe that things would be much worse without them. As with a lot of things these days though, a lot of problems need to be dealt with by using some good old common sense.
Too bad common sense isn't too common these day.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike, what religion am I advocating by using atheist and homosexuality in my examples?

These are examples, nothing more nothing less.

All i am saying is give students and parents a choice in where their kids are educated, such as with vouchers.

My only political slant in this discussion is freedom of choice, not religion and certainly not any election.

Get a grip man. You need some serious anger management.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Rocky,

I would like to understand where you get the idea that public educators covet "government" and "union" indoctrination? No doubt there are individuals that do this, but this does not characterize the public educators I know.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Rocky - never mind. I missed your post #208


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

yep ya got me on that quote - I misread the praise of Tuckers article and attributed the "not in the top 10"to him instead of the Sun editor.

However I don't follow how you can identify that as non sequitar….you post a quote (yes from the Sun editor) saying that education doesn't make the top 10 for budget items (for the record the *editor *of the Sun really should know better ..a readers letter to the editor I could understand).....I point out with the Maryland budget pie chart and point out that that statement is false… not a matter of interpretation nor opinion, how is that one non sequitar??? The incorrect reference did not derail the logic of the argument.

BTW Kudos for admitting that more funding is not the answer to the education problem….but I still ain't showering til the wee hours with ya ;-P


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

William,
I have no problems if you are anti-union on a personal level. I have had my ups and down with unions. I was a Teamster for a couple of years and found that to be rather non-eventful or fulfilling, in the UAW as an 89-day wonder once, and finally in the AFT as a teacher for well over a decade. It was only in the AFT that I experienced the professionalism and true benefits of being a "union" member (however in Texas we have no collective bargaining rights and are technically called a professional Association).

Again, I want to thank you for your explanation on you understanding of the worth/need of unions in a society. The degree and depth of unionism in a society will always be a bone of contention, so do NOT feel any need to defend your opinion any further than the acknowledgement that you shared to the need of a union's existence within society.

Thank you.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Dirt,
When you associated Tucker with the other editor's opinion, you fell into non sequitur logic.

From Wikipedia:
In a *non sequitur*, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

In other words, you basically said Tucker was full of crap because of Ms. Williams' comment about budgets. Tucker could, or could not, be full of "crap" but the quote from Williams has NOTHING to do with that possibility.

You posted it like this:

*Tucker is full of crap big time:
It has always amazed me that in most states and municipalities education is not a top item on budgets but is the first thing targeted when it comes to budget cuts.*


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky SAID: Mike, what religion am I advocating by using atheist and homosexuality in my examples? These are examples, nothing more nothing less. All i am saying is give students and parents a choice in where their kids are educated, such as with vouchers.

Rocky,
Point me to these several examples of:
1. atheist schools, and 
2. homosexuality schools.

*Questions*: How many are there? Which States have what type? How do you KNOW this?

IMO you are blowing smoke with these examples and nothing more. You are just driving your "I want the State to pay for my kids' religious indoctrination" right wing band wagon. *Pay for it YOURSELF*, just like you expect the poor and unemployed to pay for their own welfare and healthcare. Sure, you may have not said THAT on THIS thread, but you have said as much elsewhere on LJs in recent times. Just the same old Right wingnut mantra.

Recently in the OCCUPY thread Rocky SAID:
*So why is it so hard to get our collective decisions to reflect that consensus?*
Because there are so many of us that think a handout from the government is their "right".

Hmm?... is that hypocrisy that I smell on the grill? Hmm…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike - problem is the premise is not Tucker - the premise is that a claim that education is not in the top ten budget items is provably false…whether that statement was made by Tucker, Williams or you or I is irrelavant in the chain of logic that the FACT is education is typically the LARGEST single budget item.

That I attributed this to statement to Tucker does not make the argument that such a statement provably false a fallacy in logic.

Wrongly attributed and Illogical are not the same thing.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

In Mississippi, parents do have the right to educate their children as they see fit. It is quite easy to submit a plan, take your children out of public schools, and educate them that the sky is red, if that is what you want to do. However, if you do so, you have to do it on your own dime, as it should be. If the public is to pay for your child's education, then you have to allow them to be educated to a standard that is acceptable to that public. I, for one, would be madder than $%#% if I found out our tax dollars were being given to a parent to teach their children homosexuality or atheism. Both of these lifestyle choices are a matter of personal choice and have nothing at all to do with education.
I had to put that in, but that isn't why I'm back. I am back because I wanted to touch on yet another point I remembered reading earlier in this thread, something about how much money is put into private versus public schools.
I don't know if things are much different today, but this is my experience from growing up.
In early childhood I was put into a Catholic school. This is a long story and the beginning of my resentment of organized religion, but that is a whole other topic. Then later I was sent to public school where I stay until I graduated high school. From my experience, the belief that things are better in private schools is a load of crap (reminder, this is only from my personal experience). The private school I seen lacked the funding of the public schools. Public schools had the funding to get what was needed. Private schools had to either attract donors for funds or hit the parents up for more in the way of higher tuitions. 
Students, in general, did get better educations at the private school I went to versus the public school. Some people I have talked to in the past thought this was proof that, since the private school had less money to play with that this was an argument for decreased funding for public schools. I feel this was way off base. Since I seen first hand what was happening, I know for a fact that the money had nothing to do with the student performance.
There is actually several things I seen that made the private school, in my case, perform better.
The parents of the private school kids paid more attention to what their kids were learning and pushed them harder. After all, they were paying for it. A lot of parents at the public school did not push their kids to do better. It wasn't costing them much and they didn't care. These were the kids that also slowed down kids of the parents that did care. When you have overcrowded classrooms, then even one or two kids who refuse to get with the program slows down classes and effect many kids.
The public schools spent a larger percentage of the funding on buildings, buses, and things other than teachers. The private school paid their teachers better. I am not by no means saying anyone teaches for the money, but let's face it. More money sure makes it easier for a teacher to face the kids everyday with a smile. I think all teachers are underpaid, especially public school teachers.
Another thing is discipline. We won't even get into what constitutes good discipline and abuse. I will say that there was no way anyone wanted to get on the bad side of one of the nuns in the catholic school I went to. Therefore, even if you had a kid in a class there that couldn't give a rat's @$$ about learning, at least they sat quietly and didn't disturb the kids that did want to learn. Meanwhile, at the public school, lack of discipline could, and did, cause disturbances that distracted from even the best kid getting all he could from a class. Be honest with yourself. When there is a class clown putting on a good show, how many of us really paid no attention and give those books our undivided attention?


----------



## ArlinEastman (May 22, 2011)

Mike 
I just have a question for you and I believe you will give an honest answer.

It seems like the top 2 parties are merging in intrests and goals are going the same way, unless it is the total left or right. I see hardly any difference in parties anymore, just more of the same promises broken all the time.

It does seem the lower class of people want the governmemt to take care of them instead of making a living and supporting themselves.
If this keeps up we will be in a Socialist Society
Arlin


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

@ The Hon. Prof. Clark , ...that was much better Roger …..Just stay focused now ….you made it through 
several paragraphs without insulting anyone . I am very pleased…..I think you rehabilitation and character
recovery therapy is off to a good start . I can see you're not an apologist , by any means . ( and , to be clear
, I am* not* talking about an apology to me ) . You still don't see anything wrong with the joke you told , do you?
Except some blather about 'common' vs 'elitist' . We'll have to work on that in our next sensitivity session .
The way you quote my post , and then insert your little quips , is less borish than some , but still has that nice expatriated Yorkshire Man quality of yours. Happy engineering . Keep those coming 'matey .


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Seek professional counseling Mike…please get some help.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky,
That is why I am seeking for you to back up YOUR examples with some facts, especially FACTS about those schools for atheists and homosexuals.

;-)


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Arlin,
You have NOT asked any question, but have only stated your opinion. You have a right to your opinion, as do I.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Dirt,
You are now spinning and spinning. You are sounding very much like your lawyer buddy,... just D' Baiter, trying to keep ANY argument alive.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

William,
Thank you AGAIN for sharing your own personal experiences. IMO, they appear to support Tucker and Weast's observations in the article.
*If only Dirt and Rocky would ACTUALLY listen to YOUR experience* as they SEE THE COMPARISON of the "Why American Students Lag in Test Scores" article AND MY SUMMATION OF THAT ARTICLES OBSERVATIONS OF HIGH PERFORMING SCHOOLS IN OTHER COUNTIES.

Williams experience mirrors very closely the observations (not JUST recommendations) of other county's higher performing schools.
++For Dirt and Rocky, mirrors very closely may NOT mean EXACT, but it DOES mean nearly so.

*IN SUMMATION, the US should:
1. Set CLEAR and enforceable standards for student performance*

Me: While not an exact fit the message, while implied, is obviously present.

William: I will say that there was no way anyone wanted to get on the bad side of one of the nuns in the catholic school I went to. 
If the public is to pay for your child's education, then you have to allow them to be educated to a standard that is acceptable to that public.

*2. Have a CLEARLY defined curriculum for all grades/levels*

Me: An obvious negative when going for religious indoctrination.

William: In early childhood I was put into a Catholic school. This is a long story and the beginning of my resentment of organized religion
I, for one, would be madder than $%#% if I found out our tax dollars were being given to a parent to teach their children homosexuality or atheism.

*3. Spend MORE on the hardest to teach students and LESS on students who are most advantage*

William: The parents of the private school kids paid more attention to what their kids were learning and pushed them harder. After all, they were paying for it.

*4. Spend LESS on fancy school buildings, glossy four-color textbooks and intramural sports*

William: The public schools spent a larger percentage of the funding on buildings, buses, and things other than teachers.

*5. Spend MORE on paying and training teachers well*

William: The private school paid their teachers better. I am not by no means saying anyone teaches for the money, but let's face it. More money sure makes it easier for a teacher to face the kids everyday with a smile. I think all teachers are underpaid, especially public school teachers.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

No thanks needed Mike. You may have noticed I have deviated from my normal "observe quietly" on this matter. The reason is that the school systems are a major concern of mine. This nation as a whole has a lot of problems right now. Some of us (I, for one) know that our time on this earth is very limited. The future of this world, and this country, rests solely on the shoulders of our children. If we do not do something to make sure they get a quality education, then this country, and possibly the world, is doomed.
While you seem to have the ability to state my positions more clearly than I, you seem to be right on target in your last response to me. I, on the other hand, am a rambler. I talk freely of things I have a personal view of. I get my point across though by going the long way around. I state the said experiences and pretty much leave it open for some people to interpret it however they want. I have learned in life that people will draw their own conclusions to what I say no matter how I say it, so I may as well hang it out loosely and make it easier for them. 
So, in that response you gave to me, you brought up yet another point that needed saying. There are people who argue a lot about more money in schools not resulting in better educations for children. And they are 100% correct. There have been school systems all around the country that have been throwing good money after bad at the problem of poor education with little results. Hell, in some cases, the test scores (since that seems to be the only thing they look at these days) go down.
I think they are trying to oversimplify the situation though. I don't think the fact that they threw X amount of dollars at the problem without results is at all the end of that analysis. 
If we are to look at "X amount of dollars equalling to Y amount of percentage points up or down on average test scroes", we have to dig a little deeper and look at, not what school the money went to, but rather WHAT the money was spent on.
My son's junior high is a perfect example. I read the local newspaper. In our local newspaper, The Vicksburg Post, they do have budget breakdowns every year. If you read this information carefully, you can see how much the schools are getting each year in tax dollars. Our schools here are getting more and more tax dollars every year. However, if you pay attention to what is going on by watching and talking to kids and teachers, you also have to realize that while the schools are getting more money, the teachers are not getting raises. Raises for teachers here are at a standstill because of "budget concerns". Worse than that, they are openly doing everything they can to get rid of teachers. No, they aren't firing teachers. They make it hard to a point that certain teachers find positions elsewhere, and then they just don't refill those poistions, again, because of "budget concerns". So, where is the money going?
In my son's junior high school (yes, I finally made it back to there) while teachers are getting more and more understaffed with flatlined pay, the school did find the money to install some fancy electronic white boards. I made a call to the school district office. It took some wrangling to get an honest answer, but I finally got it. These things cost eight grand EACH. Just for my son's six classes (there's one in each class) that equals to forty eight thousand dollars. And they can't give a teacher a raise or replace some of the teachers that they technically ran off? All the fancy @$$ equipment and beatification of the schools that they want to do I don't think will do one single bit more good than a teacher pay raise would do. It has to be discouraging for a teacher who is barely surviving financially to see an eight thousand dollar piece of equipment put into their classroom when they can't get a raise.
Again, I'm a simple old country boy. After all the facts (or facts as I percieve them) are know, I believe in getting back to common sense solutions to problems. 
Common sense tells me that the money would be better spent on teacher's pay and training. Is this only my opinion? Yes, of course it is. Since schools seem to refuse to pay teachers fairly, my thinking that better teacher pay would help has never been tested. However, I do have a reason for my thinking. Please let me explain. 
I have done mechanic work most of my life. I compare pretty much everything to a high performance car for my analogies.
In schools, teachers are the engine that drives the education quality. Everything else is fluff. It's show. It's nice body work and ground effects. You can do whatever you want to a car body. You can dress it up and make it look plum pretty. You can add all kinds of niceties to it. Hell, you can even put you an eight thousand dollar white board across the back of it so you can use a little pad to write whatever you want on it. What do you do though to improve performance. How is all the dressing up going to do it? It won't. To get that performance edge, you are going to have to put some money into that engine. 
Back to those eight thousand dollar black boards, what do they do that an ordinary old blackboard couldn't do? Not one single thing, that's what. I spoke with one teacher (not at the school, a neighbor) who had this to say:
Blackboards served more pupose than people think. They saved the school system money. Chalk and erasers are a lot cheaper than electronics and technitions to work on those electronics. Also, I'd give my left ear to have some erasers to that kid who keeps throwing spit balls in my class so he can go out back and beat them out as punishment. Of course, the government won't allow me to punish him anymore. I have to try to teach around him.


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

Rocky:

*They should give that money to the parents and let them use it to educate their children as they see fit.

Stop the public (government) schools monopoly on primary and secondary education.*

So, my wife and I decided not to have kids. With your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for your kid and anyone else's education. The government should send me a check too. Right?

William,

*...I found out our tax dollars were being given to a parent to teach their children homosexuality or atheism. Both of these lifestyle choices are a matter of personal choice and have nothing at all to do with education.*

Homosexually is not a choice.

*Spend LESS on fancy school buildings, glossy four-color textbooks and intramural sports*

That is a rich community issue. The schools I've visited have decaying buildings, textbooks have to be shared, and limited extracurricular activities.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

RZH,
I apologize. You are correct. It is not my right to state homosexuality as a "choice". That is not the point I was trying to make. However, it was suggested (I think it was sort of tongue in cheek, but suggested nonetheless) that tax dollars be given for people to educate their kids with vouchers to schools of indoctrination for atheism or homosexuality. While using these examples, although homosexuality may not be a choice, it would be a choice to indoctrinate a child into believing it. 
I do not wish to offend. My only point is back to a simple fact that I believe is supported by the seperation of church and state. Certain things have no place in schools. Religion, or lack thereof, has no place in schools. Sexual preference (from a teaching standpoint) has no place in schools. I believe schools to be a place to educate. All other matters, in my opinion, should fall on the shoulders of parents.

Also, you are correct that if the government was to start giving away money for parents directly to educate their kids, then childless parents would also be entitled to money. This is part of my problem with government funded voucher ideas. In our current public funded schools systems, all of our tax dollars are going to a public institution that (in theory) will teach a public accepted curriculum that will be carried forth into society. The public funded voucher systems that I have heard suggested in the past would, on the other hand, put the course of study in the hands of each parent at will while basically robbing money from childless people.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Now this is much better. The hatred is lifting and the love is shining through I can relate to your concern about the circling coyotes, Mike; thankfully, I'm more of a ******************** hound myself


----------



## RZH (Nov 20, 2009)

*Also, you are correct that if the government was to start giving away money for parents directly to educate their kids, then childless parents would also be entitled to money.*

What about parents of grown children that have completed school. Should they be required to continue to finance other people's children?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ok, I am going to try this one more time here ladies and gents.

I am not debating the lag in studen test scores as Mike suggests in Post #223..I have not chimed in on that discussion..it does not interest me relative to this thread. I have not discussed any referenced article or book here.

All I am asking is why do we not consider allowing a mechanism such as vouchers to allow parents to send their children to the school of their choice.

I have only discussed "choice" and not grades and not religion and not any election.

We give food stamps to people and allow them to buy milk where they want, we give benefits to Medicaid and MEdicare recipients and allow them to get care from a doc of their choice, we give unemployment benefits to people and allow them to spend the money as they see fit, why could we not give vouchers to parents and let them send their kids to the school of their choosing?

The simple question I ask to those that object to this consideration is why??


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

+1 on Bertha's first two sentences on post #227.

How about a new thread on pros/cons of school choice? Probably would need to deal with the question of whether or not the government should subsidize education.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

Moment:
This is a brand new day and I for one, do not find it any benefit to continue to argue or have negative posts going back and forth, it is a waste of precious time.
There are many things posted here which I find either offensive or just bad taste, but I just let it go and don't go on a crusade over it.
If anything I have posted has infuriated anyone, then I accept my apologies with the understanding that I post what I think is funny, with no nasty thoughts about anyone.
Personally I get a little miffed when people spell my name wrong, but that's just a tiny thing not worth bothering about.
I'm a little puzzled at your Yorkshire comment, I have visited Yorkshire a few times, but I don't originate from anywhere near that place.
As for any titles, I am retired now and those are things of the past, which, although very complimentary and an attest my skills, are all but history now. 
I have learned that often, one must take a lot of things with a "pinch of salt", I see glaring engineering mistakes which are dangerous but to take them to task is a waste of time because a lot of people are simply not interested, so I bite my tongue often. Even on this thread, which has been transformed into an education debate, I find that charges back and forth are a side issue to what the real educational dilemma originates from, but there again, I bite my lip because the conversations do not address the root cause in reality IMO.

There has been enough back and forth between us, which is wasting our time and achieving nothing except bad feelings, so I suggest we shake hands like gentlemen and have this spat, a bump in the road.
I offer my hand in friendship and tolerance.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

The simple answer to the school voucher question is:

It will allow those with means to put their kids in the better schools, and doom those of lesser means to a cycle of poorer education, and lower income, until-that is-there are so few kids going to the weaker schools that the infrastructure totally falls apart, and former 7/11 cashiers are teaching.

To cite but ONE example: transportation. Buses couldn't run FROM every neighborhood, TO every school, so … the parents with the luxury of taking their kids to school … win, while those without that option … lose.

It's pretty much a Social Darwinism play.

If there's two things we should do, as a nation, to stop our downward spiral on the global competition stage, it's to make sure our workforce is educated and healthy.

Creating a permanent underclass (and then painting them all as lazy schmucks, perpetually begging for handouts) doesn't do very much to accomplish those goals.

Also, if it results in using taxpayer dollars for parochial education, that may be yet another Constitutional problem.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I like everyone on this thread. Rex, Moment, Mike, everyone. I actually really mean that. I can find something in each of you that resonates deeply with me, whether it's your politics or something else. There are some very intelligent folks here with messages I'd like to hear loud and clear; references provided that I'd like to review myself; and allegations that demand a bit of reflection. I love seeing two people I respect debate; I hate seeing two people I respect go at each other. However, I still find Chicken Buttlicker one of the finest monickers around Despite us not being responsible enough to have off-topic discussions (as others have alleged, lol), I find these threads both useful and entertaining. I won't advocate a group hug, as these are emotionally charged subjects, but I like to see that the ferocity is being toned down a few notches.

Best wishes to all this week; we're almost to the weekend


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^Oddly, Neil (and true to boot), there's a dude at my local 7-11 that could probably run the Country. I've never seen someone work this hard and he's as pleasant as the day is long. The bitter Republican in me wants to say cocaine or methamphetamine; the less conservative in me wants to say high-on-life. I must be in a good mood today because right now, I suspect the latter

edit: "Social Darwinism" that's a whole 'nother thread and it'd be a good one I was a molecular biologist before I was a woodworker, so it's a very difficult topic for me to discuss. I feel like I'm selling out my boy, Darwin, when I think about this, lol


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Neil, currently how do we keep folks from taking their unemployment money and giving it to their church or use their food stamps to buy food for the church picnic or use their Medicare benefits for a stay at a Catholic hospital?


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Scott: I consider that a secondary issue.

I consider the first issue I raised to be overwhelmingly more important.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

But … I'm currently being treated at National Jewish-an immunologic center with a worldwide reputation for excellence.

I'm Jewish, but … non-practicing, and … there's absolutely nothing "Jewish" about National Jewish, apart from its name.

I've received good care in "Catholic" hospitals too, where … largely … crosses on the wall were the only distinguishing characteristic.

I don't think the same can be said about parochial schools.

The analogy would be … if St. Luke's only treated illness with prayer, faith healing, and exorcisms. They don't. They subscribe to, and implement, evidence-based medicine, and follow current "standards of practice."

I think there's a legitimate distinction to be made there.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*The analogy would be … if St. Luke's only treated illness with prayer, faith healing, and exorcisms. They don't. They subscribe to, and implement, evidence-based medicine, and follow current "standards of practice."*

So would this apply to a parochial school if they only taught religion? They don't, they subscribe to teaching math and english and science, etc.

Is there a difference?


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

*Al*: SIGN HIM UP !!!

Although, "hard working-" like most single characteristics-ain't enough for me. The revered and beloved Ronald Reagan used to say, "Hard work never killed anybody, but … why take a chance ?" ;-)

Social Darwinism scares me. However you want to distinguish us from "lesser species," we ARE qualitatively different, and have little excuse to act as our primate ancestors once did. One of the benefits OF our evolution ought to be that we are capable of doing better by (notice I didn't say "perpetually providing for") the least among us.

We don't have to eat our young, our weak, our poor, our disadvantaged, or those whose upbringings-through NO fault of their own-have simply NOT prepared them for what I call "competent adulthood."

That, to me, IS a choice that we can make, as a society.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Scott:

The question cannot be answered so broadly. I don't have the facts about what they do and do not teach-which is part of the problem.

As a childless-by-choice couple, I DO pay for primary education benefits that I will NEVER use. I think a "free market" dictates that-if you want your kids to go to a school other than the one that your tax dollars pay for … you are free to send them there.

If I never call the cops, the fire department, or the sewer/water people in MY neighborhood, or stop by the local library, I still pay my bills, and … I pay them for what I call the "common good."

And if I want to stop off at Barnes & Noble to BUY a book, I may, but I'm not looking for the government to hand me a libraries voucher, instead.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Incidentally, if you've watched all the stories, recently, on the for-profit college and universities that have recently come in vogue, there are HUGE problems surrounding them, the inability of THEIR grads to find work, the milking of the student loan programs BY them, the aggressive marketing tactics they're using to suck in students (particularly military), etc., etc., etc.

The notion that private sector does something inherently well, while government does it inherently poorly … isn't often true, and doesn't SEEM to be true in the world of education, either.

But that "free-market" approach, which gave rise TO these for-profit colleges and universities, DOES confer "choice" to its consumers. I just don't know how we, societally, are seeing any benefit from it. Looks like it's going the other way, right now.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^yeah, Neil, that's where it gets sketchy with me and my boy, Darwin. 'Kind of a stone's throw from eugenics, definitely some scary stuff. I'm still down with the pea pods, though I guess I object to the expression, but like an internet meme, once it's out there, either something more outrageous must supplant it, or it must die on its own, lol Competent adulthood is a drag. I got the adult part by default; it's that pesky competence that's so elusive

Come get some, Neil!










goodness, I can't stop laughing after stumbling on that picture, huge lol


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

I got a Galapagos tortoise that could *whip the snot* out of THAT old geezer


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Geeze, Neil, this is sounding kinda socialistic:
The notion that private sector does something inherently well, while government does it inherently poorly … isn't often true.
I think you could attract a larger portion of the political spectrum to that point if you were to use always instead of often.

Oh, and I've got a state governor that'll be happy to shoot some holes in Bertha's old geezer while he is out for a jog. He might even shoot some of those cyotes circling Mike earlier.

Never mind. Pointless post.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Greg: okay. Fair point.

It's just an oversimplification to vilify one, and demonize the other. There are endless examples of private sector corporate failures, and reasonable examples of public sector successes.

Part of the problem is … if/since the public sector organizations are NOT judged by the same metric-profit-as the private sector, it's much more difficult to define their successes.

Is there waste in the US Military ? I'd bet. Tons, probably. But … is our nation's military the mightiest in the world ? By all measures … yeah-even if they have NOT transitioned, fully, to the task of fighting the current "enemy," rather than the classic "Cold War" model.

But people who compare-por exemplo-UPS and FedEx to the USPS are comparing apples to oranges, for dozens of good and relevant reasons.

I don't advocate that every poor person be given a $60,000 SUV, but … there's a reasonable argument to be made that-as in nearly every other developed nation-a first-rate education, adequate nutrition, a roof over one's head, and good medical care inure to the "public good," and HELP nations, economically, over time.

The problem with the labels (eg, Socialism) is that people don't recognize the BILLION miles, and TRILLION discrete points, BETWEEN "free-market" (ie, unfettered) Capitalism and Socialism.

It's an all/nothing, black/white fallacy that doesn't help the dialogue … IMHO.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

OhByTheWay: maybe it's time I launch a grenade ;-)

I find that many people "need" to have labels for things and people. I think neat little packages make life simpler for those people who need them.

Personally, I think they're destructive, and tend to end productive conversations.

A couple studies I found fascinating:

LINK1

LINK2

[the study can easily be found elsewhere, for those who hate Wikipedia, as a source]

Like many things in life, I would characterize these proposed differences as "interesting," rather than one being "better" and the other "worse." I can see pieces of life in which each might be greatly beneficial, and in which both might be equally important.

Discuss amongst yourselves ;-)


----------



## steviep (Feb 25, 2011)

I am a "Bertha-Conservative". I like small government AND Horizontal-Mike~!

Anybody that wins the deer vs motorcycle fight is OK in my book!!


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Neil, I'm a research engineer, and oversimplifications cause me a lot of frustration.

If I had a point it would be that small changes in word choice can make the difference in whether a statement is helping to identify common ground or whether it is flame bait. It just struck me that that particular word choice - not ever true, not often true, not often false, not ever false - manages to span the political spectrum from libertarian to communist. It seems to me that it is, in fact, a continuum conecting one to the other, which is pretty much what you said. And the noble purpose of politics is to find a happy compromise. The all/nothing black/white fallacy is the real enemy to good governance. IMHO, that is.

Violent agreement, it appears.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Does anyone ever "win" the deer-motorcycle fight? Seems to me the best you can do in that situation is hope for minimal losses.


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

@ Roger…........agreed , and accepted . Truce . We all have those times when…............







art by J W Johnson


----------



## steviep (Feb 25, 2011)

Greg, if you have any days above dirt after the fight, You've won!! lol


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

OH….Snap Neil! Next you know the rich will actually be financing scientific research to see if they can CONVERT the DEMs into REPS using gene therapy! For those who recognize fear = wink, wink, nod. ;-)


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Wasn't it Einstien that said something about making things as simple as possible - but no simpler?

Labels make things simple, and sometimes you really need to see the simple picture.

Other times everything is in the details.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Stevie SAID: Anybody that wins the deer vs motorcycle fight is OK in my book!!

And I have done that more than once!


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Neil, my amygdala is yooooooge! In fact, it's so big that I grew a 2nd one:










And Neil, my good man, regarding link 2. Clearly there must be a "limitations of the study" section because they asked a liberal to respond when they saw the letter "W"! Huge lol!!!

I'm a StevieP-conservative, I like small government, HorizontalMike, deer, and motorcycles. Hell, I even like Neil and he's a deadhead hippy who likes precision measuring tools


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

StevieP - all the days that I have without having that fight seem like wins to me! Where I ride (Houston) it isn't the deer that are likely to pick a fight with me. Yesterday was a first, though; a bicyclist came close to broadsiding me. I probably would have "won" that fight, but I'm relieved it got cancelled.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

So Mike, how often do you take your Harley deer hunting?


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

*Al*: I always assumed that you couldn't buy your trousers, off the rack ;-)

Remember when Clinton left office, and his WH staffers (silly, silly move) removed all the "W's" from the keyboards ? ;-)


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

And … the deer/motorcycle thing is hugely scary.

On my Beemer, I mounted ….

two Hella fog lights, aimed straight, and
two Cibie "cornering" lights, in criss-cross alignment … JUST to catch a glimpse of Bambi in the trees, or along-side the roadway.










I met a guy who bashed his Honda into a deer. Neither was okay.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

For those that need to know, at ANY given point of time:

*75% of the American population do NOT have kids in school
25% Actively HAVE kids in school*

And THIS is why I say that parental involvement via complaints of service or for favors for *their* kid (to the school board, Principal, Teachers, News Media, etc.) *IS OVER-REPRESENTED.*

Yes, parental input is important, however there is WAY TOO MUCH of it. And I can tell you from MY OWN personal experience in my classroom as a teacher and in office as a Principal, the vast majority of these kinds of complaints/favor-requests come from the financially well off. The poor, as Neil points out very well, do not have the resources or the formal education to be unhappy with their child's school. The reason being is that just by HAVING their kids in school is progress in their eyes.

That said, the other points made about the poor continuing to spiral downward when vouchers rob public schools of funding is dead on correct. Last night, on the PBS Newshour I believe, there was a report on the Anderson School system in Indiana on JUST THAT topic. Vouchers ARE hurting public education. It pained me dearly to continue to see the local public school officials continuing to try and put a positive spin on it, because there is nothing that they can do to change their current funding picture. The private "choice" schools were even cherry-picking the best students from the public schools via targeted mailouts. Those private schools readily admitted that they exclude (legally) students with ANY special needs (ON camera). They claim (selectively) that they "...do not have the facilities to serve the special needs of the student." The thing that pisses me off the most about this broadcast is that I grew up 30 miles from Anderson, Indiana and it breaks my heart to see the destruction of the education system in America so close to "Home."

Having been a Principal in a private Charter School in Texas, I know just how much the controlling corporation siphon's off the top. There were times when my CEO and Supt. would not even buy ******************** paper for the bathrooms, yet they threw a lavish Christmas party in Dallas and brought in ALL the administrators(but NOT their spouses) from all over the State to attend. And of course, all of the Central Office Administrators AND their Staff all had THEIR spouses in attendance. It made me sick…


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Beener SAID: Remember when Clinton left office, and his WH staffers (silly, silly move) removed all the "W's" from the keyboards ? ;-)

Too, too, toooooo bad they missed that Big "W" sitting near the keyboard in the Oval Office! *;-)*


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I can't bite my toungue one more second.
I read almost every word of every political thread on Lumberjocks. I wil not go to deeply into my political beliefs besides to say that I am NOT a democrat. I am NOT a republican. I am, always have been, and always will be an AMERICAN.
Now, something I notice in every political thread here and in every political "discussion" (in quotations because these discussions always lean towards the side of arguments) I notice a few key words when discussing American politics.
Democrat.
Republican.
Liberal.
Communist.
Socialist.
Hell, I even read part of one post this morning (right her on Lumberjocks) that went WAAAAAAY out there and put Obama and Hitler in the same sentence comparatively.
I promise I am getting to a point.
This country will start to get on the right road (my opinions friends, only my opinions) when, and only when, we as a country realize that we can (YES WE CAN) have political discussions without them turning into arguments. We are all in this together, good or bad. It doesn't matter which political party you may or may not claim to be part of. It's time we all realize and recognize that certain members of both and all parties sold us down the river long time ago. The only way we can get it back on track is to stand up as a nation and scream (yes, SCREAM) HELL NO, we won't take it any more. 
We must demand of our public officials to use some common sense and do what is best for this country as a whole. Forget the next election until the next election. Forget the lobbyist's money, ban those $#$%. If a government official does not do what they're supposed to do, we need to do what Americans are supposed to do, vote their @$$ out!
I understand that this is not a quick and easy answer. We have went so far down the slippery slope (from democrat and republican presidents) that there are no quick and easy answers. It took us years to get here and will take us years to get back. Until people start to wake up and learn what is going on though, we are screwed. 
How does this relate to the school discussion that I was participating in earlier? It relates to it because the school systems as a whole don't teach out kids to be good citizens any more. It is our jobs as adults, parents, community leaders to teach our youth these things. When I was in school here in Mississippi, we were required to take a class called Civics. This class taught things such as how government works, civic responsibilities and duties, and (GASP!) ETHICS (and yes, that is in fact a jab back to the original topic that started this thread).
Anyway, back on track.
I pray to God everyday that we can keep this country as a Constitutional Republic (which is what we're supposed to be, not a democracy) for the sake of my own kids. However, if we do slide the opposite direction into what would fall under these labels that people like to throw around so much, such as socialism or communism, then it will ultimately be by the will of the people. We vote these people into office. We have the ability to vote them out. If we go as far as to elect someone who can and will turn this country completely socialist, it is because we voted for them as a majority and allowed them to stay there without enough resistance. We are people damned it, not sheep. I know. I know. Then there are people who will hollow far and wide, "I didn't vote them in. I didn't vote". Not voting, IS VOTING. It is a vote that you don't care what happens to you. If that is your position, then fine. Sit at home on election day and don't worry about it then.
My point is though that if this country turns socialist (let's use that one since it seems the most popular these days), then it is because we continually vote in socialist leaning leaders. It seems that so many people think Obama is going to turn us into socialist people. This brings me to my next point.
Obama can do little to turn this into a socialist country. He is the preseident. He is the figure head. However, in the grand scheme of things, he is a small fish in a big pond. He is but one single cog in the giant wheel we have as our government. Our government has checks and balances. We will only become a nation of socialists if we vote in enough people, in the white house, in the senate, and in the house, that form enough majority for us to ge there. While I do not agree with 99% of what Obama reads from the teleprompter, he is not to blame for every issue in America. We do not have a king in this country. We have a group of people that make up our government, not just one person.
You want someone to blame?
Blame every past president, congressman, and senator for years now. They have put into place a school system (among many other things) that has dumbed down our society to the point that we as a nation cannot ee the forest for the trees. We nitpick over every little thing instead of looking at the big picture of, well, ANYTHING! 
What we need is leaders in this country with some common sense. The problem is that it is our job to put them there. This means we must start to learn. We cannot do so if we are at each other's throats and acting too childish to have down to earth, intellegent, common sense discussions about pretty much any issue.
Common sense my friends.
I'll say it again though. Common sense isn't too common these days.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Dag 'namit William, there goes *Godwin's Law* The "H" word snuck in! *;-)*

*Godwin's law* (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 19902 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion-regardless of topic or scope-someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Why is it Neil you can afford a motorcycle and I can't? You should pay more taxes so I don't feel bad about myself for not having a motorcycle.

It isn't fair and i want justice.

There is no telling the great things motorcycle disadvantaged citizens could achieve if we all only had a motorcycle.

I feel bad all the time seeing you enjoy your motorcycle while I only have my truck to drive.

And you have one of those expensve Beemer motorcycles. If one day I am fortunate to buy a used Honda I will think you are an elitist because you have a better brand of bike.

I know you probably worked hard to buy the motorcycle or a rich parent bought it for you but since I have neither, what am i to do?

I want the government to force you to let me ride your motorcycle 3.5 days a week. Of course you get to pay for all the gas and the maintenance and the insurance.

I think that is only fair, don't you Neil?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

And YES, William we ALL need to get out there and vote!

BTW, Ohio voted DOWN/Rejected SB5 by nearly a two to one margin! SB5 would have stripped more than 350,000 public workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I had never read that before Mike. I'm glad I know. Now you make me wish I hadn't snuck it in and will make every effort to not do it in the future. In my defence though, I was only pointing to the ridiculousness I seen on another thread this morning.
By the way. I have become way more involved in this discussion than I said I ever would on Lumberjock. It is because I felt we were finally haveing a discussion, not an argument. I am always up for a political DISCUSSION. The problem is I seldome get that chance since it has usually already turned to an argument by the time I even put my two cents in. 
This, by the way, was the point of my previous rant. We, as a people, need to quit the bickering (we start sounding like American lawmakers). We need to at least be willing to have calm, intelligent discussions if we are ever to find solutions to problems. However, I feel one of the deepest problems we have in American today is not the class warfare we hear so much about from talking heads on TV, but rather political warfare that happens every time someone mentions politics.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Awww, Scott.

I find the sarcasm to be as counter-productive as the name-calling, the generalizations, the personal attacks, and the logical fallacies.

The answer to your non-question question is … if they have to raise my taxes a bit, to be sure that the least among us has a better shot at the American dream, then-while I can only wish, hope, and pray that they spend that money wisely-I'm NOT categorically opposed to kicking in a few more bucks.

Which means I'm not a hypocrite.

As a former Corporate VP, I also have WAY too much first-hand knowledge of the unethical, and outright criminal behavior of most of the people to whom I reported, in my career, and who-to the person-all became millionaires as a result.

And I didn't work for Capone, or Ken Lay, Madoff, or Blankfein, or any other "horrible people." I simply worked for people who did everything they could, in pursuit of IPO riches, and hoped to heaven that they wouldn't get caught.

And I have no problem in extrapolating from the rather large sample size OF MY personal experience, and the experience of my colleagues across the country, TO executives, across this country, and generalizing that many of them probably acted similarly, on THEIR way to vast riches.

Which makes it a lot easier for me to look toward them, than it is to look toward the poorest among us, FOR those extra few bucks, WHILE we cut spending … in reasonable ways.

And … yes …. my unwillingness to participate directly IN the unethical behavior (wasn't in a position to quit, sadly) cost ME my shot at the big bag of gold, so … alas … I'm a humble middle-classer


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*I'm NOT categorically opposed to kicking in a few more bucks*.

At what level beyond a "few more bucks" will you become categorically opposed?


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

I'll let you know, when I get there.

It will probably be when-as we're looking at, right now-I'm paying more than double the rate of the wealthiest Americans.

It's also a question-like so many others-that cannot be answered (at least, not by me) in isolation. There are a billion variables to a budget, to taxation, and to spending. My willingness to dig deeper into my own pockets-like many others-varies, based on the budget.

In economics-speak, I like more butter, and less guns. Not literally, but … it's an old econ curve.

But I'm still not there.

What do you make of this:










The argument about CapGains is that it should spur investment.

But … what if it doesn't, in fact, affect investment in any meaningful way ?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Wow the capital gains tax rate is way too high. It should be dropped to a max of 10%.

How do we get that done right away?


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

Wouldn't a better question be … why would we ?

What would the goal be, and-based on evidence-what would it accomplish ?


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

Equal Time Rule is back !!



!

!



!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Neil, you might be surprised how I really feel about federal taxes.

I would like to see something like the following:

Flat deduction for each person….say for example $20k per adult and $10k per child.
Deduct 401K savings
Pay a flat percentage..somewhere around 30% - 35% for FIT,FED MED and FED OAADI
All income all sources including Cap Gains

This is how I see fair.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

I don't have access to even a fraction of the data that would be needed for me to model the impact of the changes that you-or anybody else-proposes.

Meaning: I'm at the mercy of the "non-partisan" tax policy analysis folks to model it out for me.

But I wish I COULD plug your proposal into a gigantic spreadsheet, and see what effect it WOULD have.

Sincerely


----------



## S4S (Jan 22, 2011)

Woodinheaven , Her top ten reasons for voting for the Govenor . Let's face it, he has great hair .


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I am just searching for fair and simple.

The tax code is out of hand.

I want something where we can implement and everyone can shut-up about it for awhile.

But I have to admit I am an advocate of a balanced budget constitutional amendment and a flat tax for corporations that wipes out the lobbying industry.

Flat. Fair. Easy.


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

If memory serves, the Tax Code is up to over 72,000 pages.

I do tend to think that there's something fundamentally wrong with that, and … most advocates of smaller government seem to agree.

It's also the reason that … in a lifetime of weekends … even WITH all the data … trying to model out a budget, based ON the current system of taxation … is in the hands of the very few.

And … I ain't one of them


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

Woodinheaven, this is what I meant by educating out youth. Kids need to learn things that are not being taught in schools anymore. I have to teach my kids to get news from several sources and digest the information. I tell them that the internet is a great tool. Look up past history on canididates and issues. Don't just go by what you see on a sign or bumper sticker. I understand also that it isn't just the kids. That's why I felt s compelled to say some of the things I did. It probably will be taken like a fart in a whirlwind, but I figured it was worth a shot anyway.
Obama is a good example. 
Obama was elected by a majority vote. I have talked to so many people who voted for him simply because of what he said on TV. Few (VERY few) could look me in the face and tell me they knew one single thing about his past voting history. This was a man who was in fact a senator. All anyone had to do was to look at his past voting history and they could have seen EXACTLY where he would have stood as president. I don't give a rat's

```
$$ what he SAID he would do. Actions speak louder than words.<br />Political correctness played a roll as well. Pollitical correctness can kiss my fat
```
$$. I'm an American. I am proud and to be able to say what I want, when I want, and in what tone I want. Yes,I try to do things respectfully, but sometimes us Americans have no choice but to stand up and shout we are american. We didn't get to where we are by bowing down to pansy @$$es. What I mean by political correctness playing a role in that election is this. 
You would not believe the people I have talked to who said they voted for him because he was black and they did not wish to appear racist. WHAT?! Do they not realize that voting for him because he was black *IS* racist? I don't care if he was white, black, yellow, or purple. What about his beliefs? What about his policies? What about where he stood on major issues? All a lot of people knew was two things, yes we can, and that Bush had done a crappy job too. And by the way, he did. 
The problem was that the republican side blew it as well. While I didn't agree with all of Cain's positions, I was at one time fully prepared to vote for him. That was before he found one of the biggest whack jobs he could find as a running mate. This is what I'm talking about. We are being shoveled crap because a majority of people do not demand more. Instead we focus on which political party to defend (at all costs) and which one to trash (no matter how much sense they make). 
I came to this by a conversation I had with a seventeen year old kid I talked to the other day. He is a friend of one of my sons. From listening in on a few conversations around here, he knew I was very political minded and (I think) just wanted to sneak in how proud he was that next year he would be able to vote. I think this was great. So he started up a political discussion with me. Then he started telling me how he planned on voting. The damned primaries aren't even over and this kid knows how he wants to vote, on ALL issues. In his uninformed mind, since he thinks he leans republican, he proudly proclaimed that he would step into the voter booth in 2012 and mark republican for every issue and every candidate. I was floored. I think he was more floored when I started out my response by saying he was a blithering idiot.
Don't worry. I didn't leave it simply by calling him names. I quickly turned my shock into an opportunity to educate the boy. I didn't tell him how or who to vote, but I did educate him on listening to the issues, checking facts versus opinions and sound bites. I informed him that he can vote outside party lines. Somewhere in the conversation he told me proudly that he had been getting ALL his views from Fox news. I had to walk away and have a cigarette on that one. The point is, that this kid knew no better. Someone had to start him on the right path. 
I found out later that he has an absent father. His mother is never around. The school isn't teaching him all this. In the end, the boy shook my hand and asked is he could come back if he had any questios or just needed advice. Of course he can. This is where it has to start, one moldable mind at a time.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

William SAID:
I quickly turned my shock into an opportunity to educate the boy. I didn't tell him how or who to vote, but I did educate him on listening to the issues, checking facts versus opinions and sound bites. I informed him that he can vote outside party lines. Somewhere in the conversation he told me proudly that he had been getting ALL his views from Fox news. I had to walk away and have a cigarette on that one. The point is, that this kid knew no better. Someone had to start him on the right path.

And THAT is why we should spend MORE on the poorest kids in the education system and NOT allow it to be spent on religious isolationism, social isolationism, financial isolationism, etc. on *Schools of Choice*. IMO, to do that is nothing more than when America had WHITE schools and BLACK schools prior to about 1960. I remember those times. It is the same methodology today , but only slightly reworded in order to misinform the public about its true dangers and/or intent.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

1960?, I was part of the Bussing experience in 1971 in Abbeville Louisiana. What a not so fond memory.

crap now I think i need a drink

Funny that some of the stiffest opposition to bussing was in Boston, not just the whole "Bull Conner South"


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

woodinheaven SAID: Are the poorest kids the dumb ones? Just a question, I don't have the facts.

Without the appropriate resources, then yes they were/are, more often than not. Please remember that the kids of the poor had the least educated parents who could least afford to spend extra time with those kids to help them succeed and THAT also required that the parents KNEW what the children needed to learn.

Do note that THAT will NOT stop some individual from claiming that HE alone outwitted the smart kids and adults and learned despite ALL obstacles placed in front of him. An individual outlier does NOT change the fact that most, or nearly all poor receive a much worse educational opportunity than the well off kids do, and as a result there are indeed as you say more/most "dumb" or dumber students than their more privileged peers.

To take that a step further, it is my contention that the party who cries the loudest about expenditures on public education is hell bent on keeping as many folks uneducated as possible in order to prey upon their uneducated vulnerabilities with misleading information and campaign slogans. It does not take a rocket scientist to look this up on the Internet, so feel free to check this out.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

As for the poor kids being the dumbest, not in all circumstances. Now if you want to rephrase that to, "are the poor kids the ones who have to fight like hell and go to greater lengths to get to same quality of educations so that the next three generations don't stay dumb too", then the answer to that would be a resounding YES!


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

Oh, and my last statement comes from a guy who, although he is not college educated, but did finish high school. He done so by working over forty hours a week the last three years of high school. If not, he was going to have to drop out. He got sick if seeing his Grandmother struggle to take care of three kids that were her grandchildren because his father was too busy chasing women and whiskey.
He graduated with honors. He had a full scholarship. So why couldn't he afford to go to college? Well, when you come from a broken home and still feel a duty to a grandmother and two younger siblings still in school, and you have a choice between flipping burgers for a few more years to pay for travel, housing and food cost for four years of college, or roofing houses for $33 a square (and good enough to lay three square and hour on a straight run roof), well, the money that you need and they money you don't have all of a sudden make hard choices a little more simple to make. Please realize I didn't say the decision was easy (tears were shed), only simpler.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Woodinheaven, you may find this discussion on education interesting. Not completely in sync with your question, but interesting nonetheless.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=aaFAUeftTKs


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

William, that is why I acknowledged the outlier, or rare individual who DID/DOES overcome the odds of growing up in a poor education system. My point was that the vast majority of the poor fail much, much more often than their richer counterparts who have greater resources at home and in their private schools.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

but Mike, this individual did not overcome the odds. The end result of all this is someone who worked their @$$ off just to finish high school so they could go to college, then be denied that chance at college because of life's circumstances, work his butt off all his life, fighting every step of the way to stay just a tiny bit ahead. It is, in essence, a prime example of why some poor people, like the guy who was the example of this, always stay in the same situation they grew up in. Then that guy gets to a position where he thinks he's doing well, is raising kids. He thinks he's doing great, until life knocks him down so much that he feels he'll never be able to pull himself up enough to even feel like a man again. Of course, with only a high school education, options are very limited. So what does he do? he fights a continuous fight for his own kids who are fighting to get a decent education with dreams that one of them will pul themselves out of the giant circle and move forward in life. 
This is the sad fact of the matter Mike. A lot of these individuals that seem to pull themselves up never really go anywhere. They just spin their wheels until one day they finally appreciate all the sacrifices their grandmother (or father, mother, whoever) made for them. Of course, it's usually too late to tell that person that, since usually that person that worked so hard to do the right thing has been kicked down so many times that, by this point in the game, that great person is pushing up daisies.
I heard it all my life, and except for the very rare story (you know, the kind movies are made of), the old saying always holds true.
The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. 
In that saying though, it doesn't mentionthe middle class though, does it?
Middle class? What is that? I don't know anymore. I know that the guy in my example once thought he was there.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

woodinheaven,
You can start with about post #122 in order to answer your question(s), though I would warn you that someone may object with that and insist on you starting elsewhere. There are those on this thread who are more concerned about defeating my position/opinion than they are concerned about ANYTHING that has to do with education.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

how to handle funding? Well I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think we can start with common sense handling of certain situations. 
Let's take a situation….............
Hey, I know, No Child Left Behind.
It should be called, by the way, "no teacher is allowed to stay behind to catch you child up because if he falls behind he is screwed". 
Funding is tied directly to test scores of standardized test and the improvement, or lack thereof, of the average test scores of a school. In other words, if a school is doing well, they get good funding. If a school improves, they get better funding. If a school does worse than before, they are threatened with having their funding cut off. I know that there is more to it than that. I'm talking about the main point of it that I know of. 
So certain schools don't fail certain kids anymore. They pass them on but classify them as a certain grade level on standardized tests and then simply teach that test. If the child doesn't understand the mateial one year? TOO BAD! They move on and start teaching next years test scores. Now of course I'm using one of my kids who is in special education programs as an example. He is now in the sixth grade, reading at a fourth grade level. He is up to date on math. I am good at math and helped him with that. I, and the teacher, has no say in this plan though. This is the way it is because it's all tied to funding. I'm not making that up, this is EXACTLY what I was told when I went to the school board wanting an alternate plan. 
The problem with all this is he is so far behind on certain subject (pretty much everything but math) that he'll never catch up. He's going to wind up like two of my older kids (who I went through this same mess from the day the law was passed) who graduated high school with a junior high education. 
So what would I like to see happen? I'd like to see the funding NOT attached to the test scores alone so that my child can stay in the fourth grade where he belongs. By the way, I do have doctor's statements in writing that this is a child that has the mental capabilities of a fourth grader at this time anyway. Instead, he is lost as hell in a junior high where he begs me not to send him every day. I talked to the superintendant about it. He told me that all junior high kids adjust at different levels. He couldn't give a rat's @$$ about the letters from doctors in front of him about this child's mental capabilities. I don't fault the man completely though. He does have to keep funding for the other kids after all. It doesn't make it any more fair though.

This is only one example. No Child Left Behind is a complete and drastic failure as a policy when it comes to funding. It needs to be abandoned. This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of every teacher, parent, and school administrator I've ever gotten to talk with me honestly about it. Will it? That remains to be seen. 
Once again, common sense isn't too common these days.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*No Child Left Behind(NCLB) is a complete and drastic failure as a policy when it comes to funding. It needs to be abandoned.*

And finally, finally, finally, finally, finally, FINALLY States are being allowed to opt OUT of NCLB under an Executive Order by President Obama. This finally allows schools to get out from under the *UNFUNDED* mandate known as No Child Left Behind signed by "W" Bush. This, in my professional PhD in Educational Leadership positions as teacher and Principal, was the single most destructive thing ever done to education.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

All I have to say to that Mike, at the risk of offending some people, is AMEN!

EDIT

I was not aware of this by the way. If I don't find it before you can get back to me, do you have a link to where I can print out some more info on this Executive Order. I need the ammo for the next time NCLB is given to me as an excuse from the school system. We have some pretty well meaning administrators, but I do live in Mississippi, I'm not sure they are even aware of this.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

Mike, what is the second most destructive thing?
I say it is lack of the ability or willingness to discipline school kids. Last year, at the high school here, we had a prime example of this. A child (17 year old) struck a teacher. The teacher grabbed a stool that she was sitting on and held it in front of her as a barrier, or protecion. She never threatened the child or came at him with the chair. She only held it in front of her. I believe these event to be true because I have talked personally with four different kids that were in the class and told me the same story. The kid got three days detention. The teacher got fired for taking forceful actions against a student. I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs if a teacher has to essentially be scared of their own safety at the risk of losing their jobs. 
I don't see how in the world teachers do their jobs these days. I really don't. I have been to the school on multiple occasions and seen teachers trying their very best to teach a class as if nothing was happening while a student was clowning, horseplaying, and downright demanding the attention away from the teacher, to the point of blatant disrespect for nothing more than shock value. 
The sad thing is that I feel this one is purely on the shoulder's of parents. My child does not, and will not, act this way. How do I know this for a fact? All their teachers know that all they have to do is make a phone call and me or my wife will come to the school. It only took one instance of one of my children doing the class clown bit and me being called. After that, and the fact that child told all his siblings the embarrassment he felt when I walked into that classroom and made him apologize to that teacher, none of my other children have cared to do anything but respect their teachers.
There are cases where me and a teacher will butt heads on certain matters though. This year, when we went to the school to meet the teachers, my thrid grade child answered the teacher at first with yes ma'am and no ma'am, just as I have raised my kids to do. The teacher made a point of telling this third grade child (of mine) that they were all friends in that class and that he would be calling her by her first name and that they didn't use "ma'am" and "sir" in her class. As far as I know, this is a well liked teacher by both parents and kids, but I'm afraid I made apoint to have my child moved to a different class. She has the right to not instill respect in children. It is her class. In high school or college, I might have overlooked it. For a third grader though, I felt that it would turn into a conflict between this teacher, and the values I'm trying to instill in my children.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Here you go William.

*The first* is WHAT NCLB has been like for the past nearly decade.

*The second* clip is about Obama's executive order, when it was announced.

To all others: This is obvious a Left interpretation/observation but is based in FACT.






Obama Orders Changes to 'No Child Left Behind' (Aug. 8, 2011)


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

Thank you Mike.
I think we still are going to have problems in Missisippi for a while. The state as a whole seems to embrace the NCLB as gospel, that it will save our schools. Mention George Bush to some of these administrators and their eyes light up and they look up to heaven as if he was a God. Excuse my sacrcasm. I'm sure, I hope you realize I am exaggerating for the sake of making a point. 
I am sick of the right versus left crap. If I had the dough I think I would run for president under a new party, the AMERICAN PARTY. Of course I'm being sarcastic again. It is time though that we leave the left, leave the right, and meet in the middle to fix our nation's problems.
That's what I like about Mike. Even when he presents a view that is completely opposite of my own, he usually does it respectfully and backs it up with sources where I can start to read up n it myself. Without me even being in the discussion, he has even changed my mind on a few issues. See? That's what we need in this country. We need people to be open for change, even if it means changing your mind. Just because your favorite party says something does not mean you have to believe it yourself or defend it. If we do not do this, we wil still be fighting these silly, childish blame games as our country crumbles around us.


----------

