Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[lineygoblue]

I guess its true that a President can shape a country's laws. Obama has already replaced two supreme court justices, and will likely appoint Scalia's replacement.

Republicans will grumble about basically anyone that Obama sends up, but in the end, they'll give him who he wants. McCain is still in the Senate, after all.

[Da Geezer]

CGVT:

I really recommend the movie, Waiting for Superman. It is produced by the guy who did An Inconvenient Truth (and the now released Malada). It deals with the poverty question emphasized in the New Yorker article from a liberal's perspective by following 4 poor inner-city kids through the early years of their education. I cried when I first viewed the movie.

I spent 16 years as a Board President at an inner city school. What goes unsaid is that the "Black Grandmother" should replace Hamilton as the face on the ten dollar bill. The inner city is a patriarchial society. The author has it exactly correct in saying that educating black boys is the core of the problem. Grandmas are the most practical way to discipline most boys, or at least get their attention. Political correctness does not allow us to verbalize the problem, and when you cannot name something, you cannot fix it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Ford: John Paul Stevens (1975)
Carter: None
Reagan: Sandra Day O'Connor (1981)
Reagan: William Rehnquist (1986) (Promotion to Chief Justice)
Reagan: Antonin Scalia (1986)
Reagan: Anthony Kennedy (1988)
Bush I: David Souter (1990)
Bush I: Clarence Thomas (1991)
Clinton: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993)
Clinton: Stephen Breyer (1994)
Bush II: John Roberts (2005)
Bush II: Samuel Alito (2006)
Obama: Sonia Sotomayor (2009)
Obama: Elena Kagan (2010)
Obama: ???

[UMStan White]

Scalia is dead. What a great liberating day for America!

CGVT: what a great article to bring some perspective to Geezer's consistent teacher and union bashing posts.

[UMStan White]

Great article about Scalia's legacy and why I believe we area better nation without him

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/stephen-henderson/2016/02/13/moments-defined-scalia-and-should-define-legacy/80355476/

[Mike]

Amen!

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ CGVT: what a great article to bring some perspective to Geezer's consistent teacher and union bashing posts.

Spot on........ you freaking, anti-war, long hair liberal. Heh.

I'm with Doc Hodgemen on his passage. I came to M in '66. I was ambivalent to the US involvement in SE Asia at the time while there were many at M fervently and some violently protesting against it.

I went on, after graduation, to serve in Vietnam, carried a conservative political bent for decades. Since then, I've become much more liberal, much more anti-war, much more concerned about the corporate exploitation of labor and about both world-wide and US national poverty that expanding corporatism is helping to facilitate.

[Da Geezer]

The most unbiased treatment of SC nominations during the last year of a Presidency that I could find:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

[Mike]

Yeah, using the election as an excuse to not confirm a nominee is pretty weak.

[Da Geezer]

I agree, Mike. Scalia was confirmed 98-0, and I believe Kennedy was close to unanimous also.

[Da Geezer]

Scalia is dead. What a great liberating day for America!

C'mon Stan, how about letting his body get cold first.

[Mike]

Why? Will that make him a good person all of a sudden?

[Da Geezer]

CGVT: what a great article to bring some perspective to Geezer's consistent teacher and union bashing posts.

Well, I guess an editorial by the New Yorker's Columbia-centric book critic under "Culture" gets uniform praise around here.

At first blush let's consider the statement:

In the real world, however, highly unionized areas of the country, such as the Northeast, produce students with scores higher than the national average in (sic) standardized tests; the Deep South, where union teachers are more scarce, produces scores that are lower. So unions alone can hardly be the problem.

I challenge anyone to find an article on the internet or a post in this forum, that claims that "...unions alone.." are the source of the problems in education. This is a classic "straw man" argument. Set up a position that no one could rationally hold, and then beat the heck out of it so the uninformed will think you made a good argument. This is not only a straw man, but it contradicts most of what I think is generally a good article.

Vermont, NH, Maine, and much of the NE part of this country is lily white. The Southern states are not. As Denby says in the rest of the editorial, race and poverty are much more significant predictors of educational outcomes. Notice that in a magazine called The New Yorker, this Columbia grad and NYC resident avoids comparisons involving NYC to the South.

Why is it that Progressives, including Denby, have such a blind spot when it comes to teachers unions? I believe it has to do with the fact that those unions contribute more to the Democrat Party that the next 10 contributors combined? And this does not include the "in kind" contributions nor does it consider the indoctrination in government schools that produce the Bernie Sanders' Youth whose guiding principle seems to be "gimme more free shit!".

And the solution, as always, is more money. Instead of spending three times as much per student as other industrial countries, we would get better results if we spent four times as much. By any definition, this is insanity.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Public figures are fair game, IMO.

This graphic demonstrates how unparalleled it would be for the Republicans to delay any nomination until 2017 at the earliest

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well, I guess an editorial by the New Yorker's Columbia-centric book critic under "Culture" gets uniform praise around here.

At first blush let's consider the statement:



I challenge anyone to find an article on the internet or a post in this forum, that claims that "...unions alone.." are the source of the problems in education. This is a classic "straw man" argument. Set up a position that no one could rationally hold, and then beat the heck out of it so the uninformed will think you made a good argument. This is not only a straw man, but it contradicts most of what I think is generally a good article.
Vermont, NH, Maine, and much of the NE part of this country is lily white. The Southern states are not. As Denby says in the rest of the editorial, race and poverty are much more significant predictors of educational outcomes. Notice that in a magazine called The New Yorker, this Columbia grad and NYC resident avoids comparisons involving NYC to the South.

Why is it that Progressives, including Denby, have such a blind spot, when it comes to teachers unions. I believe it has to do with the fact that those unions contribute more to the Democrat Party that the next 10 contributors combined? And this does not include the "in kind" contributions nor does it consider the indoctrination in government schools that produce the Bernie Sanders' Youth whose guiding principle seems to be "gimme more free shit!".

And the solution, as always, is more money. Instead of spending three times as much per student as other industrial countries, we would get better results if we spent four times as much. By any definition, this is insanity.

So your solution is that teachers should make about $28,000 a year (because what they do barely qualifies as real work in your view) and just sit back and watch educational standards soar?