Obama's "reaction" to Iran's civilian slayings.

[IDBillzFan]

The best indicator of how much we currently value education in America is the ****ty wages we pay our teachers. Unless you can somehow force good people into the profession, any reduction in incentive (like removing tenure) will likely only have a negative affect on the overall quality of teachers. It's easy to focus on those who abuse any system, but there are also good tenured teachers who might be doing something else if not for the job security.

Typical liberal response: "But tenure keeps the good teachers. They just need more money!"

 

If tenure and mediocre wages were such a blueprint for success, why don't you see it in the private sector? Because it's a blueprint for failure. Case in point: our freaking educational system.

 

Tenure primarily retains pussies who don't have the nutsack to try and earn a better wage because it would mean leaving the security of their jobs. Period. Drop tenure, increase wages, and find a voucher system that works. The fastest way to fix our education problems is through competition. Do that and you'll not only keep your good teachers, but you'll weed out the bad ones because more people will actually WANT to teach.

 

The only "upside" to tenure is it keeps those NEA contributions rolling in. Period.

[Gene Frenkle]

Typical liberal response: "But tenure keeps the good teachers. They just need more money!"

 

If tenure and mediocre wages were such a blueprint for success, why don't you see it in the private sector? Because it's a blueprint for failure. Case in point: our freaking educational system.

 

Tenure primarily retains pussies who don't have the nutsack to try and earn a better wage because it would mean leaving the security of their jobs. Period. Drop tenure, increase wages, and find a voucher system that works. The fastest way to fix our education problems is through competition. Do that and you'll not only keep your good teachers, but you'll weed out the bad ones because more people will actually WANT to teach.

 

The only "upside" to tenure is it keeps those NEA contributions rolling in. Period.

Well, no ****. Basic supply/demand says that both tenure and good wages are valuable incentives. You need to increase wages (see raise taxes) if you remove tenure just to break even.

 

Typical neo-con response: "Just spend more money!" You can't spend your way out of everything, LABillz.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Iranian protests

 

 

 

Video

I included the video because it's important to see the heartless and passionless manner in which our commander in chief delivers his lip service.

 

Here's the text with my comments in blue.

Before I leave, let me also briefly (briefly? Oh absolutely, sorry you had to be pulled off of the Hawaiian links over such trivial matters as an "isolated extremest" attempting to blow up an airliner on Christmas and innocent civilian protesters being gunned down by their own government in the streets of Teheran) address the events that have taken place over the last few days in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran would suffice, we realize they're Islamic.). The United States joins with the international community (I'm so glad that we are joiners God forbid we act like leaders and do anything unilaterally) in strongly condemning (We have verbal condemnation, and that is a good thing. ) the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death.

 

For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days.(Yeah, if you're going to kill freedom loving citizens in the streets, it's much more appropriate to do it on an average weekday.)And each time that has happened, the world has watched with deep admiration for the courage and the conviction of the Iranian people who are part of Iran's great and enduring civilization. (We're getting very civilized video footage out of Iran these days but very polite of you to pay the country a compliment.)

 

What's taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country.(It's not? Is that what Ronald Reagan would say or even Bush 1 or 2?) It's about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away.

 

As I said in Oslo, it's telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. (You're no JFK buddy.)

 

Along with all free nations, the United States stands with those who seek their universal rights. We call upon the Iranian government to abide by the international obligations (like discontinuing their uranium enrichment and missile test firings?) that it has to respect the rights of its own people. (Or what???)

 

We call for the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran. We will continue to bear witness to the extraordinary events that are taking place there.(Now that may be the first honest statement to come out of your mouth in the past two years. I firmly believe that all you will do is stand back and watch.) And I'm confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice. (There you have it, fight the power people, die in the streets, and history will be on your side. Move along, nothing to see here.)

 

What weak comments by a very weak and small man. This guy wouldn't recognize an opportunity for true greatness if it slapped him in the face.

 

 

You'll go cross-eyed trying to think straight? That's probably right.

 

BLZ said that Obama's speech about the failed suicide bomber was a "missed opportunity for greatness." Given the fact that this would-be terrorist lit his balls on fire unsuccessfully trying to blow up a plane, color me skeptical that this was a moment where greatness could be seized.

So you see somewhere in this Obama gave a speech on the suicide bomber?

Remarkable selective reading.

[Chef Jim]

Well, no ****. Basic supply/demand says that both tenure and good wages are valuable incentives. You need to increase wages (see raise taxes) if you remove tenure just to break even.

 

Typical neo-con response: "Just spend more money!" You can't spend your way out of everything, LABillz.

 

Why are both of you saying more money is the answer? According to the data below more money doesn't help.

 

According to the California Department of Education (source 2) the average per pupil expense for the 07-08 school year was $8,594. This puts California just below the national average of around $9,000 per student, and well below states like New York and New Jersey who average around $12,000 per student.

 

As for other countries who are rated higher educationally than the United States:

 

 

Korea (ranked 1st in scientific literacy and 2nd in mathematic literacy): spends around $4500 per student for primary education and $6500 per student for secondary education.

Japan (1st in mathematical literacy and 2nd in scientific literacy): spends around $6700 per student for primary education and around $8000 per student for secondary education.

Finland (1st in reading literacy and 3rd in scientific literacy): around $5500 per student for primary education and around $7000 per student for secondary education.

New Zealand (3rd in reading literacy and 3rd in mathematical literacy) around $5000 per student for primary education and around $6000 per student for secondary education

[John Adams]

The best indicator of how much we currently value education in America is the ****ty wages we pay our teachers. Unless you can somehow force good people into the profession, any reduction in incentive (like removing tenure) will likely only have a negative affect on the overall quality of teachers. It's easy to focus on those who abuse any system, but there are also good tenured teachers who might be doing something else if not for the job security.

 

Myth.

 

Teacher average pay is 40-50K nationwide. That's with killer benefits including boatloads of vacation. If someone is any good, they can find a job in a better school district and make a lot more than that.

 

It's a pretty decent wage considering that the people who go into it are not the best and brightest, for the most part.

[Gene Frenkle]

Myth.

 

Teacher average pay is 40-50K nationwide. That's with killer benefits including boatloads of vacation. If someone is any good, they can find a job in a better school district and make a lot more than that.

 

It's a pretty decent wage considering that the people who go into it are not the best and brightest, for the most part.

40-50K is not that good a wage considering you need a Masters Degree to get a teaching position in most states. The point is, we should be trying to attract the best and brightest to teach our children if we say we value education.

 

Those who can do, those who can't teach...

[Chef Jim]

40-50K is not that good a wage considering you need a Masters Degree to get a teaching position in most states. The point is, we should be trying to attract the best and brightest to teach our children if we say we value education.

 

Those who can do, those who can't teach...

 

45-50k for working nine months a year? Not bad if you ask me.

[Gene Frenkle]

45-50k for working nine months a year? Not bad if you ask me.

Then why aren't you teaching?

[IDBillzFan]

Well, no ****. Basic supply/demand says that both tenure and good wages are valuable incentives. You need to increase wages (see raise taxes) if you remove tenure just to break even.

 

Typical neo-con response: "Just spend more money!" You can't spend your way out of everything, LABillz.

You have the reading comprehension of a gnat.

 

With vouchers, I can supplement my tax contributions with personal funds to put my child in a school of my choice; a school that will now pay THEIR teachers MORE than a public school. There's no need to raise taxes because the extra funds are coming out of MY pocket. If a school has better teachers and offerings, they charge more money. Charge more money ---> pay more to teachers. Pay more to teachers ---> attract better teachers.

 

Look at this way: you want to go out for a steak? Fine. You can go to Golden Corral if you consider that your gig, OR you can spend MORE and get a better meal at, say, Morton's, a place that pays its staff more than the Golden Corral does, and can afford to because it's customers PAY MORE for their offerings...offerings that far exceed anything you'll find at the Golden Corral Friday Night Surf-n-Turf Spectacular.

 

See how that works?

 

Probably not. That kind of thing involves the private sector, and competition, and profits, and I think we all know a hardcore lib like yourself has no room for that kind of thinking. To say nothing of the fact that it would blow up tenure AND the NEA, and the left can't live without its unions, so let's just agree that "all is well in the world of education." Because apparently education is the one thing where "the status quo" is acceptable.

[Gene Frenkle]

You have the reading comprehension of a gnat.

 

With vouchers, I can supplement my tax contributions with personal funds to put my child in a school of my choice; a school that will now pay THEIR teachers MORE than a public school. There's no need to raise taxes because the extra funds are coming out of MY pocket. If a school has better teachers and offerings, they charge more money. Charge more money ---> pay more to teachers. Pay more to teachers ---> attract better teachers.

 

Look at this way: you want to go out for a steak? Fine. You can go to Golden Corral if you consider that your gig, OR you can spend MORE and get a better meal at, say, Morton's, a place that pays its staff more than the Golden Corral does, and can afford to because it's customers PAY MORE for their offerings...offerings that far exceed anything you'll find at the Golden Corral Friday Night Surf-n-Turf Spectacular.

 

See how that works?

 

Probably not. That kind of thing involves the private sector, and competition, and profits, and I think we all know a hardcore lib like yourself has no room for that kind of thinking. To say nothing of the fact that it would blow up tenure AND the NEA, and the left can't live without its unions, so let's just agree that "all is well in the world of education." Because apparently education is the one thing where "the status quo" is acceptable.

!@#$ public education, got it. At least you're consistent.

[Chef Jim]

Then why aren't you teaching?

 

Because I've chosen a profession that pays me a lot more. However when I was a chef I would have killed for 40-50K working 9 months out of the year instead of 50k working 12 months with one week off and an average of 70 hours a week. I have two sisters who teach in the NY schools and they seem to be doing just nicely financially and have several older relatives that have retired from the industry and had great retirements.

[IDBillzFan]

!@#$ public education, got it. At least you're consistent.

Big surprise that what I was explaining not only made no sense to you, but made your nominal ability to think come to a screeching halt.

 

C'mon, Geno. Converse with me. Why do you interpret what I'm saying as "!@#$ public education?" C'mon. You can do it. First time is tough, I know, but c'mon. You've got to at least try. Think, man.

[Alaska Darin]

The best indicator of how much we currently value education in America is the ****ty wages we pay our teachers. Unless you can somehow force good people into the profession, any reduction in incentive (like removing tenure) will likely only have a negative affect on the overall quality of teachers. It's easy to focus on those who abuse any system, but there are also good tenured teachers who might be doing something else if not for the job security.

The teacher's union is thankful to you for continuing to repeat a bankrupt argument.

[The Big Cat]

It's a pretty decent wage considering that the people who go into it are not the best and brightest, for the most part.

 

Okay, so what's a decent wage for the best and the brightest? Isn't that the argument here? Why settle for just appeasing the so-called less-than qualified?

[/dev/null]

Okay, so what's a decent wage for the best and the brightest? Isn't that the argument here? Why settle for just appeasing the so-called less-than qualified?

 

about tree-fitty

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

40-50K is not that good a wage considering you need a Masters Degree to get a teaching position in most states. The point is, we should be trying to attract the best and brightest to teach our children if we say we value education.

 

Those who can do, those who can't teach...

 

WTF are you talking about, toolbox? You don't need a masters to find a job in most states. HELL, many states are opening up teaching jobs to people with bachelor's degrees in fields OTHER than education to fill jobs.

 

And teachers make an incredible wage when you factor in that they are contractually obligated to only work 180 days a year.

[Chef Jim]

Okay, so what's a decent wage for the best and the brightest? Isn't that the argument here? Why settle for just appeasing the so-called less-than qualified?

 

Best and brightest? We're talking glorified baby sitters here for the most part not Harvard professors.

[John Adams]

40-50K is not that good a wage considering you need a Masters Degree to get a teaching position in most states. The point is, we should be trying to attract the best and brightest to teach our children if we say we value education.

 

Those who can do, those who can't teach...

 

What--do you think a Master's Degree entitles you to something? A Masters in Education is High School part 2. A 2 year degree any C student in the world can get.

 

And Chef Jim, you're being generous. The average teacher works nothing close to 9 months a year.

[John Adams]

Big surprise that what I was explaining not only made no sense to you, but made your nominal ability to think come to a screeching halt.

 

C'mon, Geno. Converse with me. Why do you interpret what I'm saying as "!@#$ public education?" C'mon. You can do it. First time is tough, I know, but c'mon. You've got to at least try. Think, man.

 

I'm good with $%^# public education. It's a disgrace. The more alternatives the government encourages (by doing things like vouchers), the better.

 

I would live in a cardboard box under a bridge and live off food stamps before sending my child to a public school and let the unmotivated norm teach her whatever the trend-of-the-day is.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm good with $%^# public education. It's a disgrace. The more alternatives the government encourages (by doing things like vouchers), the better.

 

I would live in a cardboard box under a bridge and live off food stamps before sending my child to a public school and let the unmotivated norm teach her whatever the trend-of-the-day is.

The thing I find most interesting is that the very people who cry and whine that a voucher plan will kill public schools can't understand why conservatives cry and whine that a government-run public insurance option with a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds will kill private insurance companies. When it's private sector, it's basically "Well, those greedy bastards deserve it," but when it's the NEA it's like "You're gonna !@#$ public education....and lose all the good teachers!"

 

The government could earn big points from me if they'd do three things right now: stop pulling money out of my pay for social security, stop the health care reform abortion currently barrelling through the Senate (which will likely be the final bill) and try other non-intrusive options first, and give me a voucher to apply my education taxes toward a private school.

 

On the other hand, this government could care less if it earns big points from me.