Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think this would be a good project for Fox. You already have a bought-and-paid-for openly conservative, no-pretence to neutrality, anti-big-government-unless-its-us television network. Why not use it for good?

2. it would have to be fox. If it were CBS or ABC people might assume the stories were made up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The job protection is enshrined in law. That was what Arnold was trying to change with his proposition. The taxpayers did not get some quid pro quo for this job protection, the Teachers Unions paid for some legislators and they got the law passed.

Now districts can't fire teachers unless they rape or kill a student.

These protections were not in lieu of a pay increase.

How come you answered the question I asked sebby but not the one I asked you?

Someone I know worked for a while at a private university outside California. If you were a secretary, you could make more working for the downtown law firms, but you knew that you would have job security and an easier workload at the university. I suppose you could tell me that this is incontrovertable proof that the California teachers unions were at work there, too, but I would suggest instead that public schools share incentives and constraints relative to other employers that will lead them to offer lower pay but better job security and other protections.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think this would be a good project for Fox. You already have a bought-and-paid-for openly conservative, no-pretence to neutrality, anti-big-government-unless-its-us television network. Why not use it for good?

Agreed. But the bastards supported that silly fucking war with double fisted gusto. Ailes ain't neutral in the least. Fox helped destroy the Republican party.

Ailes has a special seat in hell waiting for his fat, nasty ass.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How come you answered the question I asked sebby but not the one I asked you?

Someone I know worked for a while at a private university outside California. If you were a secretary, you could make more working for the downtown law firms, but you knew that you would have job security and an easier workload at the university. I suppose you could tell me that this is incontrovertable proof that the California teachers unions were at work there, too, but I would suggest instead that public schools share incentives and constraints relative to other employers that will lead them to offer lower pay but better job security and other protections.

I think you are right that some of the appeal of being a teacher is job security. But, in my opinion, that does not attract the right kind of people. I would prefer higher pay and less job security. And this is what I don't get about the California Teachers Association. Why not just demand higher pay instead of all this other stuff. Why don't they say that 75% of the money goes to the class room and the increase from 61% to 75% all has to go to teacher salaries. I think the problem with that is that the CTA includes all sorts of "other educators" whose jobs would get cut if this happened. But I don't really know. But for some reason the CTA protects the bureacracy.

I have the same issue with other Unions. I don't mind when unions ask for better wages or better benefits. But when they demand things like more job security or ways to make their job easier, that is when they pose a problem. And when they get involved in politics, it is always about "saving jobs" which translates into protecting the incompetant or inefficient. Whenver Unions talk about protecting jobs, either the taxpayer or the consumer or both is getting screwed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Agreed. But the bastards supported that silly fucking war with double fisted gusto. Ailes ain't neutral in the least. Fox helped destroy the Republican party.

Ailes has a special seat in hell waiting for his fat, nasty ass.

Are you blaming him for an expected defeat ('cause I try not to count those chickens) or saying the R party, regardless of what happens next week, has been destroyed?

Whichever it is, doesn't some of that blame reside with Hastert, Frist, Lott, Bush, Cheney, Rove and the other beltway boys? And if you are going to blame the media, isn't Fox just a bastard child of talk radio?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why not just demand higher pay instead of all this other stuff.

The way it usually works is the school district says, we don't have the money to pay you any more than X. It just can't be done. We can't raise more money through property taxes, and the state won't give us any more. The money doesn't exist. We know you deserve more. Can we give you Y and Z instead?

This is what local control and property tax limitations are all about.

And those Ys and Zs just keep piling up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Are you blaming him for an expected defeat ('cause I try not to count those chickens) or saying the R party, regardless of what happens next week, has been destroyed?

Whichever it is, doesn't some of that blame reside with Hastert, Frist, Lott, Bush, Cheney, Rove and the other beltway boys? And if you are going to blame the media, isn't Fox just a bastard child of talk radio?

Fox helped to polarize the nation, and make the people you cite think they could get away with spending more money than the crazy left wing Democrat. Fox cheerled that war more than any other station.

Talk radio didn't have the pictures on it, which Cletus and Mabel really liked.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are right that some of the appeal of being a teacher is job security. But, in my opinion, that does not attract the right kind of people. I would prefer higher pay and less job security.

Well, I agree. I'd like a pony, too. But the government is likely to face constant pressure to spend less on teacher salaries and will find it relatively easy to offer job security, relative to private employers.

And this is what I don't get about the California Teachers Association. Why not just demand higher pay instead of all this other stuff. Why don't they say that 75% of the money goes to the class room and the increase from 61% to 75% all has to go to teacher salaries. I think the problem with that is that the CTA includes all sorts of "other educators" whose jobs would get cut if this happened. But I don't really know.

If they're so powerful, why don't they just get more money spent on them?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The way it usually works is the school district says, we don't have the money to pay you any more than X. It just can't be done. We can't raise more money through property taxes, and the state won't give us any more. The money doesn't exist. We know you deserve more. Can we give you Y and Z instead?

This is what local control and property tax limitations are all about.

And those Ys and Zs just keep piling up.

That is not how it works, because as I said before, the job protection comes through state law. The districts are bound by these rules and are therefore not in a position to grant them or take them away.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Talk radio didn't have the pictures on it, which Cletus and Mabel really liked.

Yep, them moving pictures are powerful stuff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is not how it works, because as I said before, the job protection comes through state law. The districts are bound by these rules and are therefore not in a position to grant them or take them away.

If it's the civil service requirements you're concerned with, as opposed to the union contracts, the way you get those is you watch Newt and Tom hire all their buddies and treat public institutions as fiefdoms. Then you realize it's a bad idea and come up with laws that keep politicians from screwing around with the bulk of public employees.

Yes, I'd expect Rs to complain about laws like these. Unfortunately, some people take advantage.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sometimes, but that's irrelevant.

The problem is not so much how the initiatives are initially written, but the process by which they are passed. In a legislative process, you can compromise, make changes, work problems out in committee, etc. In an initiative process, it's a simple yes or no.

The other problem is that voters consistently misunderstand the initiatives. And big surprise -- they are complicated, voters don't devote much time to them, etc. And, of course, the debate is dominated by huge advertising campaigns that twist the truth.

If Three Strikes had gone through the legislative process, its application to non-violent crimes might have been eliminated, or changed. At the very least, it would have been discussed, and addressing that issue without tossing the entire measure would at least have been an option. In the initiative process, no such options exist.

I think you give the legislature far too much credit.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you give the legislature far too much credit.

Not really. But I don't give the voters who elected them any more credit, and the leg has a better process available to it.

[sgtclub]

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypo...10/post_42.php

• For the first time since before Watergate, the New York Times endorsed no Republicans for election to Congress this year.
  

Ty, what is the market justification for this?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypo...10/post_42.php

• For the first time since before Watergate, the New York Times endorsed no Republicans for election to Congress this year.
  

Ty, what is the market justification for this?

The better to ensure the Time's friends in Al Qaeda's ultimate victoury. Also, higher taxes in the interim. Win win for the Ds.