CNN with employees who have held depictions of Trumps severed head and have called him a piece of s*** and have been caught on tape calling their own narratives untrue, and The New York Times which has sponsored and continues to defend public depictions of Trumps murder are now really mad and upset that Trump tweeted a video of him beating up the CNN logo from some old WWE appearance or something.
You have to balk at the double standards whatever you believe in. NYT claims his tweet "creates an enviornment that risks harassment and even attack"
Obviously, this doesn't apply to themselves and their own violent depictions the left media creates and supports.
CNN with employees who have held depictions of Trumps severed head and have called him a piece of s*** and have been caught on tape calling their own narratives untrue, and The New York Times which has sponsored and continues to defend public depictions of Trumps murder are now really mad and upset that Trump tweeted a video of him beating up the CNN logo from some old WWE appearance or something.
You have to balk at the double standards whatever you believe in. NYT claims his tweet "creates an enviornment that risks harassment and even attack"
Obviously, this doesn't apply to themselves and their own violent depictions the left media creates and supports.
Maybe we should dig up William Shakespeare's bones and put them on trial for writing Julius Caesar in 1599. And as of yet, no one on this forum has uttered a word about Trump's tweet this morning. But it's possible those saying that "it's just a dumb tweet, get over it, no big deal" might want to think about the fact that Donald Trump is a 71-year old man who is in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth with access to nuclear weapons, and he is behaving like a 20-year old shitlord on 4chan. ANY parent posting here would punish their child for doing what Donald Trump does on a daily basis. Let's put it this way: If Donald Trump was posting in this thread, @semiticgod would have had to ban him by now.
As for Kathy Griffin, I believe she was fired within 12 hours, and Reza Azlan was ALSO nearly immediately fired (even though his statement is 110% correct). Before that, Kathy Griffin did the ball drop in Times Square with Anderson Cooper for 3 hours a year. I mean hell, I HATE CNN, I just hate them for completely different reasons than Trump supporters.
By the way, the guy who made that little video Trump tweeted this morning?? Here is some of his other work, astutely pointing out how many Jews work at CNN. I know, I know. It's all an ironic joke. Cartoon frogs and MAGA hats all around. Spare me:
Most all of the verified twitter journalist world agree retweets do not equal an endorsement of everything that account has ever said or done. Trump is not some anti jew guy, clearly.
Most all of the verified twitter journalist world agree retweets do not equal an endorsement of everything that account has ever said or done. Trump is not some anti jew guy, clearly.
No, probably not personally. He is just more than happy to swim in those waters. Because a single visit to any pro-Trump or Alt-right Youtube comment section, Reddit, or 4chan will reveal not just hundreds, but THOUSANDS of comments of what can only be described as eliminationist rhetoric about Jews, Muslims, liberals, African-Americans, feminists, and the entire LGBT community. The most overlooked part of Trump's base is this anti-PC movement that morphed from Gamergate to a full-blown internet brigade of white nationalists who hide behind everything they say by writing it off as irony and meme culture. I'm not sitting in a bubble avoiding this stuff. I watch some of the more tolerable ones on Youtube. The people who make alot of the videos themselves don't usually cross these lines. But the people who WATCH these videos and comment on them have completely gone off the deep end. And it's impossible to criticize them, because, again, the minute you do, it becomes a joke, irony, or trolling. And I've already stated dozens of times how I think this excuse is bullshit. But more importantly, Trump himself, the President of the United States, seems plugged into this straight-up fascist movement that has developed online.
Look at it this way: you are fairly convinced that the GOP congressman was shot because of rhetoric on the left. I'm saying it's a matter of WHEN not IF that someone takes a shot a members of the media.
Most all of the verified twitter journalist world agree retweets do not equal an endorsement of everything that account has ever said or done. Trump is not some anti jew guy, clearly.
Debatable given his friend Bannon. When Bannon went after Kushner Trump told them to get along and has kept Bannon around. He's also defended and kept around Gorka. At best Trump is good friends with racists, sexists and anti-Semites.
Let's be fair: you can disagree with your friends. I'm pretty liberal across the board and one of my friends is extremely vocal about his disgust for the American left. Yet I'm still friends with him, despite thinking his politics are backwards. I just don't talk politics with him much.
If Donald Trump was posting in this thread, @semiticgod would have had to ban him by now.
Theoretically, if Trump were to join the forum, he might not necessarily be banned. We make those decisions strictly on whether the user is violating the Site Rules, and it's entirely possible that Trump would act within them if he somehow took an interest in BG. Trump would receive the exact same treatment as any other user of this forum.
But yes, many of his tweets, if they were posted here, would violate the Site Rules against personal attacks and flaming. It's with a mix of pride and shame that I say this forum has higher standards for respect and personal dignity than the current administration.
Would it be against site rules to suggest that Trump and his supporters seem to suffer from literacy issues? As an SEN teacher I would like to offer some suggestions:
1) When you refer to more than one of a thing it is called a plural. In English this is commonly (but not always) denoted by adding an "s" to the end of the noun.
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
3) There is another book called a "thesaurus". This gives you lots of alternative words you could use, so you don't need to get by on a vocabulary of 200.
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
They were too busy making sure that no teachers could lose their jobs regardless of their effectiveness. Real improvements to the educational system might have cost them the teachers' union votes...
If Republicans wanted the nice guy, they would have voted Jeb. The reason why the right preferred Trump The Fighter over Jeb The Nice Guy is clear to me. It's safe to say that Trump attacks more than any President in recent memory. It's also safe to say that Trump is attacked more than any President in recent memory.
If I could put it in a single sentance, its that Republicans are tired of feeling lied about and wanted one who was unapologetic and unafraid of pushing back.
Trump doesn't have fawning mainstream media coverage pushing his agenda and covering his behind the way democrats do. They have Fox News and now Breitbart. The left has CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CBS, WaPo, NPR, Salon, nearly every single celebrity, and overwhelmed in the faculty of academic institutions.
Republicans know every time they will be outflanked in terms of getting their message out because the important institutions lean left, and most importanly all the ones typically considered centrist or moderate which they certainly are not.
So when a guy comes along who can hijack the narrative and put everyone on defense by a few tweets and who isn't afraid of bad press enough to not punch back it was only natural those masses who felt their opinions were underrepresented flocked to his campaign.
The information age doesn't allow the traditional forms of soft censorship to be effective anymore so I expect more of these political insurgencies or I expect more internet censorship. Just can't make people go away anymore.
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
They were too busy making sure that no teachers could lose their jobs regardless of their effectiveness. Real improvements to the educational system might have cost them the teachers' union votes...
As a son of two teachers, there is little I hate more than these kind of baseless attacks against teachers, as if they are the problem with American education. I personally went with my dad on trips to school supply outlets where he spent his own money, out of pocket, to make sure his classroom was ready and that kids whose parents may not have read, purchased what was on the list, or couldn't purchase what was on the list, had what they needed. We did this every year for nearly a decade. A good teacher can change a life, a mediocre teacher may be forgettable, and a bad one has very little effect on anything at all. These people get paid, for the most part, jack shit, for essentially not only trying to teach your children, but also babysit them for 7-8 hours a day, Then they go home and grade papers. The myth that they get 3 months off is a joke, as they are in their classrooms for two weeks before school starts putting together lesson plans and for two weeks afterwards wrapping things up. It's a symptom of right-wing propaganda and a kind of bankruptcy of our national mood that somehow TEACHERS, of all people, have become some of out most maligned and hated professionals. If a kid is failing in school, it is almost ALWAYS the fault of the parent for not taking the time or instilling the values of education in their child, or the fact that many of our schools are, despite popular belief to the contrary, criminally underfunded, and that we have a standardized testing system (implemented by George W Bush) that is nothing more than a boondoggle for the companies that write the tests, and is a massive detriment to actual education.
Teachers also despise parent/teacher conferences as much as any parent out there, because it is really nothing more than a gauntlet of people who think their child is the light of the world who can do no wrong asking or berating you "why aren't you doing enough for my kid??", ignoring the fact that they likely have 30 other kids to worry about in an over-crowded classrooms. The right doesn't want to hear it, but we don't spend nearly enough on education, and teachers should be paid at least 50% more than they are. As for tenure, which was the original subject here, you aren't just granted tenure for teaching Spanish for two years, you have to earn it, and it takes an average of 7 years to achieve.
In retrospect, I am glad I spent the last week more focused on Hour of Devastation spoilers ahead of this weekend's prerelease events.
This NPR article described Gorsuch's voting record on the Court thus far as being quite conservative (as if that were going to be a surprise to anyone) but the real news in it is more evidence that Justice Kennedy is thinking of retiring. In years past, he has hired his clerks for the upcoming year (SCOTUS years begin in October) by now but this year he has not; he also let applicants know that he was considering retiring. Wild, baseless speculation is that Ginsberg might not serve for the remainder of Trump's Administration, either.
Old and busted: trying to introduce measures to impeach Trump. New and improved: trying to use the 25th Amendment to have Trump declared unfit to serve as President. The 25th is usually invoked when the current President is undergoing surgery. I would offer the same advice to people seeking this route that I did with those seeking old-fashioned impeachment: don't do it. Even if you get the measure introduced and you somehow manage to get Congress to convene the commission who will rule on Trump's physical and mental fitness, the commission will find him fit, after which you will be on Trump's enemy list (presuming you weren't there already). Not only that, if the Republicans retain control of Congress but a Democrat wins the White House in 2020 guess what will happen? That is correct--hearings will begin immediately after being sworn in to find some impeachable offense or they will also try to use the 25th Amendment as a weapon in ways it was not intended to be used. You don't have to like him, just suck it up like the rest of us have to and wait until he is gone.
After seeing no meaningful progress towards impeachment over the past 6 months, I think the entire issue depends solely on the midterms. If the Democratic party gains a majority in the midterms, which is unlikely, then I'd wager they'd find a way to remove Trump from office, putting Pence in power.
If the Democratic party remains the minority, however, there is virtually nothing Trump could do that could get him impeached.
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
They were too busy making sure that no teachers could lose their jobs regardless of their effectiveness. Real improvements to the educational system might have cost them the teachers' union votes...
As a son of two teachers, there is little I hate more than these kind of baseless attacks against teachers, as if they are the problem with American education. I personally went with my dad on trips to school supply outlets where he spent his own money, out of pocket, to make sure his classroom was ready and that kids whose parents may not have read, purchased what was on the list, or couldn't purchase what was on the list, had what they needed. We did this every year for nearly a decade. A good teacher can change a life, a mediocre teacher may be forgettable, and a bad one has very little effect on anything at all. These people get paid, for the most part, jack shit, for essentially not only trying to teach your children, but also babysit them for 7-8 hours a day, Then they go home and grade papers. The myth that they get 3 months off is a joke, as they are in their classrooms for two weeks before school starts putting together lesson plans and for two weeks afterwards wrapping things up. It's a symptom of right-wing propaganda and a kind of bankruptcy of our national mood that somehow TEACHERS, of all people, have become some of out most maligned and hated professionals. If a kid is failing in school, it is almost ALWAYS the fault of the parent for not taking the time or instilling the values of education in their child, or the fact that many of our schools are, despite popular belief to the contrary, criminally underfunded, and that we have a standardized testing system (implemented by George W Bush) that is nothing more than a boondoggle for the companies that write the tests, and is a massive detriment to actual education.
Teachers also despise parent/teacher conferences as much as any parent out there, because it is really nothing more than a gauntlet of people who think their child is the light of the world who can do no wrong asking or berating you "why aren't you doing enough for my kid??", ignoring the fact that they likely have 30 other kids to worry about in an over-crowded classrooms. The right doesn't want to hear it, but we don't spend nearly enough on education, and teachers should be paid at least 50% more than they are. As for tenure, which was the original subject here, you aren't just granted tenure for teaching Spanish for two years, you have to earn it, and it takes an average of 7 years to achieve.
My parents were also both teachers (retired now). The difference is that they were conservative and thus felt like they weren't represented by their union. How does a union of teachers justify being pro abortion? I've never been able to figure that one out. That is the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot. More children equals more teachers unless there's something wrong with my math...
Also, more money doesn't mean better education. The best paid teachers in Michigan are in the worst districts, with no better results. How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending. Keep in mind that local millages are the one tax that commoners have the right to vote on so when times get tough, they don't get passed...
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
They were too busy making sure that no teachers could lose their jobs regardless of their effectiveness. Real improvements to the educational system might have cost them the teachers' union votes...
As a son of two teachers, there is little I hate more than these kind of baseless attacks against teachers, as if they are the problem with American education. I personally went with my dad on trips to school supply outlets where he spent his own money, out of pocket, to make sure his classroom was ready and that kids whose parents may not have read, purchased what was on the list, or couldn't purchase what was on the list, had what they needed. We did this every year for nearly a decade. A good teacher can change a life, a mediocre teacher may be forgettable, and a bad one has very little effect on anything at all. These people get paid, for the most part, jack shit, for essentially not only trying to teach your children, but also babysit them for 7-8 hours a day, Then they go home and grade papers. The myth that they get 3 months off is a joke, as they are in their classrooms for two weeks before school starts putting together lesson plans and for two weeks afterwards wrapping things up. It's a symptom of right-wing propaganda and a kind of bankruptcy of our national mood that somehow TEACHERS, of all people, have become some of out most maligned and hated professionals. If a kid is failing in school, it is almost ALWAYS the fault of the parent for not taking the time or instilling the values of education in their child, or the fact that many of our schools are, despite popular belief to the contrary, criminally underfunded, and that we have a standardized testing system (implemented by George W Bush) that is nothing more than a boondoggle for the companies that write the tests, and is a massive detriment to actual education.
Teachers also despise parent/teacher conferences as much as any parent out there, because it is really nothing more than a gauntlet of people who think their child is the light of the world who can do no wrong asking or berating you "why aren't you doing enough for my kid??", ignoring the fact that they likely have 30 other kids to worry about in an over-crowded classrooms. The right doesn't want to hear it, but we don't spend nearly enough on education, and teachers should be paid at least 50% more than they are. As for tenure, which was the original subject here, you aren't just granted tenure for teaching Spanish for two years, you have to earn it, and it takes an average of 7 years to achieve.
My parents were also both teachers (retired now). The difference is that they were conservative and thus felt like they weren't represented by their union. How does a union of teachers justify being pro abortion? I've never been able to figure that one out. That is the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot. More children equals more teachers unless there's something wrong with my math...
Also, more money doesn't mean better education. The best paid teachers in Michigan are in the worst districts, with no better results. How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending. Keep in mind that local millages are the one tax that commoners have the right to vote on so when times get tough, they don't get passed...
No, they don't get passed. In my hometown, it took probably a decade and multiple referendums before they built a new school, despite the fact that the actual town (and not the rural areas around it) would have fallen into nothingness if the District closed. Those votes are on the people, not the teachers. Saving a couple hundred bucks a year is what they see in the short term, the future of hundreds if not thousands of kids doesn't come into most people's equation. More and more I subscribe to this line of thinking from George Carlin:
“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”
@Balrog99: Increasing teacher pay means you can attract more educated and skilled teachers. The problem with paying teachers very little is that the most well-trained and intelligent candidates don't go into teaching because they can get higher pay elsewhere. You get what you pay for.
How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending.
That's not how anyone would implement that change. People aren't saying we should make schools pay teachers more with the same budget. People are saying we should increase school budgets so they can afford to pay higher salaries and attract higher-quality teachers.
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
@Balrog99: Increasing teacher pay means you can attract more educated and skilled teachers. The problem with paying teachers very little is that the most well-trained and intelligent candidates don't go into teaching because they can get higher pay elsewhere. You get what you pay for.
How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending.
That's not how anyone would implement that change. People aren't saying we should make schools pay teachers more with the same budget. People are saying we should increase school budgets so they can afford to pay higher salaries and attract higher-quality teachers.
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
I don't disagree with you. However, the way things are run currently, it won't work out that way. Money for education has to come from somewhere other than local districts. If the way their budget was spent when my folks' were teachers is any indication, I wouldn't trust the current administrations with even more money. The wastage was appalling and I had to hear all about it!
@Balrog99: Increasing teacher pay means you can attract more educated and skilled teachers. The problem with paying teachers very little is that the most well-trained and intelligent candidates don't go into teaching because they can get higher pay elsewhere. You get what you pay for.
How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending.
That's not how anyone would implement that change. People aren't saying we should make schools pay teachers more with the same budget. People are saying we should increase school budgets so they can afford to pay higher salaries and attract higher-quality teachers.
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
I don't disagree with you. However, the way things are run currently, it won't work out that way. Money for education has to come from somewhere other than local districts. If the way their budget was spent when my folks' were teachers is any indication, I wouldn't trust the current administrations with even more money. The wastage was appalling and I had to hear all about it!
Much like with making sure everyone has healthcare, actually caring and investing in education is not something we as a collective society are very interested in. We talk about it, we pretend to care, but the real rule of thumb in America, especially at this juncture in history, is "he who dies with the most toys wins". And you get a few less toys by paying marginally higher taxes. People don't want to part with their money. That's fine, it's human nature, awful as it can be sometimes. But I don't really want to hear from the same people who want their taxes as low as humanly possible ALSO complain about how bad certain aspects of society are when they have no interest in helping improve it. If people want low taxes, can they at LEAST own the consequences of what that entails?? You will often hear the phrase "we need to do more with less". Absurd. You can't ever, in the aggregate, do MORE with less money.
I mean heck, we could get more out of the taxes we currently pay with better allocation of the nation's budget. We don't need to spend millions of dollars to study shrimp running on treadmills.
@Balrog99: Increasing teacher pay means you can attract more educated and skilled teachers. The problem with paying teachers very little is that the most well-trained and intelligent candidates don't go into teaching because they can get higher pay elsewhere. You get what you pay for.
How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending.
That's not how anyone would implement that change. People aren't saying we should make schools pay teachers more with the same budget. People are saying we should increase school budgets so they can afford to pay higher salaries and attract higher-quality teachers.
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
I cringe whenever I hear this argument.
Where are these better candidates going? If they are going to these other mysterious places because the pay is better, nothing is stopping these mysterious places from increasing their starting wages to get the best and brightest minds themselves.
You'll just be paying people more for the same quality. Remember, raising the wage of new teachers will raise the wage of teachers already in the system, unless you raise it extensively to the point that the private industries can't compete, and instead of getting the best candidates, you're only going to attract the greediest.
This logic only creates inflation, less pay for those considered less "educated" as the competing corporations have less to budget for rank and file workers and even less jobs as a higher pay in the private sector usually correlates to more work: five bright minds doing the jobs of nine people.
Throwing money at anything doesn't fix the problem. Communicating to those who actually do the job, and figuring out what would make their job easier or more efficient does.
I mean heck, we could get more out of the taxes we currently pay with better allocation of the nation's budget. We don't need to spend millions of dollars to study shrimp running on treadmills.
shrimp treadmills is a drop in the bucket compared to the ridiculous expense spent on healthcare price gouging and especially the military industrial complex. Shrimp treadmills is a city paying for a stop sign compared to the cost of operating the city. It's nothing just a diversion to grab your attention.
If I could put it in a single sentance, its that Republicans are tired of feeling lied about and wanted one who was unapologetic and unafraid of pushing back.
Trump doesn't have fawning mainstream media coverage pushing his agenda and covering his behind the way democrats do. They have Fox News and now Breitbart. The left has CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CBS, WaPo, NPR, Salon, nearly every single celebrity, and overwhelmed in the faculty of academic institutions.
Republicans know every time they will be outflanked in terms of getting their message out because the important institutions lean left, and most importanly all the ones typically considered centrist or moderate which they certainly are not.
Has the Right given thought the reasons for this?
Why do people when they get together for education, media, entertainment, and "the important institutions" lean left? I'll tell you why this is and it's not really a secret. It's because the left is more tolerant.
Your Universities can't be like you people aren't welcome here pardner we only teach the white men's bible. Institutions are a melting pots of races, cultures, sexual orientation, religions, and men and women. Students are like a box of chocolates you never know what you are going to get. You might get a Liberal or Conservative, a devout religious person or an atheist, black, white, brown, transgender, upside down, rightside up whatever you can find it all throughout America.
Conservatives only consistently appeal to and represent a very narrow group - the rich while male (old). For example take a look at Trump's cabinet. The people he's picked are overwhelmingly wealthy, white, Christian, old men. The majority of the population don't fit in that narrow group. Maybe there's something to be said for accepting people that are different than you.
I mean heck, we could get more out of the taxes we currently pay with better allocation of the nation's budget. We don't need to spend millions of dollars to study shrimp running on treadmills.
shrimp treadmills is a drop in the bucket compared to the ridiculous expense spent on healthcare price gouging and especially the military industrial complex. Shrimp treadmills is a city paying for a stop sign compared to the cost of operating the city. It's nothing just a diversion to grab your attention.
Its not the sole reason no, but it illustrates my point. The government as is cannot budget wisely or put the money it does get to actual use. A bigger budget would just mean more of what we have going on now. We need wiser budgeting and use of our money before a bigger budget can ever help.
@Balrog99: Increasing teacher pay means you can attract more educated and skilled teachers. The problem with paying teachers very little is that the most well-trained and intelligent candidates don't go into teaching because they can get higher pay elsewhere. You get what you pay for.
How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending.
That's not how anyone would implement that change. People aren't saying we should make schools pay teachers more with the same budget. People are saying we should increase school budgets so they can afford to pay higher salaries and attract higher-quality teachers.
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
I cringe whenever I hear this argument.
Where are these better candidates going? If they are going to these other mysterious places because the pay is better, nothing is stopping these mysterious places from increasing their starting wages to get the best and brightest minds themselves.
Good point, although I do still see value in higher wages for teachers. Other industries may hike up their wages to compete, but simply because of how economics works, a $5,000 increase in average teacher salary is not going to amount to a $5,000 increase in competing industry salaries. The shift would be smaller than that, based on how much the relevant companies need those people for those jobs.
And considering the fact that wages have been stagnant for decades, I consider a little wage inflation to be a good thing.
More importantly, even if the broader market compensates for the shift, we'd be taking higher-qualified folks from outside industries and moving them to education. If you believe that education is more important than most industries, as I do, that's a positive change. It's the same reason I don't mind the fact that doctors are paid extremely well. Those high wages concentrate a lot of smart people in a single industry, but medicine needs smart people far more than most industries.
There's a finite supply of smart people in this country, and I'd prefer they'd flock to the industries we need the most.
@Balrog99: Increasing teacher pay means you can attract more educated and skilled teachers. The problem with paying teachers very little is that the most well-trained and intelligent candidates don't go into teaching because they can get higher pay elsewhere. You get what you pay for.
How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending.
That's not how anyone would implement that change. People aren't saying we should make schools pay teachers more with the same budget. People are saying we should increase school budgets so they can afford to pay higher salaries and attract higher-quality teachers.
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
I cringe whenever I hear this argument.
Where are these better candidates going? If they are going to these other mysterious places because the pay is better, nothing is stopping these mysterious places from increasing their starting wages to get the best and brightest minds themselves.
Good point, although I do still see value in higher wages for teachers. Other industries may hike up their wages to compete, but simply because of how economics works, a $5,000 increase in average teacher salary is not going to amount to a $5,000 increase in competing industry salaries. The shift would be smaller than that, based on how much the relevant companies need those people for those jobs.
And considering the fact that wages have been stagnant for decades, I consider a little wage inflation to be a good thing.
More importantly, even if the broader market compensates for the shift, we'd be taking higher-qualified folks from outside industries and moving them to education. If you believe that education is more important than most industries, as I do, that's a positive change. It's the same reason I don't mind the fact that doctors are paid extremely well. Those high wages concentrate a lot of smart people in a single industry, but medicine needs smart people far more than most industries.
There's a finite supply of smart people in this country, and I'd prefer they'd flock to the industries we need the most.
I do not think education is more important to outside industries because those outside industries is what keeps the economy churning. The money used to pay teachers need to come from somewhere. The public sector should never make more than the private sector.
Educators, to me, personally are middle ground. They are there to bring the best out of the children they are teaching, to guide the set of skills the students excels at and nudges them in the right direction of where they will best better society.
People should become teachers because they have a passion for it not because of the pay cheque it will supply. That is not saying the pay shouldn't be fair, but it shouldn't be the guiding factor into someone becoming a teacher. Once it is about how much someone is making, it is no longer about the students, and once it is no longer about the students, education itself will falter.
Thing is, lots of doctors chose their profession because it paid well, and not out of altruism. My dad's a doctor and is motivated by altruism, but many (or even most) of his colleagues are motivated by money. Yet they work hard and they save lives all the same. Just because they're in it for the money doesn't mean they're bad doctors.
Why would education be any different?
This much is a fact: people follow the money. In between the tiny fraction of people who are wholly altruistic and the tiny fraction of people who don't care about anyone but themselves and their own profit, the vast majority of humankind lies in the middle, and money is a large part of their motivation. Put it this way:
In your job, are you in for the money?
If not, would you switch jobs if you suffered a 50% pay cut?
What about 25%?
What about 10%?
If you have a family to provide for, would you even have a choice?
Let's be realistic. The world isn't just divided between selfish people who are only trying to make money and altruistic people who just want the best for everyone. People are a mix of both motives. My cousin-in-law forsook a career as a musician in favor of a career as an engineer. Does that mean he's only in it for the money? No, he chose the higher-paying career because he needed to care for his family.
Most importantly: If we assume that increasing teacher salaries would only corrupt the pool by attracting selfish people, it logically follows that we could purify the pool by cutting teacher salaries, so only the truly selfless people remained.
My parents were also both teachers (retired now). The difference is that they were conservative and thus felt like they weren't represented by their union. How does a union of teachers justify being pro abortion? I've never been able to figure that one out. That is the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot. More children equals more teachers unless there's something wrong with my math...
Firstly: it's called pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.
Second: teachers unions represent all levels of education, including high schools. High schools serve many young women who, through a variety of different circumstances, may become unintentionally pregnant. In the best interest of those students, it's only reasonable that an educational institution would offer counseling and support for ALL OPTIONS in regards to an unintended pregnancy--whether she wants to keep the child or not. Therefore, it's not hard at all--for me, at least--to understand why a teacher's union would take that stance.
What level of education did your parents teach? Just out of curiosity.
My parents were also both teachers (retired now). The difference is that they were conservative and thus felt like they weren't represented by their union. How does a union of teachers justify being pro abortion? I've never been able to figure that one out. That is the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot. More children equals more teachers unless there's something wrong with my math...
Firstly: it's called pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.
Second: teachers unions represent all levels of education, including high schools. High schools serve many young women who, through a variety of different circumstances, may become unintentionally pregnant. In the best interest of those students, it's only reasonable that an educational institution would offer counseling and support for ALL OPTIONS in regards to an unintended pregnancy--whether she wants to keep the child or not. Therefore, it's not hard at all--for me, at least--to understand why a teacher's union would take that stance.
What level of education did your parents teach? Just out of curiosity.
My dad taught junior high (phys ed & history) and also coached tennis & girls basketball. My mom first taught kindergarten then switched to 3rd grade for the second half of her career.
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
Comments
You have to balk at the double standards whatever you believe in. NYT claims his tweet "creates an enviornment that risks harassment and even attack"
Obviously, this doesn't apply to themselves and their own violent depictions the left media creates and supports.
As for Kathy Griffin, I believe she was fired within 12 hours, and Reza Azlan was ALSO nearly immediately fired (even though his statement is 110% correct). Before that, Kathy Griffin did the ball drop in Times Square with Anderson Cooper for 3 hours a year. I mean hell, I HATE CNN, I just hate them for completely different reasons than Trump supporters.
By the way, the guy who made that little video Trump tweeted this morning?? Here is some of his other work, astutely pointing out how many Jews work at CNN. I know, I know. It's all an ironic joke. Cartoon frogs and MAGA hats all around. Spare me:
Look at it this way: you are fairly convinced that the GOP congressman was shot because of rhetoric on the left. I'm saying it's a matter of WHEN not IF that someone takes a shot a members of the media.
But yes, many of his tweets, if they were posted here, would violate the Site Rules against personal attacks and flaming. It's with a mix of pride and shame that I say this forum has higher standards for respect and personal dignity than the current administration.
1) When you refer to more than one of a thing it is called a plural. In English this is commonly (but not always) denoted by adding an "s" to the end of the noun.
2) Spelling in English is standardised. You can get a special book called a "dictionary" which not only tells you how normal people spell the word, but also what the word means.
3) There is another book called a "thesaurus". This gives you lots of alternative words you could use, so you don't need to get by on a vocabulary of 200.
[Note to Democrats: If you had done more to improve basic education whilst in power, you might not have found yourselves in the mess you are in now.]
If I could put it in a single sentance, its that Republicans are tired of feeling lied about and wanted one who was unapologetic and unafraid of pushing back.
Trump doesn't have fawning mainstream media coverage pushing his agenda and covering his behind the way democrats do. They have Fox News and now Breitbart. The left has CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CBS, WaPo, NPR, Salon, nearly every single celebrity, and overwhelmed in the faculty of academic institutions.
Republicans know every time they will be outflanked in terms of getting their message out because the important institutions lean left, and most importanly all the ones typically considered centrist or moderate which they certainly are not.
So when a guy comes along who can hijack the narrative and put everyone on defense by a few tweets and who isn't afraid of bad press enough to not punch back it was only natural those masses who felt their opinions were underrepresented flocked to his campaign.
The information age doesn't allow the traditional forms of soft censorship to be effective anymore so I expect more of these political insurgencies or I expect more internet censorship. Just can't make people go away anymore.
Teachers also despise parent/teacher conferences as much as any parent out there, because it is really nothing more than a gauntlet of people who think their child is the light of the world who can do no wrong asking or berating you "why aren't you doing enough for my kid??", ignoring the fact that they likely have 30 other kids to worry about in an over-crowded classrooms. The right doesn't want to hear it, but we don't spend nearly enough on education, and teachers should be paid at least 50% more than they are. As for tenure, which was the original subject here, you aren't just granted tenure for teaching Spanish for two years, you have to earn it, and it takes an average of 7 years to achieve.
This NPR article described Gorsuch's voting record on the Court thus far as being quite conservative (as if that were going to be a surprise to anyone) but the real news in it is more evidence that Justice Kennedy is thinking of retiring. In years past, he has hired his clerks for the upcoming year (SCOTUS years begin in October) by now but this year he has not; he also let applicants know that he was considering retiring. Wild, baseless speculation is that Ginsberg might not serve for the remainder of Trump's Administration, either.
Old and busted: trying to introduce measures to impeach Trump.
New and improved: trying to use the 25th Amendment to have Trump declared unfit to serve as President.
The 25th is usually invoked when the current President is undergoing surgery. I would offer the same advice to people seeking this route that I did with those seeking old-fashioned impeachment: don't do it. Even if you get the measure introduced and you somehow manage to get Congress to convene the commission who will rule on Trump's physical and mental fitness, the commission will find him fit, after which you will be on Trump's enemy list (presuming you weren't there already). Not only that, if the Republicans retain control of Congress but a Democrat wins the White House in 2020 guess what will happen? That is correct--hearings will begin immediately after being sworn in to find some impeachable offense or they will also try to use the 25th Amendment as a weapon in ways it was not intended to be used. You don't have to like him, just suck it up like the rest of us have to and wait until he is gone.
If the Democratic party remains the minority, however, there is virtually nothing Trump could do that could get him impeached.
Also, more money doesn't mean better education. The best paid teachers in Michigan are in the worst districts, with no better results. How does 50% more pay help? That would likely mean 33% less teachers and thus even larger class size. Local school districts just don't have the funds to do what you're recommending. Keep in mind that local millages are the one tax that commoners have the right to vote on so when times get tough, they don't get passed...
“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”
If you want the best and brightest, you need to pay them salaries that are competitive with other industries.
Where are these better candidates going? If they are going to these other mysterious places because the pay is better, nothing is stopping these mysterious places from increasing their starting wages to get the best and brightest minds themselves.
You'll just be paying people more for the same quality. Remember, raising the wage of new teachers will raise the wage of teachers already in the system, unless you raise it extensively to the point that the private industries can't compete, and instead of getting the best candidates, you're only going to attract the greediest.
Case in point: Take a look at this document (outdated, but serves the purpose in a pinch). Which province of Canada do you think offers the best education just by looking at it? (And if you're curious of the actual answer.)
This logic only creates inflation, less pay for those considered less "educated" as the competing corporations have less to budget for rank and file workers and even less jobs as a higher pay in the private sector usually correlates to more work: five bright minds doing the jobs of nine people.
Throwing money at anything doesn't fix the problem. Communicating to those who actually do the job, and figuring out what would make their job easier or more efficient does.
Why do people when they get together for education, media, entertainment, and "the important institutions" lean left? I'll tell you why this is and it's not really a secret. It's because the left is more tolerant.
Your Universities can't be like you people aren't welcome here pardner we only teach the white men's bible. Institutions are a melting pots of races, cultures, sexual orientation, religions, and men and women. Students are like a box of chocolates you never know what you are going to get. You might get a Liberal or Conservative, a devout religious person or an atheist, black, white, brown, transgender, upside down, rightside up whatever you can find it all throughout America.
Conservatives only consistently appeal to and represent a very narrow group - the rich while male (old). For example take a look at Trump's cabinet. The people he's picked are overwhelmingly wealthy, white, Christian, old men. The majority of the population don't fit in that narrow group. Maybe there's something to be said for accepting people that are different than you.
And considering the fact that wages have been stagnant for decades, I consider a little wage inflation to be a good thing.
More importantly, even if the broader market compensates for the shift, we'd be taking higher-qualified folks from outside industries and moving them to education. If you believe that education is more important than most industries, as I do, that's a positive change. It's the same reason I don't mind the fact that doctors are paid extremely well. Those high wages concentrate a lot of smart people in a single industry, but medicine needs smart people far more than most industries.
There's a finite supply of smart people in this country, and I'd prefer they'd flock to the industries we need the most.
Educators, to me, personally are middle ground. They are there to bring the best out of the children they are teaching, to guide the set of skills the students excels at and nudges them in the right direction of where they will best better society.
People should become teachers because they have a passion for it not because of the pay cheque it will supply. That is not saying the pay shouldn't be fair, but it shouldn't be the guiding factor into someone becoming a teacher. Once it is about how much someone is making, it is no longer about the students, and once it is no longer about the students, education itself will falter.
Why would education be any different?
This much is a fact: people follow the money. In between the tiny fraction of people who are wholly altruistic and the tiny fraction of people who don't care about anyone but themselves and their own profit, the vast majority of humankind lies in the middle, and money is a large part of their motivation. Put it this way:
In your job, are you in for the money?
If not, would you switch jobs if you suffered a 50% pay cut?
What about 25%?
What about 10%?
If you have a family to provide for, would you even have a choice?
Let's be realistic. The world isn't just divided between selfish people who are only trying to make money and altruistic people who just want the best for everyone. People are a mix of both motives. My cousin-in-law forsook a career as a musician in favor of a career as an engineer. Does that mean he's only in it for the money? No, he chose the higher-paying career because he needed to care for his family.
Most importantly: If we assume that increasing teacher salaries would only corrupt the pool by attracting selfish people, it logically follows that we could purify the pool by cutting teacher salaries, so only the truly selfless people remained.
Second: teachers unions represent all levels of education, including high schools. High schools serve many young women who, through a variety of different circumstances, may become unintentionally pregnant. In the best interest of those students, it's only reasonable that an educational institution would offer counseling and support for ALL OPTIONS in regards to an unintended pregnancy--whether she wants to keep the child or not. Therefore, it's not hard at all--for me, at least--to understand why a teacher's union would take that stance.
What level of education did your parents teach? Just out of curiosity.
"Standardized"