Who is YOUR neighbor supportin'?

[hardheadjarhead]

Hey Steve
Isn't it true that this isn't the first wealthy heiress that J.Kerry has married?
Thought I'd heard to the contrary.

Also: What constitutes a "successful" prosecutor? Just wondering. Didn't know how long he was one or what it is about his time as one that makes him 'successful'.



John,

If anyone wants to suggest that Kerry acquired all his wealth through his marriages...that he was some sort of "gold digger", then they buy into another myth...or strive to propogate it. But I'll address these rhetorical questions for the liberals here, who might like to reference that which follows.

Kerry was a legacy student at Yale, like George W. Kerry's father took a law degree from Harvard and worked for the State Department. His mother was a member of the Forbes shipping family and a direct descendant of John Winthrop, who helped found Boston in 1630.

Given his social status, it is perfectly reasonable for John Kerry to have met and married the women he did. Does anyone honestly expect him to woo and betroth a woman from a trailer park in Henderson, Kentucky?

As for questioning the adjective "successful", it seems you do so apparently to exploit the notion that Kerry never got anywhere on his own merit. This encourages the meme's virulence among the uninformed electorate--of which, I would like to think, you are not a part.

The facts are clear. He was recognized for his talents and promoted above his peers by the DA (and to the resentment of many). Kerry then revamped the Middlesex County DA's office and made it far more efficient. He prosecuted two mob bosses and got them put away. Even his critics recognize his accomplishments in this area. Within four years he was Lieutenant Governor of Massachussetts.

Here are some articles regarding that career that I fully expect the conservatives here won't read:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact1

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_F._Kerry



Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

:erg: ooooooooooooooooooo biting my tongue!!!!

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Why bite your tongue? *I* want to hear what you have to say!

 

[michaeledward]

Guess I've always thought that it was generally accepted fact that the NEA is liberal . . .

What was recently pointed out, but should be obvious, is that middle-income, college graduates tend to be more liberal than lower-income high school graduates. Well, who are the educators? They are college graduate, middle income people. Their point of view is generally in line with others who have the same level of income and education.

But, like many organizations, within the teachers' unions, there are a wide variety of points of view; some democratic, some republican, some socialist, some libertarian.

But, deadhand31 broadstroked all teachers as lazy; I believe the quote was "people who want to work the least". I find that statement arrogant, offensive and ignorant.

Mike

 

[Brother John]

Hey Steve
Isn't it true that this isn't the first wealthy heiress that J.Kerry has married?
Thought I'd heard to the contrary.

Also: What constitutes a "successful" prosecutor? Just wondering. Didn't know how long he was one or what it is about his time as one that makes him 'successful'.



John,

If anyone wants to suggest that Kerry acquired all his wealth through his marriages...that he was some sort of "gold digger", then they buy into another myth...or strive to propogate it. But I'll address these rhetorical questions for the liberals here, who might like to reference that which follows.

Kerry was a legacy student at Yale, like George W. Kerry's father took a law degree from Harvard and worked for the State Department. His mother was a member of the Forbes shipping family and a direct descendant of John Winthrop, who helped found Boston in 1630.

Given his social status, it is perfectly reasonable for John Kerry to have met and married the women he did. Does anyone honestly expect him to woo and betroth a woman from a trailer park in Henderson, Kentucky?

As for questioning the adjective "successful", it seems you do so apparently to exploit the notion that Kerry never got anywhere on his own merit. This encourages the meme's virulence among the uninformed electorate--of which, I would like to think, you are not a part.

The facts are clear. He was recognized for his talents and promoted above his peers by the DA (and to the resentment of many). Kerry then revamped the Middlesex County DA's office and made it far more efficient. He prosecuted two mob bosses and got them put away. Even his critics recognize his accomplishments in this area. Within four years he was Lieutenant Governor of Massachussetts.

Here are some articles regarding that career that I fully expect the conservatives here won't read:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact1
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_F._Kerry

Regards,
Steve

Steve-
You are making it seem that I am implying/propagating things that I am not.

If anyone wants to suggest that Kerry acquired all his wealth through his marriages...that he was some sort of "gold digger", then they buy into another myth...or strive to propogate it.

You may have said "if anyone"...but it came directly after "John," so it implies me most directly.
I never said nor implied "gold digger", you did. All I did was ask a question, (Not a rhetorical one as you said) to which the only correct answer is yes, it is true. I don't care if he married for love, money, social status or just really great sex...I wouldn't vote for or against him due to his marital status. Neither would I vote for or against him due to his own economic history. I don't care if he came up from nothing or if he is a Rockafeller (sp?). All I did was ask a question.

I never implied that Kerry acquired all, most or any of his wealth through marriage.... I've known for a good while that he comes from Old money and that he's never HAD to work a day in his life if he didn't want to. In an interview with his mother she bragged on her son by saying that "as a boy he even treated the servants well."
Good for him. I don't care if he had servants. I'm not one who believes that wealth, aquired or born into, makes a person bad/evil or wrong; nor a good nor bad polititian.

Then you said:

As for questioning the adjective "successful", it seems you do so apparently to exploit the notion that Kerry never got anywhere on his own merit.

I did question what made his law career 'successful' because I didn't KNOW anything about his law career. How the hell can I "exploit" something to which I'm confessing ignorance??????? Now that's a trick. It's all too easy to throw the adjective "successful" onto something you'd like to promote without reason, I just wanted to know the reason...... which would have been obvious to anyone who'd read the line in my reply that said

honestly just wondering.

Did you think I was a scoundrel trying to throw dirty watter on Sen. Kerry's legal career??? Do you think I'm lying to try to make a point? I've got better things to do than to come here and lie to you or anyone in the form of an 'honest' question.
Personally I'd hope to GOD that he did have a successful career! My personal belief is that there never was, is or will be a polititian that gets as far as a presidential candidate who doesn't have a hell of a lot going for him. To get there you must be smart, savvy, industrious and productive to say the least. It's become very hip to make it seem that President Bush is stupid, but he's not. Just like people from my side of the isle tried to make President Clinton out to be evil, but he's NOT. President Clinton said a great thing in his interview with 60minutes a month ago...he said that people often forget that a polititian can be wrong without being bad. Very true.

Here are some articles regarding that career that I fully expect the conservatives here won't read:

THIS conservative read them. WHY do you guys say things like this and then imply that it's the conservatives that are divisive and hateful??
Not good my hardheaded friend.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

What was recently pointed out, but should be obvious, is that middle-income, college graduates tend to be more liberal than lower-income high school graduates. Well, who are the educators? They are college graduate, middle income people. Their point of view is generally in line with others who have the same level of income and education.

But, like many organizations, within the teachers' unions, there are a wide variety of points of view; some democratic, some republican, some socialist, some libertarian.

But, deadhand31 broadstroked all teachers as lazy; I believe the quote was "people who want to work the least". I find that statement arrogant, offensive and ignorant.

Mike

Mike,
Thanks for the more respectful, less sarcastic, reply. I apreciate it as it makes it easier to have a discussion.

What was recently pointed out, but should be obvious, is that middle-income, college graduates tend to be more liberal than lower-income high school graduates.

What study found this out? I question this factoid.
This seems like a "class against class" ploy. "We are more educated. You only hold your view because you are less educated."

But, like many organizations, within the teachers' unions, there are a wide variety of points of view; some democratic, some republican, some socialist, some libertarian.

Much agreed!! My father is a retired teacher who is & was a conservative Republican. So were many of his associates. But the fact that there are a wide variety of points of view as you point out.... it doesn't matter. The whole fo the NEA is NOT the sum of it's parts. The NEA gets your dues, the NEA gives them to back the Democratic ticket. The diverse points of view of the teachers is great, but the NEA is MUCH more tunnel-visioned.

But, deadhand31 broadstroked all teachers as lazy; I believe the quote was "people who want to work the least". I find that statement arrogant, offensive and ignorant.

That would be arrogant, offensive and ignorant IF that's what he said, but it's not.
Here's what he said:

As for laborers, well, unions in general tend to go liberal. I, myself, have never been one for unions. They benefit the people who want to work the least the most. Unions can bring about good things, but they take things too far. You're not allowed to fired slackers because they've been there longer, you can't send job descriptions to doctors so they know what someone has to do at work, and they have no financial accountability to anyone.

See, he wasn't talking about 'teachers', he was talking about the effect of unions. I don't think he's far off either. He doesn't say that teachers "want to work the least", he's refering to union workers. He's not saying that all union workers "want to work the least" either, he's just saying that unions tend to benefit the ones who want to work the least, and they do. He even goes on from there to qualify what he was saying:

You're not allowed to fired slackers because they've been there longer, you can't send job descriptions to doctors so they know what someone has to do at work, and they have no financial accountability to anyone.

He wasn't braodstroking teachers, he was making a generalized statement about unions and why

I, myself, have never been one for unions.

Even then he further states:

Unions can bring about good things, but they take things too far.

I think you mischaracterized his words and read an intent to them that originated in you, not him.

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

John, I have to disagree with you concerning what deadhand31 said:

In the 5th post of this thread, he forwarded his argument in this way.

a) teachers unions tend to go liberal
b) deadhand31 has never been one for unions
c) unions benefit the people who want to work the least the most

I can't find a way that deadhand meant to say unions benefit all people other than teachers who want to work the least. It may have been a seperate paragraph. He may not have meant to say that teachers are 'slackers'. But he did mention one of the number one beefs against teachers; the inability to fire someone ... e.g. tenure.

* * * * *

Concerning the statement 'College Educated, middle income' people tend to be more liberal. This statement came from a very progressive point of view (Eric Alterman - Go Eric) and was focused at the 'So Called Liberal Media'. When I read the statement though (copied here), it struck me as axiomatic; and could also be applied to teachers. Anyhow ... here is the quote. Take it for what it is worth.

www.altercation.msnbc.com
Here we go again: Howie "Conflict of Interest" Kurtz is praising New York Times Public Editor Dan Okrent's admission that the Times is a "liberal" newspaper as "courageous." Click here to read the Kurtz chat and click here for the Okrent column.

It serves me right. Just last week I had lunch with a Times editor and I defended Okrent for doing an excellent job as public editor, despite a few mishaps. Now he goes and does this. Let's get this straight everybody. Journalists are socially liberal, just like every single well-educated, well-paid group of urban professionals. On occasion this shows up in the coverage, when it comes to say, creationists and people who think homosexuals should burn in Hell sooner rather than later. But even on this issue set, where attitudes are consistent, there is evidence of considerable effort to bend over backwards to be nice to Bible-thumpers. On most political issues, however, journalists are not only not liberal, they are often more sympathetic to the conservatives than to the liberals; this is in part a reflection of their economic status and in part a reflection of the fact that they are but a weathervane of the force of gale winds attacking them and until recently, just about all the attacks have been coming from the right.

Seems to me that the sentence in bold could apply equally to journalists and educators.

Mike

 

[Brother John]

Food for thought Mike, thanks.

I'm not a know it all (I just play one on TV) so discussions like these can help.


Have a good day.

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Steve-
You are making it seem that I am implying/propagating things that I am not.

You may have said "if anyone"...but it came directly after "John," so it implies me most directly.

THIS conservative read them. WHY do you guys say things like this and then imply that it's the conservatives that are divisive and hateful??
Not good my hardheaded friend.

Your Brother
John

John,

Chill OUT.

"Anyone" implies just that. The issue of Kerry's wealth, as you know, is one of the most harped upon grass roots personal attacks of this campaign. Bush doesn't hit it...but conservative populists run with it every day.

You wrote:

I never implied that Kerry acquired all, most or any of his wealth through marriage.... I've known for a good while that he comes from Old money

If that's the case, don't ask the question regarding Theresa and her predecessor. It has nothing to do with this election.

I do in fact think your use of the word "successful" was a deliberate attempt to call into question Kerry's competency. A simple "Google" of "Kerry Prosecutor" yields his record. Regardless of your claim to honest ignorance, as phrased the question came off as a sarcastic challenge to Kerry's experience as an asst. DA. If you don't want to come off that way, learn to tweak your prose.

Do you think I'm lying to try to make a point? I've got better things to do than to come here and lie to you or anyone in the form of an 'honest' question.

Lying? No. Disingenous? Yes. Either that or you fall too easily into a fallacious rhetoric that confuses those who read it. If I'm wrong...then again, tweak your prose.

WHY do you guys say things like this and then imply that it's the conservatives that are divisive and hateful??

Hateful? Or challenging?

Regards,


Steve

 

[Brother John]

John,

Chill OUT.

"Anyone" implies just that. The issue of Kerry's wealth, as you know, is one of the most harped upon grass roots personal attacks of this campaign. Bush doesn't hit it...but conservative populists run with it every day.
You wrote:
I never implied that Kerry acquired all, most or any of his wealth through marriage.... I've known for a good while that he comes from Old money

If that's the case, don't ask the question regarding Theresa and her predecessor. It has nothing to do with this election.

I do in fact think your use of the word "successful" was a deliberate attempt to call into question Kerry's competency. A simple "Google" of "Kerry Prosecutor" yields his record. Regardless of your claim to honest ignorance, as phrased the question came off as a sarcastic challenge to Kerry's experience as an asst. DA. If you don't want to come off that way, learn to tweak your prose.

Do you think I'm lying to try to make a point? I've got better things to do than to come here and lie to you or anyone in the form of an 'honest' question.

Lying? No. Disingenous? Yes. Either that or you fall too easily into a fallacious rhetoric that confuses those who read it. If I'm wrong...then again, tweak your prose.

WHY do you guys say things like this and then imply that it's the conservatives that are divisive and hateful??

Hateful? Or challenging?

Regards,


Steve

Steve:
YOU FIRST.

If that's the case, don't ask the question regarding Theresa and her predecessor. It has nothing to do with this election.

I ask whatever question I like and I'm not about to stop. OF COURSE it makes sense that he courted and married within his own socio-economic strata....so what. THAT'S MY POINT, it doesn't matter. I disagree with those who try to put Kerry in a "gold-digger" frame. It side tracks us from real issues. You'll think what you want to think about what I have to say Steve. That's your right, and your free to it. I'd wish we could have a political debate w/out needing to defend marriage choices, religious afiliation, how much money we have or don't have....these aren't important. I was just participating in a discussion.

I do in fact think your use of the word "successful" was a deliberate attempt to call into question Kerry's competency.

Well, then that's your problem. Personally I think now that you know I'm a Bush supporter you view anything I say with a tainted lens. I didn't know anything about Sen. Kerry's career in law. I don't care to. I know I disagree with his stance on a few things that are important to me, so I don't need to "google" anything about his past. Those few things that are important to me are enough to let me know that he can't be my candidate of choice. I don't care to paint him in one light or another anymore. I don't like him, that's my choice. I've called him "scarry Kerry" in the past, then a good man showed me that I wasn't being consistant with my views on respect for authority. You will go on interpreting what I say how you like. I won't change my views or how I state them however. I do have some integrity.

Regardless of your claim to honest ignorance, as phrased the question came off as a sarcastic challenge to Kerry's experience as an asst. DA. If you don't want to come off that way, learn to tweak your prose.

My claim of ignorance? Sarcastic???? Come on Steve, get real.
Here it is again for your viewing plesure...

Also: What constitutes a "successful" prosecutor? Just wondering. Didn't know how long he was one or what it is about his time as one that makes him 'successful'.

I'd never heard what his SUCCESS was. I really didn't know how long he was one. I really didn't know what his successes in law were.
Where the hell's this supposed sarcasm? The word "successful" is arbitrary and vague. Hitler was 'successful', up until the last year. Stalin was successful. Success doesn't say much. My next door neighbor is a very successful drunk, he's always out by the pool drunk...very consistant too. I AM NOT equating these people or their "Success" to John Kerry. Far from it. I am, however, showing why I was questioning what this success was. You showed it, now I know.
I didn't "come-off" anyway...I was interpreted that way. I needn't "Tweak my prose" for anything, check Your paradigm.

Lying? No. Disingenous? Yes. Either that or you fall too easily into a fallacious rhetoric that confuses those who read it.

So I'm either weak in character or stupid.
Nice.
Who said it never hurts to ask.

If I'm wrong...then again, tweak your prose.

You Are Wrong.
Tweak your heavily biased, hard-headed, interpretation.

It's too bad you've turned all sour on me Steve. I truly enjoy your many posts on martial arts issues and feel you are probably a good person...
seems to me you are currently reacting to me in an adversarial way.
for instance: calling someone 'disingenuous', which implies "giving a false appearance of simple frankness"...IS calling someone a liar.
not good.

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I disagree with those who try to put Kerry in a "gold-digger" frame. It side tracks us from real issues.

Good. If that's the case, then I misjudged you on that point.

Personally I think now that you know I'm a Bush supporter you view anything I say with a tainted lens.

I suspect it does have a red tint to my blue, yes.

I didn't know anything about Sen. Kerry's career in law. I don't care to.

Why ask the question concerning his success as a prosecutor if you don't care? You say you're asking out of ignorance and now you don't care?

I'd never heard what his SUCCESS was. I really didn't know how long he was one. I really didn't know what his successes in law were.

Okay. So you do care.

Where the hell's this supposed sarcasm?

Sarcasm is implied by tone. Placing "successful" in quotations as you did (twice in the same sentence), along with what is clearly an expressed political stance against Kerry, preceded by a needless reference to his wife's wealth, strikes me as sarcasm. Not "tongue in cheek" certainly, nor did it seem to me as being anything more than a rhetorical question.


It's too bad you've turned all sour on me Steve. I truly enjoy your many posts on martial arts issues and feel you are probably a good person...
seems to me you are currently reacting to me in an adversarial way.
for instance: calling someone 'disingenuous', which implies "giving a false appearance of simple frankness"...IS calling someone a liar.

Not to me. I've been disingenuous, and didn't think it lying, per se. It can mean "insincere", "calculating", and it can even be used as a synonym for "naive." The meaning of the word has been somewhat unstable over the years.

John, if you take all I've said at such a deeply personal level, I truly am sorry. I didn't think the tenor of my posts was that strong, and I didn't intend to inspire such a heated response nor evoke such personal offense. I have no problems with YOU, John. Your rhetoric, maybe. Your politics, certainly. I intended this as no reflection on your character.

That said, I will defend my candidate with vigor. I consider this election as the most important political event of my lifetime to date, and I take it very seriously.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Brother John -

I, too, think that you tend to float leading questions out there, and then you back off from them, saying, "I never meant to say (he was a gold-digger)!" I think it's at least a bit disingenuous as well.

For simple people like me to keep from misinterpreting your intent, please explain more clearly your intent behind some of these questions. Then we can engage in debate about the issues as I know we all want to, without needless misinterpretation, if that is indeed what is going on.

 

[Brother John]

Okay Steve.

Good. If that's the case, then I misjudged you on that point.

Thank you. We are all human.

Why ask the question concerning his success as a prosecutor if you don't care? You say you're asking out of ignorance and now you don't care?

I didn't word that well, I guess I did want to know about Sen. Kerry's law career, but I hadn't ever cared enough to do the research myself. In asking about his law career I wanted to discuss it, but didn't know enough about it. To me, because there are more basic reasons for me to not vote for him, reasons that wouldn't change one way or the other due to anything that may have occured during his law career...therefore I didn't care to research it. For the sake of trying to contribute to this discussion I kinda wanted a glance at why you thought his law career was so successful.

By using quotation marks around the word "Success" I was merely trying to highlight that the word, in and of it'self doesn't say a whole lot. To be honest, I probably use quotation marks around words repetitively like that in many of my posts....guess I should put some thought into how that's being perceived. I see now that by doing so repetitively it called my intent into question.

Not to me. I've been disingenuous, and didn't think it lying, per se. It can mean "insincere", "calculating", and it can even be used as a synonym for "naive." The meaning of the word has been somewhat unstable over the years.

Call it what you like, it certainly isn't 'honest' though is it?
Let me be frank here, I've got no need nor want to come here and lie to anybody. Maybe you can tell that I'm not the least bit squeemish about butting heads when I need to...it's true. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Sometimes I don't chose my words well. Sometimes I "DO THINGS"to the words I chose that confuses people or makes them misjudge my intentions... but when I come out and say that "I don't know" ...then I don't know. For instance, I really didn't know that some were attacking his record as a prosecutor. Seems to me that they've got no ammo as his law career WAS a success. Not some super-hero status or anything, but he did well. This medium can be confusing I think. It's difficult to read people... but I wish people knew that I'm rather plain and can generally be taken at face value. I guess it struck me when someone who's posts/ideas/thoughts I've come to respect in other venue's seemed to me to be calling my character into question. Yes, I did take it personally.

I have no problems with YOU, John. Your rhetoric, maybe. Your politics, certainly. I intended this as no reflection on your character.

That's actually good to know. I have no problems with you either Steve. Like I said, I really look forward to reading your martial arts views. Your politics, yeah...they go against my grain. But that's a part of us being Americans. It's why we aren't a totalitarian state...we have a system set up to accomodate differing points of view without letting one Dominate the others. Thank you also for saying you aren't taking aim at my character too. I'd hate to have to come look you up in Bloomington and bleed all over your dojang floor. :whip: :ultracool But no, really...it's nice to know you still have some positive regard for me...
even if I am a conservative republican who thinks that George Bush has been doing a fine job. (had to get that one in ya know...)

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'd hate to have to come look you up in Bloomington and bleed all over your dojang floor.

even if I am a conservative republican who thinks that George Bush has been doing a fine job. (had to get that one in ya know...)

Your Brother
John

See...I almost had you turned into a "bleeding heart."


Oh, and Bush is an inept buffoon.

Had to get that in, too, ya know...


Regards,


Steve

 

[deadhand31]

Geez, go away for a bit and a maelstrom erupts!!!

Ok, just to clear up any confusion there is about my feelings towards unions:

1. I feel that the way a good portion of them are set up, people who don't want to work as much get a great deal of benefit. Here are two examples:
A. A lady in the kitchen that I used to work with. She was out for several months over TWO STITCHES. She also fell down a hill, and "broke her back", claiming a lot of disability due to a doctor's note. The union would never let the home I work with send her job description to her doctors. They also refused to let us hire a replacement for her, even on a temporary basis. Because of this, several of my kitchen workers had to share her load. Imagine feeding over 200 people 3 times a day on a short staff. That is NOT fun.
B. One of my old bosses used to work at a local farm equipment manufacturer. This place ranked people by tech levels. There was tech level 1-9, you start at 9, and as you work your way up, and learn more and more, your number gets lower. This means the lower your number, you are able to be assigned more tasks. Within 6 months, he worked his *** off to get up to tech level 2. When layoffs came around, however, he was one of the first to go due to lack of seniority. A great deal of the people who were not laid off were people who had sat around on tech level 8-9 for several years.

2. I do NOT feel that all unionized teachers are lazy. I've had unionized teachers that worked their butts off for their students. I also had teachers that were lazy, and never cared about the kids being up to snuff. Now, I just want to be sure that the children of this country get teachers who will work to make sure that kids are learning. Yes, this means that the teachers who ARE lazy will have to change their ways. When a teacher works hard, they are to be commended.

3. I feel that unions DO have a purpose. At times, they do help the workers out. They help secure benefits for their workers. However, I also feel that they should be financially accountable. I can't count the times I've read about a Union chair person who used the workers' dues to fund their country club membership. I think unions should have open books, and be accountable to their workers.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

 

[Phoenix44]

Even discussing Kerry's "wealth" as a campaign issue is laughable. What, like Dubya grew up in a cardboard box? The Bush family is OIL money. They brush elbows with the Saudi rOIL family for cryin' out loud! The presidency is one of the few "jobs" Dubya has ever had. He started (and ruined) oil companies for a "career" in his youth.

This is a non-issue.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I hope this clears up any confusion.

A bit.

Unions: There are abuses of the system, certainly. The reverse would be worse. In my grandmother's lifetime (indeed, my father's) we've seen horrific working conditions for laborers in the United States.

For a history of labor in the United States I'd recommend "From The Folks That Brought You The Weekend" by Priscilla Murolo and AB Chitty. The muckraking novel "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair is also worth reading.

Today unions work towards safer working environments. Some are terribly unsafe. While we read about silly disability claims and see them first hand, we rarely hear about dangers incurred in non-unionized industries. Migrant workers are getting maimed and killed daily in the meat packing industry. The very things that ruined Sinclair's protagonists in "The Jungle" are debilitating thousands of Mexicans...and those few Americans that chose to work in these factories.

For THAT read Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation."

Teachers: You're correct, Deadhand...there are some lazy teachers. I've seen lazy teachers, lazy Marines, lazy cops, lazy doctors...the list goes on. Any industry has a range of workers spanning those that are lazy--to the most industrious. I know of no study showing degrees of laziness in any profession.

My wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's sister-in-law, both my sisters, both my brother's-in-law, my future sister-in-law, my father (for a time), my aunt, and two great-aunts were elementary or high school teachers. My uncle was an English professor in a small university.

Not one of them qualify as lazy or incompetent.

You say that when a teacher works hard, they should be commended. I agree...but note they rarely are ever given credit for their work. I've mentioned elsewhere how my wife says that should a child in her class fail, she never hears the end of it. If the child gets an "A", she rarely gets a call or card complimenting her on a job well done. She's blamed for the children's failures, but the parents take all credit for their children's success when they're bragging about their kids at local cocktail parties.

If we want teachers of higher quality in this country...WE MUST PAY THEM WELL. If you want to attract the best and the brightest, make it worth their while. I know incredibly bright math teachers who could be making triple digit salaries as accountants, but they accepted $25,000 starting salaries because of their commitment to children. Idealism such as theirs is wonderful. Idealism, however, doesn't pay a mortgage or feed a family.

What could we do, then, if we paid entry level teachers competitive salaries?

And to tie this all together, I end with this:

"State employees with collective bargaining rights earn salaries up to 63 percent higher than their colleagues in states without collective bargaining."

http://www.aft.org/salary/index.htm



Regards,

Steve

 

[Nightingale]

MT MOD NOTE:

This thread has drifted WAY off topic. Feel free to start a new thread on any other topics, but this thread needs to return to the original topic of "who is your neighbor supporting" rather than the current discussion of Kerry's economic status. That topic can be re-opened in another thread.

thanks!

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR

 

[shesulsa]

MT MOD NOTE:

This thread has drifted WAY off topic. Feel free to start a new thread on any other topics, but this thread needs to return to the original topic of "who is your neighbor supporting" rather than the current discussion of Kerry's economic status. That topic can be re-opened in another thread.

thanks!

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR

That's why I was biting my tongue.