Is that what liberal Blacks are doing? Being 'playfully racist' to make up for oppression they never experienced?

One percent of the population commits 50% of the murders. Sound fair?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.

You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.

To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.


Feminists do differentiate themselves. There are many different schools of thought within feminism.

And I think the political example is a bad one. The United States is a two party-system, where if you aren't an identified Democrat or Republican, you have little chance of being part of the next government. The parties encompass a highly diverse field, and sometimes, if you want to be in a position to make a difference, you have to associate with a few undesirables.

Furthermore, the Republican's outright endorsement of Tea Partiers is a far cry from feminists failing to condemn every single instance of "misandry".

Now that I think about it, why are we even asking feminists to differentiate themselves? There's already a differentiation. Feminism =/= Misandry.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@hpqp
Would you consider the Tea Party Republicans actual republicans? I would--even if they are a psychotic division of the branch. Because the Tea Party Hijacked its way into the republican party and republicans are not doing enough to kick them out. Instead, they are catering more and more to them. They are speaking up less and less. Does that make me prejudice? It is exactly the same reasoning I am using in this argument so you have to say, "yes." And to that I ask, why?
And if you say, "No, it's different," then your applying wishy-washy standards...
But even if I am "wrong" in my belief, calling me "prejudice" was a bit low for you, and I think you lost that argument simply for that insult.
In other words, I look at Gwiz's comments and that's exactly what I am saying. I just used different words. They (feminists) need to call themselves something different to differentiate themselves from all the assholes. Exactly the same thing. So point out to him what an analogy fail he made please and the fact that he is prejudiced too, since he thinks the definition of feminist is close to what I think it is...

Punished for the sins of the father type mentality. Goes along well with a lot of social injustices going on in America usually effecting the non-rich...even the middle class. Just another tool to use to divide and conquer.

Plus, I even thought the story of some chick garbage disposaling a severed penis was a joke. I mean seriously...he had to have known she was bat shit crazy...I can only assume that's why he wanted the divorce.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.

>> ^Sarzy:

Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.


Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.

There are reasons, valid reasons, why it is bad for a guy to be with a needy woman. It propagates that behavior in future generations. In fact, lazy men are becoming very popular in America right now because they are, umm, popular...

>> ^marbles:

With AA, being any minority is a significant advantage.
No it is not. If we lived in some egalitarian society where race had not been a massive limiting factor for centuries, and where decisions like going to college took place in a fairy land where money, the schools you went to, the opportunities you had earlier and familial obligations play no part, then you might have a point. We don't live in that world.
>> ^marbles:

Opportunity isn't distributed.
Yes it is. If its more than twice as hard to get a job because your skin is dark (it is), if your family doesn't have money to allow you the freedom, to have a safe environment in which to grow up, to allow you to get a good education or to start your own business because they too have suffered financially and socially from the legal and social forces that distribute the power to choose, then you are being denied opportunity for non-meritocratic reasons, and those opportunities are being given to others, for non-meritocratic reasons.
>> ^marbles:

Just like every other social problem in the past century, the government's solution has done more harm than help.
Sure, property rights and national defense are terrible impositions on personal sovereignty, and if we dispensed with both of them then AA would probably not be needed, but I don't really care about fairyland politics, I'm only concerned with reality and how to realistically address problems within it
>> ^marbles:

Anyway it's not the role of government to be distributing anything.
Um... except that they distribute EVERYTHING. Property is a government system that codifies the distribution of resources. They set land boundaries, they arbitrate disputes, what the hell are you talking about?
>> ^marbles:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Social Convention is not reason or eloquence either, it is force just the same. I would rather the bullies fight each other, then just let the less accountable one loose to beat the shit out of us.
>> ^marbles:

Better solution? Stop subsidizing poverty and end drug prohibition would be a good start.
"subsidizing poverty" I presume is a reference to social programs that allow poor families to have a stable enough environment that their kids can have some opportunities. How exactly does trapping future generations in poverty solve the disproportionate racial distribution of class privilege?

drug prohibition is only tangentially related, consider:

1) All classes do drugs at similar rates
2) poor people get caught more often
3) non-white people get convicted more often

The double whammy of historical poverty and racist jurisprudence are the problem. The insane "war on drugs" certainly has racist consequences, but they are symptomatic of a larger problem that decriminalization will not solve.

The gaps are fundemental..here are some more quotes:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

"So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction." (Weinberg, S., Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p.

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984.)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

"Transitions between major groups of organisms . . . are difficult to establish in the fossil record." (Padian, K., The Origin of Turtles: One Fewer Problem for Creationists, 1991, p. 18.)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record . . . There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101.)

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)

"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81.)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)

"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35.)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95.)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

“People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.” (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday,” The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)

>> ^Drax:
Shiny, it's kind of like you're saying,
Ok, we have: . -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and O
Then we find . -> o -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and o
or o and O
Basically, the more evidence we find.. the stronger your argument gets! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oh.gif">
ok, that last part's just a joke.. but seriously.. the other parts ARE your stance.
It's either that, or you're looking at o and e and expecting to find æ, which just doesn't happen.

There is nothing new about pitting race against race or peace-nick hippy against patriot. All of these tactics are useful in shaping future generations. Governments have been using this phenomena for centuries. Opportunists.

Then you must know nearly HALF of all Americans pay NO federal income tax. Hmmm...I notice that same HALF shows no restraint on slurping up entitlements and welfare social services. You're in trouble when the tick is as big as the dog.

Yeah, borrow-n-spend isn't much better than tax-n-spend, but take a step back and note what all this money is being spent on. Hint: it's not "racism".





>> ^bareboards2:

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.
I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.
Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?
Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.
Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.
Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.
Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.

I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.

Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?

Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.

Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.

Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.

Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.


>> ^quantumushroom:

If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.

Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.

The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.

As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

@dystopianfuturetoday

I disagree. For one, I think most people who feel they have a career and not just a job to get by are passionate about what they do, perhaps not initially but certainly over time as they become experienced. They might not be educating future generations, but they're contributing to society in their own way.

I honestly can't figure out how paying good teachers more cheapens anything. I certainly can't see how it would discourage them from teaching in the first place. I can definitely imagine though that there are plenty of capable, educated and willing would-be teachers who are simply not happy with a teacher's salary. Look at the amount of people who come back from the private sector to teach at university.

And the fact of the matter is, there already is merit pay in teaching. Principals and managerial level positions get paid way more. Why hasn't this destroyed the fabric of educational society?

Education for the most part is very compartmentalized and I would argue very measurable. Say you teach a unit in maths for a whole year. You have massive control over direction for that period. Yes, you depend on cooperation from prior year levels, and you may depend on subjects that tie into yours (physics perhaps) or vice versa. But you have huge amounts of autonomy throughout that year, and a huge potential to individual shape outcomes.

You oversimplify the rest of the private sector. Take banks, arguably the most purely money driven. At the insitutional level have a front end staff that deals directly with clients and wants to maximise profitable deals. Typically, a separate team counter-balances them on credit risk, and another on market risk (interest/exchange risk). In combination, the goal attained is not simply blunt returns, it's risk weighed outcomes, which can only be achieved through cooperation because of mutually competing objectives.

I'm just not seeing how if well organised, schools can't be the same. Well structured, the Coke and Pepsi in your examples would be schools. Somehow both these corporations have managed to work together as a team despite most employees chasing wage rises essentially at the expense of the other, right?

If teachers are so driven and personally motivated as you say, why is it then so few are willing to go to under performing schools to raise their standards? After all, if they were so intrinsically altruistic, that would be the first place to start, no? Teaching in the 'burbs to upper middle class kids with parents who have already motivated them to succeed regardless of whether the teacher is any good isn't exactly hard right? I find it difficult to see how you can deny here that incentives would help.

I think we have different paradigms on education. Yes, great schools should be full of engaging extracurricular activities to choose from and develop students as a person not just as a capable cog in the working machine economy. But the great schools in the US, over here in Australia are already great. The issue is the ones who can't provide a basic education. The focus here doesn't need to be wishy washy but on structured targets achieved in the best way they can. There should be expected basic standards of knowledge to be reached and if progress is consistently not being made towards them, there should be consequences.

Again, my experience has been that good exams, even the internationally standardised exams I took at the end of high school required critical thinking. Bad exam design is the problem.

You make it sound like people in the private sector carry around a jail ball weight of mistrust and fear around with them everywhere they go. People spend upwards of 8 hours a day in a skilled position generally because they enjoy what they do. They want to do well, and the pay reward is ultimately ancillary and a reinforcing look for the will to do well that they had in the first place.

As for the last comment, again we philosophically disagree but I would say markets didn't. In the US at least, poor regulation and the domination of policy direction by collective interests (corporate and union) through poor campaign financing caused the recent mess and much of what continues. Take a look at Australia as an example, and you will see a very different story. None of our banks got in trouble much because of good regulation, interest groups do not dominate elections and our economy never went into recession.

>> ^bobknight33:
We created this mess we need to fix this mess which means great sacrifice today so our children and grand children wont get shafted.

Have a think about whether that's actually true.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Federally, non-defense discretionary makes up 19% of your federal government expenditures. It comprises things like spending on education, science/technology, and infrastructure. All of these are highly relevant to the skills, innovativeness and capacity for the country's economy to support the next generations. Collectively these 3 aspects make up 8% of expenditure. Education is 3% of the pie. How finely do you have to slice this pie to extract any meaningful budget benefits? Meanwhile Social Security is about 20%, Medicare/aid is 21%, other safety net programs are 14%.

Now yes, we're talking about state spending where the proportion is generally much more substantial (around a quarter), but the point is simple. Politically, it's not about leaving a better quality of life for latter generations. It's about preventing meltdown while riling the least amount of constituent groups. And guess what? Future generations don't have a vote yet and teachers are a manageable target. Making modest reductions to Social Security, Medicare/aid and pensions would not be onerous when shared around and in making the current generation pay back for the excesses of the past few decades, would be the most fair. It's a vote killer though.

The fact is, gutting discretionary spending is the very definition of shafting the problem down the line. When the US economy several decades on is low tax, full of wealthy corporations but with a workforce significantly made up of overseas workers while the domestic workforce struggles in the doldrums of low dead-end service jobs, let me know what you think.

Also, how is government unionisation wrong? Why is it that a group of people can't come together to collectively negotiate, especially where their wages are generally standardised?

Don't get me wrong, from what I've heard there's a multitude of things wrong with the teacher's unions. Resistant to any change, particularly to differentiate talent, endemic bad teachers that are impossible to remove. Exorbitant costs at certain levels with average/below average results. Gutting collective bargaining with the obvious intention of gutting their pay while not addressing any of these issues is not the way to go about it. The focus needs to be on a shift to merit pay, more inter school competition, standardised tests which are actually standardised and not set at the whim of local officials.

Goodbye choggie


In reply to this comment by shrimpfork:
@ LizLizscot, Hey now, no need to blame god exclusively or even the bogus interpretation(s) offered up from the best and worst of devotees of all sects, creeds, religious atheists, etc.
Perhaps it's the modern Persian male and the generations of deficit imprinting?
(in most personal experiences with the same, the stereotype seems to have served adequately)
-Cultures the world over have all risen respectively to their incompetence in demonstrating a healthy social evolution. What can one say ma'am, the world is a pretty sick place thanks to most humans.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. "
-Jiddu Krishnamurti



In reply to this comment by shrimpfork:
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the possibility that while her cover as a correspondent (guess so) may be without holes, CBS might be using a universally incendiary act allegedly perpetrated by some revolutionary yahoos to produce some new and improved hype in order to rally nation(s) of robots to fall deeper into their somnambulant stupor regarding the mechanisms and intent of world affairs?

Who cares if she's the best-looking teleprompter-reading propagandist on the telly? Hmmm?



In reply to this comment by shrimpfork:
I concur by voting for this video though this fellow regularly abuses his internet status of alternative news source with the kind of lazy-minded titillation reserved for tabloids and entertainment news segments.
Wall Street should be burned to the ground in effigy for future generations.