Alternate Title = "How to babysit like a Boss"

Here's Schwarzenegger's proposed budget from 07-08:

Income:
44.8% Personal Income tax (progressive)
27.3% Sales tax (flat)
9.3% Other
8.5% Corporation tax (?)
4.3% Motor Vehicle fees (regressive)
2.8% Highway Users taxes (regressive)
0.9% Tobacco tax (regressive)
0.3% Liquor tax (regressive)
1.8% Insurance tax (regressive)

Spending:
31.5% Education
26.6% Health & Human Services
10.4% Higher Education
8.4% Business, Transportation, & Housing
7% Corrections and Rehabilitation (Mostly to imprison nonviolent drug-possession offenders)
5.9% General Government
4.2% Executive, Judicial, Legislative
3.9% Resources
1% Environmental Protection
1% State and Consumer Services
0.3% Labor & Workforce Development

http://2007-08.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/SUM/1249561.html

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
South Carolina -50th
North Carolina -49th
Georgia -48th
Texas -47th
............Virginia -44th
If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?
by Meredith Menden on Friday, February 18, 2011 at 3:32pm

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage.



That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours).



Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET'S SEE....

That's $585 X 180= $105,300

per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).



What about those special

education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an

hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute -- there's

something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher's salary

(nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days

= $277.77/per day/30

students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!



Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.



Update: I'm glad that many people have shown their support for teachers by reposting this note, but I am not the original author. I received this as an anonymous chain letter email, and I wanted to share it to support the public workers of Wisconsin.

If teachers were paid $3.00/hour just to babysit kids: at 30 students per classroom, assuming 8 hour days and no pay for vacations (that's INCLUDING summer vacation) they would make about $105,000.00 per year. So it turns out that the number expressed in this video is WAY more accurate than I initially thought.

What does anyone have to say to THAT?

My after comment explained what type of respect I was talking about.

“Respect in America” meant that women have lost respect in American society. American culture, not self respect or such... And that meant both men and women, in America, have less respect for the penis-less sex (;)

Respect was given to women, and in other cultures is still alive and well. However, it should be noted that respect and equality are two different beasts. Joan of Arc is a hero highly regarded by men for her valor--but she was far from equal in most men's eyes when she lived. The Virgin Mary, another figure--but see if she could vote or own property. Queen Cleo--a better example of equality and respect, but still comes up short, etc. The good housewife, respected... if not controlled.

The problem, in my opinion, is that we equate freedom and equality with good. Neither are good, just perspectives. Freedom and equality bring much---but they are cold, hard tools.

It used to be that nations fought nations for the sole purpose of women and their virtue. Slight a noble’s wife and die... Nowadays, men just replace women, and run their nations anyways.

But to answer an unspoken question--I think both sexes lost respect in this commercialistic world. Consume, buy, consume, repeat until death. Big tits, no brains... = wealth... Funny part is, this has always been a male concept for the most part, but now women have a vivacious appetite for this greed too.. Sad...

>> ^peggedbea:
respect in what sense? respect of society in general? respect of men? self respect? respect from other women?
i disagree that "respect" has always been the general attitude directed at women. >> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.
I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...
>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

I'm a massage and aquatic therapist for people with physical disabilities (and sometimes accompanying intellectual disabilities)
I provide intensive in home behavioral and life skills support to a woman with a physical disability, an intellectal disability and major behavioral challenges
I work with adolescent boys with autism and asperger's fostering social skills, broadening their scopes of interest and focusing on dealing with stress and anxiety.
And I also babysit a man who is blind and has autism a few times a month. He's my super buddy.

My job is awesome cause it allows me to tap into the things I'm best at in life. I don't have to sit in anyone place for very long, I go somewhere different everyday and do something different everyday and have creative control over the activities. I basically have no "boss", I have set of standards and am accountable to the state for proper documentation and following ethical guidelines, but I don't have to "check in" with anyone. My schedule is between me and my clients. As a single mom, that's something thats invaluable to me. If my kids get sick, I just call my clients and reschedule, there are no "write ups" or "attendance policies" and "tardiness" isn't an issue. If I get stuck in traffic I just call and say "hey, give me 5 minutes". I will never be written up for being 5 minutes late 3 times within 3 months ever again. I also, the most appropriate thing to wear just happens to be sweat pants and tshirt. fuck yes!! i work in my pajamas.

down sides: It doesn't pay enough and I have no benefits package or worker's compensation insurance.

respect in what sense? respect of society in general? respect of men? self respect? respect from other women?
i disagree that "respect" has always been the general attitude directed at women. >> ^Lawdeedaw:

I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.
I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...
>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.

I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...

>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.

of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.

men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.

i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:

I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

I agree it is oversimplified by Dawkins here but not sure for what audience this is intended. I think he was leaning to what you were talking about with his third hypothesis.
His first hypothesis I must be misunderstanding, because simply babysitting the kids would not pass the gene onto them unless those children were the result of his second hypothesis.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

I thought this was surprisingly oversimplified talk by Dawkins, He must full well know that there is no one, isolated gay gene, but that gay(and hetero/bi) behavior/sexuality is much more likely a very complex mix of many genes that determine hormones, lust, love and many other things, and I'm also surprised he doesnt bring up misfiring. Sexual and emotional lust is a complex set of things, and as anyone thats ever been in love could attest to, a very powerful and complicated thing..
That one in 10 simply falls in love/wants to have sex with with the wrong sex could be a natural frequency thats basically hard to keep down. maybe the mistakes are simply cancelled out by the usefulness of sexual lust and behavior. What I mean is, we basically have genes that say "Make a body that really, really likes sex and that wants to fuck anything that moves.. wait uh, I mean only of the same species and opposite sex are in also a fertile state" and that the first part of that instruction is by far the most important.
It might be far more dangerous for a gene(for its long term survival) to produce hetero-or-nothing sexuality than to produce bodies whose sexual lust misfires 1 in 10 times.

Keep in mind that I'm using words like "mistake" and "wrong" as in "its a mistake/wrong to be gay if you want to reproduce" and not in any political way.

I think they shoulda gotten the guy from Adventures in Babysitting.
..and the hammer looks funny.

marshmallow fluff is only a thing in the up north.
in the south we don't touch that shit, unless its to make fudge or rice krispie treats. and we don't call it fluff.


i remember moving in with my aunt in connecticut (briefly) as a teenager and babysitting my cousins and having them ask me to make them peanut butter and fluff sandwiches. it ended in small children crying and teenage girl having an exasperate piss attack because I DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE HELL FLUFF WAS and a 4 year old can't explain it.

But these unprovoked wars and the US hegemony exist, and they're a creation of Democratic and Republican government. Local law enforcement is becoming militarized brownshirts thanks to a large central government. This is a far worse outcome than even the worst that can come from a Libertarian utopia. But you're more worried about a theoretical "economic extortion" from private landowners over the current realistic government tyranny and government's own economic extortion.

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes. I don't understand why you'd think your rights would not be protected, but I'll chock that one up to a lack of understanding what a free society really means. Libertarians don't believe government's role to be forced taxation (theft, servitude), offensive wars, babysitting the world, social engineering by force, imperialism, espionage, suspending habeas corpus, etc. But Democrats and Republicans do.

Now contrast that simple minarchist belief with your own statist belief, and you tell me which society protects rights and which does not. Because in your society I can give you loads of examples where your large government has done the opposite of protecting rights, and has instead encroached upon them.

This dog has some serious skills-Mother's little helper babysits, can lick his own balls, and pull her grip with a team across the tundra!!!!

>> ^inflatablevagina:
My point is even if the fine is $1000 I am going to speed sometime. If you say you don't speed.... I am calling bullshit. (p.s. im not picking on you.. i like you)
The speed limit around here is mostly 60 MPH. Do you know how many people actually drive 60 all the time? I bet if there are any... it's a relatively small percentage. If I want to drive 70 or 75 so be it. I leave plenty of space between me and the car in front of me. If someone tailgates me I move. I am all about being safe, but mandatory arbitrary speed limits on highways are ridiculous to me. I am totally fine speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones. I obey those speeds as I suspect most do.
I don't like stupid rules to be placed on me because other people can't handle their shit. I have an issue with a cop chasing me down the highway at 70 MPH and giving me a $250-300 ticket for speeding. Fuuuuuuck that. Cops have many uses in society and I bet you, I BET, that if they didn't have to babysit the roads then they would be able to perform an ACTUAL service to the community. Those cops didn't sign up to sit on the fucking highway and pull over people to ticket, did they? No most likely they signed up to patrol and protect the citizens... they have no place monitoring my speed.



Inflatable, you're exactly right. If laws worked to stop people from breaking the law, then states with death penalties would have no murders.

Whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime? Most of all punishment these days is monetary. Speeding tickets are a cash cow for the state. They make loads of money, and they also give their officers a quota so they can ensure they make that same revenue amount each year.

You feel you're a safe driver, and you also feel you should be able to drive 70 or 75 in the 60 MPH zone, but the Statists around you think you're too dangerous and irresponsible to do so and there must be a law against you doing so - and men with guns should pull you over to cite you.

The State sends these men with guns out to force you to obey their belief system which also generates income for them. How is this not racketeering? How is this not akin to paying protection money to the mob? And if you disagree with their monetized dogma, the men with guns throw you in a cage.

My point is even if the fine is $1000 I am going to speed sometime. If you say you don't speed.... I am calling bullshit. (p.s. im not picking on you.. i like you)
The speed limit around here is mostly 60 MPH. Do you know how many people actually drive 60 all the time? I bet if there are any... it's a relatively small percentage. If I want to drive 70 or 75 so be it. I leave plenty of space between me and the car in front of me. If someone tailgates me I move. I am all about being safe, but mandatory arbitrary speed limits on highways are ridiculous to me. I am totally fine speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones. I obey those speeds as I suspect most do.

I don't like stupid rules to be placed on me because other people can't handle their shit. I have an issue with a cop chasing me down the highway at 70 MPH and giving me a $250-300 ticket for speeding. Fuuuuuuck that. Cops have many uses in society and I bet you, I BET, that if they didn't have to babysit the roads then they would be able to perform an ACTUAL service to the community. Those cops didn't sign up to sit on the fucking highway and pull over people to ticket, did they? No most likely they signed up to patrol and protect the citizens... they have no place monitoring my speed.

Too ranty?



>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^inflatablevagina:
This is something that irritates me constantly. Mostly because I am a speeder. Paying a fine of $200 is above and beyond ridiculous. If you get caught speeding, yes, there should be some sort of fine, but hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding. What it does do is make the people on the highway slow down to 10 MPH when a cop is on the fucking road.

Fine me, but make it reasonable. Especially in the current economic status of the country.

The point of a fine is to make you say "oh shit, that's a significant % of my paycheck." If it were "reasonable", then you'd be like "Who cares, it's only $(x dollars). I'm late so I really need to speed, and if a get a fine, no big deal."
There are several ways that reducing highway speeds benefit our society. Public safety aside, the efficiency of your car is greatly reduced at higher speeds. A simple way to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" would be for everyone to just slow the fuck down a little bit.