Well I hope people don't start complaining of waste when the salt trucks are driving their routes for practice and familiarization or early salting/treating bridges just in case of low temps.

But what's seen in this video is probably training and them checking clearances and issues. Like people's leaning walls or trees, or other obstructions they will need cleared to make it possible to plow the sidewalks. And complaining about their blades down on the sidewalk one day of non-snow when they plow the hell out of them basically blind when snow does fall is just stupid.

Unless they are doing this on a weekend, I doubt they are getting overtime while the sun is out given the kind of daylight hours we're seeing now.

And it's just as likely they are running the machines and routes in daytime so people can see their presence and see how much room they need to clear the sidewalks when snow does come. I doubt they want to plow and dodge trashcans, cars and whatever else come bad weather. Too many people lose their minds when they encounter something new in familiar areas....such as construction on familiar roads.

There couldn't be a corrupt local gov't this bad just racking up overtime hours by plowing imaginary snow. All I can think is that they are doing the router before 2 feet of snow to check for any obstructions or areas that are too narrow or might damage the plow or property.

The other thought is that they might have put accurate GPS trackers on them and they are mapping out the streets for ability to replay the route in the snow. But in reality I can understand why they are ruining the plows and concrete scraping them up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.
If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.
The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have costs cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?
Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).
Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.





>> ^messenger:
There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.





You are aware that deregulation of the market is what cussed the current economic climet ?

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.

That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.

Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.

But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.

Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.

If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have cost cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?

Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).

Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.











>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

@hpqp

Rational debate often isn't what happens here on the Sift, unfortunately, which is why I have indeed moved on to other sites--sites where the majority of discussion challenges people's assumptions without the need for cheap theatrics like sarcasm or insults or condescension.

I have no problem with upvoting or downvoting comments (you seem to have misunderstood my point there). I have a problem to the pandering for upvotes through insulting another poster without addressing the content of their post in any rational way (and thereby dismissing the original poster's argument--ad hominem in its purest form). That's a practice that is becoming a bit too frequent here in my opinion and the way this thread has developed is damning evidence for it (to your credit, you started out in this whole thing by actually addressing the point of Shiny's post rather than just harping on his evangelicalism--it's too bad things went downhill from there).

As I posted in @ChaosEngine's profile, whether Hitchens is or is not an alcoholic is a matter of opinion--and I happen to believe very much that he is. I posted my rationale for why I believe he is an alcoholic in that post, so check out Chaos's profile if you're interested in reading why.

As I also said in that post (on Chaos's profile), regardless of whether he is an alcoholic or not we can all agree (Hitchens would absolutely agree, I think) that he has been an excessive drinker. And this excessive drinking is likely one factor in the development of his cancer. Which brings me back to the original point which everyone seems so intent on missing--toasting an alcoholic excessive drinker is incredibly ironic, particularly when it is said alcoholism excessive drinking that's a contributing factor in his early death.

You disagree that he is an alcoholic? That's fine. Go ahead write your support for your point of view here. In fact, I can already guess what you'd provide as support: Hitchens "60 Minutes" interview in which he is asked point-blank whether he believes he is an alcoholic. And I would refute that interview and you could provide more support for your opinion and so on... But we'd just be arguing semantics at that point and missing out on Shiny's original point.

Now, we could have a fine and friendly disagreement about this whole issue without the name-calling, without the sarcasm, without egos getting in the way.

But this is the Sift and, as you have once again proven to me, this is not the place for that to happen.

By the way, while I did rather enjoy the condescending arrogance of your "FTFY" in your original reply to me, had you actually bothered to ask me why I wrote it we could have probably had an interesting discussion about a number of things, such as whether insulting someone's beliefs does or does not insult them personally and how some of Hitchens' comments are not actually directed against beliefs but specific people (Mother Teresa, for instance). But so convinced of your position were you that you chose to burn that bridge of dialogue before we could even cross it.

Also, I never answered your other post because I have a full-time job with unpaid overtime and a 6-month old at home, so I only get a limited amount of Net time. Given how this thread has gone, I now have zero inclination to continue talking with you. I said my peace in that thread. You replied. Let people who come later read the comments and decide for themselves what they want to believe or whether they even care. I simply don't anymore.

Thanks for reminding me about why I don't post comments on the Sift (at least, not anything that expresses much of an opinion).

Happy Sifting to you.

I am in a government Union job and I wholeheartedly disagree.
As it is, there is not enough time in the day to get the work done. The work never ends and has major deadlines. I work my day by starting 20 minutes early, I skip both my 15 min breaks and eat at my desk while working or skip my lunch entirely. I am often asked to work overtime and asked not to claim overtime. My Director asks that we record that overtime and take time off where we can - Time that never comes because the work never lets up.

Don't get me wrong though. I like my job so I enjoy working through my breaks. In a creative job, I can't turn it on and off according to a clock. Knowing it is a union job helps give us a little power to push back at times and say, "No - You're overloading us. If there is that much work that isn't getting done, it's time to ad a new designer to the team."

Our union has also allowed us to come to work and get parking as a benefit. I work at a large college and I shouldn't have to pay the college to come to work each day.

It doesn't matter who you are - you should have the right to stand up and say, "Hey, that's not fair"


>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

@mgittle I think we agree in the broad strokes, and overall conclusion, but I think you have some of the minor details wrong.

You and others here have asserted that banks can "loan out more than they have". This is false, according to everything I've ever read or seen happen in my own work life (in financial services).

Here's my own version of a logical proof. If I want to take out a loan from the bank to buy something, the bank actually has to give real money to someone. But, the Federal Reserve is the only agency that can create dollars legally. Therefore, the bank must have enough dollars in some account in order to pay out the initial loan amount, or it can't issue the loan.

So where do banks get the money to lend out? Well, for a traditional bank, it comes from the checking and savings accounts of regular people, as well as out of capital accumulated from profits. This is that "some account" whose name is actually the bank's "reserve account" at...the Federal Reserve. To cover withdrawals from those savings accounts, banks are legally required to keep a fraction of their total capital in reserve -- hence the name "fractional reserve banking".

So, how does the Fed inject new money into the economy? It anonymously buys government bonds from banks, using freshly created money. What if the Fed wants to take money out of the economy? Well, it sells government bonds, and destroys the cash it gets in return for the sale. No physically currency really gets created or destroyed, of course, it's just adding and subtracting numbers from the relevant reserve accounts.

Here's wikipedia's explanation of the Fed's monetary policy process, which is more detailed and authoritative than mine.

You also make the case that paying off debt hurts the economy because it shrinks the money supply. That's true! Which is why right now the economy is seriously in need of the Fed expanding the monetary base. Right now everyone's trying to pay down their debts (deleverage, in the financial lingo), and it's sucking all the money out of the economy. The Fed needs to work overtime to pump more money into the economy to take up the slack. Unfortunately, the banks have been wanting to keep way more than their usual in reserves -- they aren't loaning out the money the Fed is creating, they're just piling it up in their account at the Fed.

Because of that, it's never leaving the building, much less entering into the economy where it might potentially cause inflation. That's why I've been trying to tell marbles that monetary base expansion != inflation...they're two different terms for a reason!

It's also why I think abolishing the Fed or returning to a gold standard just makes things worse for everyone. One can argue that the Fed is pursuing the wrong monetary policy (for exmaple most liberal economists say it's been too timid about expanding the money supply), but this whole attempt to make the whole seem like some sort of illegitimate scam grates on me.

Without the Fed trying to expand the monetary base, you'd get something like 20% unemployment, and outright deflation, rather than just a low and declining rate of inflation.

Agreed - I have instated a 24-hour policy on grading - first of all 24 hours before my students can even ask about a grade (usually they tend to forget after a day and that buys me more time in grading), and 24 hours after they receive the grade before they can ask why they received a particular grade. Like you said, they need that one-on-one feedback so there's no getting around the extra time and effort involved, not to mention planning for classes, keeping them engaged with assignments, etc.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Very true. Speaking from experience, think of it this way, one 2 page paper for an average of 30 students in the room X 6 classes in the day (you do get one prep) = 180 papers you have to comb over and correct. Even if you limit your time to 5 minutes per paper that's 900 minutes (or 15 hours) of work you're taking home.

I can also tell you from experience that the day after a student hands something in, they expect it to be graded. Hell, I've gotten a "How did I do on that paper?" at the end of the day before I even went home. Aside from that though, the students really need quality feedback if they are to improve. You have to get them graded asap for their sake and for yours because the world doesn't stop just because you have a pile of papers to grade.

To make a long story short, every assignment is like that. After too much of it it's VERY easy to get burnt out quickly and the summers off are the times when you can plan ahead for the coming year and re-cooperate from the enormous work load that was on your shoulders during the school year.

So yeah I get summers off, because the rest of the year I'm working 60-80 hour work weeks and not getting paid for any overtime.

In reply to this comment by blahpook:
This is one of the best (if not overly optimistic) responses to this I've seen on the internets so far:


"How many hours a day do you work? 8? I arrive at my school at 7:30 a.m. and leave between 5:30 and 6:30. If I have to meet with a parent, it can sometime go later than that. When you leave work do you take your work home with you to work on later? I review lesson plans and check papers for at least an hour every night, many times longer. Do you work on the weekends after putting in your 40-hour week? I spend many hours every weekend checking papers and preparing for the coming week. Do you have to have a license to do your job? If you do, who pays for that license? I have to have a license, and I have to pay for that license myself. If you have to have a license, do you have to complete a mandatory number of continuing education classes? I do. If you have to complete continuing education classes, do you have to pay for them out of your own pocket? I do. When do you think I take those classes? I take them during the summer. I am at my school until at least the second week of June, and return by the second week of August. That hardly constitutes a whole summer. When people say to me, "It must be nice to have the summer off and still get a paycheck." I always say to them, "Do you remember all of those extra hours I put in over the school year? I am just getting paid for them now." When do you get paid for your overtime hours? Do you have to wait until summer to get paid? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I am just telling you the facts. I love my job! I would never want to do anything else. Do you love your job? Do you have children? I hope you have respect for their teacher/s, because most of them work as hard as I do and deserve your respect. And by the way, I like Ann Coulter. and Sara Palin, I think they are brave women. But, I also think Ann misspoke on this one. I would love to have her come and spend a week with me. I bet she would go home and write a book about how fortunate we are to have good teachers."

This was great until she said that she thinks Sara Palin [sic] and Ann Coulter are "brave women." She obviously didn't learn anything in school herself and, despite how hard she works, I wouldn't want her teaching anything having to do with "critical thinking" which she apparently seems to lack.

>> ^blahpook:

This is one of the best (if not overly optimistic) responses to this I've seen on the internets so far:
"How many hours a day do you work? 8? I arrive at my school at 7:30 a.m. and leave between 5:30 and 6:30. If I have to meet with a parent, it can sometime go later than that. When you leave work do you take your work home with you to work on later? I review lesson plans and check papers for at least an hour every night, many times longer. Do you work on the weekends after putting in your 40-hour week? I spend many hours every weekend checking papers and preparing for the coming week. Do you have to have a license to do your job? If you do, who pays for that license? I have to have a license, and I have to pay for that license myself. If you have to have a license, do you have to complete a mandatory number of continuing education classes? I do. If you have to complete continuing education classes, do you have to pay for them out of your own pocket? I do. When do you think I take those classes? I take them during the summer. I am at my school until at least the second week of June, and return by the second week of August. That hardly constitutes a whole summer. When people say to me, "It must be nice to have the summer off and still get a paycheck." I always say to them, "Do you remember all of those extra hours I put in over the school year? I am just getting paid for them now." When do you get paid for your overtime hours? Do you have to wait until summer to get paid? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I am just telling you the facts. I love my job! I would never want to do anything else. Do you love your job? Do you have children? I hope you have respect for their teacher/s, because most of them work as hard as I do and deserve your respect. And by the way, I like Ann Coulter. and Sara Palin, I think they are brave women. But, I also think Ann misspoke on this one. I would love to have her come and spend a week with me. I bet she would go home and write a book about how fortunate we are to have good teachers."

Very true. Speaking from experience, think of it this way, one 2 page paper for an average of 30 students in the room X 6 classes in the day (you do get one prep) = 180 papers you have to comb over and correct. Even if you limit your time to 5 minutes per paper that's 900 minutes (or 15 hours) of work you're taking home.

I can also tell you from experience that the day after a student hands something in, they expect it to be graded. Hell, I've gotten a "How did I do on that paper?" at the end of the day before I even went home. Aside from that though, the students really need quality feedback if they are to improve. You have to get them graded asap for their sake and for yours because the world doesn't stop just because you have a pile of papers to grade.

To make a long story short, every assignment is like that. After too much of it it's VERY easy to get burnt out quickly and the summers off are the times when you can plan ahead for the coming year and re-cooperate from the enormous work load that was on your shoulders during the school year.

So yeah I get summers off, because the rest of the year I'm working 60-80 hour work weeks and not getting paid for any overtime.

In reply to this comment by blahpook:
This is one of the best (if not overly optimistic) responses to this I've seen on the internets so far:


"How many hours a day do you work? 8? I arrive at my school at 7:30 a.m. and leave between 5:30 and 6:30. If I have to meet with a parent, it can sometime go later than that. When you leave work do you take your work home with you to work on later? I review lesson plans and check papers for at least an hour every night, many times longer. Do you work on the weekends after putting in your 40-hour week? I spend many hours every weekend checking papers and preparing for the coming week. Do you have to have a license to do your job? If you do, who pays for that license? I have to have a license, and I have to pay for that license myself. If you have to have a license, do you have to complete a mandatory number of continuing education classes? I do. If you have to complete continuing education classes, do you have to pay for them out of your own pocket? I do. When do you think I take those classes? I take them during the summer. I am at my school until at least the second week of June, and return by the second week of August. That hardly constitutes a whole summer. When people say to me, "It must be nice to have the summer off and still get a paycheck." I always say to them, "Do you remember all of those extra hours I put in over the school year? I am just getting paid for them now." When do you get paid for your overtime hours? Do you have to wait until summer to get paid? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I am just telling you the facts. I love my job! I would never want to do anything else. Do you love your job? Do you have children? I hope you have respect for their teacher/s, because most of them work as hard as I do and deserve your respect. And by the way, I like Ann Coulter. and Sara Palin, I think they are brave women. But, I also think Ann misspoke on this one. I would love to have her come and spend a week with me. I bet she would go home and write a book about how fortunate we are to have good teachers."

This is one of the best (if not overly optimistic) responses to this I've seen on the internets so far:


"How many hours a day do you work? 8? I arrive at my school at 7:30 a.m. and leave between 5:30 and 6:30. If I have to meet with a parent, it can sometime go later than that. When you leave work do you take your work home with you to work on later? I review lesson plans and check papers for at least an hour every night, many times longer. Do you work on the weekends after putting in your 40-hour week? I spend many hours every weekend checking papers and preparing for the coming week. Do you have to have a license to do your job? If you do, who pays for that license? I have to have a license, and I have to pay for that license myself. If you have to have a license, do you have to complete a mandatory number of continuing education classes? I do. If you have to complete continuing education classes, do you have to pay for them out of your own pocket? I do. When do you think I take those classes? I take them during the summer. I am at my school until at least the second week of June, and return by the second week of August. That hardly constitutes a whole summer. When people say to me, "It must be nice to have the summer off and still get a paycheck." I always say to them, "Do you remember all of those extra hours I put in over the school year? I am just getting paid for them now." When do you get paid for your overtime hours? Do you have to wait until summer to get paid? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining, I am just telling you the facts. I love my job! I would never want to do anything else. Do you love your job? Do you have children? I hope you have respect for their teacher/s, because most of them work as hard as I do and deserve your respect. And by the way, I like Ann Coulter. and Sara Palin, I think they are brave women. But, I also think Ann misspoke on this one. I would love to have her come and spend a week with me. I bet she would go home and write a book about how fortunate we are to have good teachers."

Always clean up after my dog. It irks the hell out of me when people around here don't. And yeah if anyone ever accused me I'd probably keep taking my dog back to their yard each and every time he had to shit or piss.

Urine actually leaves nasty brown spots in grass overtime. Jus' sayin'.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I adore that animation, and it was in the first handful of videos I wanted to sift when I joined.
I can't watch it very often because it gets me very misty eyed.
Thank you!

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
http://videosift.com/video/Overtime-the-animated-s-last-respects