Is Matt Damon from the future?

*talks *news *nsfw

Whole video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7icVvDK9I from http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/j67mf/watch_matt_damon_defend_teachers_better_than/ ...

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by ant.

Adding video to channels (News, Talks) - requested by ant.

The more I see of the real Matt--the more I like him.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 6:47am PDT - promote requested by LarsaruS.

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


THANK YOU! I like YT comments that actually make sense.

Matt Damon is pretty cool, but teachers are obviously the problem we should invade the schools.

Reason Foundation, why so secretive?

Dear libmedia: Stop hiring reporters based on whether they're loyal democrats, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform an objective interview.



So Hugehead, why do these dedicated public servants need a union? Letting government employees unionize was one of the biggest mistakes.

*politics
*education

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matt damon, teachers' to 'matt damon, teachers, education, reasontv' - edited by NetRunner

>> ^quantumushroom:

So Hugehead, why do these dedicated public servants need a union? Letting government employees unionize was one of the biggest mistakes.


They should have a union because even the government like a corporation can be a dick and take away things rightfully earned. Sounds kinda like your philosophy doesn't it Jew?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dear libmedia: Stop hiring reporters based on whether they're loyal democrats, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform an objective interview.

So Hugehead, why do these dedicated public servants need a union? Letting government employees unionize was one of the biggest mistakes.


Because we all know FAUX NEWZ would never do such a thing!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matt damon, teachers, education, reasontv' to 'matt damon, teachers, education, reasontv, kochtv' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

*promote

MycroftHomlz cannot promote this post because MycroftHomlz does not have enough Power Points - ignoring promote request by MycroftHomlz. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.

Some discussions in the US are just plain stupid for the rest of the world. And it's not like someone could say: "well, the US has the most absurd political scenery of any developed nation, but look at us, it's clearly working very well". Because it's obviously not.

Dear right wing nutjob: Stop calling anyone or anything that isn't lock step in line with your insane far right wing agenda 'liberal' or 'democrat'. Because someone doesn't agree with your narrow, self centered world view, does not make them part of the groups you wish them to be in. Not everything that's left of the farthest right possible is liberal or democratic, only nutjobs think that way. You, sir, are a tool. (please note I don't use the term 'conservative' because the right wing nuts of today are not conservative in the least, they want to make social laws fostering their viewpoint alone, that's not conservative, and they spend more liberally than their 'liberal' counterparts whenever they can.)
Your second point has already been dealt with...because the far right will take everything public servants have worked for and were contractually due and reduce them to minimum wage part time workers without benefits, those public servants were forced to unite and fight for what they worked for and earned. It's funny, I recall you being a voice for the CEO's of banks when they took golden parachutes after bush bailed them out of the ditch they drove into, saying they had contracts, and contracts must be enforced...why does that not apply to those making less than 10 million a year?
Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Dear libmedia: Stop hiring reporters based on whether they're loyal democrats, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform an objective interview.
So Hugehead, why do these dedicated public servants need a union? Letting government employees unionize was one of the biggest mistakes.

There are a lot of shitty teachers out there. I can count on one hand how many good teachers I had through elementary and high school. Things changed in college, for better and worse. There were more good teachers than shitty ones, but the shitty teachers were shittier.

Actually my favorite part was, "10%? Where did you get that number?..." "I don't know..."

School: wtf? School can't turn non-intellectuals into intellectuals, otherwise increases in school spending would correlate with increased test scores.

Drop out and learn twice as fast on your own.

That last line literally made me laugh out loud. BURN!

Kudos to him for sticking up for teachers so much....but uh...anyone else have the feeling hes just stringing together words and hoping they make sense?
and ......watch the whole video...this reporter blows

To be fair, just because somebody "wants to teach" doesn't make them a "good" teacher.

>> ^Confucius:

Kudos to him for sticking up for teachers so much....but uh...anyone else have the feeling hes just stringing together words and hoping they make sense?
and ......watch the whole video...this reporter blows


No. What he's saying is something I say a lot lately about different things not relating to education. This "MBA" world view that money (AKA job security) is the only motivator to do a good job is "paternalistic" nonsense. Teachers need job security, but job security is not what makes a good teacher a good teacher. Job security allows good teachers to remain focussed on being good teachers.

The best way to motivate people is to give them something worth doing.

Makes me want to go watch Team America. "Matt Damon". But yeah, he comes back swinging for sure. going to watch the whole clip next.. as I'd like to see it more in context.

It's really simple why. Voters want to pay as little as possible in taxes, damn the consequences. That's why virtually every public servant from teachers to police officers, from military soldiers to elected officials, all the way up to the President of the United States (ultimate authority over a nuclear stockpile capable of destroying the globe, and he's not even bringing home half a million dollars in salary annually?! WTF!!!) are underpaid, often grossly.

>> ^quantumushroom:

why do these dedicated public servants need a union? Letting government employees unionize was one of the biggest mistakes.

mhmmm...i can dredge sense out of what he said....i was talking about how he seemed blank eyed, and looked like he was parroting something 'shiny' he heard.


>> ^budzos:

>> ^Confucius:
Kudos to him for sticking up for teachers so much....but uh...anyone else have the feeling hes just stringing together words and hoping they make sense?
and ......watch the whole video...this reporter blows

No. What he's saying is something I say a lot lately about different things not relating to education. This "MBA" world view that money (AKA job security) is the only motivator to do a good job is "paternalistic" nonsense. Teachers need job security, but job security is not what makes a good teacher a good teacher. Job security allows good teachers to remain focussed on being good teachers.
The best way to motivate people is to give them something worth doing.

>> ^Confucius:

mhmmm...i can dredge sense out of what he said....i was talking about how he seemed blank eyed, and looked like he was parroting something 'shiny' he heard.

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Confucius:
Kudos to him for sticking up for teachers so much....but uh...anyone else have the feeling hes just stringing together words and hoping they make sense?
and ......watch the whole video...this reporter blows

No. What he's saying is something I say a lot lately about different things not relating to education. This "MBA" world view that money (AKA job security) is the only motivator to do a good job is "paternalistic" nonsense. Teachers need job security, but job security is not what makes a good teacher a good teacher. Job security allows good teachers to remain focussed on being good teachers.
The best way to motivate people is to give them something worth doing.



seemd to me he was doing more of a Bill Nye, wait my brain has to dumb itself down to talk to this chick, - type stall

big words aren't scary, learn them and increase your vocabulary kungfu
much like you dress for the job you want
you need to speak at the level of conversation your want

You think that's a blank-eyed look? He looks pretty focussed and lucid to me. You know he went to Harvard?

>> ^Confucius:

mhmmm...i can dredge sense out of what he said....i was talking about how he seemed blank eyed, and looked like he was parroting something 'shiny' he heard.

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Confucius:

I would hardly call intrinsic and paternal big words.... But anyway, heres why i said what i did, he rapid fires the mba to paternalistic phrase and then as soon as he's done with it he has to pause and search for words. I.e. he heard it, was briefed on it or whatever, memorized it and then when it came time to speak his own thoughts he flubbed for a second.

Im going to guess he knew/assumed he was going to get interviewed or talked to....but wtv maybe not....maybe so

>> ^packo:

>> ^Confucius:
mhmmm...i can dredge sense out of what he said....i was talking about how he seemed blank eyed, and looked like he was parroting something 'shiny' he heard.

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Confucius:
Kudos to him for sticking up for teachers so much....but uh...anyone else have the feeling hes just stringing together words and hoping they make sense?
and ......watch the whole video...this reporter blows

No. What he's saying is something I say a lot lately about different things not relating to education. This "MBA" world view that money (AKA job security) is the only motivator to do a good job is "paternalistic" nonsense. Teachers need job security, but job security is not what makes a good teacher a good teacher. Job security allows good teachers to remain focussed on being good teachers.
The best way to motivate people is to give them something worth doing.


seemd to me he was doing more of a Bill Nye, wait my brain has to dumb itself down to talk to this chick, - type stall
big words aren't scary, learn them and increase your vocabulary kungfu
much like you dress for the job you want
you need to speak at the level of conversation your want

Dear right wing nutjob: Stop calling anyone or anything that isn't lock step in line with your insane far right wing agenda 'liberal' or 'democrat'. Because someone doesn't agree with your narrow, self centered world view, does not make them part of the groups you wish them to be in. Not everything that's left of the farthest right possible is liberal or democratic, only nutjobs think that way.

Labels save time, especially when they're accurate. American teachers' unions and 90% of American journalists are democrats, which used to mean liberal but now means socialist.

You, sir, are a tool. (please note I don't use the term 'conservative' because the right wing nuts of today are not conservative in the least, they want to make social laws fostering their viewpoint alone, that's not conservative, and they spend more liberally than their 'liberal' counterparts whenever they can.)

One of the many flowers in your garden of ignorance can be traced to this root: you were raised with the idea that "good conservatives" are RINO assholes like McCain who keep silent and compromise on every point in order to to be liked, while leftards and their failed schemes run roughshod over them. Now that the real Right has found its voice, there's a real chance at real change, however small.

The Kenyanesque Hawaiian has spent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years with more on the way. Spare the lecture about RINOS and spending, they're amateurs by comparison.

Your second point has already been dealt with...because the far right will take everything public servants have worked for and were contractually due and reduce them to minimum wage part time workers without benefits, those public servants were forced to unite and fight for what they worked for and earned.

'Dealt with' but not properly defended. The "far right"? And who might that be? Taxpayers who have had enough? People who see government schools for what they are? Dummy factories. Indoctrination centers. The free market does a better job teaching at half the cost. No wonder the unions hate vouchers and charter schools.

The Age of the Union is past. Put another way, if you can make a union competitive, fine by me, just don't expect GM-style bailouts. Ever. And to hell with all government unions. You may disagree and that's fine.

It's funny, I recall you being a voice for the CEO's of banks when they took golden parachutes after bush bailed them out of the ditch they drove into, saying they had contracts, and contracts must be enforced...why does that not apply to those making less than 10 million a year?

>>> You're bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with my original statement. The closest thing I remember to "defending CEOs" is calling out obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice". Utter crap.

Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Speaking of rewarding failure.

People would respect teachers more if they were to dissapear. Then who would babysit your seven retard hillbilly chidren all fucking day while you spend 16 hours at your non-unionised minimum wage chicken de-gibleting job.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.


Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.

This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

Dude, he's calling Obama "Kenyanesque Hawaiian". For your own sanity, there's no point getting pissed off when he spews ignorant crap.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.
This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

I hate to introduce data to otherwise awesome discussions but...

"Is Matt Damon right that teachers make a "shitty" salary? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Also no." http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach

>> ^chilaxe:

I hate to introduce data to otherwise awesome discussions but...
"Is Matt Damon right that teachers make a "shitty" salary? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Also no." http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach


Reason.com is not a good or reliable source. And teachers don't have a shitty salary, but not a good one either. The countries with the best teachers have also the best-paid teachers. Being a teacher is one of the hardest jobs there are. They have to do much work at home.

If by 'data' you mean 'bullshit', then I totally agree.

-In the article, it says that educators don't work as many hours as other professionals. What many people don't understand is that aside from the 6-7 hours spent in the classroom each day, much of the job is performed off the clock - duties like grading papers, making lesson plans, hosting study sessions, parent-teacher conferences, various meetings, extracurricular fund raisers and events, filling out report cards, ordering supplies, going to educator conferences, field trips, etc. They obviously did no research before hastily rushing out this weak rebuttal.

-In the article, it also makes the point that teachers earn about a third less than their private sector counterparts of similar education level. I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that sacrificing a 3rd of your economic worth is not 'shitty'. It probably has something to do with them being a corporate propaganda outfit that wants to profit off of private schools.

Maybe it's time to upgrade your media sources, @chilaxe. You are way too smart to be reading this dishonest garbage.
>> ^chilaxe:

I hate to introduce data to otherwise awesome discussions but...
"Is Matt Damon right that teachers make a "shitty" salary? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Also no." http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.



Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.

And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.

CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email newsletter. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.

No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

>> ^chilaxe:

I hate to introduce data to otherwise awesome discussions but...
"Is Matt Damon right that teachers make a "shitty" salary? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Also no." http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach




Also here: http://videosift.com/video/Matt-Damon-defending-teachers-THE-FULL-VIDEO

Yes, watch the video in context. I like educators and education just as much as anyone else, but we're demagoguing them. We're making their role too noble.

Koch funds many right wing think tanks in addition to the Reason Foundation. It's not a secret. You can find this information on a number of websites. I just picked sourcewatch because it was the first link in my search return. If you have some evidence to suggest that this is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to hear you out. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.
And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.
CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email subscription. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.
No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Koch funds many right wing think tanks in addition to the Reason Foundation. It's not a secret. You can find this information on a number of websites. I just picked sourcewatch because it was the first link in my search return. If you have some evidence to suggest that this is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to hear you out.


I'm sure you plucked it randomly from a hat. My mistake.

So you are not disputing the claim that Koch is one of the Reason Foundation's biggest sugar daddies?

As I expected. Good day, sir.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So you are not disputing the claim that Koch is one of the Reason Foundation's biggest sugar daddies?
As I expected. Good day, sir.


Deflection. How would I know? They could be the ONLY donor, I wouldn't know. The only evidence you've shown is a link to an apparently one-sided political wiki: sourcewatch. Oh and lots and lots of upvotable platitudes. Mmmmm, they're like delicious candy. Base, but delicious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html

For those of you who seem to be hopelessly stuck on 'Team America' as a gauge of Matt Damon's talent for discourse: http://videosift.com/search?q=matt+damon

It probably has something to do with them being a corporate propaganda outfit that wants to profit off of private schools.

This is it exactly. There's a big right wing push against teachers and the public school systems simply because there isn't any real way to make a profit off them. So their goal is to kill off public education in order to privatize it so they can make the big bucks off yet another former American institution.

>> ^PHJF:

To be fair, just because somebody "wants to teach" doesn't make them a "good" teacher.


True, but it doesn't hurt.

@dystopianfuturetoday @Ryjkyj @DerHasisttot

It doesn't seem right to downvote honest discussion. In particular, the downvoting of @blankfist 's seemingly appropriate criticism of sourcewatch.org's neutrality seems out of place.

This intellectual area is really not as simple as it seems. For example, let's look as critically at that NYT article as we would at articles that we disagree with:

"Teachers make 14 percent less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education... This prices teachers out of home ownership in 32 metropolitan areas, and makes raising a family on one salary near impossible."

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.
Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem. Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Dear right wing nutjob: Stop calling anyone or anything that isn't lock step in line with your insane far right wing agenda 'liberal' or 'democrat'. Because someone doesn't agree with your narrow, self centered world view, does not make them part of the groups you wish them to be in. Not everything that's left of the farthest right possible is liberal or democratic, only nutjobs think that way.
Labels save time, especially when they're accurate. American teachers' unions and 90% of American journalists are democrats, which used to mean liberal but now means socialist.
You, sir, are a tool. (please note I don't use the term 'conservative' because the right wing nuts of today are not conservative in the least, they want to make social laws fostering their viewpoint alone, that's not conservative, and they spend more liberally than their 'liberal' counterparts whenever they can.)
One of the many flowers in your garden of ignorance can be traced to this root: you were raised with the idea that "good conservatives" are RINO assholes like McCain who keep silent and compromise on every point in order to to be liked, while leftards and their failed schemes run roughshod over them. Now that the real Right has found its voice, there's a real chance at real change, however small.
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian has spent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years with more on the way. Spare the lecture about RINOS and spending, they're amateurs by comparison.
Your second point has already been dealt with...because the far right will take everything public servants have worked for and were contractually due and reduce them to minimum wage part time workers without benefits, those public servants were forced to unite and fight for what they worked for and earned.
'Dealt with' but not properly defended. The "far right"? And who might that be? Taxpayers who have had enough? People who see government schools for what they are? Dummy factories. Indoctrination centers. The free market does a better job teaching at half the cost. No wonder the unions hate vouchers and charter schools.
The Age of the Union is past. Put another way, if you can make a union competitive, fine by me, just don't expect GM-style bailouts. Ever. And to hell with all government unions. You may disagree and that's fine.
It's funny, I recall you being a voice for the CEO's of banks when they took golden parachutes after bush bailed them out of the ditch they drove into, saying they had contracts, and contracts must be enforced...why does that not apply to those making less than 10 million a year?
>>> You're bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with my original statement. The closest thing I remember to "defending CEOs" is calling out obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice". Utter crap.

Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.
Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.
Speaking of rewarding failure.

>> ^jimnms:

There are a lot of shitty teachers out there. I can count on one hand how many good teachers I had through elementary and high school. Things changed in college, for better and worse. There were more good teachers than shitty ones, but the shitty teachers were shittier.

In my experience I didn't have even one bad teacher. ! went to 6 differrent schools grade 1-12 and had dozens of teachers in college. All great teachers!!! in my experience 100% of teachers are great. I also think that almost all of them were underpaid.


The solution to getting fewer shitty teachers is to value teachers more, not less!

Look at that comment a little closer and see if you see any problems in logic.

-blankfist does not like the information in the article I posted.
-He cannot find any evidence to suggest that the damning information is false.
-He then tries to discredit the article on the basis that the site it was posted on has a political bias.

Do you see the dishonesty of this argument?

FOX NEWS uses this very same 'balance' fallacy constantly.

I stand behind the downvote.
>> ^chilaxe:

@dystopianfuturetoday @Ryjkyj @DerHasisttot
It doesn't seem right to downvote honest discussion. In particular, the downvoting of @blankfist 's seemingly appropriate criticism of sourcewatch.org's neutrality seems out of place.

@dystopianfuturetoday

It really doesn't seem like you have the monopoly on legitimate sentiments that you believe you have.

All the points you accused Blankfist of apply equally to you:
-[Dystopianfuturetoday] does not like the information [from Reason].
-He cannot find any evidence to suggest that the damning information is false.
-He then tries to discredit the article [from Reason] on the basis that the site it was posted on has a political bias.

To paraphrase your words: that SourceWatch, the Huffington Post, and Reason are political media outlets isn't grounds to disqualify their arguments.

It's true that libertarians tend to become very economically successful, like Peter Thiel, who also donates to many libertarians causes, but being funded by rich philanthropists like Thiel or Al Gore doesn't disqualify arguments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>>

You don't seem to be getting the point. Let me try again.

-My original post was a rebuttal to the contention that ReasonTV is a legitimate media outlet. I provided evidence that it is both a think tank and corporate front group.

Do you understand the difference between a think tank and a media outlet?

-I did not disqualify Reason(sic)TV's arguments out of hand, I rebutted them. You posted an article. I read it. I took it apart.

Do you understand the difference between dismissing an argument out of hand and rebutting one?

If you get sick of arguing about arguing and decide you'd like to talk about the substance of this thread, let me know.

>> ^chilaxe:

@dystopianfuturetoday @Ryjkyj @DerHasisttot
It doesn't seem right to downvote honest discussion. In particular, the downvoting of @blankfist 's seemingly appropriate criticism of sourcewatch.org's neutrality seems out of place.


I only downvoted as a way of disagreeing with the point of your comment. I disagree because I believe it to be poorly thought out, and false. However you try to skew the numbers, the fact is that teachers are paid less than other people with similar education levels. Most people with children who bitch about teacher's salaries pay their babysitters more money per child watched. I find that article intentionally misleading. It's misinformation, so I downvoted it.

If it's any consolation, I also upvoted your original comment.

Ditto.

I was a public school teacher. How is working for 25 years with a master's degree as a teacher starting at 32K/yr, and ending at 50K/yr not shitty?

They have shitty salaries, period.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^chilaxe:
I hate to introduce data to otherwise awesome discussions but...
"Is Matt Damon right that teachers make a "shitty" salary? Short answer: No. Longer answer: Also no." http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/02/is-matt-damon-right-that-teach
< br>
Reason.com is not a good or reliable source. And teachers don't have a shitty salary, but not a good one either. The countries with the best teachers have also the best-paid teachers. Being a teacher is one of the hardest jobs there are. They have to do much work at home.

I do pretty good impressions. See if you can guess who I am.

You aren't smart enough to get what I'm saying, so I'll now talk down to you.

Majority of people on here agree with me, so I can easily take a more aggressive stand. You however will be downvoted into oblivion and scoffed. Come at me bro.

Do you have enough of an intellectual curiosity to understand me? Do you understand the difference between the number 4 and the letter H?

When you can rub together two brain cells and produce an original argument, I'll be willing to listen.

>> ^blankfist:
I do pretty good impressions. See if you can guess who I am.

You aren't smart enough to get what I'm saying, so I'll now talk down to you.
Majority of people on here agree with me, so I can easily take a more aggressive stand. You however will be downvoted into oblivion and scoffed. Come at me bro.
Do you have enough of an intellectual curiosity to understand me? Do you understand the difference between the number 4 and the letter H?
When you can rub together two brain cells and produce an original argument, I'll be willing to listen.

>> ^newtboy:

Who am I?


Someone who thinks I'm a Republican?

@Ryjkyj"If it's any consolation, I also upvoted your original comment. "

Yes, I did notice



@dystopianfuturetoday

If the NYT is correct, a 14% reduction in salary suggests they're getting a good deal when you consider that they chose such an easy, low-stress job. People with similar education levels like MBAs tend to work 60-80 hour work weeks, don't get summers off, and their job is substantially harder, in which you'll be eaten alive if you're not constantly bringing your 'A game.'

An MBA can do a teacher's easy job, but a teacher can't do an MBA's difficult job, and that, combined with that everybody wants to be a teacher, makes a pay cut expected, even if the pay cut is larger than 14%.



Good intellectual debates shouldn't bother us so much that our comments need to be filled with anti-social sniping

Thanks for the tribute, buddy.

2 corrections:

-You are a conservative, not a Republican.
-I take an aggressive stance regardless of the popularity of my position.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^newtboy:
Who am I?

Someone who thinks I'm a Republican?


You make the mistake of assuming I was talking about YOU or any individual! (although, to be honest, I did think you are 'right wing' from your comments. I don't like the use of the word 'republican' to describe today's right wing, it's not the same definition I grew up with anymore).
The answer, any generic right wing nutjob. If you automatically assume these comments apply to you, maybe they do.

>> ^newtboy:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^newtboy:
Who am I?

Someone who thinks I'm a Republican?

You make the mistake of assuming I was talking about YOU or any individual! (although, to be honest, I did think you are 'right wing' from your comments. I don't like the use of the word 'republican' to describe today's right wing, it's not the same definition I grew up with anymore).
The answer, any generic right wing nutjob. If you automatically assume these comments apply to you, maybe they do.

Teaching not difficult or stressful? Teachers don't need to bring their "A" game?

When I call you clueless in the next sentence, please don't take it as 'anti-social sniping', take it as a simple statement of fact.

You are clueless on seemingly every facet of the topic of education. I've done much teaching in my life: public high school, college ensembles, private lessons, section coaching, master classes, summer camps and substitute teaching. Speaking from experience, some of those jobs are easy, but there is nothing easy about public K-12 teaching. If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order). Teaching is actually more difficult for bad teachers, which is why 50% of teachers quit within the first 5 years of their career. I don't imagine business intimidates that many MBAs away from the profession.

My dad was a business man as well as a teacher, so I won't dispute that running a business is also difficult.

Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate.

>>> ^chilaxe:

@Ryjkyj"If it's any consolation, I also upvoted your original comment. "
Yes, I did notice

@dystopianfuturetoday
If the NYT is correct, a 14% reduction in salary suggests they're getting a good deal when you consider that they chose such an easy, low-stress job. People with similar education levels like MBAs tend to work 60-80 hour work weeks, don't get summers off, and their job is substantially harder, in which you'll be eaten alive if you're not constantly bringing your 'A game.'
An MBA can do a teacher's easy job, but a teacher can't do an MBA's difficult job, and that, combined with that everybody wants to be a teacher, makes a pay cut expected, even if the pay cut is larger than 14%.

DFT, good intellectual debates shouldn't bother us so much that our comments need to be filled with anti-social sniping

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You are a conservative, not a Republican.


Haha. Keep saying a lie long enough...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Teaching not difficult or stressful? Teachers don't need to bring their "A" game?
When I call you clueless in the next sentence, please don't take it as 'anti-social sniping', take it as a simple statement of fact.
You are clueless on seemingly every facet of the topic of education. I've done much teaching in my life: public high school, college ensembles, private lessons, section coaching, master classes, summer camps and substitute teaching. Speaking from experience, some of those jobs are easy, but there is nothing easy about public K-12 teaching. If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order). Teaching is actually more difficult for bad teachers, which is why 50% of teachers quit within the first 5 years of their career. I don't imagine business intimidates that many MBAs away from the profession.
My dad was a business man as well as a teacher, so I won't dispute that running a business is also difficult.
Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate.


It's shit like this, DFT. (emphasis added below)

That aside, being an educator is a noble profession. Certainly like any job if you care you make it more difficult for yourself - if you don't then you make it easier. But being a salary employee isn't even in the same ballpark as owning and worrying about your own business. There's very little risk in clocking into a teaching job. And yes grading papers over a TV dinner is probably not fun, but stressful? Nay.

Seeing how you gave your own circumstantial evidence, I'd like to do that as well. My high school teachers were largely a joke. Ms. Williams was a rather large lady who taught my junior and senior year English. She started both years telling us how much she despised teaching grammar, so she didn't teach it. She promised we'd watch lots of videos though, and we did. Terrible waste of time.

It took Mr. Wright nearly a year to teach us the fundamentals of writing a check and balancing our checkbook. He spent ten minutes in class every day, then assigned us busy work while he left for the rest of the period to smoke in the teacher's lounge. True story.

Mr. Amos never taught us anything in our Marketing class. He was in the classroom maybe an eighth of the year, and we didn't do a single lesson plan except when there was a substitute teacher. Mr. Dismuke was quite brilliant as a Mathematician. But his oratory skills were as engaging as a 1960s robot, and most kids barely passed or failed his courses. Mr. Qualls was there to produce high school plays and nothing else. It was great for you if you were in one of his plays, but if you weren't you spent the period in a classroom by yourselves doing absolutely nothing. Mrs. Ruth always thought I was drawing hidden satanic messages in my art class, so she would take it upon herself to "censor" my art. That is she would paint or mark over it. Mr. Maynard told me once he didn't like me, and once he refused to hand a test out to me because he was sure I'd fail it anyways. He gave me a zero and I eventually failed his course. Mr. Davis let us sleep in his class. Mr. Williams used to let the underaged girls massage his shoulders during class. Etc. All true stories from my personal experience. And I could go on and on.

I can't remember a single teacher that brought their "A" game. Not one. And surprisingly not a single one of them was "eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

So I'm gigging in the Western Rockies, and one of the friends I've made up here has political views completely identical to yours (Ron Paul, Free Markets, gold standard, End the Fed, dayum them libruls, etc.) The only differences between you two are a) he has no problem admitting to himself that he is conservative and b) he doesn't get all bent out of shape when I criticize free market doctrine.

It is obvious to everyone that you are conservative. Come out of the closet. It gets better.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You are a conservative, not a Republican.

Haha. Keep saying a lie long enough...

Trololololofuturetoday

Have you met any of the current generation of school kids? They are on a different level of trouble and disrespect than my generation was, I don't know about you. It sounded to me like most (if not all) of your teachers had already been eaten alive by students/teaching and had given up, sadly. They should have been let go.
On another point, does this mean you admit a severe lack of education? That's what it sounds like you're saying here.
>> ^blankfist:
I can't remember a single teacher that brought their "A" game. Not one. And surprisingly not a single one of them was "eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

>> ^blankfist:

I do pretty good impressions. See if you can guess who I am.

You aren't smart enough to get what I'm saying, so I'll now talk down to you.
Majority of people on here agree with me, so I can easily take a more aggressive stand. You however will be downvoted into oblivion and scoffed. Come at me bro.
Do you have enough of an intellectual curiosity to understand me? Do you understand the difference between the number 4 and the letter H?
When you can rub together two brain cells and produce an original argument, I'll be willing to listen.

The Dow dropped 500 points today (04 Aug). Are you awake yet? People are voting with their $$$ and they have zero confidence in the Kenyanesque Hawaiian (a true label, as Papa was Kenyan and Barry is from Hawaii) who has proved to be a clueless fking idiot.

(If you don't want to believe Obama is clueless, a more terrifying conclusion awaits you: everything about his lifelong ideology, thinking America is the #1 threat in the world which must be stopped [or slowed down] is 100% true).

I know you want to believe this debt crap is a 'victory' for the right. It's nothing of the kind. We are in serious trouble and both sides ain't worth sh1t, but only one side is even trying to steer away from the cliff and rocks below.

The "spending cuts" are smoke and mirrors. Allow me to explain. Say you wanted to buy a car for 100K but instead buy one or 20K. The government would call that an 80K "spending cut". The government has NEVER cut spending.

As for your assessment of me, I don't remember enough about you to make a similar assessment, you seem to always be in attack dog mode but rarely do I see you drawing on facts for arguments. The left judges programs on what they're supposed to do, not how well they work (or not). That kind of insanity can only be measured in good intentions and resources wasted. You're standing on the edge of a cliff wearing Styrofoam wings, believing you can fly because that's the intent of the wings. Gravity says otherwise.

I've said it before and will again: I wish you lefties could prove me wrong with results: e.g. actual created jobs and prosperity, real evidence the (Bush created) scamulus worked, proof social programs work efficiently without counting good intentions, and stable financial markets attractive to investors the world over. There is no consumer confidence and zero trust now.

The left's incessant demonization of "the rich" is to win class warfare votes. It can do nothing else. Obama has already apent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years. Do you think "the rich" have more than 3 trillion hidden away? Democrat spending never stops and Republican spending barely slows down.

You can be pissed at me all day long, but I'm even more pissed at the disastrous results of this piss-poor excuse of an administration.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.
This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple.

You would have a very different perspective if you ever tried teaching yourself.

If you were responsible for educating 200 - 300 students with different learning styles, different motivating factors, different attention levels, different levels of discipline, different levels of comprehension, different types of psychology, different levels of intelligence, different levels of interest, different levels of sanity, different stages of physiological development (AKA puberty), etc. you'd get it.

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)

The 'teaching' part is the easiest part of the job. If there weren't so many responsibilities outside of the actual 'teaching', you and chilaxe would have a point. And, I haven't even mentioned dealing with administrators and parents, which is an art in and of itself.

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers. If anything, I think you have first hand experience of what happens when public education is neglected and underfunded. If you get the cuts you want in education, you will be saddling future generations with the same substandard education you experienced growing up. Is that really what you want?

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad (one was a morbidly obese right wing history teacher that spent as much time praising Reagan and Capitalism as he did teaching history, the other was a self-loathing Science teacher who seemed to fear any kind of social interaction). I can think of 14 that were exceptional teachers and human beings - I'm still in touch with a few of them. The rest were competent at their jobs, if not particularly memorable.

I got good grades and received a half scholarship to a prominent west coast university (fight on). Since then I've had the luxury of being able to play music for a living (and occasionally teach or compose). Public education did me a solid.

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.

>> ^blankfist:

Trololololofuturetoday

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.

Trolololo.

This from the guy who takes exception to political labels and thinks people aren't so easily definable. Tsk. You're trolling, sir. I have no candy for you today.

QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.

If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.

I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."

FOX news appears to 'tilt' right. You may have heard of them.

As for conservative educators, they're out there but are a minority on kollij kampii.

You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.

Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.

You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.

Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?

The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.



Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.

Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.

All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.

Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.

Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.

And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.

I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?

I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.

Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I see value in broad categories like Liberal and Conservative or Rock and Hip Hop. I find the small categories to be silly, like Nü-Hard-Alterno-Glitch-Break-Indie-Core-Hop and Strict-Conservo-Constitutionalist-Neo-Minarcho-Capitaltarianistism. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.
Trolololo.
This from the guy who takes exception to political labels and thinks people aren't so easily definable. Tsk. You're trolling, sir. I have no candy for you today.

LOL... oh, we're gonna play that game now.

So what do you call the stock market crashes post 9/11, 2007, 1987, all under your heroes - George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan? Guess your boys were... what did you call them... or, right... "clueless fking idiots".

Dude, seriously, check your facts before you post idiotic stuff like this.

Just to clarify, I'm not blaming Reagan or W. singlehandedly or even predominantly for those crashes. The drop today in fact has as much to do with European markets as it does the American markets. How exactly Obama could be blamed for that makes absolutely no sense.

About Bush's spending - completely laughable. The right was 100% on board with tax cuts (which contributed massively to the deficit, regardless if you want to count it as spending or not), and both the Afghan and Iraqi wars. About the only thing they were against was the senior citizens prescription drug benefit, and even then, I sure didn't hear a whole lot of opposition by them at the time. Compare that to Obama wanting to raise taxes on millionaires by a few percentage points and the right, including you, come out saying he's a communist or socialist, which is utterly ridiculous.

Name socialist programs that worked?

I define programs socialist in nature that cause the gov't to determine what is produced (related, how it is produced), who produces it, and/or who consumes it. With that said, here are the gov't programs that overall unquestionably the US is better for it.

Universal primary/secondary education
Federal grants and scholarships
Environmental regulation
Food and Drug Administration (before it, it wasn't safe to assume the food you bought from the grocery store wouldn't kill you)
Social Security (say what you want, but even critics have to agree Social Security has run very well, and benefitted the economy for most of its existence)
Medicare (seniors are happier with their health care than any other age group, and the vast majority are on medicare, medicare has been in existence for over 45 years)
Medicaid
VA hospitals

BTW, you can't say something has been a failure just because it's having problems today. If the program has existed for decades and was fine up to this point, it clearly can be run properly. Instead of questioning its existence, it's perfectly rational to look at how to reform it to allow it to work again.

And yes, public schools are underfunded. That's clear as day. And your rationale to not spend more is preposterous. Carried to its absurd conclusion, we should eliminate all funding for education in any manner whatsoever. Kids will learn just as much outside without shelter, books, or even teachers! Funding does matter. It doesn't determine everything about achievement. The #1 factor of student achievement is actually the socio-economic class of the students' parents. However, if the school is drastically underfunded, that child's performance will be inhibited.

See, I taught public schools, so I actually know wtf I'm talking about. You explain to me how routine classes of 37 8th grade students, 24 of them with learning disabilities, in a single class with no special education help (because there weren't enough special edu teachers to go around because it's impossible to find enough special edu teachers, because, oh wonder of wonders, nobody wants to go to spend the money to go to college to become a special edu teacher because their salaries are crap, just like every other teacher, and the job is even harder than other teaching jobs) doesn't qualify as ridiculous underfunding. This wasn't an inner city school, either. It was suburbia in a comparatively well off county in Virginia. Our textbooks were 15 years old and above reading grade level and falling apart. The county didn't have enough schools, so most of the schools had outside trailer classrooms. And no, there wasn't embezzling, or major issues with misallocation of funds. The area was heavily conservative; voters would rather have low taxes than well functioning schools, and it showed. Then you have idiots who claim the schools suck, and say it's because they're public schools, and the government can't do anything right. The government failed because it did what the people wanted - lowest taxes regardless of the consequences.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Dow dropped 500 points today (04 Aug). Are you awake yet? People are voting with their $$$ and they have zero confidence in the Kenyanesque Hawaiian (a true label, as Papa was Kenyan and Barry is from Hawaii) who has proved to be a clueless fking idiot.
(If you don't want to believe Obama is clueless, a more terrifying conclusion awaits you: everything about his lifelong ideology, thinking America is the #1 threat in the world which must be stopped [or slowed down] is 100% true).
I know you want to believe this debt crap is a 'victory' for the right. It's nothing of the kind. We are in serious trouble and both sides ain't worth sh1t, but only one side is even trying to steer away from the cliff and rocks below.
The "spending cuts" are smoke and mirrors. Allow me to explain. Say you wanted to buy a car for 100K but instead buy one or 20K. The government would call that an 80K "spending cut". The government has NEVER cut spending.
As for your assessment of me, I don't remember enough about you to make a similar assessment, you seem to always be in attack dog mode but rarely do I see you drawing on facts for arguments. The left judges programs on what they're supposed to do, not how well they work (or not). That kind of insanity can only be measured in good intentions and resources wasted. You're standing on the edge of a cliff wearing Styrofoam wings, believing you can fly because that's the intent of the wings. Gravity says otherwise.

I've said it before and will again: I wish you lefties could prove me wrong with results: e.g. actual created jobs and prosperity, real evidence the (Bush created) scamulus worked, proof social programs work efficiently without counting good intentions, and stable financial markets attractive to investors the world over. There is no consumer confidence and zero trust now.

The left's incessant demonization of "the rich" is to win class warfare votes. It can do nothing else. Obama has already apent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years. Do you think "the rich" have more than 3 trillion hidden away? Democrat spending never stops and Republican spending barely slows down.
You can be pissed at me all day long, but I'm even more pissed at the disastrous results of this piss-poor excuse of an administration.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.
This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I see value in broad categories like Liberal and Conservative or Rock and Hip Hop. I find the small categories to be silly, like Nü-Hard-Alterno-Glitch-Break-Indie-Core-Hop and Strict-Conservo-Constitutionalist-Neo-Minarcho-Capitaltarianistism. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.
Trolololo.
This from the guy who takes exception to political labels and thinks people aren't so easily definable. Tsk. You're trolling, sir. I have no candy for you today.


I'm discouraged you dichotomize people into such a simplistic and stark binary world view. Conservative vs. Liberal. Black vs. white. Good vs. evil. With us or against us.

I'm curious where in your either/or world view do you put the original liberals? And then what of these guys? I say this as a concerned friend, maybe don't claim absolute certainty about concepts you're having a hard time grasping. Troll on, friend. Troll on.

Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.

Since two folks haved shared education stories, I thought I'd share.

I grew up in Jackson Mississippi, yet despite how people perceive education there, most of my teachers were phenomenal. They cared about their subjects, and cared about us well enough to push us in ways we didn't like. I ended up graduating with a few college credits, and an eagerness to learn.

I remember a science teacher assigning me a science project to enter in a local competition. I did a eighth half ass job on it, the night before. But on a school day, she drove me to the convention center and made me stand there in humiliation in front of all the other kids who actually worked on their assignments and the judges who scrutinized me and asked me questions. That embarrassment and exposure woke me up a little about the consequences of doing a low quality job.

I've also had great civics and history teachers who cared enough to seriously address me and others when we challenged some of the assumptions underlying our system of government and its history. From what others have told me of apathetic teachers, I now think this engagement is/was not so common.

I remember taking trigonometry one summer; not because I had to take it over, but because a teacher volunteered to teach an extra course for people where were interested. She showered attention and encouragement on all of the pupils, and made an intimidating subject actually fun. That allowed me to take calculus in the fall with higher confidence in my math abilities.

These experiences stand out in my memory, but the level of engagement and enthusiasm was typical for my k-12 teachers.

A "bad" teacher? Once we had a physics teacher who had recently immigrated from China. His english was terrible, and he taught the class as though we were graduate students, not high school kids. He was also fit the stereotype of the awkward, bumbling egg head; once, in a lecture, he somehow bumped into an eye washer, and drenched his pants (worn up to his upper waist). In the middle of the semester, he had visa problems and we saw little of him since. I'm not sure how we learned any thing in that class.

Our books were OK, but the teachers were never shy about using outside materials to enhance the lesson, or having us bring in things relevant to the lessons.

@dystopianfuturetoday

"Teaching not difficult or stressful? ... If you don't bring your "A" game, you will be eaten alive by students, administrators and parents (in that order)."

"Let's be honest, this 'good intellectual debate' is neither good nor intellectual, and it's hardly even a debate."

I've got two perspectives on some of these comments and the video, and thought I'd chime in with some (hopefully not overly longwinded) history / anecdotes:

First, I grew up and attended public school K-12 in Kansas in the 80's and 90's. Overall I am very pleased with the quality of education I received and the teachers I had. From High School, I remember having 3-4 standout excellent teachers, a whole lot of adequate / no-complaints teachers, and 3-4 teachers that I thought were sub-par.

The excellent teachers stand out in my memory because they got me more interested in subjects that I already had some interest in, OR because they made me appreciate subjects that I was otherwise pretty ambivalent about. For example, my math teacher who I studied Geometry, Advanced Algebra, Trigonometry, and AP Calculus with was fantastic. When I was in his classes, I loved learning about math. When I went to University and studied Calc 2 in a lecture hall with 400 other students and teacher-student interaction only with TAs, suddenly math wasn't anywhere near as interesting.

Some of the adequate teachers that I had were probably the favorite teachers of students with other interests. Expecting every teacher to mesh perfectly with absolutely every last one of their hundreds of students per year is probably setting the bar a little unrealistically high. That being said, even though I wasn't completely enthralled with their classes, I think that I got good value from them.

The teachers that I remember as being poor fall into two categories. First are those that taught subjects that I wasn't at all interested in and who did nothing to prompt me to change my mind. I remember hating one of my English teachers because she wasn't impressed with my lack of effort on things like poetry assignments. Looking back, I think that says much more about what I was putting into the class than the quality of that teacher. The other category had teachers that seemed lazy and ineffective, or those whose classes were complete wastes of time -- similar to those that @blankfist described. Most of those teachers were teacher/coaches who, in my point of view, were just phoning-in their teaching duties and only actively interested in the coaching. I still have a bias against sports being included in public school activities due to that type of teacher.


And I also have a perspective from the teaching side of things. I've been living in Thailand for about 4.5 years now, teaching English as a second language. I got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science but struggled finding a job when I graduated (I think I was naively setting my sights too high and too narrow, but thats another story). So, I ended up working as a farmhand on my family farm. That was OK but not really something that I was very passionate about.

Eventually through a family connection, someone approached me about traveling abroad for a year and working as an ESL teacher. I thought that would be an interesting thing to do and a good way to challenge myself, so I flew to Thailand in 2007 and started teaching. The school I connected with put me in as the teacher for kindergarten, which was crazy but fun and rewarding and a good sink or swim introduction to teaching (which I had no prior experience with or education in).

I ended up liking it so much that what was originally just going to be a 1-year experience got extended. I taught kindergarten for 2 years and 1st grade for 1 year. Then there was a big shakeup / administrative disaster at my former school and I switched into teaching High School aged students. Another challenge and something different to get used to, but I am enjoying that as much or more as the younger students.

Being a foreign, native-English-speaking ESL teacher in Thailand is a bit weird. There are lots of really *terrible* foreign teachers that are here to purely to have ready access to cheap beer and prostitutes, and who have absolutely zero interest in the actual teaching; it is just a paycheck. The average salary of a native-English speaking teacher here is about $12,000 a year, which sounds terribly low but is actually a pretty upper-middle class income by Thai standards. For the shitty teachers, it translates into a lot of beer and hookers.

The schools here see foreigners are all fairly identical, easily replaceable cogs. Someone with a master's degree in Education and a real interest in being a good teacher can easily be replaced by a drunken loser that rarely shows up for classes if they don't fall in line with the Thai way of doing things or try to change up the status quo.

I hope that I do a decent job of teaching here. I am confident that I'm way better for my students than many of the drunken backpacker alternatives, but it is dangerous to set the bar that low and get complacent. I'm sure that to a lot of my roughly 800 students this year, I am merely adequate -- not all that memorable but at least not bad either. I know that some of them get a lot out of my classes and I can see them improving in English in leaps and bounds. And I know that there are some on the other side of the coin who are at best ambivalent about me and their English classes in general. My level of motivation prompts me to try my best, but I am too lazy and don't have enough time to throw a whole lot of extra effort at each and every one of my 800 students, most of whom I see for 1 hour a week total.

Anyway, my experiences here have made me appreciate all of my excellent former teachers that much more. Plus, I've learned that anyone that thinks that a teacher in the US is sub-par ought to be thankful that they probably aren't quite as bad as a sub-par "teacher" in Thailand...

Invocations (terrible) cannot be called by MilkmanDan because MilkmanDan is not privileged - sorry.

>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (terrible) cannot be called by MilkmanDan because MilkmanDan is not privileged - sorry.


Oops, that will teach me to use [strong] instead of *stars* for emphasis.

Before you say something like this, go teach for a year in a typical public school, and let me know how you feel afterwards. If you haven't, then it's best to refrain from speaking about things you don't have a clue about. I taught 8th grade history.

You want an example of how you can get eaten alive because of students, "hapless: school administrators, and idiotic parents in one example? How about when a parent fights tooth and nail with lawsuits to keep their kid from being suspended by blaming his kid's severe ADHD for why the student constantly distracts other students and disrupts the class? Parent refuses to make the student serve detention, administrators suspend as much as they can, only to get overruled by courts, who put the kid right back in your class. Administrators are doing everything they can legally, and you know if you send the student to the office, you'll get to go to the 15th parent conference, or 2nd or 3rd legal hearing about this one kid out of 150 you teach. This is on top of lesson plans, grading papers, dealing with other problem students, idiot parents, etc.

>> ^chilaxe:
You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?

>> ^heropsycho:

Before you say something like this, go teach for a year in a typical public school, and let me know how you feel afterwards. If you haven't, then it's best to refrain from speaking about things you don't have a clue about.


Yeah, but we all pay for it, and we've all been through the system for 13 years of our lives. So we're gonna keep critiquing it with or without on-the-job experience. Them's the breaks. Sorry.

Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.

That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Before you say something like this, go teach for a year in a typical public school, and let me know how you feel afterwards. If you haven't, then it's best to refrain from speaking about things you don't have a clue about.

Yeah, but we all pay for it, and we've all been through the system for 13 years of our lives. So we're gonna keep critiquing it with or without on-the-job experience. Them's the breaks. Sorry.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)


And yet I wonder why these super geniuses settle for teaching instead of using just some of the myriad of skills you listed and become the next big inventor, or the next great physicist, or the next big whatever. Yet instead, even with those over-qualifications (if we're to take your word for it), they choose to work so much harder for fewer rewards (again if we're to take your word).

Sounds totally legit.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers.


Emphasis mine. Trolololo. Actually this is classic elitism. To you my geographical location, specifically that I grew up in the South, makes me inferior in every respect to people like you who grew up near richer Metropolitan areas. I know you're trying to goad me, but I also think you really believe some of that. It's the priggish nature of the elitist.

You can try to disassociate yourself from the Southern school system because of how people like you look down on them, but at the end of the day that system is still a product of your ideal one-size-fits-all Prussian school model no matter the location. To mock any part of it is to mock all of it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad.


Still, here in Los Angeles the charter schools and/or private schools tend to perform the best. Even with all the unions and heavy spending that goes on, the public schools just cannot outperform the charters/private schools. That's got to sting a bit for those in support of public schools and teacher unions.

>> ^heropsycho:

Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.


Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?

The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).

When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

Apparently you can't read particularly well.

The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.

I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.

There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.

I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.

Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?
The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).
When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

Here are a few thoughts at to why:

* Teaching and inspiring others to learn is exceptionally valuable. Apparently, you don't believe teaching is, which is insane. Why is inventing something more valuable than teaching and/or inspiring perhaps multiple inventors? They both are extremely valuable.

* They love to teach.

* They believe in the value of what they do over monetary rewards.

* They actually do move on to other professions that pay a hell of a lot better. That's why I began transitioning into IT, although later it was also because the job sucked because it was less and less about teaching and more about standardized test scores, ensuring every bit of the state curriculum was mentioned in class but not taught well at all, calling parents for the 20,000th time to let them know their child is failing/hasn't brought their signed report card/missing library books, etc. So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. People fight to keep teacher salaries low, so on average the talented people quit the profession to make more money. Then those people who fought to keep their salaries low can say, "SEE? TEACHERS SUCK!" Eventually though you won't find enough people willing to be teachers, which is where we are today.

And yet I wonder why these super geniuses settle for teaching instead of using just some of the myriad of skills you listed and become the next big inventor, or the next great physicist, or the next big whatever. Yet instead, even with those over-qualifications (if we're to take your word for it), they choose to work so much harder for fewer rewards (again if we're to take your word).

>> ^heropsycho:

Apparently you can't read particularly well.
The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.
I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.
There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.
I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...


I don't think he wrote that the job was easy. I'm pretty sure he questioned what kind of person you'd have to be to be easily intimidated by students, administrators or parents. He has a point.

Question. Do you still teach? If not why'd you leave? Or were you let go? Cheers.

"You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?"

That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?! On what planet is that not an outright insult?! Ask any teacher if dealing with difficult students and idiot parents is difficult. If they say it is, saying that about those teachers is okay?! So I'm "low-human-potential" then?!

He doesn't have a point. He's being ignorant and idiotic, and there is no justification possible for that kind of crap.

No, I don't teach, as I mentioned above, I went into IT because of abysmal pay, but I did eventually realize I hated the job anyway because I wasn't actually teaching anymore.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Apparently you can't read particularly well.
The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.
I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.
There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.
I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

I don't think he wrote that the job was easy. I'm pretty sure he questioned what kind of person you'd have to be to be easily intimidated by students, administrators or parents. He has a point.
Question. Do you still teach? If not why'd you leave? Or were you let go? Cheers.

>> ^heropsycho:

That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?!


Obviously he was inferring you.

I kid. I kid. But no one is claiming the job is "easy". I'm sure it has it's difficulties. @chilaxe didn't even infer that it was. He was responding to this ludicrous notion that being a teacher is as difficult as you guys are alluding. I mean, have you read dft's summation of the job? You'd think the teachers were fucking Einsteins wearing every hat imaginable.

I mean, you guys are laying it on thick. I've had jobs where I was hired because of a specific skill, but also had to do things unrelated to that skill set. But you don't hear me over here claiming I'm a file clerk because I had to file the occasional paperwork. Or that I'm a receptionist because I answered my own phones. Or that I'm a disciplinarian because I was the lead on a team. Or, and this is my personal favorite, a psychologist! A fucking psychologist! Seriously, dft claimed that being a teacher is akin to having eight years medical school! I mean fuck me in the face! lol

Whatever, you guys have become parodies of yourselves by this point. I'm done with this discussion. Haha. Fucking psychologists teaching at our public schools! This is phenomenal! Our kids should be geniuses! lol.

@heropsycho

You're certainly right on some elements, but I think there are a number of facets to this issue.

We can probably test the difficult of a job by looking at who can and who can't do that job. Most teachers, like Matt Damon's mom standing next to him, probably can't do particularly cognitively complex jobs like that of a $125k per year software engineer. I took a class in the education & child development department of my college, and I was surprised by how easy the subject matter was relative to classes in e.g. the sciences.

She probably teaches the same (or at least similar) middle school or high school subjects every year, and her primary job (AFAIK) is to follow the instructions in the teacher's edition textbook on a relatively simple subject matter that can be understood by teenagers. Her primary job is not to innovate technologically or come up with a new business strategy to outsmart ruthless competitors; it's to follow instructions.

That's a really different job from something like writing 50 page technical specifications documents, and salaries tend to be proportional to the cognitive complexity required, since anyone can do cognitively simple jobs, but only a limited number of people can do cognitively complex jobs.

@blankfist"He was responding to this ludicrous notion that being a teacher is as difficult as you guys are alluding."

Yeah, I was responding to the NYT article's claim that a 14% pay cut relative to occupations requiring similar levels of education doesn't make sense.

He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.

He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.

Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.

I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:

101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational *PSYCHOLOGY*
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students

There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.

Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?

And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?!

Obviously he was inferring you.
I kid. I kid. But no one is claiming the job is "easy". I'm sure it has it's difficulties. @chilaxe didn't even infer that it was. He was responding to this ludicrous notion that being a teacher is as difficult as you guys are alluding. I mean, have you read dft's summation of the job? You'd think the teachers were fucking Einsteins wearing every hat imaginable.
I mean, you guys are laying it on thick. I've had jobs where I was hired because of a specific skill, but also had to do things unrelated to that skill set. But you don't hear me over here claiming I'm a file clerk because I had to file the occasional paperwork. Or that I'm a receptionist because I answered my own phones. Or that I'm a disciplinarian because I was the lead on a team. Or, and this is my personal favorite, a psychologist! A fucking psychologist! Seriously, dft claimed that being a teacher is akin to having eight years medical school! I mean fuck me in the face! lol
Whatever, you guys have become parodies of yourselves by this point. I'm done with this discussion. Haha. Fucking psychologists teaching at our public schools! This is phenomenal! Our kids should be geniuses! lol.

Your description of a teacher's job is like me describing my current IT job as such: "Really, all I do is work with the same technology products. I just Read The F'ing Manual and install the stuff."

That would be a pretty ignorant way of looking at my current job.

You have never taught in a public school. First off, a teacher who reads directly out of the textbook day in and day out is a crappy teacher. Even the crappy teachers I worked with didn't just pick up the book and read what was in there, and assign the exercises at the end of the chapter. You also live in this wonderful fantasy world where the students arrive in your classroom, like perfect brain sponges, and they'll just magically hear what you say, or read the textbook, and magically, they overcome their various learning disabilities, weaknesses in various types of intelligence, distractions in life, and just ...

POOF! THEY LEARN AUTOMAGICALLY!

Not to mention a teacher's role is not simply to teach facts and information. A teacher's role is also to help inspire students to want to learn and do more well beyond the classroom. Those are the teachers students remember for the rest of their lives. I can still name you my favorite teachers from elementary, middle, high school, and college. I remember specific lessons from each one that really spoke to me. I became a history teacher because of my high school history teacher, Claire Tilton, who still teaches to this day, and she's still unbelievable at her job, but she's "just a high school teacher" I guess to you.

I wouldn't be where I am today without those teachers. And those teachers did more than just inspire me; I knew probably a dozen or so people who did 180's and loved history after being in Ms. Tilton's class.

It's one thing to know the subject matter; it's a whole other thing to be able to help another human being who is struggling to understand it learn it, or motivate a completely disinterested human into wanting to learn about it. If you think that people who can do this are a dime a dozen, I don't know what to tell you. I think we end up losing a lot of talented teachers who do inspire because society doesn't value education as it should.

>> ^chilaxe:

@heropsycho
You're certainly right on some elements, but I think there are a number of facets to this issue.
We can probably test the difficult of a job by looking at who can and who can't do that job. Most teachers, like Matt Damon's mom standing next to him, probably can't do particularly cognitively complex jobs like that of a $125k per year software engineer. I took a class in the education & child development department of my college, and I was surprised by how easy the subject matter was relative to classes in e.g. the sciences.
She probably teaches the same (or at least similar) middle school or high school subjects every year, and her primary job (AFAIK) is to follow the instructions in the teacher's edition textbook on a relatively simple subject matter that can be understood by teenagers. Her primary job is not to innovate technologically or come up with a new business strategy to outsmart ruthless competitors; it's to follow instructions.
That's a really different job from something like writing 50 page technical specifications documents, and salaries tend to be proportional to the cognitive complexity required, since anyone can do cognitively simple jobs, but only a limited number of people can do cognitively complex jobs.

>> ^heropsycho:

He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.



Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

Was your Anthropology class a graduate level class? Did you have to take five of them? If you want to compare the intro class you took to taking five classes, many of them graduate level, be my guest.

BTW, wtf does Anthropology have to do with astronomy? Are you seriously suggesting psychology has no relation to teaching? You do understand that in order to help teach, you should know how the human mind works, right? It's not the ESPN Decathlon jump where you're sprinting, and suddenly have to fish. You're argument is like saying a scientist doesn't know math well because they're a scientist. Uhh, math and science are heavily related.

Nobody said teachers are dedicated expert psychologists. But to pretend that a teacher doesn't need any or even just a cursory "Intro to Psych" level knowledge to teach is silly. I've taught, I have the degree, I've proven to you just how much psychology is involved in getting degree alone, nevermind what's involved in the actual job; you pretend the only thing in the coursework was an Intro to Psych class, and pretend you're an expert in what is involved in teaching because you went to school as a student. I guess I'm an expert in architecture because I've lived in buildings all my life. I also know all about what it must be like to be a professional cook, since I've eaten food all my life.

But I get it though, you're just trying to troll, not have an honest discussion.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.


Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

Successful troll is successful.

Idiotic ideologue is idiotic...

>> ^blankfist:

Successful troll is successful.

>> ^heropsycho:

Idiotic ideologue is idiotic...
>> ^blankfist:
Successful troll is successful.


Idiot is such a strong word. You're being hard on yourself. Personally I think you come off as a fairly intelligent guy. Like most public school teachers - you know, not brilliant, just okay.

Even if the idiot was right and 10 percent of teachers are bad, why would you fuck over the other 90 percent? By that logic we wouldn't have any professions left because we'd cripple EVERY profession the instant they had one bad apple.

This mentality of judging an entire profession based on the worst example of it at best, patently stupid, at worse, deliberately misleading to advance a political objective.

first Matt Damon hits the nail on the head when addressing the problems of Sarah Pailin, now he completely destroys these libertarian ideologues while supporting teachers at the same time, Bravo Matt your are sorely needed for more social commentary.

What this video SHOULD have been entitled: "Yes, you too can become a rich and famous actor, even if you're really a completely ignorant fucking retard about how the world around you works, just like Matt Damon."

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by ctrlaltbleach.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by CrushBug.

Awarding UsesProzac with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

necroposting...deal with it.

Is it even possible to objectively define what a shitty teacher is? Or is a shitty teacher anyone who gives your perfect special child a bad grade?

Parents and teachers used to be on the same side, but it seems parents have completely bought into the idea that their kid is perfect so whenever a teacher might realistically grade them and knock their ego down a peg....suddenly that's a shitty teacher.

There are just too many times where "shitty teacher" seems to only mean "this person made me think and I don't like that"

Test scores don't seem to be a good measure too mostly because standardized tests seem to suck. Maybe measure how much grades have improved? or does that just incentivise the teacher to give easy tests.