« PIONEER PRESS: “THEIR PEERS FORGIVE BUT DWIS HAUNT LAWMAKERS” | Home | SD 45 CHILI & CHAT: JUNE 19 »
OPEN THREAD
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 30, 2007
I'm not feeling well today, so it's a great time for an open thread. I may post later tonight.
Topics: Uncategorized |
May 30th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Get well soon, Michael. We’ll keep exposing (national) Democrats in your absence.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Maybe you have Obama-fever?
May 30th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Does anyone have a problem with the Minnesota AG wanting to shred the constitution and engage in domestic spying and evesdropping?
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1213652.html
{for those not too sharp today, I am mocking the Democrats attacks on President Bush)
May 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Isnt it against the law for sex offenders to be on sites like myspace and such? If so, I see nothing wrong in the AG wanting this information. If there is no such law or regulation dealing with the release of sex offenders and their internet access, there definitely should be such a law.
In further news, Al Franken is definitely not a homophobe. He is doing 2 events at Pride this year (http://www.alfranken.com/pages/events/)
May 30th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Andrew only you could find something good to talk about with our new Ag.
She is a hack and far too under-qualified for the position. She will go down in history as one of the worst Ag’s ever!
That and only you could firgive Franken for his homophobe comments. While Al does have that look like he could be one to take it in the pooper he clearly is selfish and would never give a reach around.
I just cannot understand how any liberal could be proud or happy about either of these two idiots.
Franken will be great humor to watch when he loses as much like Hillary he believes he is entitled to the senate position. Hillary’s consession speech will be another great day to pop some corn and turn on the tube.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Andrew, I am poking fun of the Democrats who attacked bush for tracking the phone calls of terrorist suspects or known terrorists in foriegn countries calling the US. Using the liberals arguements, the gov’t should not be monitoring the activities of sex offenders.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:36 am
How about this for a discussion point.
Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
Chet mentioned it on another thread but it is scary enough for plenty more talk. It might as well read “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
May 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Kerosene, good point. Those of us on the right like to give to charities and donate our time.
Hillary seems to be advocating a sort of socialism which leads to shared misery. Of course only a very wealthy woman, whose ship has already come in, can promote that sort of thing.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
In further news, Al Franken is definitely not a homophobe. He is doing 2 events at Pride this year.
He’s just covering his butt. Oops, bad choice of words.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Hillary has just proposed scrapping a society of self-worth and independence. In other words, replacing freedom and liberty with government dependence. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, nothing will.
When nearly 45 percent of Americans already do not contribute to the cost of government, now we know what Democrats mean when they say they’re setting their sights on the middle class.
Speaking of Hillary, what about the recent revelation that Bill and she have taken in over $3.5 million in income working for InfoSystems U.S.A — a company that sells databases of personal information to criminals?
Any wonder why she refuses to disclose her tax returns?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The Clintons have been known for years as profiteers and take every advantage they can ethical or not to line their pockets with cash.
This higlights what I believe is a major difference between democRats and Republicans. DemocRats want to be rich and once they are wealthy they want to tax others to help you get more for doing nothing. Republicans will work hard to get rich and hope you get there as well with your own efforts.
Hillary will be a scary threat for a while and then will have a hatch like implosion as the country starts to think about that woman being president.
She has very little chance other than if she can get the democRat nod she will net many votes due to the sheeple who will vote democRat no matter who they put up. (Andrew) 
May 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Hey how about the stories in the Red Star today about teachers? One is in trouble for an affiar and the other is in trouble for stealing over 2.5 million!
I would bet anyone dollars to doughnuts that they both are registered DFL’rs and part of the teachers unions.
Just like to point out what kind of people tend to vote DFL.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Anyone catch Obama on Letterman last night? The king of cliches.
My favorite part was when Letterman asked him what exactly he’d do about Iraq and his answer was the same old, “we’ll take more care getting out then we did getting in”– he said we’d have to be very flexible and listen to the commaders in the field, blah, blah, blah.
Will the “Bush Sucks, He Lied about Everything, the Iraqi War is unwinnable” mantra win them the White House- will people be fooled again? They had the opportunity to cut funding for the war- they didn’t do it. Right now, I don’ think there’s anyone- on the left or right- that has any vision to take us through the challenges we face- and I ain’t talking about a “broken healthcare system” that happens to be the best in the world.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Anybody seen Al Oertwig at the library lately?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“When nearly 45 percent of Americans already do not contribute to the cost of government…”
I find it hard to believe these 45 percent of Americans pay no sales tax on anything or property taxes or fees.
Blow your asshorn somewhere else.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Manny you could not be more dumb than you come off now. I officially send you to the corner to wear the dunce hat! That is where you will stay until you pull your head out of your ass!
Manny I think the comment was pretty clear we have 45% working for government and not working in a private secotor where the real contribution happen for the tax base the government spends from.
I am half tempted to just slap you upside the head each time you post something stupid which unfortunatly for you would be often.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Manny:
The Federal government collects no sales taxes (or other fees from individuals, I’m pretty sure (I know I don’t pay federal fees)). Further, that 45 percent, consumes far more government services than they pay for even in state sales taxes. Moreover, sales taxes, especially in Minnesota, are voluntary.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
What about federal fees stuck into your phone bill, cell phone bill, cable bill, etc.?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I don’t know about the 45 percent number but I do know that about 1 in 3 workers in the U.S. work for the government at some level which takes them out of the population that contribute to other expenses and programs.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Sorry, my last post was delayed after I wrote it, it’s a little redundant now.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I’m not the idiot that thinks 45% of the working population works for the government. 1 in 3 people do not work for the government so get your head out of your ass!
Although if Pawlenty keeps offering government jobs to all the Republicans who keep losing we may get there very soon
May 30th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I have a hard time believing that 1/3 of the work force works for the government… I’d like to see a citation on that one.
I plainly said that 45 percent of Americans pay nothing toward the cost of government. That’s just a fact.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Try to envisiion what prograns and taxes we would have today and “Madman” Mike Hatch had been elected governor.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
That’s too bad Andy, maybe you can rub it so it might enlarge a bit.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Chestnut you sound like my buddy Kerry, doing the old flip flop…
May 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Sorry for the slow response but I couldn’t find my original source so I put some numbers together on my own. Rough numbers and sources cited below using Minnesota as the example. Excuse my non-live links.
About 14,100,000 people are on the Federal payroll in some way as cited in this article. If the link doesn’t work it is the “Big Government Gets Bigger” article from the 10/6/06 Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html
About 272,000 are state and local employees in the state of Minnesota. These are only full time equivalent employees as counted by the Census Bureau.
http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/apes/06stlmn.txt
Total U.S. non-farm employment from the Census Bureau is 115,000,000.
Minnesota population is about 5,100,000 which is about 1.7% of the population. If you assign 1.7% of the Federal employees to Minnesota it would be about 240,000. Add this to the Minnesota group and the total is about 511,000. 1.7% of the total U.S. working population is 1,955,000, which can be assigned to Minnesota. This puts the number at just over 1 in 4. Not quite 1 in 3 but the state numbers do not include part time employees or temps which make up a decent amount at State and local levels.
Either way this means that even of the population that is working and paying taxes a minimum of 26% are do not add to the bottom line of tax revenue. This does also not include the multitude of other ways the government, at least at the state and local levels, pays peoples salaries through contracts and other methods.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:25 am
Holy crap k.h. nice research.
Un-f’n believable. I knew government was the largest employer by far… but wouldn’t have guessed fully 1/3 of the work force was owned by the gov’t.
It should be an outrage.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:40 am
Like I said not quite 1/3 but 26% should be more than enough. I also realize that since the total employment numbers for the U.S. probably do not include part time workers that P.T. state and local workers would not be included in the calculations so wouldn’t change that 26% number.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:51 am
Kerosene Hat, I just want to get a clarification. When you say government workers don’t add to the bottom line of tax revenue, what is your reasoning? I certainly hope that doesn’t mean you think the government employees don’t pay state and federal taxes. But other than that, I just want a clarification.
Thanks
May 31st, 2007 at 9:00 am
They pay taxes but obviously they don’t pay enough to pay themselves. In the end they could just take less salary and not pay taxes, the result would be the same. This is a theoretical idea and not a practical one due to the interwoven bureaucracies and byzantine tax laws we currently have.
Also I am not a genius or an economist so please everybody check the numbers. I could be wrong and don’t want any flaws with my post to become gospel before they are vetted to some degree.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:18 am
So first it was 45%, then it was 33%, then it was 25%? So if we except your figures Chestnut was “only” 20% off! Chestnut your a joke, you must have graduated from the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News College of Right-wing Wingnuts.
One thing you fail to mention is the enormous amount of growth in government employees that has occured during the Bush administration. I thought the Republicans believed in shrinking government?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:31 am
Ted,
the 45% number stated earlier was, I believe, somebody stating the amount of people that do not pay taxes. I don’t know about that one but it seems plausible. My fist statement was that 1/3 of the working force is employed by some level of government. I admitted finding a different and lower figure and cited my sources. If you want to challenge something that is fine but don’t lie about using comparable numbers when you are not.
I agree though that the Republicans have not managed to even reduce the rate of growth in government let alone shrink it. It is a major factor to me not being happy with them.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:41 am
Ted,
Read the fucking comments before posting your own.
I said that 45 percent of Americans effectively pay no taxes. K.H. found that 26 percent of the workforce is employed by the government.
It’s not even the same topic. If you’re that confused, you should just shut the hell up.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:43 am
I agree with K.H.’s reasoning that the 26 percent of government workers tax contribution is negative. The cost of their salaries and benefits far outweighs any contribution to the bottom line.
Factor in the exorbitant benefits they get from the tax payers throughout their retirement, and it’s plausible to say that government workers are a serious drain on our economy.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:52 am
Chestnut,
You can tell whoever you want to “shut the hell up” like I give a rat’s ass what you think.
It’s quite clear you are wrong on both your arguments and as usual you are just pulling your facts out of thin air.
Keep it up Nutty Boy, I always like a good laugh and you never fail on providing one.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Do you count all the Blackwater security militia, the Halliburton & Co. contractors and all the Homeland Security deskjockeys as unproductive government employees?
Big government gets bigger under the Republican congress and president decider. Find a way to blame that on Clinton.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Chestnut, for the record, for federal employees, the majority of their retirement comes from the Thrift Savings Plan, TSP, which is like a 401K. While the government will match the first 3% of salary put into an employees account. After that first 3%, the governmnet only matches 1/2% if the employee puts in 4 or 5%, and after that they don’t contribute at all. If the federal government employee wants to have a confortable retirement, they have to contribute more than 5%, in fact, they are recommending that $15,000 per year be put away for retirement.
Now for medical benefits, federal government doesn’t pay as high a percentage of the medical insurance. Dental and Vision insurance, which is new this year, is paid all out of the employees pocket; and the Dental insurance was exhorbitantly expensive. (you can find cheaper dental plans that take care of more on the web).
Federal employees also get paid a lower wage than they would get if they worked the same job in the private sector.
Now state employees are a different matter. They get benefits and pay on a whole different scale than federal employees do.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:56 am
Ted,
My facts are rock solid, and I am absolutely correct. You’re a confused idiot. Once you have enough of a clue to comment, then do so. Until then, keep your trap shut.
Honeydog — thanks for the clarification. I thought they also got a fat pension and full healthcare benefits until they retire. Teachers do.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Federal employees also get paid a lower wage than they would get if they worked the same job in the private sector.
Then they should go get that job in the private sector! fact is they would also have to produce in the private sector which is why many of them stay in the government system as they know they will not be required to produce like they would in the private sector.
This argument has been debunked many years ago and it as viable as the old tale of swimming right after a meal. 
The Government is offering better 401k matches than my company does right now. There is little doubt that government employees now do very well compared to just a few years ago and they are not going to stop now! Just wait until the various government unions get together and push for more.
The best thing the government could do for itself is to ban any government unions as they are clearly going to always push for the government employee and could care less about the economy or the tax payer.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:05 am
There is one public employee for every five people who live in Minnesota.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Nuttyboy,
Your facts are about as rock solid as the Bush Administration’s facts for going into Iraq.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:53 am
Drew Emmer said…
“There is one public employee for every five people who live in Minnesota.”
Where do you get this information? The taxpayers league?
Fact: In Minnesota, there is one public employee for every TEN people who live in the state. The vast majority of public employees are employed by local governments - cities, counties and townships - not the evil state government empire in your imagination. link: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesfed06.html
click on the 2002 publication pdf and scroll down to Table 9.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
So who are you Republicans supporting for President? The liberal Guiliani, the maverick McCain, the flipflop Romney, waiting for Gingrich or Thompson to hop in? God I love listing off the Republican candidates, none of them can unite the Republican base and those who can cant win against Hillary.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Ted’s a typical liberal. Dumb as a bag of hammers, and happy to spout off a litany of uninformed opinions.
Seriously Ted, when you’re capable of understanding the conversation, join it. Until then… it’s probably best not to demonstrate your stupidity.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Hillary won’t win, no matter who’s running against her. Forty six percent already say they’d never vote for her under any circumstance… and that includes 20 percent of Democrats.
I’m waiting for the GOP field to narrow. I think McCain’s time has come and gone. He won’t win. Romney is what liberals hate most — competent. Giuliani is almost what liberals hate most — effective. I don’t know if Gingrich can overcome his negatives, I think he’s a better thought leader than a presidential candidate. Who knows about Thompson…
May 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Oh, and while I do defend Franken, I do have MAJOR reservations about him. There are some things about him that I really dont like, mainly him being a carpet bagger, I want a Minnesotan in that seat. I dont care how much he tries to tell Minnesota he was raised here and that is the only “new york jew in the race that was raised here”, psh. It’s misleading and horse shit, he was raised here as opposed to Coleman who was raised in New York but has actually lived here for the past how many years, unlike Franken.
Im not so blindly Democrat that I wont point out the flaws I find in my own candidates,
Franken still has many things that I like about him.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The Democrat race could be characterized as a race to find the tallest midget.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
No matter how things turn out for the GOP, I’ll be happy to once again have a presidential candidate who’s smart AND who can articulate well. Nothing is more painful that listening to GWB talk to the press unscripted. … or scripted for that matter.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Big Kahuna, I’m a federal employee. I’m on vacation this week, but perhaps you should come spend some time in my office if you think we are all incompetent and lazy. I’ve had jobs in both with the government and the private sector. I can guarantee you that there are just as many incompetent and lazy people in the private sector as there is in government.
So Big Kahuna, you post a link of this study you cite that supposedly debunks that federal employees are paid less? This I have to see. By the way, it better be a very sound study or I’ll catch the errors, my degrees (yes that’s plural) are in mathematics, statistics and accounting.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Ted,
If you say things stated as fact are wrong there is a simple solution. Find the real facts, if they are indeed different and cite your source. I went through the trouble to do so even if you choose not to review them. Maybe you have the Liberal tendency to believe that there are no real “facts” and all information is relative and you can just pick statements that support your viewpoint.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Big Kahuna wrote:
“I would bet anyone dollars to doughnuts that they both are registered DFL’rs and part of the teachers unions.
Just like to point out what kind of people tend to vote DFL. ”
For a guy who likes facts you sure pump out the BS.
Here’s a fact: three republican congressmen, three republican fundraiser/lobbyists and one of bush’s closest advisors are in prison. And these are just one ones I can remember off the top of my head, I’m sure there are more. And not counting the ones who “resigned” to avoid prosecution.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as proven by the Republicunts.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Snowman,
Simple solution to that problem. Reduce the size, scope and power of government and you will reduce all corruption proportionally.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Oh crap snowman… do you really want to go into the list of Clinton advisors, friends and aids who were indicted and are in prison? Democrat lobbyists, congressional representatives, etc. Do you really want to go down that path?
Hell, do just want us to start list the ones under investigation who are still in office? Here’s a start:
Feinstein
Pilosi
Reid
Murtha
Jefferson
Clinton
May 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Snowshit that would be because Republicans are actually held to the law where we all are aware that democRats get free passes.
Still makes my point of the kind of poeple who vote DFL though.
Want every one to abide by the law but them. Once again showing that one set of rules for people and another set for liberals.
Snowman you should use the “white” snow versus that yellow with brown studs in it snow.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Which of “Bush’s closest advisors” is in prison?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
[...] Oh, and I just have to love fucktards. Someone has decided to impersonate my on MDE’s blog in a very unflattering way. I know there are people who really don’t like me exercising my right to have an opinion, but, well….. It is nice to know that while Michael was not feeling well himself, and unable to moderate comments in an open thread, and I was distracted with personal family issues, some lesser lifeform decides to well…. Just see for yourself, and keep in mind the people we all know who want me shut up right now before the MNGOP leadership elections. (the Andy Aplikowski that shows up is not me.) [...]
May 31st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Please don’t log in using another person’s name. I called Andy and confirmed he did not post the comments listed with his name.
Please use a handle not already being used or log in with your own name. There is only one Andy Aplikowski and he doesn’t deserve this.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I’m my gosh..those Andy Apilkowski postings were hilarious in the midst of all the political spew. That cracked me up during the thread. Good humor.
And the thing is…we all know he probably does have a small one even though it wasn’t really him.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Pussies… can’t take the truth so you ban me from your blog.
Cowards.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:32 am
I’m shocked! Shocked, I say, to drop back in here and find that the usual suspects who post on MDE don’t see anything good about any of the Democrat candidates. Who would have ever have guessed that! Have a nice conversation with all your fellow talking heads. And the rest of you - please don’t bait the trolls.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:22 am
Oh, you Republicans are such a riot, especially that Kahuna fellow. Power corrupts equally, Democrats certainly have their problems and we by no means are the only party who turn a blind eye at corruption.
Your generalizations about DFL voters is laughable. I can make generalizations about GOP voters, such as stupid idiots. I have met so many people who vote GOP and dont know why as compared to people who vote DFL and dont know why.
Have you wondered why 86% of college professors are liberal? Its probably because they have more education and are smarter. I’ll throw in a paragraph in a paper I did for a poli sci class.
Education I found quite interesting. Only high school grads gave both candidates 47% and Hutchinson 4%. People with some college education gave Pawlenty a 7% edge with 50% total. The college graduates shrunk Pawlenty lead down to 48% total, 4% lower than Hatch’s 44%. Now, what I think is interesting is that people with postgraduate study had the largest margin of difference. Hatch took this group with 53% of the vote and Pawlenty only received 38% of the vote, a 15% difference. Hutchinson also received his largest number of votes here with 8%. I once saw a chart that compared red and blue states to top ranked education. The first fifteen states with the top education voted for Kerry in 2004, then there was a random red state, and then another smaller slew of blue states, a couple red, the rest of the blue states and then about the twenty or so red states that were left over. It appears that people with more education and who have had better schooling vote Democrat. I think this is really interesting, is something to be looked at much further and is probably seen as an insult to Republicans.
People with graduate work, who may not necessarily be smarter but they certainly have more education under their belt, voted with the largest difference in Hatch’s favor.
Furthermore, Southern states have the worst school systems (I dont have this quoted anymore but I saw a ranking, it was pretty much blue states at the top, red states at the bottom) so not only are GOP voters are stupider, their politics also directly create stupider people, which turns them into Republicans and so forth.
Look I can make generalizations, and I base mine on facts kind of. Although all you GOP voters are smart and informed,
Way to break the mold!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:54 am
“Have you wondered why 86% of college professors are liberal? Its probably because they have more education and are smarter. I’ll throw in a paragraph in a paper I did for a poli sci class.”
I know why college professors are more liberal than anything. And here are a couple of them:
1) Professors tend to be idealistic instead of realistic.
2) Professors tend to be lean towards socialism. (A system that has failed miserablely I might had)
3) Professors hate having people take their theories and actually making them work in the real world, hence the professors support of socialim.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:58 am
“we by no means are the only party who turn a blind eye at corruption.”
That’s a fucking hoot Andrew. The entire national DFL leadership is corrupt. Not only do Democrats turn a blind eye, they promote the most corrupt members among them. Jefferson, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid.
That’s hilarious observation Andrew. One grounded in as much reality as the rest of your observations.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:00 am
Also Andrew, your college poli sci paper documents a pretty compelling case for the effectiveness of indoctrination… not education.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:37 am
BTW Andrew, how do you feel about your buddy Hugo Chavez now? I think a few posts ago, you were calling him a man of the people and a savior.
Since then, he’s tightened his grip on the Venezuelan economy, cracked down on dissidents and shut down the press.
We’ve also learned that the ranks of the poor and uneducated in Venezuela are growing under his “leadership”…
Another fine case study of liberalism at work!
June 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am
Different jobs attract different people. Academia attracts those that are looking for relatively low stress, low paying, safe jobs where you get to be the near dictator of a group of people. Intelligence has almost nothing to do with education, if anything it can be a cover for not thinking for yourself as you recite memorized facts rather than analyze the situation. A lot of people who become professors were the ones who became professional students because they couldn’t bear the thought of getting a job. There are always exceptions but it explains Andrews statistic.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:39 am
Those that can, do, those that can’t, teach. Most college profs would fail miserably in the real world if they were forced to work actual jobs.
I think I met one or two in college that were actually bright enough and had the common sense to make it ourside their glass castles.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
The Republicans (at least those posting here) have such disdain for education that I’m not surprised they’re unwilling to support it. It’s clear that teachers, good or bad, are fighting an uphill battle to educate any kids these guys might have. Kids usually adopt their parents attitudes towards such things, and there is clearly a complete lack of any respect here for what teachers do. I assume none of you have been to college or are willing to send your kids off there, if all college profs are such losers?? Why would you waste your money?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Biggest:
I’m married to a teacher who happens to be very good at her job. She’s extremely frustrated that the increases in funding are not trickling down to the classroom level. Where the hell is all the money going? We currently spend about $1500 out of pocket for classroom supplies and special circumstances for students who cannot afford tickets to special events, and sometimes money for food. She was almost fired about 10 years ago when we bought clothing and blankets for children who were coming to school without coats. One girl said she didn’t sleep well because her father took the only blanket in the house and she was freezing all night.
This happened in the Minneapolis district and we were told never to do this again or risk dismissal as we were playing favoritism to certain children. The Democrats talk a good game when it comes to the mantra “it’s about the children”, but they really have no interest in what’s good for the children. They would rather children suffer than risk losing their power.
The other problem with the system and union is that they allow mediocre teachers keep their jobs. And we wonder why the results are so poor?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
If that really happened it’s a pile of crap. Then go after the adminstrator that told you you couldn’t do that. Report it to the newspaper and blow the story wide open. (Oh that’s right, you hate the newspaper.) It’s sad that a teacher would be too scared to stand up for what’s right for the kids. When I was a teacher (long ago) in Rochester, the teachers held a drive to collect suitable clothing for kids who didn’t have any (mostly Hmong immigrants). That’s not what’s fundamentally wrong with schools. The problem starts well before kids get to school. It starts with parents who don’t give a crap about how their kids do, who never show up at school, who don’t volunteer to help out with anything (”I work, I’m too busy” - also a load of crap - we’re all busy). There is a strong correlation between how well kids do in school and how involved their parents are - it’s partly why kids at private schools do better and why home-schooled kids do better (that and the fact they have their own private tutor for 12 years.) So go after the parents. Don’t go after the teachers who, as you should know, for the most part are doing the best they can under often horrible conditions. And yes, there are really crappy lazy teachers out there and I’m also tired of the unions protecting them. Sorry, I’m ranting and raving - I’ll stop now.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am
My point was that kids pick up the attitudes of their parents towards education. If the parents don’t think it’s important, neither will the kids. And that includes bad-mouthing educators.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
Andrew you jackass.
Those in education vote democRat? No shit?!?!
Would that be because they know they benefit more by having big spending liberals in power?
You argument is so full of holes it is hardly funny!
Say would one of those higher educated people be one of the councilors who tried to spend a 2,600,000.00 check that she clearly knew she was not entitled to? Let’s see, an educated woman by your standards yet still does not know right from wrong. I guess I will take an uneducated republican who know right from wrong over a democRat who should know right from wrong but will take the chance to steal anyhow.
After all in her mind it is taxpayer money and so it really did not belong to anyone. When you are paid by the government you tend not to think much of whom it is that is really paying your salary.
Again, one can see the kind of people who vote DFL.
Biggest Kahuna - First go get yourself an original screen name! Then pull your head out of your ass! We do not disdain education, we disdain PUBLIC education as it has become the biggest waste of US dollars we have! Liberals and the education powers that be do not want anything to change as they are making out like bandits money wise as well as developing a group that will be a loyal voting block for the left due to what they can get from them.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am
Er, Big is not the same as Biggest. Therefore it’s different. Therefore my screen name is not the same as yours. I think the difference between big and biggest was probably taught in 1st grade - even in public school.
Also my son attended public school and is currently at Stanford. My daughter graduates from public high school next year and is going to Swarthmore in Pennsylvania. (Yes, I’m a proud parent and I don’t apologize for that.) There are a couple of hundred kids in her graduating class who are also fine young adults. I don’t believe any of their public educations was a waste of anyone’s money. Of course, they’re both pretty liberal (i.e., they’re learned to think for themselves, and will continue to do so in college) so I’m sure you think it was wasted. But then, like I stressed in my previous post, they had two parents who cared about their education. That’s the key. Do you disagree with that?
I’m guessing you don’t have any kids so you have no vested interest in education or giving something to the future. Should we abolish public education and return to letting only wealthy kids go to school? And don’t start screaming vouchers. After all, vouchers are public assistance and we can’t have any public welfare going to poor people.
And the woman in Hopkins is under indictment and should be, she’s an idiot.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:58 am
Biggest:
Yes it really happened, and going to the newspaper would have been a waste of time. They wouldn’t have dared to upset the Teacher’s Union and all of the DFLers who would have been embarrassed by printing the story. My wife now teaches in another district, and yes, we still give needy kids money, supplies, etc.
If you are in agreement with the unions protecting poor teachers, why do you continue to vote for the DFL? You are correct about the lack of responsibilty of parents nowadays. Single parent households, drug abuse, welfare recipients, political correctness, diversity, and the Left’s approach of everyone’s a victim, and failure to enforce personal responsibilty are all part of the problem.
You sound like a Republican, but I’m sure you vote for anyone with a “D” behind their name. Keep voting that way and the problems will never be resolved. It’s not that the Democrats haven’t had the opportunity to change things. The fact that change would mean making some tough choices and offending certain blocs of voters are the reasons you will never see improvement in a government controlled by liberals.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Biggest hit on a pretty sure truth — the its the parents. So spend time on the parents. Get parents more involved. Studies back his observation that parents have the greatest impact on student performance. That, and it’s also less expensive to increase parent involvement.
The focus should be there. Not on increasing the largess of Education Minnesota.
Also, if anyone wonders where the money is going, look to Thandwe Peables golden parachute (And Denise Johnson’s) and the Cadillac Escalade she was driving.
Administrators are making nearly $200K per year, and when they quit or are let go, they walk away with six figures in unpaid vacation and benefits.
That’s where the money is going.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I’m an Independent and I vote that way. My problem is that I’ve always seen issues in gray, i.e., there are good and bad people on both sides of the aisle. There are two sides to every issue. I look at the person and their positions, not the party.
Yes, the unions occasionally protect bad teachers. They also do lots of good by protecting the benefits and salaries of the brave men and women who are willing to enter the field. I didn’t have what it took - I taught for seven years and quit. It was too hard and paid too little. I am now a software engineer in the aerospace industry, get paid about quadruple what I did as a teacher and don’t have to work nearly so hard. I don’t mind not having 8 weeks off in the summer because I can take plenty of time off now whenever I want it - something you can’t do as a teacher. I’ve been in the trenches and couldn’t take it.
You don’t seriously believe that Republicans aren’t concerned about offending certain blocs of voters. Have you been paying any attention at all to the influence of Christian fundamentalists? Republican candidates can behave any way they want to and as long as they’re anti-abortion, anti-gay, and go to church on Sunday, they can count on the conservative vote.
There are problems on both sides - I wish more people would learn to think for themselves instead of voting the party line, either way.
BTW, I’m interested in time frame and names for the incident you talk about. I’m not afraid to do some investigating and to speak up and since you no longer work in the district, your job is no longer at risk. Let me know.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Being an “Involved Parent” is Education MNspeak for “will put a VOTE YES FOR KIDS! sign in their yard”, and “will reliably parrot the Union line”.
Try going to every school board meeting with questions about, oh say the budget. Try expressing an opinion about the curriculum. Try voicing doubts about the way *gasp* evolution is handled in your district.
Think you’ll be called an “Involved Parent”? You’ll be lucky if you’re not banned from school property.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Biggest,
My wife is the teacher, just not in the Mpls. district anymore. If she still remembers the names, I would be happy to provide them to you. She actually was a special ed teacher in Mpls., but couldn’t take the BS involved. You almost need a law degree these days because the lawyers convince people they can win frivilous cases.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Surly,
Not everything has to be political. There are plenty of ways to be involved in your child’s school besides complaining to the school board. If that’s the only way you choose to participate, I’m not surprised people could be upset with you (complaining but not doing anything to help out doesn’t earn many points.) Get your butt into the school and help out. I’ve read to kids, tutored kids, and started a book group for a bunch of kids in my daughter’s class who were way ahead of everyone else in reading. Chaperone field trips, go to PTA meetings - that’s what I’m talking about when I say be involved. You get to know your kid’s friends and the teachers love the help. Saying you can’t/won’t do it because they won’t listen to you at a board meeting is just a cop-out.
With such a negative attitude though, if I was a teacher, I’m not sure I’d want you around.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Lighten up, Biggest.
I haven’t done any of the things you assume I have. I don’t even have a child in school yet. I consider things like volunteering, reading to your child, etc. part of normal parenting.
But when I mentioned asking a question, you immediately characterized it as “complaining”. You had no problem pidgeonholing me as a troublemaker even though I only posed some hypotheticals. It’s quite impressive how many negative assumptions you were able to make about me simply because I mentioned the possibility of straying from the education party line.
Thanks for helping to confirm my point.