The one & only War On Terror thread

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

..

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I might be getting in over my head here( and I really hope that Marney dosen't verbally draw and quarter me over this, as she probably knows more than I do ), but isn't it a theory that one of the main reasons we dropped the bombs was to scare the everliving fuck out of Russia?  I seem to remember reading quite a few essays( dont ask me which, it's been a while since I took APUSH ) that said that if we were to hold out for a little while longer with regular bombings that Japan surely would have surrendered.

 

Can you shed any light on these speculations?

while words like good and evil are being self-righteously thrown about in blanket statements regarding other cultures, whichever way you slice it dropping the human race's one and only nuclear bomb and mass-murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians was simply put one of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humanity. america planned and carrieded out an extraordinarily 'fucking evil' act which will never ever be forgotten by the world. does that make every american evil? no. does that make what your country stands for evil? no. just as the events of 9/11 and the acts of the taleban and hussein regime do not make every innocent afghan, iraqi or moslem evil. america never targets civilians like those disgusting and inhuman terrorists do? saying you feel no guilt over hiroshima sickens me. you fucking should.

 

Sagrada3099: Such a theory does exist, yes, and it's a fair enough point to make. We did have the Soviets on our mind and much of our war thinking was directed not only to winning the war we were in, but to surviving the even deadlier war that loomed on the horizon.

However (and I'm primarily addressing DH's post now) dropping the atomic bomb was nevertheless fair, justified, and in fact downright noble when compared to the alternatives. "One of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humanity," DH? No, I rather think the Bataan death march, Stalag Luft, and Changi beat the atomic bomb for sheer unadulterated evil, not to mention the Holocaust. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't even remotely comparable. And what would you have done? Continued with conventional bombing, perhaps, as Sagrada suggested, which in July 1943 destroyed four square miles of Hamburg? - which on February 13, 1945, destroyed almost the entire goddamn city of Dresden, killing at least 50,000 and possibly up to twice that many people? In March of the same year, a dozen square miles of Tokyo were incinerated, along with 90,000 people. Within a few more months, firestorms killed 500,000 more Japanese and burned down 20 million houses...

And yet still you're sitting there in self-righteous indignation, shrieking shrill, small-minded shames in a bathetic fit of pique, telling us we should feel guilt over a mere 70,000 - a 70,000 who died cleanly and instantaneously, 130,000 more who died over the next five years from injuries and radiation.

 

Goodness. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, your ignorance of history or your naivete.

 

Do you know how many died at Stalingrad? 647,000 is the most conservative estimate. The war was a meat-grinder, it consumed young men and spat them out as strings of entrails and bullet-riddled limbs. Germany lost over 7 million men and women, over half of them civilians. Japan's casualties topped 2 million, mostly military; the Soviets lost over 20 million people - almost 8 million of them civilians. China, 13 million - mostly civilians. Again, 70,000? A very small price to pay. The Japanese were on the side that started the war, and they got off very lightly. We were not the aggressors. We would never, ever have bombed Japan if they hadn't forced our hand. Even if dropping the atomic bomb was evil in any way, it was not the greatest of all evils; it was in context a small evil, an insignificant evil, its cost, gladly to be borne in light of what it purchased. The war itself was the real evil. And it was started and continued long past endurance by the insane racial theories and rabid will to power of the Japanese and the Germans, and the moral or physical cowardice of their collaborators - Mussolini and Vichy France, and most of Europe.

 

We carry no guilt. None. We ended the bloodiest war in the history of the world, and we established ourselves as the pre-eminent power on the globe. If I had to go back in time and take the decision myself, I would do the exact same thing. In a heartbeat.

 

I feel nothing but respect for President Truman, and I am grateful for his decision. It must have been a heavy burden to shoulder. If we must ever deploy nuclear weapons again, I hope and pray that our Commander in Chief, whoever he is at the time, has the same wisdom, the same courage, and the same conviction.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And we're sure to jump on people perpetrating any of these evils... as long as it benefits us. Otherwise, well... ya know... it's their problem...

Please explain how our intervention in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kuwait directly benefited us in material terms. Quantitative figures from credible sources are required; merely parrotting "It was all about oil" will not be considered an acceptable answer.

 

many people have suggested other solutions (e.g. Letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq and, if he once again pussy-foots, then taking action)

Such people are weak-minded and have no intention of ever taking action, as Saddam Hussein will be well aware. Therefore, no weapons inspection regime will accomplish anything, because no credible threat exists to discourage noncooperation.

 

I also implore you to see that if Mr. Bush was arguing his case before a court of law, they would throw out half of his claims based on the fact that most of it is pure speculation.

This is not a court of law and the President's casus belli does not have to be cleared by a court of law. (For one thing, they'd have a very difficult time finding even one person to serve on a jury of his peers.) As I've stated repeatedly, hearsay and circumstantial evidence are the best you ever get in a hostile country. Please inform me when this fact finally seeps through your thick skull.

 

...and if you stand alone on this issue, you are no longer promoting world peace. Isn't that the goal of this whole issue... to provide stability for our country?

The goal, in my mind, is always to do the right thing. To act nobly, and to build a finer world. World peace will be imposed but world consensus is both unrealistic and undesirable. We will do what needs to be done.

 

why do you think they want to kill us for who we are?

Because they have been brainwashed into subscribing to a medieval religion which enslaves, tortures, oppresses, and regularly murders over half the population, rejects scientific progress as culturally specific, suppresses the freedom of the press, enforces outdated and disgusting codes of conduct, wishes to establish hegemony over all "infidels," and declares all precepts of law to be revelatory and unquestionable, upon pain of death.

 

 

Please, madam. Alert me what determines morality.

The principles of justice, liberty, and self-determination.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Saddam is not the one trying to sell an unpopular war to the world and as such, has no burden of proof.

You are a moron. The burden of proof is, as Eric said, on Saddam Hussein: he must prove that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction; we don't have to prove that he does. He lost a war and those were the terms of his surrender. If he refuses to abide by the terms to which he agreed we have a perfectly legal casus belli that is in no way predicated on whether or not he actually does have WMD. The issue becomes irrelevant.

Iraq lost the war. Iraq does not get to dictate terms and Iraq does not get to negotiate. Iraq must provide the proof. We are not the ones in the hotseat. Iraq is.

 

The comments about his own people are lacking the "oomph" because frankly, his people rebelled against him (per our suggestion). He punished them. Wasn't the nicest thing to do (understatement #1,000,000,000), but shit, it's not as if he did it for no reason.

The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto uprising weren't killed for "no reason" either. Would you like to justify their murder as well, in light of Kristallnacht and the death camps?

 

Forgive me, I thought elections were part of the definition of democracy. I must have been mistaken.

Of course you were mistaken. You're usually mistaken, because you're an idiot. There is a difference between a representative democracy, which is just, and a direct and absolute democracy, which is always susceptible to the rule of the mob. We live in a representative democratic republic governed by the rule of law, and Democrats don't get to retroactively change laws when they lose.

 

they live in the middle of a fucking desert. Please elaborate, Mr. City Builder, on how to fix that problem.

Kindly go to Israel for an object lesson. They have practically no natural resources and they have the only real economy in the region.

Would you like a concrete proposal? Well, state-funded schools turning out more engineering graduates, medical doctors, and real lawyers than Islamic theologians, rather than vice versa, would be a good fucking start.

 

As for the school voucher system, it simply and plainly devolves choice from a monolithic state and federal entities to the parents themselves. The Democrats are against it because the teachers' unions scare them shitless. The Republicans are (sort of) for it because they comprise the one and only significant party in America that still debates ideas and issues rather than political gamesmanship.

 

Next.

[Guest danielisthor]

Oh, and you speak as if we don't have the exact same problem here. We neglect our own issues to boost our defense budget immensely... we ignore our school system, instead stating that we should ignore the 'bad' public schools, issuing vouchers for them to go to private ones. We have a failing social security plan and instead of feeding more money into it in an attempt to boost the so-called 'trust fund', we put the money towards more high-tech weapons to fight an inferior enemy in a war that was all but over by the time the budget FY2003 was released. Don't give me that because if you do, you have to look right back in the mirror at our own problems.

The first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government is PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to feed, clothe, and house its citizens. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure that you have health care or a retirement fund. No where in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution will you find this.

 

As far as the Education in America goes. if the the teachers union would start doing their job instead of playing politics, trying to get their "liberal" agenda through, education might improve.

 

3 yrs ago the in the State of New Jersey, a watchdog group for education that has some pull on what books get passed on to be used turned down 4 texts that were overwhelmingly approved by the teachers and the teachers union. Why did they reject these text? here is just one example.

 

There was 1 mention of George Washington as the first president of the US. Nothing about him leading the Continental Army over the British. just one mention. There were 14 segments on Marilyn Monroe, the actress. 14. 14

 

Tuesday the 10th, on the Sean Hannity Radio Show, a teacher called in from the Long Island area that his Union and the School Board sent emails and faxes to all the teachers that they were not to discuss anything about 9-11 to their students. If a student asked, they were told to tell them to "talk to their parents about it."

 

The teachers union no longer cares about educating America's youth. They have an agenda. The dumbing of America.

[Zorin Industries 0]

The first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government is PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to feed, clothe, and house its citizens. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure that you have health care or a retirement fund. No where in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution will you find this.

I would have thought both these ideas would go hand in hand.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No. That is a socialist idea, and it represents the fundamental failure of the socialist ideal. You do not have the right to be clothed, sheltered, and fed. You only have the right to political freedom, religious freedom, and freedom of speech.

And where the "rights" to food, health, and shelter are protected and the rights to speech, justice, and liberty denied, the citizens don't have much of anything. But where speech, justice, and liberty are protected, there is an abundance of food, health and shelter.

 

It particularly amuses me that Canada's health care system is held up by liberals as the model we should follow. Our system still produces much better results, despite the liberal/socialist cancers gnawing at it. It's the best in the world. Don't believe me? Well, let's put it like this: do you expect Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat who wants to socialise Medicare, to fly to Toronto for a joint replacement?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Tuesday the 10th, on the Sean Hannity Radio Show, a teacher called in from the Long Island area that his Union and the School Board sent emails and faxes to all the teachers that they were not to discuss anything about 9-11 to their students. If a student asked, they were told to tell them to "talk to their parents about it."

I saw Sean Hannity on CSPAN2 yesterday. His impression of Bill Clinton is superb.

Liberalism or liberty, people. It's time to choose.

[Zorin Industries 0]

What about those who sufffer genuine hardship, say those paralyzed or disabled?

 

Although I think if you are not prepared to work if you are able, and would rather sit and collect welfare, you should not even be protected by your government.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor for their lot?

There will be poor always, pathetically struggling - look at the good things you've got!

Think, while you still have me! - move, while you still see me!

You'll be lost, you'll be so sorry when I'm gone!"

"Sleep and I shall soothe you, calm you and anoint you,

Myrrh for your hot forehead, oh, then you'll feel

Everything's all right, yes, everything's fine..."

 

Life is hard. Aid is not an entitlement and good luck is not guaranteed. Happiness is not a right given to you, only the pursuit thereof. If you're disabled, you should work around it. If you can't, you should have to depend on uncoerced charity.

It is not the government's place to play nanny for its citizens. History has demonstrated that such unwise emotional impulses inevitably lead to socialism and disaster.

[Zorin Industries 0]

What is your main problem with Socialism?

 

Do you think that there are any good points or do you think on the whole it is a bad idea?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It's a terrible idea.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Yes, but why?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Look. I'm not here to teach classes. If you have a specific question, I'll answer it. If you have a specific point you want to debate, bring it up. If you want to argue that socialism is workable, make your case and I'll examine it and see if it's sound; if it isn't, I'll point out its flaws. But don't sit on your ass and ask open-ended questions and expect me to write fucking essays for your benefit.

"Do you think that there are any good points or do you think on the whole it is a bad idea?" What the hell is that? When did this thread turn into your personal classroom and who gave you a mandate to hand out high school assignments? This is supposed to be a forum for debate. If you want to participate, participate as an equal.

"What's wrong with socialism?!" To give you a complete answer I'd have to type 24 hours a day for the next 3000 years, and frankly, I don't have that kind of time.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Sorry, i've just seen you dismiss it out of hand many times before, without understanding your reasons for doing so.

 

Hows this, do you think that an increase in socialism in America would have a large impact on other American values.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yes. Personal responsibility is a fundamental American value which has been eroded for several decades now by the false sense of entitlement socialism engenders. The idea that the government has a responsibility to provide its citizens with health care leads inevitably to the degenerative idea that if you're sick it's someone else's problem. Thus the pathetic lawsuits against tobacco companies and fast food chains.

80 years ago you didn't see this kind of nonsense; 40 years ago you didn't see this kind of nonsense; hell, even 20 years ago, it was rare. Why? Because we understood, generally speaking, that we were responsible for ourselves, and a lawyer was not the answer to everything. But when you provide free safety nets for every imaginable disaster in life, there is no incentive to succeed, because nothing disastrous will happen if you fail. And if you fail, and there is no safety net to catch you, and you haven't ever even considered being hurt because of the all-pervasive guarantees of safety, you will in your terror try to grab someone else as you fall - even if all you're going to do is take that person down with you.

Which is exactly what is happening to our country now.

 

I think private commercial insurance and reinsurance are great ideas because you have to pay premiums. That's an acceptable safety net because it has an associated cost. It encourages critical thinking, risk management, and prudence.

 

Nothing, nothing is ever truly free. If you're being fed, clothed, sheltered, or healed at no cost to you, be assured that it's coming out of someone else's wallet - someone on whom you have no claim save common humanity. And in the very instant you coerce charity or the government coerces it on your behalf through its taxpayers, it ceases to be charity; the human condition is denigrated rather than ennobled, and you deservedly become an object of scorn rather than clean pity.

[Guest J*ingus]

The teachers union no longer cares about educating America's youth. They have an agenda. The dumbing of America.

Bullshit. What the hell is that statement supposed to mean? Do a bunch of evil scheming teachers sit around in dark backrooms, sipping cognac and congratulating each other on how fucking stupid they're making their students these days? If the unions had one single iota of power, they'd change things so that a professional teacher with a master's degree would get paid more than $30K a year in many states.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The teachers' unions are evil, and if the dumbing down of America isn't at the top of their list, the smartening up of America is most certainly not at the top of their list either.

 

The unions have no power? Please. I don't know where the hell you get your information, but according to Dr Myron Lieberman, Senior Research Scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center of Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and a member of both the NEA and the AFT, the teachers' unions alone spent a total of $50 million on Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign. Not bad for not having a single iota of power. Their caucus at the Democratic Party convention comprised 11 percent - more than the delegation from California. They own the DNC lock, stock and barrel, along with the rest of the labour unions. No power? What the fuck? No competence is more like it.

 

The only problem I had with Daniel's statement was that he sort of implied (presumably accidentally) that the teachers' unions did care, at some point in the distant past, about educating America's children. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The unions care about two things and two things only: increasing their membership rolls, and further increasing their already massive political muscle by getting ever more publicity and ever more money.

 

From an article by Sol Stern, a senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute: "Between 1965 and 1990, average spending per pupil nationwide increased from $2,402 to $5,582 in inflation-adjusted dollars. The average pupil-teacher ratio dropped from 24.1 to 17.3. The percentage of teachers with master's degrees increased from 23.2 to 52.6. The median years of experience for teachers went from 8 to 15. Between 1979 and 1989 average teacher salaries rose 20 percent in real dollars. Salaries for new public school teachers during that period rose 13 percent, compared to a mere 3.5 percent increase for all other college graduates taking entry-level positions.

Unfortunately for America's children... the extra money didn't improve student performance. To the contrary, during that same period average SAT scores for public school students declined by 10 percent, dropout rates in urban school systems increased, and American students scored at or near the bottom in comparisons with the other industrialized nations."

 

The rest of Mr Stern's excellent article can be found here.

[Guest danielisthor]

The teachers union no longer cares about educating America's youth. They have an agenda. The dumbing of America.

Bullshit. What the hell is that statement supposed to mean? Do a bunch of evil scheming teachers sit around in dark backrooms, sipping cognac and congratulating each other on how fucking stupid they're making their students these days? If the unions had one single iota of power, they'd change things so that a professional teacher with a master's degree would get paid more than $30K a year in many states.

GOOD NEWS / BAD NEWS FOR TEACHER SALARIES

AFT Releases Latest State-by-State Teacher Salary Survey

 

WASHINGTON – Beginning teacher salaries are improving in reaction to the nationwide teacher shortage, but less impressive increases for experienced teachers could exacerbate the serious problem of retaining senior teachers, according to the American Federation of Teachers’ most recent state-by-state teacher salary survey released Tuesday.

 

“The good news is that better starting salaries will attract more people to the teaching profession, but the bad news is that increases for experienced teachers are inadequate to keep them in the classroom,” said AFT President Sandra Feldman. “We need to retain quality teachers so that students and rookie teachers have the opportunity to learn from seasoned professionals.”

 

According to AFT’s survey for the 2000-01 school year, the average beginning teacher salary was $28,986, up 4.4 percent from 1999-2000. The average teacher salary was $43,250, up 3.4 percent from the previous year -- among the smallest increases in 40 years. Teachers had an average 15.8 years of experience.

 

For new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates. For example, accounting graduates were offered an average $37,143; sales/marketing, $40,033; math/statistics, $49,548; computer science, $49,749; and engineering, $50,033.

 

The $43,250 average teacher salary fell short of average wages of other white-collar occupations, the report found. For example, mid-level accountants earned an average $52,664, computer system analysts, $71,155; engineers, $74,920; and attorneys, $82,712.

 

Other highlights of the 2000-01 report:

 

States with the highest average salary: Connecticut had the highest average salary at $53,507. The other top five states were California, at $52,480; New Jersey, at $51,955; New York, at $51,020; and Michigan, at $50,515. California teacher salaries spiked 10.1 percent, improving its rank from seventh to second. California’s increase reflects state efforts to reduce class size and hire more teachers.

 

States with the lowest average salary: South Dakota had the lowest average salary at $30,265. The other states at the bottom of the list were Montana, at $33,249; Oklahoma, at $32,545; Mississippi, at $31,954; and North Dakota, at $30,891. Oklahoma raised its rank from 50th to 48th by providing the largest increase of any state -- 10.2 percent. Oklahoma’s increase reflects an effort to make its wages more competitive with surrounding states.

 

States with the highest average beginning salary: Alaska had the highest beginning salary at $36,293. The other top five states were California, at $33,121; New York, $32,772; Delaware, $32,281; and Connecticut, $32,203.

 

States with the lowest average beginning salary: North Dakota had the lowest beginning salary at $20,675. The other states at the bottom of the list were Idaho, $23,386; Mississippi, $23,292; South Dakota, $22,457; and Montana, $21,728.

 

The report also found:

 

Salaries in 2000-01 for other education personnel varied widely. Superintendents earned an average of $118,496; high school principals, $83,367; central office secretaries, $29,514; school building secretaries, $23,630; instructional aides, $10.41/hour; cafeteria workers, $9.41/hour; and bus drivers, $13.13/hour. “The difficult challenges of teaching our children, preparing and serving hundreds of meals a day, and safely driving children to and from school are performed by underpaid, undervalued public servants who deserve much better,” Feldman said.

 

Among the nation’s 100 largest cities, the average daily pay for substitute teachers was $101.64. Long Beach, Calif., paid the highest daily rate of $146.16, while Montgomery, Ala., paid the lowest daily rate of $50.

 

The cost to teachers for health insurance is rising. Nearly 7 percent of teachers’ compensation goes to pay for their share of health insurance costs. “We’re very concerned that escalating health insurance costs slash into already inadequate wages,” Feldman said. The AFT’s task force on health issues, chaired by AFT Executive Vice President Nat LaCour, is exploring ways to reduce these costs for teachers and others.

 

 

Download three tables from the report (PDF file):

 

- Average Teacher Salary in 2000-01 State Rankings

- Actual Average Beginning BA Teacher Salaries, 1999-2000 and 2000-01

- 2000-01 BA-Minimum and MA-Maximum Salaries Ranked by BA-Minimum Salary

 

01survey_tables.pdf (96k)

Need the Adobe Reader? Get it here.

 

The full report is available on the AFT Web site at www.aft.org/research/salary.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And since the teachers' unions are the primary force blocking school vouchers, anyone who wants to defend these enemies of education should defend their intractable stance on vouchers as well. They always say that vouchers will lead to the abandonment of inner-city schools, right?

Funny. If they were truly concerned about education, I'd expect that abandoning the children would give them much greater cause for concern.

[Guest danielisthor]

The only problem I had with Daniel's statement was that he sort of implied (presumably accidentally) that the teachers' unions did care, at some point in the distant past, about educating America's children.

Totally accidental on my part.

[Guest danielisthor]

AFFILIATES RECOGNIZED FOR ADVANCING FUTURES II PRIORITIES

 

Wednesday's general session ended with a salute to the state and local affiliates whose work embodies the spirit of the Futures II Report. Passed during the 2000 AFT convention in Philadelphia, the report identified four union priorities: reinvigorating a culture of organizing, building a more vibrant political voice, strengthening the institutions where our members work, and strengthening the ties between and among all levels of the union.

 

The following locals and state federations were recognized for their achievements in those areas.

 

Reinvigorating a culture of organizing

 

PreK-12: Savannah (Ga.) Federation of Teachers

PSRP: Alliance of Dallas Educators

Higher Education: Temple University Graduate Students' Association

AFT Healthcare: Connecticut Federation of Educational and Professional Employees

AFT Public Employees: New York State Public Employees Federation

Retirees: Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel

 

Building a more vibrant political voice

 

PreK-12: Oklahoma City Federation of Teachers

PSRP: Oklahoma City Federation of Classified Employees

Higher Education: Washington Federation of Teachers

AFT Healthcare: Health Professionals and Allied Employees (N.J.)

AFT Public Employees: North Dakota Public Employees Association

Retirees: Philadelphia Federation of Teachers

 

Strengthening the institutions where our members work

 

PreK-12: Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, Education Minnesota

PSRP: Louisiana Federation of Teachers

Higher Education: United University Professions (N.Y.)

AFT Healthcare: Oregon Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals

AFT Public Employees: City Union of Baltimore

 

Strengthening the ties between and among all levels of the union

 

PreK-12: Texas Federation of Teachers

PSRP: New York State United Teachers

Higher Education: United Professions of Vermont

AFT Healthcare: United Professions of Vermont

AFT Public Employees: Montana Education Association-Montana Federation of Teachers

Retirees: United Federation of Teachers

 

____________________________________________________________

 

 

Note that a major convention, nothing was being discussed about improving education. The second item on their agenda: Building a more vibrant political voice.

[Guest danielisthor]

The AFT retirees kicked off their seventh annual conference on July 14 with a special focus on politics, prescription drugs and healthcare. The two-day meeting, "Evening the Odds," featured an array of speakers and workshops that drew nearly 300 participants. "There is a lot on the plate of the U.S. Congress," said Walter Dunn, AFT vice president and co-chair of the AFT Committee on Retirement. Dunn stressed the need for input from members, and with more than 250,000 members expected to retire in the next decade, it's critical that we do not lose the people who helped to build the union, warned Dunn. AFT secretary-treasurer Edward J. McElroy pointed to the challenges faced by the union's divisions, such as vouchers, the cost of healthcare and budget cuts. "Part of the solution is political work," said McElroy. The union must build on what retirees have done and elect people who can help us, he noted. "We must bring a message to new retirees and members who are in service: It pays to have a union." Edward Coyle, executive director of the AFL-CIO's Alliance for Retired Americans, noted that this autumn much of the work of the 2.7 million-member advocacy organization will center on prescription drugs. The alliance also has identified a number of Senate and House election races it plans to focus on.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nicely done, Daniel. Nothing damns the unions more thoroughly than the disgusting sentiments that come out of their very own mouths.

[Guest danielisthor]

Inside the AFT Convention--July 16, 2002

* Convention Approves Solidarity Fund To Boost Political Clout

* Budget Cuts Set Schools Up for Failure, Says Sen. Daschle

* AFT Hears Plea to Rebuild Afghanistan's Education System

* Session Evokes Powerful Memories of Sept. 11

* Delegates Back Resolutions on Healthcare Crisis, Workload

* Wilhelm: 'A First-Class Public Education For Every Child'

 

 

CONVENTION BACKS SOLIDARITY FUND TO BOOST POLITICAL CLOUT

 

AFT delegates voted overwhelmingly to target more resources in a fight to counter the wave of anti-union/anti-worker ballot initiatives sweeping the nation. In the first order of business Tuesday morning, the body took up constitutional amendments that will raise local per-capita payments to the national AFT and set aside a portion of the increase for a new political resource called the Solidarity Fund. "We are at a defining moment in our history," warned AFT vice president Herb Magidson, as he explained the rationale for the fund. He presented the conclusions of a COPE/Legislation Committee analysis, a study which went beyond the individual threats unions are facing in their states, such as vouchers, privatization and funding squeezes. A national review makes clear that attacks on labor are more strategically orchestrated, he said. "There is a well-funded, extreme group of ultraconservatives led by millionaire ideologues who seek to do away with unions and-- failing that-- to bleed us dry." Delegates adopted two constitutional amendments that raise their per-capita dues, generating an additional $18.7 million over 24 months for AFT operating expenses and setting aside $12.5 million of that increase to create the Solidarity Fund. The fund will return almost one-fourth of the money to state federations to use for local efforts.

 

BUDGET CUTS SET SCHOOLS UP FOR FAILURE, DASCHLE WARNS

 

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) on Tuesday said the bipartisan spirit that helped pass key education legislation in 2001 was under attack from the Bush administration's efforts to cut more than a billion dollars from federal programs that students and schools need. Speaking to convention delegates via satellite, Daschle urged the administration and colleagues across the aisle to back up education reform rhetoric with real help for schools. "While President Bush continues to talk about leaving no child behind, his underfunded education budget will do just that, and we aren't going to let him get away with it." The problem is compounded, Daschle said, by renewed calls for private school vouchers in the wake of this summer's Supreme Court ruling. "We not only need to devote more resources to education, we need to prevent vouchers from draining them away." Daschle said Democrats in Congress will continue to fight for adequate school resources and for an agenda aimed at "improving the lives of working people." That includes strong labor law protections, safeguards against corporate fraud, campaign finance reform, help for the victims of Sept. 11 and a strong healthcare system.

[Guest J*ingus]

I think Daniel's statement about teachers' salaries was the most pertinent one. They simply don't get paid much. And that's the average. Here in Tennessee, it's a rare sight indeed for a teacher to be making anywhere near $40,000 a year, even with a graduate degree and many years of experience. My point is thus: if they have all this power, why the hell haven't they gotten themselves more pay?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Oh, for...

It's elementary economics. They can't get more pay than they already have (which is not inconsiderable by any means) because they themselves keep the hiring standards ridiculously low. Teachers' unions are the most adamant enemies of any performance-based salary gradations or nation- or state-wide qualification requirements.

If almost anyone can do the job, and there's no incentive to do better than anyone else, there is no economic reason whatsoever to pay anyone a higher salary than anyone else. Salaries naturally become static if they are disconnected from performance.

If you read Mr Stern's article you'll note that teacher pay has increased dramatically anyway. ("Salaries for new public school teachers during that period rose 13 percent, compared to a mere 3.5 percent increase for all other college graduates taking entry-level positions.") This is because they negotiate in the political arena rather than in a competitive job market. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.

[Guest dinki]

By your logic, we don't need any allies. We don't need any friends.

Correct.

 

 

which will be why bush is oh so keen to have blair on board.

 

oh and lets not forget that the american way started with the oppression of the indigenous peoples of the north american continent. which is kind of democratic.

[Guest danielisthor]

As for answering about the dumbing of america. Yes i believe it.

 

The only way to get more money for their system is for the student base to get stupid and more stupid, every year. the government and its taxpayers arent't going to keep giving money to a system that is working are they. The only way is to show that the students aren't getting smarter, the education system is a failure and the only way to fix it is by putting more money into it. And like cattle to the slaughter, we say "yeah, lets give them more money." Nobody wants to be the cause that they're kid is an idiot. So, we are constantly sucked into giving them more money. Then there's the state lotteries, which is suppose to go to education as well. Yet my property taxes haven't dropped in quite a few years.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

which will be why bush is oh so keen to have blair on board.

oh and lets not forget that the american way started with the oppression of the indigenous peoples of the north american continent. which is kind of democratic.

 

Okay, which one of you opened the idiot cage. 'Fess up, and then put this creature back.