|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 15:47:38 GMT -5
Mike you actually say, "Due to the fact that we are compelled to pay dues (as a 'fair share' member)". You don't get that this is the crux of the matter? You ask me to submit facts that you freely attest to yourself! I will repeat (everyone else here gets it, but I'll repeat if for you): public sector unions have no moral justification for existence. Nothing you say trying to justify their actions means anything, since their very existence is unjustified. Oh, now we need moral justification? The reason we are compelled to pay dues is because we all benefit from the 'fruits of labor' of the union. In other words, it has been determined that since everyone benefits from the unions efforts, it would not be fair for non-paying employees to ride on the coattails of those who are members. Regardless, you have still shown no proof of 'facts' which you claim to be basing your opinion on.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Mar 2, 2011 16:21:20 GMT -5
Mike, the public sector unions are in FACT working very hard to fight for their existence. If you can't see it with your own eyes in Wisconson, Ohio, and Indiana, and you still refuse to admit it then you have no credibility with any of your other arguments on this subject.
Doug is correct. Their is absolutely no purpose (I wouldn't go as far as to say a moral purpose) for a public sector union. Government would pay a fair and equitable wage or they wouldn't have employees. It's that simple.
How many bad teachers, bad cops, bad firefighters, bad guards, etc. are keeping their jobs merely because of a union. I don't work in a union shop. I did at one time (Teamsters) and I know of many of the examples of jobs given above that time and time again, use the union to do nothing more than to protect jobs for those who shouldn't be working and to take, take, take, from the people who pay their salary.
Take Williamsport for example. Their cops start out higher than most larger metropolitan areas. Only because of unions and binding arbitration. The taxpayers don't even have a say.
Montgomery School District has nearly the highest starting wages for a teacher in this state. It outranks many states altogether. You simply cannot justify it anymore.
In a private sector union shop, if they price themselves too high for their services or products, the people won't buy from them and they will go out of business or, lower the price to be in line with the market forces.
Public sector unions have no such market force keeping them in check.
Sorry but the party is over.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 2, 2011 18:36:26 GMT -5
Seems to be a common theme. Agree with me or you're _________(insert name here, liar, fool, not credible, etc.)
Binding arbitration is simple. Certain groups are forbidden to strike. The ability to strike gives an unfair advantage to certain employees. Without the ability to strike it gives an unfair advantage their employer. To even the playing field they came up with binding arbitration. Much like jury selection, a pool of neutral Arbitrators are selected and then each side strikes a candidate until only one is left. He/she is the Neutral Arbitrator. Then, much like a trial, each side presents their case and provides evidence to support it. Each side is permitted cross examination, for lack of a better term, for each issue presented. In the end, the neutral arbitrator renders his decision based on the evidence provided. Trust me when I say that unions don't always get their way when it comes to binding arbitration. Despite our objections, the Arbitrators have handed down decisions that resulted in insurance co-pays and years with no raises.
But, despite what you claim to be the problem, most state workers in PA don't fall under binding arbitration. They negotiate each and every contract. Tell me the last time PaDOT has gone on strike. They don't have binding arbitration, and they have made concessions, similar to what was handed down in our binding arbitration, each time they have negotiated in the last couple of contracts. And when has the Montgomery School teachers gone on strike or been handed anything in Binding Arbitration? As far as I know, the don't have binding arbitration and have negotiated all their contract with the district administrators. It seems to me that your beef should be with the school board, not the teachers union.
If you believe that the state would continue to pay a fair wage despite not having unions, talk to any lieutenant or captain in the state prison system and ask them how many years it's been since they've gotten a raise. Ask them if they are happy about their subordinates passing them in pay. They, according to law, cannot organize because they are considered management. Trust me, the government doesn't always play as nice as you think. And that is just one example of it.
And finally, the unions aren't fighting for their existence. The people who make up the union are fighting for their right to organize. Without the people and their desire to organize to collectively bargain there would be no union. Unions don't exist apart from their membership. You seem to want to make them a living, breathing entity all of their own. Doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 2, 2011 18:58:11 GMT -5
Mike, the original article discussed public sector unions in general. You are really going off topic by insisting on using your situation or even Pennsylvania’s situation as an example to judge the article by.
The rest of us are discussing public sector unions in general; it’s apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Mar 2, 2011 19:01:52 GMT -5
Mike, you seem to be ignoring the fact that in most union shops it isn't possible to refuse union membership. You say unions don't exist apart from their membership. The same could be said of plantations and slaves. Are unions entities all their own, not beholden to the desires of their members both voluntary and involuntary? Of course they are. Claiming otherwise just makes you look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Mar 2, 2011 20:06:02 GMT -5
Wow Mike, you sound like the former nesters. No one is going to agree with you when you're so completely off-base. That's rich. It's like you saying the grass is blue and the sky is green. Everyone knows that it just isn't so but you get pissy when no one agrees with you. You been hanging out at the Democratic Club again or what?
Lts. & Captains making less? Please. You prove the point again. The only reason the others are passing them in wages is because of the union! There is absolutely no reason someone who has less responsibilities should make more money than someone who does. If this kind of crap happened in the private sector, the company would go under. You sure can't expect some business to start printing more money to pay you what you think you're worth but that is exactly what the public sector unions do. Through arbitration they force the government, whether it's Fed State or local doesn't matter, to create more money by raising taxes to pay for their demands. People are finally saying, enough. None of us expect you union folks to like it.
And, binding arbitration sure as Hell doesn't level the field for the people who have to pony up the dough to pay these wages. Waah, I want more money, I can't strike, waah! I know, we'll just ask for more money and we'll get it because we have binding arbitration. Pure and simple extortion.
We get it, you're pro-union. The majority of the Country seems to be pretty sick of the unions. If it weren't for public sector unions and the stranglehold they have on the taxpayers, we might not be in the shape we are.
If you don't like your job, or what you're being paid, quit. Since the majority of the public sector union members, according to your article, are better educated, it really shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 4:41:45 GMT -5
Mike, the original article discussed public sector unions in general. You are really going off topic by insisting on using your situation or even Pennsylvania’s situation as an example to judge the article by. The rest of us are discussing public sector unions in general; it’s apples and oranges. If that article is lumping all public unions together, and I have proven that the article is wrong when it comes to PA's public unions, then it is a good possibility that it is wrong when it comes to the other 49 states public unions. My original post was in response to your posting of the Walter Williams article to the thread in which it was spreading false claims regarding government employees. I'm not off topic, I'm proving that the article posted and that the argument against public employees and their unions that has ensued is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 4:58:22 GMT -5
The majority of the Country seems to be pretty sick of the unions. That is your opinion. 48% of people are for what Governor Walker is doing, 38% are opposed which leaves 14% undecided. 48% isn't a majority. But it seems that when you take away the part about having the workers pay for their health and retirement and only ask about the union busting aspect, the numbers do a reversal and a clear majority, 68%, are against it. I've already given clear reasons why public sector employee benefits are better than average, that being lower pay. I know that public sentiment is against the employees not paying for benefits. If I am told I will be paying more for my benefits so be it, it's not the end of the world. But I at least want the people to know the truth behind public employees pay and benefits. If it weren't for public sector unions and the stranglehold they have on the taxpayers, we might not be in the shape we are. That, again, is your opinion. I think it's based on myths and misinformation, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you don't like your job, or what you're being paid, quit. Since the majority of the public sector union members, according to your article, are better educated, it really shouldn't be a problem. You're setting up a straw-man argument. I love my job and what I'm getting paid. In fact, I've been steadily employed full time since 1983, only changing jobs twice to move up. Some people have no desire to work and can't seem to stay employed. Those people, I've found, are usually the ones who are most vocal about what someone else gets. The public employees and the unions representing them are being used as whipping boys for a financial crisis they didn't create. People are allowing themselves to have their attention drawn away from the real culprit. Wow Mike, you sound like the former nesters. No one is going to agree with you when you're so completely off-base. That's rich. It's like you saying the grass is blue and the sky is green. Everyone knows that it just isn't so but you get pissy when no one agrees with you. You been hanging out at the Democratic Club again or what? Waah, I want more money, I can't strike, waah! I know, we'll just ask for more money and we'll get it because we have binding arbitration. Pure and simple extortion. Comments which serve no purpose other than to inflame the debate.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 5:20:58 GMT -5
Mike, you seem to be ignoring the fact that in most union shops it isn't possible to refuse union membership. In PA, if 30% of the people in any bargaining unit don't want to be in a union, they can petition the PA Labor Relations Board to hold election to decertify the union, according to PA's Public Employee Relations Act. An election will be held and majority rules. Individuals can indeed refuse union membership. However, since PA is a closed shop, they will have a 'fair share' fee deducted from their wages, which, as previously explained, is what it costs the union to represent the individual on the job. You say unions don't exist apart from their membership. The same could be said of plantations and slaves. This statement serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory. Are unions entities all their own, not beholden to the desires of their members both voluntary and involuntary? Of course they are. Claiming otherwise just makes you look foolish. Much like Government and it's citizens, opinions vary among the union membership. Some people feel like their union is the best thing since sliced bread and other feel they aren't doing their will. Such was the case when the majority of those in our bargaining unit felt AFSCME wasn't representing us to the best of their ability. We petitioned to decertify them and to form our own union. It was a bitter battle between the loyal AFSCME supported and those who supported PSCOA. PSCOA won and we never looked back. So, you are correct that some people feel the unions representing them aren't responsive to their needs, but there are ways to correct that problem. And your blanket statement certainly doesn't cover all unions.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Mar 3, 2011 7:40:47 GMT -5
You make my point, Mike. "Fair share" is assessing union dues on those who refuse union membership. You can refuse membership, but you are still forced to pay the equivalent of union membership dues. How do you figure that's even remotely fair?
Actually my analogy of unions to plantations is particularly apt and accurate.
And yes, my "blanket statement" does apply to all unions. To pretend otherwise is just silly. Unions are not beholden to the wishes of their members, and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 7:47:45 GMT -5
You make my point, Mike. "Fair share" is assessing union dues on those who refuse union membership. You can refuse membership, but you are still forced to pay the equivalent of union membership dues. How do you figure that's even remotely fair? Union dues are substantially more than fair share fees. Actually my analogy of unions to plantations is particularly apt and accurate. I stand by my initial assessment. And yes, my "blanket statement" does apply to all unions. To pretend otherwise is just silly. Unions are not beholden to the wishes of their members, and you know it. Actually, I know, from 16 years of experience with unions, that the exact opposite is true.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 3, 2011 7:58:21 GMT -5
Inconvenient truth for teachers' unions By Glenn Garvin www.JewishWorldReview.com | I missed Sunday's Oscar telecast. I was too busy watching the dead-solid lock for the award for Best Documentary Film Not Even Nominated: the horrifying, heartbreaking education movie "Waiting for Superman." At first glance, you might suppose that "Waiting for Superman" is the kind of movie that Oscar voters would love, a poster child for Hollywood liberalism. It follows the struggles of five kids — four of them from hard-luck inner-city neighborhoods — to get into decent schools. Daisy, an earnest fifth-grader in East Los Angeles who wants to be a doctor, has already written to her favorite colleges. Another fifth-grader, Anthony, is desperate to avoid the clutches of the Washington neighborhood where his father died of a drug overdose. Francisco, a first-grader in the South Bronx, shyly admits that he likes math, no matter what the other kids in his trashed-out school think. Five-year-old Bianca couldn't attend her kindergarten graduation because her single mom was behind on tuition payments to her parochial school. And though the Silicon Valley suburb where the fifth kid — Emily, an, eighth-grader — is considerably less harrowing than the others, her forlorn attempts to escape a school where her poor test scores will track her into dead-end classes are nonetheless poignant. What these children are trying to escape are schools where failure is literally a way of life. Daisy's plucky ambitions for medical school will have to overcome a cold statistical reality: Less than three out of every hundred students who graduate from her neighborhood high school have completed the courses necessary for admission to a four-year college. And if those numbers are discouraging, consider the statistics of a neighboring high school where 40,000 of 60,000 students who've entered over the years have flunked out. In one of the film's most chilling moments, "Waiting for Superman" displays an animated map showing the locations of thousands of such "failure factories" across the United States, poisoning their neighborhood like toxic waste dumps as they spit out broken kids. That's the fate the families in "Waiting for Superman" are frantically seeking to avoid. Penned in by school boundaries, lost in bureaucratic quagmires that take little notice of aptitude and less of desire, all five kids in the end are reduced to bingo numbers: Their futures are staked on being picked in long-shot lotteries for the few spaces available in high-performing charter schools in their areas. But "Waiting for Superman" is a documentary, not a fairy tale, and the final scenes will make you cry. This is not what America is supposed to be about. So why wasn't "Waiting for Superman" nominated for an Oscar as best documentary? The answer was plain during Sunday's ceremony, when several of the winners gave shout-outs to the belligerent public-employee unions laying siege to the capitol in Wisconsin. Hollywood, which ought to give itself a Lifetime Achievement Oscar for its dedication in portraying itself as a town of regular working Joes, is thoroughly unionized. And "Waiting for Superman" casts a hard eye on the role of teachers' unions in wrecking American schools. It includes footage shot in New York City's notorious "rubber rooms," where hundreds of teachers accused of misconduct ranging from drunkenness on the job to sexual molestation of students lounge around playing cards or sleeping, on full salary, while union lawyers drag out their disciplinary hearings for years at a time. (The rooms, which became an embarrassment even to the union after the public got wind of them, have been closed since the movie was shot. The teachers now hang around their campuses instead.) It includes an interview with former Milwaukee school superintendant Howard Fuller, who was astonished to learn that he couldn't fire even a teacher who ducked a child's head in a dirty toilet bowl. It includes heinous statistics like this one: In a typical year in Illinois, one of every 57 doctors loses his medical license, one in every 97 lawyers is disbarred ... and just one in 2,500 teachers loses his license. Right-wing union-busting, yeah? Except Davis Guggenheim, who wrote and directed "Waiting for Superman," is a left-wing Democrat who won an Oscar for the global-warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." He also made the biographical video of Barack Obama screened at the 2008 Democratic convention. "That was a difficult piece," he said of the teacher issue during a recent TV interview, "because I believe in unions — I'm a member of the Director's Guild. ... That's a difficult thing to sort of dissect that issue." Too difficult for Oscar voters.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 3, 2011 8:13:30 GMT -5
Union ‘rights’ that aren't By Jeff Jacoby www.JewishWorldReview.com | If Wisconsin governor Scott Walker were getting a dollar for every protester, politician, and pundit accusing him of union-busting, attacking public-sector employees, or waging a war on working people -- to say nothing of those likening him to Hosni Mubarak and Adolf Hitler -- it wouldn't be long before he could personally close his state's $137 million budget shortfall. To angry protesters occupying the Capitol building in Madison, it may seem clear that Walker's bill restricting the scope of collective bargaining for government employees is "an assault on unions," as President Obama called it, and no doubt many of them would agree with the AFL-CIO that "nothing less than democracy, fundamental rights, and freedom are at stake" in the fight over public-sector bargaining. But they aren't at stake. There no "fundamental right" to collective bargaining in government jobs. Indeed, labor leaders themselves used to say so. Arnold Zander, the Wisconsin union organizer who became the first president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, wrote in 1940 that AFSCME saw "less value in the use of contracts and agreements in public service than . . . in private employment." Instead of collective bargaining, he explained, "our local unions find promotion and adoption of civil service legislation . . . the more effective way" to serve the interests of government employees. As late as the 1950s, AFSCME considered collective bargaining in the public sector desirable but not essential, and viewed strong civil service laws as the best protection for government workers. In December 1955, in a New York Times Magazine essay on "Labor's Future," no less a union icon than AFL-CIO president George Meany wrote: "The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government." Obviously, Big Labor's outlook later changed. Dozens of states -- starting with Wisconsin in 1959 -- passed laws that authorized collective bargaining in the public sector, and public-sector unionism skyrocketed in the decades that followed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January that while union membership has dwindled to just 6.9 percent of the private-sector workforce, among public employees it has grown to more than 36 percent. Today most union members work for government. With public-employee dues swelling union coffers by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, it's no surprise that organized-labor and its allies now embrace collective-bargaining in the public sector as a "fundamental right" that only a union-busting tyrant would threaten. Yet even today, public-employee collective bargaining is far from universal. According to a General Accounting Office summary, in only about half the states are unions allowed to negotiate labor contracts for most public workers. The other states either limit bargaining rights to specific government employees, such as teachers or firefighters, or ban public-sector collective bargaining outright. Among the states that don't allow public employees to bargain collectively are North Carolina, Texas, and Indiana; at last report, "democracy, fundamental rights, and freedom" were doing just fine in all of them. They'll do just fine in Wisconsin, too, if the governor's proposed reforms are passed. And then there are federal employees. Obama scolds Walker for trying to restrict collective bargaining by government employees to wages, yet the two million federal civilian (non-postal) workers Obama presides over can't even bargain over that much: With rare exceptions, the wages, hours, and benefits of federal employment have never been subject to union contracts. The president appears to be quite OK with that. Last November he unilaterally announced a two-year pay freeze for all federal civilian federal employees, informing them -- no negotiating -- that they were going to "make some sacrifices" adding up to $2 billion this fiscal year. Does this mean that federal employees are oppressed and underpaid? Hardly. Average federal wages far outstrip those in the private economy. When benefits are included, federal worker compensation averages $123,000 -- more than double the private-sector average of $61,000. Federal employees don't need collective bargaining over pay and pensions to be treated well, and the lack of bargaining rights has not busted federal-employee unions. As even labor leaders once acknowledged, it is civil-service rules, not collective bargaining rights, that safeguard public employees' interests in hiring, promotions, and discipline. Wisconsin could abolish public-sector collective-bargaining entirely, and its government workers would still be strongly protected from management abuse -- and as free as they are today to join unions able to advocate on their behalf. Wisconsin Republicans are targeting only the public unions' overweening political clout. They pose no danger to the welfare of public employees -- let alone to "democracy, fundamental rights, and freedom."
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 8:28:15 GMT -5
Union ‘rights’ that aren't Average federal wages far outstrip those in the private economy. When benefits are included, federal worker compensation averages $123,000 -- more than double the private-sector average of $61,000. Federal employees don't need collective bargaining over pay and pensions to be treated well, and the lack of bargaining rights has not busted federal-employee unions. Not an accurate representation. That is a median income, not a true breakdown that shows, job for job, the comparison between public and private employees. They're comparing Bureau Chiefs and department heads on the public side to a myriad of low paying part time jobs on the private side.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 9:08:47 GMT -5
Inconvenient truth for teachers' unions By Glenn Garvin Interesting subject. I agree there are bad teachers, or for that matter, bad employees in any group. They need to be weeded out. I personally think that tenure shouldn't be used to keep bad teachers in. But with that said, the schools need to do a better job of documenting bad behavior and performance. Too many times when parents call the school with complaints the school administration ignores them. But on the other side of the coin, as conservatives are so fond of saying, 'you are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal results.' There are things beyond the control of teachers. Here's the story of our children- Our daughter is a Jr at Warrior Run High school. She's an honors student, inducted into the National Honor Society last year. She's always been a straight A student. She's currently taking Honors and AP courses in preparation for college. I don't think she's ever seen the principles office. Takes her classwork seriously, almost to a fault. Asks for help before and after school for stuff she doesn't understand, and volunteers to tutor other kids. Our son is in 8th grade at Warrior Run middle school. He tests average on the standardized testing. Has never been an A student and could care less about school. He's a class clown, always saying inappropriate stuff during school, and has had 2 in school suspensions because of it this year alone. Comments on his report card say he's disruptive in class and talks out of turn. Last year he was suspended from the school bus for behavior. He carries C's and D's and is currently failing shop class (how do you fail shop class???) and close on a couple of other subjects. He never has any homework, so he says, but the comments on his report card say he never turns any in. He's been grounded and all electronics taken away more times than I can count, including one whole 9 week semester, but this doesn't seem to bother him in the least. The principle says he likes Ken, and he's 'really not a bad kid.' The guidance counselor says don't worry about it, 'he'll come around.' The psychologist says he has ADHD and has put him on medication for it. I even had him tested for drugs at one point this year (which came back negative, thank goodness). He denies he has a problem and says all the kids in his class act the same way. We're at our wits end tring to figure out what to do with him. So, what happened? Two children, from the same family, raised the same way with the same expectations and given the same attention and help with homework, went to the same school with many of the same teachers, and two different outcomes. Is it the teachers fault, our fault, or is it the system? The one thing that did change when our daughter started Middle school was a change from performance-grouped classes to alphabetically grouped classes. She noticed it right away. Ken was in 2nd grade at the time so he wouldn't have noticed. Is that the difference? Would he have been better off under the old system where the teachers would know that they had to spend more time with this group of kids? I have my opinion, but I do think it's not the fault of the teachers. The question on education results is complicated and is based on a lot of different factors inside and outside of school. I don't think it's a reflection of teachers unions.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Mar 3, 2011 10:06:10 GMT -5
WAY off topic...........
Mike, I'd bet a month's pay that your son is simply bored. He's not stupid. And he's just not challenged while he's there so he doesn't care. Of course, the school screams ADHD because they get money for every child they can show is a special needs child. Ask for him to be tested for advanced or gifted skills, and not by the school's shrink. It may surprise the Hell out of you.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 3, 2011 10:17:27 GMT -5
Dr. Sanity Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life
Wednesday, March 02, 2011 ENTIRELY ADOLESCENT
Victor Davis Hanson on the rise of the adolescent mind: We live in a therapeutic age, one in which the old tragic view of our ancestors has been replaced by prolonged adolescence. Adolescents hold adult notions of consumption: they understand the comfort of a pricey car; they appreciate the status conveyed by a particular sort of handbag or sunglasses; they sense how outward consumption and refined tastes can translate into popularity and envy; and they appreciate how a slogan or world view can win acceptance among peers without worry over its validity. But they have no adult sense of acquisition, themselves not paying taxes, balancing the family budget, or worrying about household insurance, maintenance, or debt. Theirs is a world view of today or tomorrow, not of next year —or even of next week.
So adolescents throw fits when denied a hip sweater or a trip to Disneyland, concluding that it is somehow “unfair” or “mean,” without concern about the funds available to grant their agendas. We see now just that adolescent mind in Wisconsin. “They” surely can come up with the money from someone (“the rich”) somehow to pay teachers and public servants what they deserve. And what they deserve is determined not by comparable rates in private enterprise, or by market value (if the DMV clerk loses a job, does another public bureau or private company inevitably seize the opportunity to hire such a valuable worker at comparable or improved wages?), or by results produced (improved test scores, more applicants processed in an office, overhead reduced, etc.), or by what the strapped state is able to provide, but by what is deemed to be necessary to ensure an upper-middle class lifestyle. That is altogether understandable and decent, but it is entirely adolescent in a globalized economy.
Those of us with teens in the household see the adolescent dynamic Hanson describes on a daily basis. My daughter and almost all of her friends fit the description at least part of the time. The few who have broken out of this mindset--i.e., accepted the responsibility of adulthood--are generally those who have had to do so by events; i.e., because of real world problems facing their families. It's tough to get a teen to "grow up" when life is so easy and they don't really have to be responsible. Often the goal is just to get them out of the house so they can begin to appreciate what the "real" world is actually like.
In a way, the childlike, irresponsible attitude of today's adolescents is a reflection of our attempts as parents to shield them from the real world; to give them a better life than we ourselves may have had; to limit the hardships and even the pain we might have experienced when we were their age. They are clueless about the real world because we have protected their childlike innocence. However flawed that attitude might be on our part, our hope is that once they do leave the nest, they will (hopefully) have learned everything necessary to be resilient enought to cope with the real world.
As they will have to--as long as we don't bail them out over and over again when they screw up (which they will).
I only wish we, the taxpayers, were dealing with real adolescents, instead of the grownup variety that seem to populate our political class--particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle.
At least then we might have some small modicum of hope that they might grow up when forced to face the real world.
Unfortunately, we are not dealing with innocent adolescents (although they are behaving as badly and irresponsibly); we are dealing with adolescent--or rather, INFANTILE--psychological defense mechanisms (e.g., denial) that are being used by individual ADULTS and and enabling political parties.
The adolescent-adults of our political class have little incentive to grow up, since they believe that "the rich" will always be there to rescue them from their own poor judgement and self-destructive behavior. All they have to do is tax those "rich" people more and more and more; and then they can overspend, overindulge, and party like there's no tomorrow.
Whenever the taxpayer loudly complains and says, "ENOUGH!", they become sullen and ungrateful, muttering darkly about how they're doing it "for the children" (which, when you think about it, they are since they ARE the children in this picture); or bringing up the old reliable Marxist class warfare scenario to justify their adolescent rantings.
These guys and gals are not just grownup, oversized adolescents; they are PERPETUALLY and ENTIRELY ADOSESCENT in their worldview and mindset.
God help us.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 10:22:49 GMT -5
WAY off topic........... Mike, I'd bet a month's pay that your son is simply bored. He's not stupid. And he's just not challenged while he's there so he doesn't care. Of course, the school screams ADHD because they get money for every child they can show is a special needs child. Ask for him to be tested for advanced or gifted skills, and not by the school's shrink. It may surprise the Hell out of you. Surprisingly Todd, when we first asked about it, the teachers balked on the idea he had ADHD. The one teacher actually told us 'no, he's just a bad kid'. It was actually a friend from work who suggested we have him evaluated. I finally looked up the symptoms and was surprised that he displayed 80% of the symptoms. We took him to an independent psychologist who evaluated him, sent out a boatload of questionnaires to his teachers and us, and confirmed it. He is gifted, in sports. He excels in whatever sport he tries. It may be that he is bored in school, but I would think that if that was the case he wouldn't be on the verge of academic suspension making him ineligible to participate in soccer (which is his passion).
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Mar 3, 2011 12:35:18 GMT -5
Mike! "Surprisingly Todd, when we first asked about it, the teachers balked on the idea he had ADHD." Proverbs 22: 6
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 3, 2011 14:10:55 GMT -5
Relene, that's the promise we're counting on. I guess we're just being impatient waiting for our labor to bear fruit.
|
|