The Morning Links (2/3/12 )

Posted on February 3, 2012 by

LL 1885′s TML HEADERThe Morning Links:

Lonely Conservative Linked – Thanks!

Foreign Affairs:

Wait, what?:

Must Reads Of The Day:

Occupy Whatever Street:

Election 2012:

2012 Primary Debate Schedule | 2012 Election Central

The Religion Of Peace:

Laugh or Cry – The Videos of the Day:

About ladyliberty1885

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of liberty must undergo the fatigues of supporting it” --Thomas Paine
This entry was posted in TML 2012 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Morning Links (2/3/12 )

  1. Pingback: Welcome to the New and Improved Zilla of the Resistance! | Zilla of the Resistance at MareZilla.com

  2. SJ Peterson says:
    February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

    As to Mr. Goldberg’s stance, and his focus on the facts that matter, I concur, and am glad the word “union” is absent, for the reasons outlined, previously.

  3. SJ Peterson says:
    February 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM

    As we see the majority of this issue in similar terms, nothing that follows should be particularly thought-provoking. Still, since you asked, so long as you understand that the stream-of-consciousness that follows will be all over the map. . . .

    Issues to focus on rather than the issues (so often sexual) that seem to permeate the media; and more’s the better if it involves a female teacher posed “provocatively” (but in reality, depressingly) in a bikini:

    • Inferior teachers who survive solely due to tenure;
    •Teachers who have no classroom-management skills;
    • Teachers who have no mastery of the subjects they teach (I often see teachers who assign material to students and require them to use technology and software to produce a specific product that the teacher could not produce himself if asked to do the same.);
    •The death of creativity in the classroom due to test-score-driven NCLB nonsense. (That will all change, though, when all students achieve @ 100% by 2014.);
    • Closed-shop and the educational system;
    • The NEA and associated states’ associations and their monstrous influence on education and the political system;
    • The use of dues for political lobbying;
    • The public education debacle.

    That will have to do for the present, though there’s a prospective tome on the horizon. Not all of these are strictly union; but I would argue that they all have to pass through the union gantlet, and all, in my humble opinion, are far more worthy of media scrutiny than the relatively isolated cases that make the news here and there and that inspired John to write the article in question. Though these tragic occurrences appear often enough to seem commonplace when played through the 24-hour news machine, doing so turns eyes away from matters that literally affect the lives of millions of students. And if allowed my own non-sequitur: equally troubling, the vast majority of decent teachers out there, who would be first in line to see the guilty gone, end up tarred with the same brush when the sensational takes center stage. I am not saying that these cases should not be covered; it is the media slant and its seeming unwillingness to provide any balance by going after matters like those mentioned, above, that cheeses me off.

    As to the media, the last two years hasn’t really elevated the discussion. Folks get lost in the minutiae and miss the elephant in the room. I suspect I’m just tired of the way our country is going, with its dumbed-down reality TV focus on the inane rather than the germane. Bought-and-paid-for-politicians notwithstanding, it is the mainstream media that is most often guilty of “bawdlerizing” the facts in order to make a story newsworthy. From a journalist’s perspective, would the author’s focusing on (or at least including) information that the teacher’s immediate superior found insufficient grounds to investigate parent concerns raised in 2008 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/mark-berndt/) make for a more compelling article than his using the alleged crime as a way to simply bash unions? Would it be worth focusing on how many other students’ lives were violated in the three + years that followed?

    Now. Are we full-circle . . . or just far afield from the point of my original post? Does any of this most interesting discussion allow for the author’s stance that justice would be in some way be served by lessening a union’s contractual obligation to step up and see to it that agreed-to practices for removing teachers from classrooms are respected, or should I hold to my position that the author opted for sensational over substantive, and worse, reiterate that in these types of cases, the union (much as a defense lawyer) is contractually obligated to see that the accused is treated fairly?

    Or is it time to say, “Meh”?

    • ladyliberty1885 says:
      February 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM

      Meh.

      Just kidding. :)
      Thank you for outlining the other issues at hand and some of which are underpinnings of the incident originally posted. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the media seems to focus on these disturbing cases (almost always tied to abuse of a child in some way) because it a. brings ratings and b. is the only side they care to pursue. Journalism is not what it used to be and those who do delve deeper tend to get strapped to a Cross and nailed to it by the Left — also not a coincidence that most Major news organizations are Left run, staffed and driven. Their reporting on the crime and not the back story of what enabled this man to even be allowed near kids in order to commit said crimes is far too close for their comfort.

  4. SJ Peterson says:
    February 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    I’m curious. Regarding the teacher/union issues depicted in the “Thank a Union . . .” Verum Serum article, aren’t you the least bit concerned about the “innocent until proven guilty” aspects of doing as the author suggests? Without question, the teacher should be out of the classroom until things are adjudicated, and the courts should make it a condition of his getting bail (which, imo, he should NOT be granted due to his being an imminent danger to others) that he be forbidden from even being near children; but beyond that, firing him at this point would be an egregious violation of the tenets that make America America.

    Once found guilty, I have very specific ideas as to his punishment; and even if he is found innocent (admittedly far from likely), firing would actually be the least of his problems. No one accused of such a crime ever overcomes the perceived associations, innocent or not.

    Do keep in mind, that before John or anyone else takes pen to paper and excoriates unions, it should be noted that whatever conditions of employment are in place were negotiated, jointly, by the union & the school district. As such, it is patently unfair to blame only the union for its stance on this issue, if for no other reason than the school district is culpable as well. Further, if the school district offers a contract to potential hires that does not EXPRESSLY outline that this sort of thing is an instantly dismissible offense . . . well, that’s on them as well. If they do, then the union is overstepping, and THAT issue should be the author’s focus.

    Again, my point is not to support criminals or their behavior. I just think the whole union-bashing thing makes for a low-hanging-fruit sort of journalism that appeals to our emotional responses to unspeakable crimes, and by so doing, ignores the fact that there are far more legitimate and solid reasons for taking an anti-union position. This type of play-to-their-emotions sort of article risks cheapening legitimate criticism of unions, as it seems to elevate emotion over substance; and that’s not what I would expect from the conservative side of things.

    • ladyliberty1885 says:
      February 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

      On Firing him outright: No, he should be put on leave with NO pay. Once the court has decided his guilt, then fire him. I think 23 and counting victims is a fair indictment that the man is a disgusting animal. However, if it is in his contract that the school can fire him for this turn of events before that, then they should do it. Quickly. I tend to disagree in the assessment of the contract being negotiated equally between union and school districts. The union is often the author of the contract and the school district has little say in changing it. Take a look at WI for an example of what happens when you attempt to alter the contract. Reminds me of Darth Vader hising to Calrissian about praying he doesn’t alter the bargain further.

      On Unions: No, I don’t think it cheapens it nor is it low hanging fruit. After decades of talon like grips on our schools, unions are finally being exposed for what they are: parasites. Unions have had a corrupting influence on our schools and made teachers like this able to continue their existence by being shuffled from school to school; in essence fire proof. Unions are also responsible for raising our taxes to pay their own dues via said teachers. It’s legalized money laundering in my opinion. Not for a single instant has union involvement in schools ever been about our kids. It has always been about the teachers and lining the union’s pocket. Now, having said that, I do not blame the union for this man’s depraved behavior. That would be rather silly. I do blame them for someone such as this man even getting or keeping his job via the rules, laws and regulations that unions have brought to education all in the name of being ‘about the kids’.

      • SJ Peterson says:
        February 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM

        I am certain that you & I agree on virtually everything substantive pertaining to the teacher, his guilt, and his much-hoped-for fate; but I am NOT certain that you actually understand that my post was referencing the flaws I see in the ARTICLE, and how its author wrote a rather softball piece that attacks the given without actually going after the far broader problems presented by educational unions.

        As I clearly stated, there are FAR more compelling reasons to go after the union behemoth than the issue of whether a union should stand by a member who has a contract to which all parties agreed (and please forgive my nitpicking, but JOINTLY does not equate to EQUALLY). Focusing on the contractual details when it no longer suits one’s position risks being seen as petty, and does risk (but admittedly not assure) cheapening the discourse when other issues are eventually raised. Far better for school boards to follow Ronald Reagan’s example and fire the lot if they and their representatives will not bargain in good faith. Whether school boards are universally weak and in bed with their respective unions, is another argument; but there is nothing stopping their achieving a Reagan-like end to a contractual crisis.

        As for the Wisconsin issue, my understanding is that the union/teachers are in conflict with the STATE rather than any specific school district. I would think that makes your reference a somewhat apples-to oranges comparison–a non-sequitur at best and a straw-man at worst. Your underlying point that the unions have far too much power is valid, but there is no real connection that I can see between the school district/union arrangement in the article (contractual) and the one between Wisconsin and labor unions which the State is trying to renegotiate (fiscal); but it is a remarkably potent illustration of the point of my original response: that there are more substantive issues regarding union bullying that should be addressed.

        Again, as a regular reader (and lurker until yesterday), I am confident that we see eye-to-eye when viewing the big picture; but in this case, my previous experiences vis-a-vis teachers’ unions continually make me wonder why the media always seem to go for the lurid over the less tawdry, and arguably more important, and by so doing, unwittingly help to desensitize the public to other, far more dangerous matters with which unions involve themselves; and many of which you noted in the last paragraph of your reply. Pet peeve, I suppose.

      • ladyliberty1885 says:
        February 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

        Perhaps it was a softball piece, however it was not entirely without merit. I think you’re underplaying the role of the union in standing by a member regardless of what they are accused of. It’s valid to criticize the contractual side of the argument; Unions are the ones often times who are the authors of them and when they are not, they have a multitude of additional requirements to add to them. I’d love to hear what you consider the broader problems to be. I have a feeling that if you follow them back to their origins we may be back where we started.

        Re: Wisconsin – most states have individual county school boards. WI is likely the same structure, however their money and budget is handed down by the state. The teachers have a contract with the state, not the individual boards when it comes to their benefits in WI. I don’t see that as non-sequitor nor a strawman, but an example of how the tug of war is played. I would grant that may be different in various states and perhaps specifics of employment vary by county. The teachers made up the single largest component in WI’s protests and the union. Nationally teachers unions wield enormous power. I live in NC and we do not have an official teachers union, but instead a lobby. A very powerful and well funded lobby. The pressure they bring to bear on the contractual level as well as the fiscal level is most definitely connected. Without control over the contract, there can be no squeeze on the fiscal side of the house. The almighty dues collecting depends on controlling things at the member level. Again, feel free to address what broader and more substantive issues of union bullying you think should be addressed.

        Perhaps the media focuses on these more lurid issues, as you described it, because the rest of union dealings have been tolerated and perpetuated by bought and paid for politicians for so long that no one questions it anymore. I think we’ve been seeing a reversal of that over the last 2 years. Thoughts there?

        Bear in mind, I posted the link to the story and didn’t write it myself. It has useful components to it, obviously, or this conversation would not be happening.

      • ladyliberty1885 says:
        February 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM

        After thought: What this man did is horrific. I’m sure you agree there that this particular case doesn’t fit the bill of ‘lurid’ or ‘tawdry’. The article I linked prior to it, by Jonah Goldberg, is very fitting coverage of it.

  5. crawfishsclaw says:
    February 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    I really do need to come here daily to get info for my own column

  6. Pingback: Good News! Atlas Shrugged Part II Coming to Theaters in October! | The Lonely Conservative

  7. Pingback: Sore Loser Newt to Challenge Florida Primary | The Lonely Conservative

Comments are closed.