The Republican Thread

[CanOfCorn]

For every awesome and deserving teacher out there, there's 2 awful tenured teachers who aren't worth anything but still get paid. Guess how much the highest paid teacher in Illinois makes:

 

http://www.championnews.net/salaries.php

 

(bottom left, can't link you to the actual page unfortunately)

 

Clearly this isn't representative of every teacher, but what teacher is worth that much money?

 

Also, from personal experience, i'd agree that the public sector has gotten pretty close to the private sector in terms of pay. Coming out of law school, entry level government jobs paid a lot more than entry level private sector jobs. You take out the 5% of entry level attorneys that make bank out of school, the rest of us shlubs have hundreds of thousands of debt and jobs that don't really pay much more than having the 3-4 years of work experience out of college.

 

This has been the way of District 219 since I was in High School. Back in the late 80's...whew, I'm old...our high school, Niles North, had the highest average teacher salary nearly every year. Followed closely by New Trier most years. At the time, we also had the longest average tenure and looking at the list, there are still a few teachers there from when I went there...so, they have 25+ years experience. Just wanted to add that tidbit...I think District 219 has been one of the higher paying districts historically. Also, I would imagine, with Niles West and Niles North combined, it's one of the bigger districts in the state, but I don't have hard evidence of that.

[lostfan]

So how do you fell about Huckabees statement? Would you vote for him?

I know he already replied to the post but I'll say he's being consistent, 2K5 isn't that kind of conservative. Not that they don't exist elsewhere in the country, but now that I think of it I don't really know that many on this board that are, actually.

[GoSox05]

I know he already replied to the post but I'll say he's being consistent, 2K5 isn't that kind of conservative. Not that they don't exist elsewhere in the country, but now that I think of it I don't really know that many on this board that are, actually.

 

I'm not saying that him or anyone else on this board does. I just think that a majority of conservatives tend to have a negative view of homosexuality.

 

 

[kapkomet]

It is with conservatives.

 

*yawn*

[EvilMonkey]

My mom works in the office of a school district, and they get a contract like the teachers, although even less pay. However she gets summers off, several personal days each year, and sick days that can roll over. It was unlimited until 2 years ago, then they capped it at a year max. So 2 years ago mom had to use like 30 days to get down under a year. And if she retires after this year, can take the whole next year off with pay.

 

Administrators are a completely different story, at least here in IL. Their pension comes from the STATE, not the district that gives them the wildly undeserving and high pay raises the last few years. So all the poor districts are paying the $250k+ retirement of the New triers and Glenbards of the state. And if they retire with their full pension, they can go get a job at a DIFFERENT school and start working on a NEW one, while still collecting the old one. How is that for a sock in the nuts?

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not saying that him or anyone else on this board does. I just think that a majority of conservatives tend to have a negative view of homosexuality.

 

So you've gone from "conservatives" to "some conservatives" to a "majority of conservatives" huh?

 

 

[GoSox05]

So you've gone from "conservatives" to "some conservatives" to a "majority of conservatives" huh?

 

Yeah. I'm not really sure. What do you think?

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah. I'm not really sure. What do you think?

 

Honestly, I think less than 10%. The number goes up if you're talking about people who don't think it's "right" or isn't "natural." But people that actually care, that want to deny people rights, that want to promote harm? Incredibly small.

[GoSox05]

Honestly, I think less than 10%. The number goes up if you're talking about people who don't think it's "right" or isn't "natural." But people that actually care, that want to deny people rights, that want to promote harm? Incredibly small.

 

What is your stance on gay marriage and gay couples adopting?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Honestly, I think less than 10%. The number goes up if you're talking about people who don't think it's "right" or isn't "natural." But people that actually care, that want to deny people rights, that want to promote harm? Incredibly small.

 

I bet it's higher than 10%, there's a good portion of the conservative base that lives in the Bible Belt. Much below a majority, however.

[Jenksismyhero]

I bet it's higher than 10%, there's a good portion of the conservative base that lives in the Bible Belt. Much below a majority, however.

 

But I still think a large portion of those people aren't the type to do anything about it.

 

Me personally, I don't think homosexuality is "natural." I don't think it's "wrong" either. I also don't think it's my place to judge what people do. I think gays should accept "civil unions" that provide the same benefits and be done with that battle. And adoption is the only real sticking point with me, but it's better to have a kid in a home than not at all.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

And I just got back from the tea party rally at Daley Plaza. Have to say that I feel bad for people that rely on the media to tell them what we/they stand for (accepting myself as a member of the MAJOR components of the movement now, since I basically agreed with 95% of what I saw/heard). All I heard was an hour of people speaking about hwo they're pissed off about taxes and the role of government in our lives. In fact, the only negative stuff I heard was the pro-gay/pro-abortion/anti-war group on the southeast corner screaming at people, calling them "bigots" and "racists."

 

Oh and to those that thought it odd that the tea party has no leader, I also heard numerous speakers describe it as a “movement” and specifically denied the idea that it was a party. It’s just people pissed about what’s going on in Washington. Kinda similar to past protests that were “liberal” and “progressive” that somehow were “positive” for the country…

 

[southsider2k5]

And I just got back from the tea party rally at Daley Plaza. Have to say that I feel bad for people that rely on the media to tell them what we/they stand for (accepting myself as a member of the MAJOR components of the movement now, since I basically agreed with 95% of what I saw/heard). All I heard was an hour of people speaking about hwo they're pissed off about taxes and the role of government in our lives. In fact, the only negative stuff I heard was the pro-gay/pro-abortion/anti-war group on the southeast corner screaming at people, calling them "bigots" and "racists."

 

Oh and to those that thought it odd that the tea party has no leader, I also heard numerous speakers describe it as a “movement” and specifically denied the idea that it was a party. It’s just people pissed about what’s going on in Washington. Kinda similar to past protests that were “liberal” and “progressive” that somehow were “positive” for the country…

 

I had the exact same experience when I spoke at a rally last year.

[CanOfCorn]

Here's a question...why do people call it "pro-abortion?" It's pro-choice. Big difference. Many people are for a woman's right to choose, but wouldn't choose to do it themselves if put in that situation. That has always bothered me.

[Balta1701]

Here's a question...why do people call it "pro-abortion?" It's pro-choice. Big difference. Many people are for a woman's right to choose, but wouldn't choose to do it themselves if put in that situation. That has always bothered me.

It's framing. The "pro-life" side uses the same thing, because who wouldn't want to be pro-life? Life is usually a good thing. Choice is too. I don't want to be anti-life. I don't want to be anti-choice.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's my bad. I didn't even intend to mean it that way.

[Balta1701]

That's my bad. I didn't even intend to mean it that way.

It's not like it's deliberate. That's the beauty of doing the messaging right; if you're on one side, you should just automatically use the more negative-sounding one for the other side without a second thought.

[southsider2k5]

It's not like it's deliberate. That's the beauty of doing the messaging right; if you're on one side, you should just automatically use the more negative-sounding one for the other side without a second thought.

 

And if anyone would know about that...

[southsider2k5]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-b...e-volcano-there

 

On Thursday's Rick's List, CNN's Rick Sanchez again demonstrated his lack of knowledge of basic science, again related to geology. As he covered the volcanic eruption in Iceland which has disrupted thousands of airplane flights across Europe, he commented that "when you think of a volcano, you think of Hawaii and long words like that. You don't think of Iceland. You think it's too cold to have a volcano there" [audio available here].

 

The anchor, who asked on-air, "By the way, nine meters in English is?" after the massive earthquake in Chile on February 27, directed his "too cold" remark to CNN on-air meteorologist Chad Myers, who also reports on other science-related stories. Myers didn't get into details of plate tectonics as footage of the volcano played on-screen, but explained that "a plume of ash [was] coming out of the top of [a] volcano, going straight up."

 

Sanchez then asked about one of the details in the video: "What's that white stuff though? It looks like clouds." The meteorologist replied, "That's just a cloud....The volcano is going off, but there's just regular weather happening underneath it. This thing is going tens of thousands of feet in the sky, and it is going right into the flight path of an awful lot of airplanes."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

Rick, I know that you didn't know that it was pro-lifers that were taking part in the March for Life in January, and that you have trouble with metric conversion, but let me explain something to you. Plate tectonics is completely independent of climate. There are volcanoes in Alaska, the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Russian Far East, and even in Antarctica [Alaska and Antarctica links courtesy of fellow NewsBuster Noel Sheppard]. There are even volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean.

 

The relevant transcript from the last segment of Thursday's Rick's List program, starting at the 4:57 pm Eastern mark:

 

Rick Sanchez, CNN Anchor | NewsBusters.orgSANCHEZ: I was just asking Chad, how can you get a volcano in Iceland? [Myers laughs]. Isn't it too- when you think of a volcano, you think of Hawaii and long words like that. You don't think of Iceland.

 

MYERS: Right.

 

SANCHEZ: You think it's too cold to have a volcano there. But no! There it is.

 

MYERS: Look at that.

 

SANCHEZ: What is this? Explain-

 

MYERS: That is a-

 

SANCHEZ: Go- take us through these pictures.

 

MYERS: That is a plume of ash coming out of the top of [a] volcano, going straight up. Tens-

 

SANCHEZ: What's that white stuff though? It looks like clouds.

 

MYERS: Tens of thousands- that's just a cloud.

 

SANCHEZ: Oh, okay.

 

MYERS: Yeah. The volcano is going off, but there's just regular weather happening underneath it. This thing is going tens of thousands of feet in the sky, and it is going right into the flight path of an awful lot of airplanes.

 

 

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-b...e#ixzz0lEGH6OQQ

[southsider2k5]

Here's another one of those stories that seems to get truer the more times its repeated, yet falls apart under examination. The Krugman fallacy was just a fun add on in the same column.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1507879688.html

 

It may be the most celebrated missing recording since Watergate: the nonexistent or unaccounted-for video of the tea-party protesters at the Capitol who three black congressmen claim yelled racial slurs at them on March 20, the eve of ObamaCare's enactment. Jesse Washington, who covers the race beat for the Associated Press, tries to get to the bottom of things. Although he falls well short of establishing the truth or falsehood of the allegation, he comes up with some interesting findings along the way.

 

First, there turns out to have been at least one report of a corroborating witness to the alleged slurs. Washington notes that in its March 23 edition, the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News published this interview with Heath Shuler, the local congressman, a Democrat who voted against ObamaCare:

 

Shuler was walking with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, an African-American, toward the Capitol building when the crowd starting yelling racial epithets at Cleaver, who was a civil rights activist in the 1970s. They even spat at him.

 

"It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life," Shuler said.

 

Multiple members of Congress reported racial epithets being shouted at African-American members over the weekend.

 

"It breaks your heart that the way they display their anger is to spit on a member and use that kind of language," Shuler said.

 

But when we phoned Shuler's office this afternoon, press secretary Julie Fishman told us the local reporter misunderstood. According to Fishman, Shuler's comments to the Times-News referred to the general tenor of the protests, not to the black congressmen's specific allegations.

 

Fishman said that Shuler was not walking with Cleaver and did not hear the "N-word." Shuler was, however, in proximity to Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and heard someone call Frank, as Fishman put it, a "communist F-word" (that would be "f*****," not the other F-word). At least one reporter also was said to have heard the antigay slur directed at Frank, so we're inclined to believe that claim. But the allegations of racial slurs remain uncorroborated.

 

One video that has been making the rounds shows the black congressmen walking through a crowd chanting, "Kill the bill!" No slurs can be heard. This seemed to be evidence against the congressmen's claims, but Washington shows that it is completely inconclusive:

 

A reconstruction of the events shows that the conservative challenges largely sprang from a mislabeled video that was shot later in the day.

 

[Andrew] Breitbart posted two columns on his Web site saying the claims were fabricated. Both led with a 48-second YouTube video showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol. Some of the group were videotaping the booing crowd.

 

Breitbart asked why the epithet was not captured by the black lawmakers' cameras, and why nobody reacted as if they had heard the slur. He also questioned whether the epithets could have been shouted by liberals planted in the crowd.

 

But the 48-second video was shot as the group was leaving the Capitol--at least one hour after Lewis, D-Ga., and Carson walked to the Capitol, which is when they said the slurs were used.

 

Questioned about using a video on his Web site from the wrong moment, Breitbart stood by his claim that the lawmakers were lying.

 

"I'm not saying the video was conclusive proof," he said.

 

There is one video shot contemporaneously with the alleged slurs, but it too is inconclusive, as Washington reports:

 

Only 22 seconds of video have emerged from the time in question, filmed by Lee Fang of the liberal American Progress think tank. His YouTube clip--labeled as being filmed about five minutes after the crowd rushed Lewis and Carson--has been posted by Breitbart and dozens of blogs accusing Democrats of lying.

 

Fang told the AP he was standing "pretty far away" across Independence Avenue from the Cannon building when he saw the crowd erupt, so he hurried over. Fang did not hear the epithet, but he said he believes it was used. "The hatred was palpable," he said.

 

At first glance, this looks like awfully flimsy evidence in support of the congressmen's allegations. Actually, it is a fairly strong argument for doubting them. Fang believes "the epithet . . . was used" based on no evidence except his own emotions. Surely there are many like Fang who are predisposed to believe the tea-party movement is racist. It is far from implausible to suggest that politicians might say things that are untrue in order to pander to the prejudices of their followers.

 

The Conscience of a Former Enron Adviser

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times has incurred the wrath of a colleague, for the following passage in yesterday's "Dealbook" column:

 

You may recall that during the most perilous months of 2008 and early 2009, there was a vigorous debate about how the government should fix the financial system. Some economists, including Nouriel Roubini of New York University and [former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman, declared that we should follow the example of the Swedes by nationalizing the entire banking system.

 

Krugman fired back in an NYTimes.com blog entry titled "Andrew Ross Sorkin Owes Several People an Apology":

 

I certainly never said anything like that, and I don't think Nouriel did either. First of all, I never called for "nationalizing the entire banking system" — I wanted the government to take temporary full ownership of a few weak banks, mainly Citigroup and possibly B of A. I defy Sorkin to find any examples of me calling for a total takeover.

 

Sorkin does just that, in a post to his own NYTimes.com blog sarcastically titled "Dear Professor Krugman . . .":

 

On your blog on Sept. 28, 2008, after reading a piece by Brad DeLong, an economist, which you linked to, you wrote, "Brad DeLong says that Swedish-style temporary nationalization is the right answer to a financial crisis; he's right."

 

In your column on Feb. 23, 2009, you asked, "Why not just go ahead and nationalize? Remember, the longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis."

 

Sorkin strikes a hilariously condescending tone, as if he is addressing someone who is full of himself and a bit feeble-minded: "I appreciate that you may have articulated the details of your views differently, or more specifically, in other columns and forums. And I appreciate that you could quibble with my words. But I do think it is clear . . . Again, I love reading your column, and the bailouts are certainly an issue that is the subject of much debate."

 

Three cheers to Sorkin. This is almost as good as when Krugman was caught describing his own economics textbook as reflecting "a bizarre point of view."

[StrangeSox]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-b...e-volcano-there

That is pretty embarrassing.

[Controlled Chaos]

Here's a question...why do people call it "pro-abortion?" It's pro-choice. Big difference. Many people are for a woman's right to choose, but wouldn't choose to do it themselves if put in that situation. That has always bothered me.

See Tebow thread.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It's framing. The "pro-life" side uses the same thing, because who wouldn't want to be pro-life? Life is usually a good thing. Choice is too. I don't want to be anti-life. I don't want to be anti-choice.

You beat me too it and almost used the exact words I was going to say.

 

Are you my psychic twin?

[Jenksismyhero]

Damn republicans, always inciting violence and hate.

 

 

[mr_genius]

Damn republicans, always inciting violence and hate.

 

probably beaten by pro-Democrat SEIU members