« ‘We know what you really said/thought/meant’ | Main | The test after you thought you were done »

20 August 2013

Comments

Paul Emery

Gregory

Please point me to the links you say were provided and I stand corrected. It's as simple as that

Gregory

Tell me what links you did read and I'll dig out the ones you didn't.

Are you ready to abandon that silly $20 (out of perhaps $1000 a year dues) transfer to the CTA's separate 501c3 as being indicative that the CTA doesn't spend any member's (or non member paying agency fees) on politics that isn't voluntary on the part of the payer?

Another possibility is, if you think something I wrote was incorrect, quote it (a real quote, not a Keachiesque fantasy version), challenge its veracity, and accept a large helping of steaming crow if you are wrong.

Todd Juvinall

Are you the tall one or the short one in this picture MichaelInderson?

http://costumenetwork.com/MainGallery/108/megastiltbabes

Those Burning Man pictures of you and your pals is a good explanation of why you are not a success in life.

Gregory

"Tell me what links you did read and I'll dig out the ones you didn't." - Me

I guess the lack of a response means Paul didn't read any of the links. That isn't my usual logic but that's what Paul did to me and turnabout can be fair play. Since he also hasn't responded to any of the challenges to his claim that silly $20 dues diversion had anything to do with the issues of political funding as being covered by the lawsuit (which was the subject of the first link I gave)... does that mean Paul was lying, or does it just mean he pulled something out of the hat and without much thought, decided that $20 issue settled the problems over the $500 to even $1000+ a year that a teacher is expected to fork over for their union to spend and doesn't want to admit he had his head where the sun wasn't shining.

Inquiring minds might like to know.

Bill Tozer

Mr. ANDERSON, I bring up these horrific and senseless shootings because they are the subject of Dr. Rebane's post. Well, 2/3 of the Ruminations 20, Aug 13 if you count the update about Oklahoma.

Continuing my obsession with our domestic youth picking up guns and going out to hunt down humans, I stand by my theme of "we" have raised a generation of sewer rats and this is Lord of the Flies.

Noticed my brother who formerly posted here dug deep into the history of the shabby treatment of blacks in our country time and time again to justify/explain/rationalize why this is going on today in 2013. Libs never mention why it is getting worse, just the history of racism in the USA to explain it all away. Maybe it is getting so friggin exponentially worse because of Exxon Oil and Halliburton and Chase Manhattan. Yeah, right.

Juan Williams hits the mark again!!! Now, Juan is wrong on a lot of things, but when it comes to this topic, he is dead on target (pun intended). Now I know why the Left always brings up history on such matters. History is a good thing to study, but can cloud the viewing lenses when looking at today and moving forward.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/22/let-not-play-racial-politics-when-bigger-problem-is-violent-criminal-behavior/

Paul Emery

Gregory

There were no links. It should be easy to show me otherwise. The egg sandwich is in my hand and easy to spread on my face if you just do that one thing.

Gregory

There were no links? We're getting somewhere. The first link you apparently ignored was in my 04 August 2013 at 03:46 PM of the Great Divide through Restructuring thread, about the lawsuit that's been filed on behalf of 10 California teachers that somehow just can't figure out how to stop funding the union they don't belong to and don't want to fund.

Yes, they have to opt out every year, and if they want to challenge the union's decision as to how much was spent on politics, there is a run around every year.

In retrospect, the funniest link given was in your (Paul's) post at 04 August 2013 at 03:57 PM... it answers your challenge of 3:39. Did you read your own link besides the quote from a teacher's union talking head?

It would be so much easier to assure all contributions were voluntary with an opt in system, but the CTA spent many millions defeating a proposition that would have done just that. The expectation in some quarters is the lawsuit that was filed would do just that for all 50 states (57 for the unofficial Presidential count), not just California. It's expected lower courts will reject it as they are bound by SCOTUS precedent, but recent SCOTUS rulings make it appear the supremes are ready to further soften the hold of public employee unions on automatic deductions.

Paul Emery

Gosh Gregory

You seem to agree with me so we have no problem, On Aug 4 you wrote that:.

"Yes, teachers and other employees can opt out of the political contributions, but reports are that they are given the run around when they do, and the opting out has to be repeated EVERY YEAR."

Since they can opt out, as you put it, there is no issue of forced contributions to political causes. Thanks for straightening this out for me.

Gregory

No, you're still crooked Paul, because even the "non political" part, AS DETERMINED by the union itself, is still in many ways fundamentally political, and the accounting is not transparent. For example,

"Following a 1980 decision, unions are required to give out notices to all non-union members explaining which activities they are being charged for and which they aren’t. But some labor experts question the validity of these self-reported notices and say breaking down a union’s many activities is a murky business.

The expenses are not confined to the negotiating table. In the 2012-2013 school year, for instance, the California Teachers Association reported that a $27,860 “Ethnic Minority Early Identification Development program” and $18,079 “special publications” were related to collective bargaining. Also that year, the union hosted a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) Conference to “address issues involving GLBT educators, students and community” and found that nearly 87 percent of its cost – or $65,099 – was eligible to be paid for by agency fees.

The conference, and another gay and lesbian program, is one of the specific examples the plaintiffs take issue with. “Whatever you think about these programs, they are not related to collective bargaining,” said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, the right-leaning organization that filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. (The plaintiffs are also represented by Jones Day, one of the country’s largest corporate law firms.)

Although Juran could not speak to the specifics of the GLBT conference, she said that it, like other CTA events, likely was designed to promote safety and inclusion for all teachers and students. Much of the activity that the union labels as part of its collective bargaining efforts relates to working conditions and improving education, she added.

The union is careful about documenting staff time to accurately breakdown chargeable and nonchargeable activities and “tends to err on the side of not charging,” Juran said.

But the complaint also argues that collective bargaining in itself is a political activity. For instance, many teachers unions across the country have opposed merit pay in contract negotiations, despite the fact that individual teachers may support it. “The distinction between political expenditures and collective bargaining is a made-up distinction,” Pell said. “Collective bargaining is every bit as political as what unions call overtly political.”

That opting out of maybe half of the $1000 dues by paying only the agency fees has nothing to do with that silly opt out form you linked to and were trying to pretend was the subject here.

Gregory

But wait, there's more!:

"The plaintiff news release points to last year’s Supreme Court case of Knox vs. Service Employees International Union. The court ruled that the SEIU in California violated the First Amendment rights of its nonunion members by forcing them to pay a 25 percent increase in union dues without their consent to help fight ballot initiatives in the State.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said: “Because a public sector union takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, the compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a significant impingement on First Amendment rights.”

Gregory

Let's recap... the SEIU charged all members *and* non members a 25% surcharge to fight California ballot initiatives, in essence, declaring fighting against measures on the California ballot that members and non-members would be voting on was a non-political expenditure relating to collective bargaining. They lost at the SCOTUS review and gave rise to the lawsuit that may do to the entire country what they kept California from doing by hitting Prop 32 hard.

Gregory

Sorry, I left a dangling html italic

Should now be fixed and back to non-italic text.

If not, George, the problem is a typo at the end of my 5:03 and my efforts are not clearing it...

Paul Emery

Gregory

In my view the purpose of the Union is to look after the best interests of their members in the occupation they represent. What other purpose would they have? There is a difference in political advocacy for individual candidates (which the op out covers) and lobbying for better, salaries, conditions and policies toward education issues . Union membership is elected and if a majority of the m members don't like the direction of their Union they can elect new leadership and change the scene.

Here's how governance in the union works. For your convenience I included a link. There are always a few grumpy members in any organization.

http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/Leadership/State-Council.aspx

" State Council of Education

CTA is rigorously democratic. Its structure gives members the ultimate voice in what the Association does. By secret ballot, you and your colleagues elect the 760-plus members of the State Council of Education, CTA’s highest governing body. Meeting four times a year, State Council sets policy for the organization, adopts the budget, determines dues, recommends expenditures to the board, elects the executive officers and other members of the board of directors and performs other similar duties. "

Paul Emery

More

If you don't like Union policies you can elect different School Board members that determine Union affiliations for their district. Individual public school district's board of trustees enters into a deal with a local union, which grants the union exclusive rights to negotiate pay, benefits and working conditions for all teachers whether they are a union member or not.

Gregory

Paul, so the truth comes out. Suck it up, you owe the union and should go along to get along. Three words... freedom of association. Three more... freedom of speech.

"If you don't like Union policies you can elect different School Board members that determine Union affiliations for their district."

How about if you don't like the union policies, you don't have to give them your money for the privilege of having a public sector job? The CTA uses the money and power they prise from members to help elect the board they want, and we're back to the dues/agency fees being pried from the member working against the wishes of the member at the ballot box. So much easier to let the freedoms of association and speech to work, isn't it?

Here's another link you didn't read... The Worst Union in America:
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-association.html

I know a couple of retired teachers, as far as I knew they were democrats. Went to their house... the National Review on the coffee table. Started talking politics and they'd been conservative and voting Republican for years, just not registered Republican. They kept their mouths shut because they knew their career would be in the dumpster had they been open.

One has to hand it to the CTA, they're great at ensuring even the worst teachers have a lifetime job; only 0.03% get fired after they survive their first 3 years.

Paul Emery

Gregory

You don't know me very well or you would know how actively I opposed the unionization of Charter Schools. The Yuba Charter School stood their ground and are not represented by the Union. However, when school districts vote to have Union contracts that's an act of Democracy from elected officials and I have no problem with that. You're piece about your friends is a stretch. Terry McAteer was a Republican and an active member of the Union before and after his stint as Sup of Ed in Nevada County. He was actually promoting unionization of Charter Schools while in that position.

Gregory

So, Paul, if a majority in Nevada County vote to implement a tax for the Supervisors to use on electioneering for the good of the county, that's OK because there was a vote?

No. 1st amendment protections trump union elections.

"You're [sic] piece about your friends is a stretch."

What do you mean, a "stretch"? It is the stone cold truth, and was told specifically by one (a performing arts career in the central valley) that they'd seen open conservatives not very subtly have their careers stunted, programs starved of money. It's insidious.


"Terry McAteer was a Republican and an active member of the Union before and after his stint as Sup of Ed in Nevada County. He was actually promoting unionization of Charter Schools while in that position."

A RINO if there ever was one. McAteer was an Ed.D from a very political family, and the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Dem. Leo McCarthy was his godfather, or something like that. Ask me about his accepting of $50K in secret from someone in Nevada County that was used to promote International Baccalaureate (at the GVSD and the high schools) to replace the AP courses already in place. A FOIA went nowhere, with the county Ed department declaring they didn't want to spook future anonymous donors who don't want to be seen as trying to influence local education with wads of cash.

Paul Emery

I don't have time to investigate your intrigue about Terry Mc.

At this point we'll let the courts decide this. I'm sure George would oppose your argument because you're using antidotes to illustrate your position. It's a no no here for everyone except for anointed ones cleared by our host.

Bill Tozer

A former County Superintendent of Schools was nothing more than a 2 faced bully. He/she opposed all charter schools during his/her first election bid. Heard it straight from the horse's mouth on KNCO. She/he changed his/her tune as soon as she/he saw his/her stance was unpopular.

He/she took $200,000 from the k-12 budget to fund NCTV, citing educational and "community asset" purposes. Never paid it back to the schools' budget. What does Sierra College have to do with k-12 education (County Superintendent of Schools)and keeping a PEG station afloat? He/she railed for the parks being open longer so after school kids can play basketball. You would think he/she was the head of Parks & Rec. She/he over stepped her/his legal authority on many an occasion and told questioners a different story right to their faces.

I used to have a DVD of his/her presentation to a Sierra College class. It was about his/her agenda for non k-12 purposes and was more of a slam against opposing views and an assignment to students to drum up political support for her/his idea at the time.. A Sierra College student gave it to me as proof. Chalk full of half truths and falsehoods. Of course he/she never said such a thing! Had nothing to do with k-12 education.

Well, no use beating a lame horse.

George Rebane

PaulE 502pm - tough to debate when you totally ignored my 21aug13 1244pm with citatations.

Paul Emery

Yeah it's pretty tough to even engage in a discussion when I'm talking with someone who believes I have no principles. Of course Gregory can use 'issues activism' anecdotes with not a peep from you.

"....I have here cited as (defined by a progressive academic in lamenting the intellectual wasteland of expressed progressivism) that rests on nothing but anecdotal illustrations void of principle" Rebane 21aug13 1244pm

It's your blog, you set the rules and make the definitions.

In your view does Noam Chomsky, for examples have "principles" ?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2476.Noam_Chomsky

Paul Emery

Some Chomsky to digest your meal on

“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.

In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future.”

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good


“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”
― Noam Chomsky
― Noam Chomsky

Todd Juvinall

PaulE, you are a sad sack. I feel real sorry for you.

Michael Anderson

A scruffy little monkey with bloody, raw patches on his monkey skin wrote: "PaulE, you are a sad sack. I feel real sorry for you."

Little monkey, do not feel sad for Paul. He is a giant. You are just a scruffy little monkey with bloody bald patches on your monkey skin.

Here is your reward: http://greenmonkeytales.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-monkey-does-what-she-does.html

Todd Juvinall

So MichaelA, are there any little kids at the Burning Man? Are they under siege by the pervs there?

fish

Some Chomsky to digest your meal on

“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.

In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future.”

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

Ahh yes Chomsky...the all purpose warding/lefty anti evil charm. You've said the incantation and invoked Chomsky.....anything improved? Feel any better Paul?


MIchael have a wonderful time....and I expect you to bring back plenty of pictures!

George Rebane

PaulE 806pm - No one has said that you have no principles, only that you don't state your principles or argue from them - e.g. bring forth anecdotal events to highlight a previously stated principle. We don't know your principles on the role of government and its limits, if any; on taxation; on individual responsibility; on the nature and behavior of bureaucracies and their increase to manage more of our affairs; on the ability of our Constitution to ground a government and society that eschews morality and/or religion; on the role of reasoned prior knowledge in law enforcement; etc etc.

Todd Juvinall

Check out this link to pics of Burning Man. I am not sure which one is MichaelA in these. My guess is the fellow with the striped leggins. LOL!

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/burning_man_erotic/pool/interesting/

Paul Emery

George
Thanks for sorting this out. This seems very situational to me. Perhaps you should offer a fill in the blanks questionnaire for all participants to give them the ability to us anecdotes in their discussions.
Will you now exercise the same vetting of participants to your blog from your so called "Conservative" contributors such as Todd, Gregoy, Fish etc. I have no idea what their principles are in these matters.

fish

Will you now exercise the same vetting of participants to your blog from your so called "Conservative" contributors such as Todd, Gregoy, Fish etc.

I realize that if someone doesn't agree with you or your positions that they are placed into that category. I can assure you that I'm not conservative and haven't been for a number of years.

Todd Juvinall

PaulE, I know principles when I see them.

Paul Emery

Well noted Fish. I stand corrected. I am just curious why Rebane has singled me out on this and not others like you. We all use anecdotes in our discussions to enhance our positions.

Gregory

I ain't a conservative, Paul, and you know it. And the principle I was illustrating with a personal anecdote is that as a whole, teachers, and their unions, are openly hostile to any politics other than Democrat. Most folk don't need convincing.

Your principle in wielding genetically ill kids apparently was that since you believed you are your brother's keeper, that everyone you meet are also your brother's keeper. That difficult moral principles are best solved by governmental powers to tax and spend and spend.

Does Paul think that three lions and two lambs should decide the lunch menu choices democratically, or may all just decide on their own? I find the entire concept that one must fund a union's political machinations as a condition of public employment, and it's up to those who'd rather not fund yet another campaign contrary to their own desires for speech and representative government to elect different union reps, to be utterly abhorrent and contrary to 1st Amendment protections.

George Rebane

PaulE 900am++ - Fair comment Paul. I have no desire to single you out and would like to see some evidence of those others who use anecdotal evidence to argue public policy questions. That will tell me how to correct my errant behavior.

But please don't confuse the various uses of anecdotes in debates. We have already discussed using them to highlight previously established principles. Anecdotes are also used to rebut a comprehensive assessment - e.g. 'There are no black swans.' is successfully rebutted by an anecdotal recounting of people having seen even a single black swan. Many of the anecdotal references offered here by the right leaning commenters are of this sort.

However, rebutting a comprehensive assertion like 'socialized medicine always falters in the long run' cannot be rebutted by citing an anecdotal incident of how socialized medicine saved a given life or paid unpayable bills. That kind of rebuttal is just sloppy logic at best, and does not speak well of the debater.

As to your main point, I am in favor of commenters first establishing the principle or belief they wish to argue, and then defend it with either a citation, synoptic data, or data more of the topical (i.e. anecdotal) sort. The latter, of course, being the weaker of the two data-backed arguments.

However, the unsolved problem and/or insurmountable barrier we run into is that the Left and the Right subscribe to vastly different logics. Most folks untrained in these matters don't even realize that different logics exist. I treated this idea at length here -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad