When 30% of students in California drop out of high school, Who is being served, I might ask the Santa Cruz teacher?
The union pay is the same and it makes no matter how many fall by the way side, the fix is in.
Posted on 03/25/2005 10:26:11 AM PST by CHARLITE
THE SECOND anniversary of the Iraq war’s commencement was met by about 400 fuming protesters in Oslo. Four hundred—or, the approximate number of people in line for the bathroom at similar demonstrations two years ago—were all that could be found in that city.
In Sunday’s New York Times, the ideal place for a poignant antiwar plea, readers were disappointed to find an editorial not about the Mid-East, but about the burning issue of unbalanced ecosystems in the Mid-Atlantic. “White-tailed deer are a plague,” the paper coolly noted.
Left-wing anger is still out and about, but in new form. For instance, now it’s more couth than ever to pick on Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s very disquieting. Democrats were always sort of annoyed with the California governor, but they were so tired of Gray Davis that they were reluctantly supportive of Arnold. Susan Estrich, who’s currently humiliating herself down in L.A., loved Arnold. Now Democrats are turning their backs on him.
Teachers are at the center of the battle. They, represented by their ultra-powerful union, want their pay to relate to tenure, and Schwarzenegger wants it to be based on merit. He also called the Golden State’s public education “a failing system.”
The best argument against the merit-pay option was the one recently delivered by Jim Thomas, president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association. “Merit pay is unfair,” he argued, because it’s tied to variables such as “nutrition,” and “a student’s homefront.” In other words, the genuine teachers who actually teach are the same as the counterfeit teachers who do nothing; if your kids aren’t learning, it’s because of their “homefront” or “nutrition.”
If Johnny can’t do long division, give him an apple.
Joyce Aoyagi, a retired teacher writing in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, is similarly vexed by the idea of linking teachers’ salaries to teaching ability. Such a system “makes for a very unhappy work place,” she says. Also—and this is at the top of the list—it’s really hard to become a teacher in California(!). “Teachers are required to continue taking courses throughout their teaching careers, to keep in step with new textbooks, world events and expanding knowledge in all areas.”
Imagine: teachers have to bother with “world events”—and even “textbooks”? No wonder they need a union.
Revealingly, Aoyagi goes on to say that Gov. Schwarzenegger must afford teachers “fair living wage.” What does she think Arnold wants to do—pay teachers in peanuts? This isn’t about survival, it’s about ensuring that only good teachers are allowed to teach. We’re not trying to throw bad teachers in gulags; we just think it would be nice if they’d find a new profession.
Aoyagi darkly concludes her op-ed by arguing that teachers are “the best friends children have in their lives.” Firstly, Mother and Father would likely dispute that. Secondly, if that is true—if teachers really are the sole light in the doldrums of childhood—we must absolutely require merit-pay standards! If children only have one friend, and that friend is paid by the state, shouldn’t the state ensure that teachers are of high quality? That seems clear.
California liberals are mad, also, because…funding is too low! Unique argument, isn’t it? I’d never heard it before. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s 2005-06 budget calls for an increase in education of $2.9 billion—but never mind that. It’s much more fun to hold up banners with the slogan “Teacher Terminator,” as Irvine protesters recently did, than make a point.
There are two essential reasons for the opposition to Schwarzenegger: (a) liberals need something to do, and the war is going to well to warrant furor, and (b) California is the state of Condi Rice. As the reader may remember, Condi’s the brilliant Secretary of State who just may wind up as the Republican presidential nominee in 2008.
It’s going to be a hard sell, to be sure. Democrats need to work on how, exactly, they can tie California to Condi. But, insofar as these are the people who defended Dan Rather to the bloody end, they’ll try it. So they’d best start early! Attack Arnold now, get Condi later. It’s very mature.
In the meantime, Californians will support the governor. Contrary to what the other 49 states think, we’re not completely crazy. Occasionally, we do something right. And at the moment, Schwarzenegger’s right.
Isaiah Z. Sterrett's popular political column appears regularly on a number of websites, including, most notably, ChronWatch, Men's News Daily, Alan Keyes' Renew America, MichNews, TheFence, and IntellectualConservative. In addition, he's written for both American Prowler and Human Events Online. He lives in northern California with his family.
Comments: isterret@hotmail.com
It was never about real tolerance for them. Immigrants and African-Americans were always propaganda tools. Condi and Arnold fly in the face of everything they want minorities and immigrants to believe about themselves and their place in "Racist" American society. I just hope Condi changes her mind and runs; a win by her would be the ultimate death knell for the victicrats.
I would vote for Condi in a second. Wouldnt think twice about it. Even if she is a little bit pro-choice. I look at the overalll candidate, and should would be great. George isnt perfect either, his stance on illegal immigration troubled me but Candidate Bush, the overall picture was good. Same for Condi she would do a great job.
It is a well known fact that Norwegians, on balance, are unintelligent.....Ask any Swede.
Their fix for any problem in Education is to throw another Trillion Dollars at it. Unfortunately, that ends up in the Adminstrators hands, not the Schools. LAUSD is a perfect example of the waste here in CA. I appluad Arnie for going after Education AND Healthcare, no matter what the Unions are saying about that fiasco either.
Could you link to some examples?
Who better to run the state
a bunch of leftist wackos
or big business?
You can see what Cuba is today,, and what california is as well. both socialist utopias, huh?
If you question what the nation has become , see how big business loves them illegal workers and ask why do we encourage our own ruination so gleefully at the highest levels of government?
Some choice we have been left with, imo.
Oh, and without indy and dem support, the Gub is likely to fall short of enough votes from conservatives to put any of his reforms over the top.
we've wasted a recall and 2 years and untold billions of debt are now added to the pile of long term debt, all for a bunch of feeel good special effects and hype ...
but we still have the best educated and healthiest illegal workers in the world, so its' OK to keep believing who you will is on your side.
When 30% of students in California drop out of high school, Who is being served, I might ask the Santa Cruz teacher?
The union pay is the same and it makes no matter how many fall by the way side, the fix is in.
Well... dont really want to link to some but do a search, they have her head on backside of a horse and other things. I just did another search just now and got less offensive pictures. I did the other search last night to make the 007 toon, and it turned up worse ones. Not sure if google cleaned them up.
Candidate Coni would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party. She's pro-abortion so the Republicans would have to kiss good-bye their "solid South" strategy. She's black and unfortunately that would turn off some elements of the South. She's never run for office before so she's a sitting duck for the experienced Hillary. She's way to liberal to energize the Republcan base, and as we saw that is how to win elections.
now why did you leave out the Finlanders.
now why did you leave out the Finlanders.
Isaiah is a rather exceptional 16 year old, though. Don't you think? I don't always agree with his points, most notably his infatuation with "Million Dollar Baby," on which he wrote a column some 2 months ago. I keep trying to explain to Isaiah that he is being hoodwinked by a slick piece of Hollywood propaganda which aimed at glorifying (by glamorizing) euthanasia. Isaiah still thinks that "Million Dollar Baby" is a fantastic movie and, in his own words, "puts BRAVEHEART to shame!" That's the point of view of an impressionable 16 year old, who was 7 years old when Mel Gibson's BRAVEHEART was made.
However, I try to give Isaiah's writings a "fair hearing" by posting them on Free Republic. I send him the links, so that he can keep track of FReepers' reactions to his points of view. It is a good way for him to mature, intellectually.
Char :)
Anyone who writes Condi is the 2008 candidate discredits themself. Especially after the Russert debate. Some people refuse to accept reality, not the type of people I want to take advice from.
I happen to agree with you, but Isaiah isn't alone about Condi. There really IS quite a large, vocal, enthusiastic Condi-for-President contingent out there. I can't possibly envision it myself. She just doesn't have any background for a presidential candidacy.........but then neither do Carol Moseley Braun or the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.
Wishfull thiking won't even get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
One of the reasons I don't take seriously much of what is said here on FR is that we're an echo chamber for about 1% of the country. DemocraticUnderground.com is an echo chamber for the other 1% of the country. I saw the Russert show, too. I saw a diplomat dance her way out of a Shermanesque statement, leaving the viewer to believe what he or she wanted to believe. That's okay. As to accepting reality, I'd just as soon trust what longtime Republican activist Patrick Ruffini has to say as to what you have to say.
Here's the problem with a lot of folks on this board; they can't accept the fact that their candidates suck. Especially going up against a Hillary Clinton who would be sure to grab the lions share of the women's vote. I don't care how many lady Freepers get on this board and try to tell you that they would never be tricked by Hillary, all you have to remember is just how many Dumb Republican Women got taken to the cleaners by Bubba in two elections.
I mean, our Party's three best guys are Rudy, Condi, and Arnold, and Arnold is from Austria so he's out. And heck, Condi's position on life issues virtually mirror Bush's. Meanwhile, then the "pro-life" wing of the Party has some serious problems. Shari Demers of our AFR outfit went up to Manchester to hand out Condi buttons at Frist's "coming out" speech in NH. Frist underwhelmed the room. Nice guy. Never stole a freight train. Hillary would kick his ass. George Allen? Unknown quantity, but a Senator with a record. See John Kerry: don't pass go, don't collect $200.00. Same with Hillary you say? Not so fast, she gets a free pass from the liberal media.
This is not 1998 where we have this one super candidate who can come of the pro-life bench and still end up finding a way to almost lose an election to Al Gore. 2008 will be a "change" election in which people will have to be convinced that our party is a good steward of the people's business while maintaining a low-intensity war against the terrorists. "More of the same" won't cut it; you'll need something different to win that election. Part of the problem is that we've been undermined by our own guy: free pills for Granny, not fully funding the border police, runaway spending-this plays into Hillary's hands. Nevertheless, Rice's instincts are conservative: she was ruthless at Stanford and she's a firm believer in the gospel of low taxes and spending. Bush has gotten away from that, perhaps Rice could get back to it.
Oh, and when the pro-life wing is trying to convince Cheney to stay in the game so he can die in office of a failing heart, that tells me that the base has a HUGE vote of confidence in the likes of George Allen, Bill Frist, Tom Tancredo, and Whatsisname Owen from Colorado. In other words, they don't. I'm sort of watching my clock waiting for the phone call to Alan Keyes to take place.
Please don't try to lecture me about how stupid I am to support Rice when all of your candidates suck wind and Larry Kudlow is desperately trying to get Cheney in the race. I think I'll stick with a rational choice, Condi Rice, thank you very much. Remember, it's only 2005.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
One of the reasons I don't take seriously much of what is said here on FR is that we're an echo chamber for about 1% of the country. DemocraticUnderground.com is an echo chamber for the other 1% of the country. I saw the Russert show, too. I saw a diplomat dance her way out of a Shermanesque statement, leaving the viewer to believe what he or she wanted to believe. That's okay. As to accepting reality, I'd just as soon trust what longtime Republican activist Patrick Ruffini has to say as to what you have to say.
Here's the problem with a lot of folks on this board; they can't accept the fact that their candidates suck. Especially going up against a Hillary Clinton who would be sure to grab the lions share of the women's vote. I don't care how many lady Freepers get on this board and try to tell you that they would never be tricked by Hillary, all you have to remember is just how many Dumb Republican Women got taken to the cleaners by Bubba in two elections.
I mean, our Party's three best guys are Rudy, Condi, and Arnold, and Arnold is from Austria so he's out. And heck, Condi's position on life issues virtually mirror Bush's. Meanwhile, then the "pro-life" wing of the Party has some serious problems. Shari Demers of our AFR outfit went up to Manchester to hand out Condi buttons at Frist's "coming out" speech in NH. Frist underwhelmed the room. Nice guy. Never stole a freight train. Hillary would kick his ass. George Allen? Unknown quantity, but a Senator with a record. See John Kerry: don't pass go, don't collect $200.00. Same with Hillary you say? Not so fast, she gets a free pass from the liberal media.
This is not 1998 where we have this one super candidate who can come of the pro-life bench and still end up finding a way to almost lose an election to Al Gore. 2008 will be a "change" election in which people will have to be convinced that our party is a good steward of the people's business while maintaining a low-intensity war against the terrorists. "More of the same" won't cut it; you'll need something different to win that election. Part of the problem is that we've been undermined by our own guy: free pills for Granny, not fully funding the border police, runaway spending-this plays into Hillary's hands. Nevertheless, Rice's instincts are conservative: she was ruthless at Stanford and she's a firm believer in the gospel of low taxes and spending. Bush has gotten away from that, perhaps Rice could get back to it.
Oh, and when the pro-life wing is trying to convince Cheney to stay in the game so he can die in office of a failing heart, that tells me that the base has a HUGE vote of confidence in the likes of George Allen, Bill Frist, Tom Tancredo, and Whatsisname Owen from Colorado. In other words, they don't. I'm sort of watching my clock waiting for the phone call to Alan Keyes to take place.
Please don't try to lecture me about how stupid I am to support Rice when all of your candidates suck wind and Larry Kudlow is desperately trying to get Cheney in the race. I think I'll stick with a rational choice, Condi Rice, thank you very much. Remember, it's only 2005.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.