Condi Rice the Triple Threat VP Option

[TheVictors]

Condi is pretty well thought to be a lesbian too, no?

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't know; maybe DPS could be broken up? Maybe there are reasons why it shouldn't be? Maybe the costs are justified?

guessing though that most of the "smaller districts" are in rural areas where land and services are cheaper.

unlike some of the people here, I'm not going to be so harsh on the DPS for school performance. Kids I grew up with - both public and private school attendees - didn't have to dodge bullets, gang recruitment, and the like just to get to class in the morning. and they had parents that supported them, fed them, clothed them, etc. So suburban/rural districts have an easier job to begin with...

Really wasn't broken down specifically by rural and urban, affluent and poor. They were making a correlation between the disproportionate cost of administration and the size of districts being compared.

E.g. Comparing two affluent districts, one much bigger than the other, shows a much higher amount spent per student where the percentage of total amount spent per student was much higher, purely due to the bigger size and therefore the cost of the administration for the district. There are other studies out there. Sounds like you won't acknowledge that it might be a good idea to make districts smaller unless I find a less biased site making the case. If I get a moment at home tonight, I will find one for ya.

I can't argue with your reasons for lower performance. I know a school bus driver who believes she is taking a big risk with her own life everytime she gets on a bus in today's poverty stricken districts.

Weapons, fights, abuse, and that is just the 1st and 2nd graders.

 

[KAWDUP]

Condi is pretty well thought to be a lesbian too, no?

Well the real question is whether you think there are any conservatives out there who wouldn't vote for Romney-Rice purely due to the chance that she is gay?

 

[Michchamp]

also... I would expect the costs of administration to be higher in bigger districts. I would want to be paid more if I was overseeing a district of 10,000 kids, versus 1,000 kids. that's reasonable, I think.

I also think simply breaking up large districts may not always be feasible, since size could be a factor of a number political boundaries, population density, and geography. but sometimes it might. not sure.

yes, a less biased site might be helpful.

 

[Michchamp]

I know a girl who works as a therapist administrator for the charter schools in Chicago. she is not a fan of the charter schools here, as in her opinion, they are mainly being used to undercut and gut the teachers' unions.

The charter schools get a lot of their teachers from Teach For America... famous for getting recent graduates from Ivy league schools to teach for a year or two before jetting off to corporate america.

Sounds great in practice, except according to her:
1.) it takes a few years to learn to be an effective teacher. typically it's only in Year 3 that one can effectively manage a class ON TOP OF providing them with instruction.
2.) no teach for america candidate gets to this point, so the ones getting short-changed are the kids
3.) so in order to destroy the unions (who's collective bargaining power represents an actual obstacle to merely siphoning off taxes and handing them over to corporations as BOTH republican and democrat politicians in many areas routinely do) corporatist (for lack of a better term) interests such as the Mackinac center, are ready to destroy the public school system of this country...

 

[KAWDUP]

also... I would expect the costs of administration to be higher in bigger districts. I would want to be paid more if I was overseeing a district of 10,000 kids, versus 1,000 kids. that's reasonable, I think.

I also think simply breaking up large districts may not always be feasible, since size could be a factor of a number political boundaries, population density, and geography. but sometimes it might. not sure.

yes, a less biased site might be helpful.

Not just higher, disproportionately higher. I am pretty sure it wasn't just due to administrator salaries either. They make more than I do, a lot more in many cases - even so, I don't think I want their job, but it wasn't just due to their salaries.

 

[KAWDUP]

I know a girl who works as a therapist administrator for the charter schools in Chicago. she is not a fan of the charter schools here, as in her opinion, they are mainly being used to undercut and gut the teachers' unions.

The charter schools get a lot of their teachers from Teach For America... famous for getting recent graduates from Ivy league schools to teach for a year or two before jetting off to corporate america.

Sounds great in practice, except according to her:
1.) it takes a few years to learn to be an effective teacher. typically it's only in Year 3 that one can effectively manage a class ON TOP OF providing them with instruction.
2.) no teach for america candidate gets to this point, so the ones getting short-changed are the kids
3.) so in order to destroy the unions (who's collective bargaining power represents an actual obstacle to merely siphoning off taxes and handing them over to corporations as BOTH republican and democrat politicians in many areas routinely do) corporatist (for lack of a better term) interests such as the Mackinac center, are ready to destroy the public school system of this country...

You have this knack to jump to this kind of conclusion that ulterior evil motives are always at work, but certainly looking at it from the other side - no one is trying to take more of my money and redistribute it for their own evil agenda.

I think it is called point of view. Seems in order to make a point, you always end with these wild ass conclusions that mess up the eloquent thing you just said.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think that's a wild conclusion, and I'm not jumping to it based solely on this issue.

why else do you think you have such powerful and well-funded "think tanks" and the like at work here? there's a lot of money to be made for a select politically-connected segment of the population if they can gut the unions.

 

[KAWDUP]

"destroy the public school system" - is that your interpretation of what you know about them and/or your opinion, or you've actually seen the manifestoes of these "think tanks" and they specifically say they want to destroy it?

. . . or are you taking a leap of logic that destruction must be their aim as what else could it be?

 

[Michchamp]

"destroy the public school system" - is that your interpretation of what you know about them and/or your opinion, or you've actually seen the manifestoes of these "think tanks" and they specifically say they want to destroy it?

. . . or are you taking a leap of logic that destruction must be their aim as what else could it be?

let me parse words for you since I used a few parenthesis, and that may have made the sentence hard to follow: the real goal here is to destroy unions. They are willing to screw up/destroy/turn upside down whatever, to the public schools do it. They don't really care whether charter schools, vouchers, etc. are better or not, they just want the unions to go away.

I say "right wing" think tanks, but that's not really a fair label. Here in Chicago, Rahm Emanuel - a democrat - is just as anti-union as anyone else. A better label might be "corporatist." How's that? I know anything that casts aspersions on the political right gets your hackles up... dems can be just as awful in this regard though.

:no:

 

[Mitchrapp]

Sometimes I just want to hit that 'delete thread' button. From the root.

 

[tinselwolverine]

You two guys both went to Brother Rice, I think, right?

 

[TheVictors]

Well the real question is whether you think there are any conservatives out there who wouldn't vote for Romney-Rice purely due to the chance that she is gay?

That's not necessarily the real question, it's just another example of division within the party. The real question may be, is Gay Marriage as big an issue as the right media machine makes it out to be, when it revisits the topic all the time.??

 

[tinselwolverine]

I say "right wing" think tanks, but that's not really a fair label. Here in Chicago, Rahm Emanuel - a democrat - is just as anti-union as anyone else. A better label might be "corporatist." How's that? I know anything that casts aspersions on the political right gets your hackles up... dems can be just as awful in this regard though.

:no:

Them Emanuels, them are some Chicago style Democrats who really, really know how to turn a buck, them are.

You guys do know that Ari will refuse to get on the phone with his brother, the Mayor of Chicago, when Morning Joe is in Chicago, and the Mayor is a guest, and Mika calls up
Ari out here in Hollywood on her celly then asks him if he wants to talk to his brother, the Mayor, on television, right?

 

[Michchamp]

You two guys both went to Brother Rice, I think, right?

yeah.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well that explains a lot.

 

[Michchamp]

Well that explains a lot.

:hmm:

How so? he's deeply religious, somewhat reactionary, and conservative, like most Bro Rice alums... and I am not.

 

[KAWDUP]

That's not necessarily the real question, it's just another example of division within the party. The real question may be, is Gay Marriage as big an issue as the right media machine makes it out to be, when it revisits the topic all the time.??

Certainly the issue of marriage between two humans that are other than a man and a woman is quite a big issue. The biggest concerns, though, have more to do with financial ramifications, and other legal issues, which have only just begin to crop up. This is the question that keeps being revisited, and is the one that has the most likelihood of dividing the party.

However, I do not think this has a lot to do with whether people would accept a gay or lesbian president/vice president. We have checks and balances for just such an occasion. That is also why a Catholic president would be accepted. If they ever did try to push a mix of state and their religion, or something radical like say marriage between a human and a non-human animal, it would be met with enough opposition to prevent those kinds of earth-shattering new laws. (Notice I am not making a judgement one way or the other about gay marriage - that is a separate issue).

So I maintain, that based on the question originally presented, whether Rice being a lesbian or not would affect her electability (although that word was not used - I did assume that that is why the question was asked), that the question of whether this would cause enough conservatives to not vote for a Romney/Rice ticket, is the bigger question.

 

[Michchamp]

Well that explains a lot.

:hmm:

How so? he's deeply religious, somewhat reactionary, and conservative, like most Bro Rice alums... and I am not.

er... wait, are you implying "Condi Rice" and "Brother Rice" are related in some way? Gah?

:nuts:

 

[KAWDUP]

:hmm:

How so? he's deeply religious, somewhat reactionary, and conservative, like most Bro Rice alums... and I am not.

I agree, but I would change "deeply religious" to "having a pretty deep understanding of religion and what it means to be religious", and then I have no quarrel at all.

Although I will say, my reactionary side really only comes out in some of these political discussions on message boards. Face-to-face political reactionary discussions with those other than family occur very infrequently. Almost never.

I think the propensity to argue rather vehemently from our base of knowledge may have been what Tinsel was referring to. Correct me if I am wrong Tinsel. Having the same high school background might explain a bit of that?

Quick question: Who taught history when you were there? I had the most liberal long-haired hippy I have ever met teaching senior American History. He was extermely intelligent, a pretty good motivating teacher, and rather religious to boot. Quite a combination.