Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

I'm happy that he's doing something about education.
I appreciate that it's moving away from a levee based system to one based on numbers of children.  (If you want more funding, fund all the kids... not just the ones in the rich neighborhoods that can support higher levees.)
I'm excited that parents have options opposed to "deal with it, pay your taxes"
From your list of points:  (Even I, the unprofessional arguer, ran into this information looking into the plan.)
- He's stated that parents can basically veto the school's direction and turn it over to the state to run.. like they do now. [state board instead of continuing to let the school run things their way]
- He's stated that parents can get together and decide to change the hours of operation, length of the school year, experiment...etc.  [fundamental change]
- Replacing staff with new hires, neighboring districts. [staff concerns]
Teach for America seems to be getting results.  I see no issue bringing those results here.
You talked about unfunded charter schools.  I provided a link to show funding.

The only things I did not really touch on were your stories about people who don't like it... but opinions are like assholes... etc.

Did I miss anything, oh great one?

Thank you.

I'm happy that he's doing something about education.
While I agree that something needs to be done about education in the State of Ohio and elsewhere, I personally disagree with Governor Kasich's proposed remedies, because I do not believe they will be effective. It is fine if you support him, just as it is fine that I don't. I doubt either of us will truly persuade the other, but one of the purposes of this thread is to rationally discuss why we hold certain beliefs.

I appreciate that it's moving away from a levee based system to one based on numbers of children.  (If you want more funding, fund all the kids... not just the ones in the rich neighborhoods that can support higher levees.)
I'd like to make three points if I could here. First, moving away from the unconstitutional levee system is good. Second, I think we should adopt a school funding system from a different state that works or at least a model substantially based on it rather than what I see as a largely untried system I'm unsure about. Third, I am very skeptical that we can currently do an education funding system in Ohio based upon payment per pupil, because we just don't have the resources. Our state is $8 Billion upside down and is cutting spending every which way. The reason we haven't switched to a per pupil funding situation before is because it's expensive and I don't see how we're going to go to an expensive funding plan when we have no funding. I guess, "where is the money going to come from?" That's my basic question given that we couldn't do this for 23 years previously when we had money, and now we are somehow supposed to do so when we are broke? Something doesn't add up if you ask me....

I'm excited that parents have options opposed to "deal with it, pay your taxes"
From your list of points:  (Even I, the unprofessional arguer, ran into this information looking into the plan.)
- He's stated that parents can basically veto the school's direction and turn it over to the state to run.. like they do now. [state board instead of continuing to let the school run things their way]
- He's stated that parents can get together and decide to change the hours of operation, length of the school year, experiment...etc.  [fundamental change]
- Replacing staff with new hires, neighboring districts. [staff concerns]

My whole point is that in theory it sounds good, but I just don't believe it is well defined enough currently and its scope is too narrow. If you believe that it is then fine, but I think the Governor needs to address the mechanics of how he is going to actually give parents a choice in a meaningful, far more detailed way on a large scale. The keywords I'm seeing are "he stated," but I'm not seeing how this is going to practically work. For example, say you replace 70% of the school staff and replace them with "new hires" then what? What are the new hires going to do that the old ones didn't. How are things going to be different? These are valid questions that are currently unanswered. His approach seems to be far too simplistic to work and even then these things only apply to people who are in the bottom 5% of schools. This means that the other 95% of parents in school districts don't have a choice..... What about them?

I hope we can agree that a the program only providing choice for 5% is a valid concern.... Its scope is very narrow. Really it only gives 5% of parents a choice and that's only if a majority of the parents in that bottom 5% all vote to basically overthrow the school district....

Teach for America seems to be getting results.  I see no issue bringing those results here.
I have a lot of worries about using "Teach for America." Ok, you're using kids from colleges with good grades. That doesn't mean they know how to teach necessarily and I am worried that they only get 5 weeks of training, which I don't think is enough. Currently, you have to go through a lot of training to be a teacher in ... just about every state and there's a reason for that. We're basically saying ditch the training by cutting it down to 5 weeks. I'm worried about this, aren't you? 

You talked about unfunded charter schools.  I provided a link to show funding.

I assume you mean this: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/kasich-o-meter/promise/782/promote-school-choice/

I get that funding for charter schools may have doubled. I'm saying that even with this doubling the amount is trivial and very small compared to the overall school problem. It is a drop in the bucket that won't solve the problem.

I posted this link before about problems with vouchers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher#Legal_challenges. The link even talks about a specific Ohio case..... Additionally, they don't solve the larger problems in the state's educational system. They are a very targeted system. It's like trying to plow a highway with a snowshovel. Sure the shovel gets the snow off the highway but doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. What we need is a snowplow. Otherwise we aren't going to make a dent in the problem.

Did I miss anything, oh great one?

Also, You are coming off very harsh/elitist IMHO.  Past history or whatever, I don't care, I would like it to stop though.

Simple solution, don't put words in my mouth and don't talk past me/at me.

If you ignore my posts to talk past me again, or put words in my mouth, then I'm going to call you on it again for as many times as you do it. I am taking time out of my day to write serious replies to your postings and I expect the same if you actually want to talk about an issue with me. If you do not ignore my posts or put words in my mouth, then I will have no reason to call you on these things and you will have no trouble from it. You have been told in the past that if you want people to take you seriously that you should avoid certain behaviors by the OP herself. I have already quoted this previously today. Failing to heed Vector's advice is not advisable.

My anger is directed towards Governor Kasich's very conservative and in my opinion counter productive policies, not you. This thread is called "Progressive Rage Thread." One should expect a tad of rage at such policies.

I recommend we drop this portion of the discussion and learn from it.

[Truean]

I apologize for the double post.
http://news.yahoo.com/vote-delayed-debt-bill-default-date-looms-010308473.html

I really don't get what they're doing with these debt talks. The nation is 5 days away from an unprecedented default on its debt. We pretty much have no choice currently but to raise the debt ceiling to avoid this at all costs, because if we don't, we're just going to be very economically screwed by it. Neither Party is making sense to me.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH):

How can this man seriously think his bill is going to pass? First of all, he's not demonstrated he can even get his measure passed in the House of Representatives, which his party controls. Second, he knows the democrats control the Senate and will not approve his bill; he also knows President Obama has repeatedly threatened to veto it. I mean especially faced with serious opposition from his own party, how does he really think he's going to push this thing through in the very limited time we have to avoid default?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D -NV)

What the heck is this guy doing? He doesn't appear to have a serious contender or bill of any kind that has a shot at passing. Sure he had that proposal a while ago but it appears to have faded away and I'm not sure its viable anymore. I really don't understand his game plan.

President Obama:
I honestly think he may have rather screwed himself over by seriously discussing reduction in SS and Medicaid. Now the opposition party has it on record that he will reduce those programs. I don't think seniors, the overwhelming majority of whom vote, are going to like that one bit. This really hurts his chances at reelection. I also don't think it contributed much to the debt negotiations, though I could be wrong.

The Democrats:
I may be wrong, but I don't really see them doing much of anything right now. No?

The Republicans:
I think they're in a bit of a trap. The overwhelming majority of them have signed a pledge that they will not raise taxes and have said they will balance the federal budget. I don't think you can reasonably do one without the other. They're also trying to get a constitutional amendment out, which given the divided political state of the country and the limited time we have, just doesn't seem a wise move. Whether or not you agree with the substance of the proposed amendment, there really isn't time for it now.

Wall St.
Somehow doesn't seem to be pressuring congress to avoid this default like hell. This doesn't make sense to me because they stand to lose all kinds of money. Not understanding this one....

[Glowcat]

I'm wondering if conservative parties are relying on Obama to use his executive power to raise the debt ceiling while making themselves look reasonable/serious for broad appeal in the meantime. For Republicans this means shifting all the Big Government blame onto the president so they can look squeaky clean to their base without ruining the country. They aren't under any real pressure if Obama can be counted on to save the day at the last moment, similar to how previous congresses faked opposition to debt ceiling increases for political gain.

[Truean]

Honestly that's a fair point Glowcat.

I hope we can use that part of the 14th amendment as a safety valve if nothing else.... As for who will get blamed, that's a dangerous game. Maybe you're right, maybe they are playing that game. I hope not.

[Nadaka]

Yea. Basically the US is on the way to another great depression.

The short term debt limit bump proposed by the republicans so that they can continue to punish Obama for another year will still result in the US loosing its credit rating and adding I believe a hundred billion a year in increased interest payments to pay in addition to the preexisting debt.

The only solution is the larger debt limit increase, followed or combined with reduced spending AND an increase in taxes.

I've said it before, they are playing chicken with the fate of our country and the Tea Party in particular is steering strait for a cliff and will not turn away.

They could be hoping that Obama uses executive power to increase the debt limit, and then use that as an excuse to impeach him as well, because its constitutionality is up for debate.

[Andir]

Simple solution, don't put words in my mouth and don't talk past me/at me.

If you ignore my posts to talk past me again, or put words in my mouth, then I'm going to call you on it again for as many times as you do it.

I was laying in bed and thinking... and couldn't sleep.     I got up because I couldn't sleep and sat to read your post.  Yes, all of it (just like the last one)... but I'd like to clear up a few things.  The rest of your post I'll discuss tomorrow if there's still concern.

First Statement: (Us)
I was not putting words in your mouth or talking past you.  I was trying to figure out your position.  It's speculation.  Since we do not know each other, all I can do is fill in blanks.  Please don't jump on those statements as if I was accrediting them to you.  I fully feel that they were not written in such a way and you read into them as such.

I do feel like you jumped the gun.  You went right for the throat and started on the ad hominem.  (I literally imagined you tossing the table aside and getting right in my face.)  I may not have touched on all your points, but that does not mean I discredited you/them in any way.  I simply didn't feel like discussing them at that time.  You may have been looking for answers to every minute point of that post, but if you expect everyone to touch on every point of everything you say... it's going to be a long... boring discussion.  If you feel like someone missed a topic, ask again.  We are not all perfect debaters.

I do feel as though you push this idea aside (partially or wholly) based on who presented it.  (Opinion... I'm not telling you what you said.)

Second Statement: (Details... details.)
The details that I've obtained from this plan leaves those mechanical details you question up to the local communities.  Like it or not, that's the plan.  There is more power placed in the hands of the local parents, teachers, and administration.  There are the stated checks and balances setup in the parent's power to override the school decision.

This may be part of why you don't like the plan.  I don't know.  It does, however, give schools the ability to pay teachers on merit.  (In fact, he encourages such a system)  It gives those gritty details to the people who should be doing gritty details (sort of like how the Governor doesn't tell the Sheriff how to do his job.)


Third Statement: (Progressiveness)
I do believe that this is a progressive measure.  You may not believe he has a progressive bone in his body, but he's doing something to change and possibly progress the system.  Sure, it's new.  It's largely untested (except for a few case studies) but you cannot learn ways to positively change a system when all you do it copy another system and change the name of the State.  Hell, I think it's a huge step for someone you claimed was "very conservative" to even propose something like this.


Closing: (for now.. I can sleep)
Personally, these plans get me excited for the future of the schools.  You may see deficits, but I see a lot of possibility.  There will be growing pains, sure... I don't doubt it at all.

I'm also pretty ecstatic that Kasich basically came into the seat with a $8 billion debt and wiped it clean in six months (well, he passed the budget that will clear it up)  Yeah, it's going to hurt... it always does, but if Obama was able to cut even a fraction of the deficit in the first two years of political power the presses would hail him as the savior of the US... no matter what the cuts.  I recently bought a house, but before that I managed to get myself 100% debt free.  It's the greatest feeling in the world and it opens up opportunities (like said house hunt.)  I can't wait for it to be paid off.  (Yes, I have a very aggressive schedule.  I don't plan on sitting on it for 30 years.)

I don't envy the guy though.  He's in a tough spot right now with a lot of enemies.

[Siquo]

Oh hey, something new (seriously Truean, you must be a great lawyer, and I'm so glad I'm not (That's in relation to your post size btw, which are good when I find the energy to read them, but that doesn't happen often)).

Although I thoroughly disagree with the sect and all that it stands for, it's hard to hate people.

[Andir]

Although I thoroughly disagree with the sect and all that it stands for, it's hard to hate people.

There seems to be a few people in the comments who do not find it hard to hate.

[Siquo]

Well, it's understandable, if you know what they've been through.
Like the recently freed monk who answered, when the Dalai Lama asked him how he felt during his decades of torture, that he felt sorry for the people who had to torture him, I would like to have such forgiveness in me. But it's hard to come by.

[Truean]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Simple solution, don't put words in my mouth and don't talk past me/at me.

If you ignore my posts to talk past me again, or put words in my mouth, then I'm going to call you on it again for as many times as you do it.

I was laying in bed and thinking... and couldn't sleep.     I got up because I couldn't sleep and sat to read your post.  Yes, all of it (just like the last one)... but I'd like to clear up a few things.  The rest of your post I'll discuss tomorrow if there's still concern.

First Statement: (Us)
I was not putting words in your mouth or talking past you.  I was trying to figure out your position.  It's speculation.  Since we do not know each other, all I can do is fill in blanks.  Please don't jump on those statements as if I was accrediting them to you.  I fully feel that they were not written in such a way and you read into them as such.

I do feel like you jumped the gun.  You went right for the throat and started on the ad hominem.  (I literally imagined you tossing the table aside and getting right in my face.)  I may not have touched on all your points, but that does not mean I discredited you/them in any way.  I simply didn't feel like discussing them at that time.  You may have been looking for answers to every minute point of that post, but if you expect everyone to touch on every point of everything you say... it's going to be a long... boring discussion.  If you feel like someone missed a topic, ask again.  We are not all perfect debaters.

I do feel as though you push this idea aside (partially or wholly) based on who presented it.  (Opinion... I'm not telling you what you said.)

Second Statement: (Details... details.)
The details that I've obtained from this plan leaves those mechanical details you question up to the local communities.  Like it or not, that's the plan.  There is more power placed in the hands of the local parents, teachers, and administration.  There are the stated checks and balances setup in the parent's power to override the school decision.

This may be part of why you don't like the plan.  I don't know.  It does, however, give schools the ability to pay teachers on merit.  (In fact, he encourages such a system)  It gives those gritty details to the people who should be doing gritty details (sort of like how the Governor doesn't tell the Sheriff how to do his job.)


Third Statement: (Progressiveness)
I do believe that this is a progressive measure.  You may not believe he has a progressive bone in his body, but he's doing something to change and possibly progress the system.  Sure, it's new.  It's largely untested (except for a few case studies) but you cannot learn ways to positively change a system when all you do it copy another system and change the name of the State.  Hell, I think it's a huge step for someone you claimed was "very conservative" to even propose something like this.


Closing: (for now.. I can sleep)
Personally, these plans get me excited for the future of the schools.  You may see deficits, but I see a lot of possibility.  There will be growing pains, sure... I don't doubt it at all.

I'm also pretty ecstatic that Kasich basically came into the seat with a $8 billion debt and wiped it clean in six months (well, he passed the budget that will clear it up)  Yeah, it's going to hurt... it always does, but if Obama was able to cut even a fraction of the deficit in the first two years of political power the presses would hail him as the savior of the US... no matter what the cuts.  I recently bought a house, but before that I managed to get myself 100% debt free.  It's the greatest feeling in the world and it opens up opportunities (like said house hunt.)  I can't wait for it to be paid off.  (Yes, I have a very aggressive schedule.  I don't plan on sitting on it for 30 years.)

I don't envy the guy though.  He's in a tough spot right now with a lot of enemies.

[Sigh] What do you want out of this?

How do you see this turning out Andir? What do you think is going to be the result of us discussing this exactly? I've got excellent arguments you ignored my post and expressly ascribed motives to me, and I'm sure you would disagree with those. You want me to list them all out and state my case about it, for what? Do you really want to have a debate about our conduct and if so what do you hope to accomplish by it? I've repeatedly suggested dropping it. Lets not clog up the thread....

You really do need to relax though; you're "literally imagining [me tossing aside tables] and getting right in [your] face" and you're unable to sleep. Really dude? You need to chill out, because nothing here is worth getting upset over and I'm not sure why you think there is. I'm not the slightest bit upset and I rarely if ever get truly ruffled because I pretty much can't in my life.... It just couldn't work if I did.

Moving on from this sounds good....

Oh hey, something new (seriously Truean, you must be a great lawyer, and I'm so glad I'm not (That's in relation to your post size btw, which are good when I find the energy to read them, but that doesn't happen often)).

Although I thoroughly disagree with the sect and all that it stands for, it's hard to hate people.

Thank you.
That link is so sad, flip through the pictures on the right hand side.....

[Leafsnail]

So it's perfectly OK to enable and be complicit in racist violence...?  I don't see how she's any better than those on the front lines.

[Siquo]

So it's perfectly OK to enable and be complicit in racist violence...?  I don't see how she's any better than those on the front lines.

She isn't, nobody said that. But she's still a human being caring for another human being. I don't see how not hating her makes what she does somehow "ok"?
It's how a man-eating lion playing with it's cubs can be cute, even though she'd rip your head off if she had the chance.

If you hate her for her beliefs, or the beliefs she enables, you're no better than the KKK.

[Leafsnail]

She isn't, nobody said that. But she's still a human being caring for another human being. I don't see how not hating her makes what she does somehow "ok"?
It's how a man-eating lion playing with it's cubs can be cute, even though she'd rip your head off if she had the chance.

People who do bad things can care for their families.  I don't see how that changes anything.

It's nothing like a man-eating lion at all.  Lions don't understand morality, and if they "rip your head off" it's gonna be in self defence or desparation for food.  And even if this analogy were valid, since when did finding someone "cute" stop you from thinking their actions are absolutely destable?

If you hate her for her beliefs, or the beliefs she enables, you're no better than the KKK.

Oh right, I forgot the KKK hated people for their racist ideals and the way they actively contributed to those ideas and accompanying violence.  You're right, I'm exactly the same as them.

...No wait, they just violently hate black people.  Oops.  I think it's perfectly valid to hate someone who knowingly enables racist violence (and seems to be training the next generation of violent racists).

[Andir]

[Sigh] What do you want out of this?

I would like to express my opinion on the matter (done.)

How do you see this turning out Andir? What do you think is going to be the result of us discussing this exactly?

I would like to find common ground. Edit:  Because I have a feeling this may not be possible.  I'd like to change this to "understanding."

I've got excellent arguments

This is what I refer to when I said "elitist."  You've not taken the time to understand what the specific parts of the plan entail and claimed that it's just not thought out.  It was thought out and the plan was to give those details to the local community to finalize.  (IE: The plan is NOT to micromanage schools and you've expressed disfavor for a plan that doesn't micromanage the schools.)

you ignored my post and expressly ascribed motives to me, and I'm sure you would disagree with those.

I do disagree, but I disagree that I've ascribed any of your motives.  I merely questioned your motives.  I have not ignored your post.  I explicitly said that I read it, but I did not have the time to respond to each and every point.  That's not ignoring you.  I specifically responded to you on the points I wished to discuss.

You want me to list them all out and state my case about it, for what?

I want to find out why you have an extreme dislike for the person doing something... anything to fix our debt problems (in a time of financial woe) and our ailing school systems.  I want you to realize that your hatred for this man is blinding you to the solution he provided and it's non-conservative roots.

Do you really want to have a debate about our conduct and if so what do you hope to accomplish by it? I've repeatedly suggested dropping it. Lets not clog up the thread....

I wish to get beyond sidelining the issues on the table because you think I'm trying to frame you in some way.  I wish for you to accept that someone may want to talk about a subset of your post without addressing the entire thing in detail.  I wish for you to stop attacking the person that wishes to talk about said subset because you think they are trying to attack you.

You really do need to relax though; you're "literally imagining [me tossing aside tables] and getting right in [your] face" and you're unable to sleep. Really dude? You need to chill out, because nothing here is worth getting upset over and I'm not sure why you think there is. I'm not the slightest bit upset and I rarely if ever get truly ruffled because I pretty much can't in my life.... It just couldn't work if I did.

I'm not really upset.  I'm just trying to talk about the issue here and you sidelined it because you feel as though I'm trying to manipulate you in some way or that I didn't talk about every point.

Moving on from this sounds good....

Sure, it does... but you made a statement that I would have liked further explanation of.  I researched more of the issue and I found that I liked the plan and presented it to the thread.  You responded to those with your opinion and I grabbed a few points out of those opinions to debate... then you sidelined the whole debate to tell me you don't want to debate because I said something that (apparently) you disliked.



I present this to anyone else in the thread with the endurance to follow this:

Am I wrong?  Did I treat this person in a way that you felt was wrong?  Have I pushed forth the idea that they said something they did not?  Did I overstep my bounds by questioning the motive?  (Isn't determining the motive part of finding the truth?)

I would like to learn from this if I can.  Dropping it would be nice, but I feel (and this whole discussion is evidence of that) it will only be brought back up later when someone wants to discredit my post or sideline the discussion.

[Siquo]

I think it's perfectly valid to hate someone

I don't, regardless of context. Let's agree to disagree on this?