There's other stuff involved but that's what it's essentially about. Bloomberg thinks he can run the PS system on the cheap by getting rid of expensive educators ( i.e. experienced) and replacing them with newbies.

The newbies won't stay long enough to make pension demands, etc. on the system. ( Half of all new teachers leave within 5 yrs. in NY). Constant turnover is OK w. Bloomberg so long as he's calling the shots and costs are kept *low*. Neither he nor anyone in his social sphere use or ever WILL use the public school system so it's actual quality is completely beside the point.

There's a line from "The Verdict": "Wake up Frankie; these people are *sharks*; how the fuck ya think they got all that money in the first place."

I retain three of my old old stations ( PBS is one of the three... the gods be praised) and have two new Spanish language stations ( we're essentially monolingual English) and a 24 hour kiddie station that seems to have on the cartoon about the "big red dog" pretty much round the clock. Plus some kind of weather channel dealie. I know what the weather is in South Bend, Indiana ( and I know WHY!) but I live in NYC.

Boooo. Hisssssss.

On the plus side, I lost FOX ( Hah ! So long, suckers!) but in so doing lost The Simpsons ( waaaahhhhh!!).

Question: Is the conversion thing a scam to make everyone buy cable?

Forget about Kansas. Why does this supposed mecca of political super-sophistication produce such an unending daisy-chain of political meidiocrities, scoundrels , blatant, shameless opportunists and and a limitless supply of moral and ethical political retardates? ( google "Bloomberg"+"term limits"+"City Council", if you need to be convinced of my premise.)

This was the city and state that produced FDR, RFK, Lehman, Wagner, Lowenstein , Cuomo,, ODwyer, Abzug. and countless others. Now we produce Kirsten Gillibran and Hiram Monnseratte. Good god.

I'd lay the blame at media consolidation... more blatant here than elsewhere in America. But perhaps there's more going on than just that.

Here's a snippet from Clyde Haberman ( my favorite local observer who seems to forever slip somehow thru the media monolith) in today's NYT.

Remember it's just a snippet. You should really read the whole thing. And *everything* Haberman writes for that matter.





http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/nyregion...


One, Hiram Monserrate of Queens, is charged with slashing his girlfriend’s face with a broken glass. The other, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, has been the target of more investigations than an Enron executive.

We’ve strayed exceedingly far, have we not, from the selfless heroics of D-Day.

New Yorkers are running out of ways to describe Albany as a political version of clown school. Perhaps it is time, then, that they examine what the state of the state says about them. If one believes that people in a democracy get the government they deserve, then we in New York should be unable to look in the mirror without cringing.

We overwhelmingly elected a governor, Eliot Spitzer, who turned out to be hooked on prostitutes. His replacement, David A. Paterson, was never thought of as governor material and now has approval ratings at Cheney levels, somewhere in the subbasement. Albany under Governor Paterson is reminiscent of Afghanistan: nominally commanded by a weak leader, but with powerful warlords ascendant.

We elected a state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, who was forced out of office by scandal. Now, some of his closest associates have been indicted on charges of bribery and grand larceny. A reasonable person may infer that Mr. Hevesi either knew about these shenanigans or was out of touch to the point of dereliction.

To boot, we have an appointed United States senator, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, who immediately upon taking office swiveled on so many major issues that you could have suffered whiplash trying to keep up.

>>>>>Do you honestly believe this is part of a grand, bipartisan conspiracy to demonize teachers? Frankly, it would not and could not happen - they are one of the few professions that are mostly beyond reproach politically. If you're anywhere near smart, you don't attack teachers.>>>>

But "beyond reproach politically"? Wha? Whenever these issues are discussed in MSM the phrase "has the courage to defy the teachers' unions" ( or it's equivalent) is so commonplace it's already passed "cliche status".

The *mythical* teacher is beyond reproach. Bette Davis in the "Corn is Green", is beyond reproach. Mr. Chips, the White Shadow, Gabe Kaplan and Leave it to Beaver's Miss Landers: they're all "beyond reproach." Real-life teachers who organize for fair compensation, reasonable job security and in order to practice their profession without undue (*undue*) interference from non - pedagogues are an entirely different matter. 1. They cost money. 2. No living human can match the self sacrifice and saintly dedication of the Mr. Chips and the other above-mentioned FICTIONAL characters.


>>>My problem with the teachers unions on these issues is that instead of pushing for those changes and pushing for better leadership, they too wind up taking the path of least resistance and just argue against the very measures we need to improve education. In this regard, they are no better than the principals and administrators. Everyone involved is playing the "cover your own ass" game and passing blame for the problems on someone else - ultimately, they're all passing the buck to parents, which is easy because there's no unified voice of parents to fight back.>>>>

To the extent that the above is true, I agree. I'm just not sure it's true. There is, I'll grant, a kind of paranoia in the profession that may be reflected in what you are describing. "Paranoia" may be the wrong word; perhaps a "very heightened degree of vigilance" is what it really is. There's a sense among many that EVERY educational reform is part of a larger plan to weaken and essentially *break* the teachers' unions and professional organizations. The fact that the educational "reform" movement is led , in part, by RW ideological fanatics who HATE unions and HATE the very idea of public education on general principal may account for the "heightened state of vigilance". But they "are what they are".

The "reformers" that bug me the most are nominally progressive types like Obama, Bloommerg, ( actually I might just as easily put him in the *first* camp) Duncan , Rhee, Caroline Kennedy, et al, whose life experience and current circumstances are so laughably removed from the reality of public education.

The machinations and posturings of NEITHER wing of this reform movement is likely to result in a better public school system. The first faction is too emotional and the second faction is too indiffernet... since nothing that happens to the public school system ( it exists for the "little people" , you realize) is going to gore, or NOT gore their particular ox.

In a sense , the political dynamic that has taken over the debate is a lot like the abortion wars. A lot of folks are pro-choice because they don't trust the motives of the anti-choicers. Not because they regard the complex ethical issues associated with legalized abortion as a slam dunk.

Something similar seems to be happening in this debate.

I had good, bad and average teachers all through grades 1-12...in private religious school. Note: there was no union, K-8; and there was a ridiculously weak union for SOME of the faculty 9-12.

Sorting them out is most problemmatic. Letting the principal do it is beyond silly. The principal will give the goodies to the inner circle... regardless of how good, bad or average a given teacher. That's just the way it is and perhaps you have to be familar with public school culture to realize how axiomatic that is.

Basing salary on test scores seems utterly impractical. The teachers that get the swiftest classes, wiil score the highest, naturally. I suppose a complex formula could be devised where IN THEORY teachers of kids who made the most statistical *improvement* over a given period of time could be given a bonus. The reality is that public schools are highly politically charged environments where such an outcome would be almost impossible to deliver.

>>>Is the only way to say all teachers are they saem?>>>

I'm not sure. Are we really sure this is such a problem? Is the fact that teachers are paid the same really "the problem" with what's wrong with the public schools in Amnerica. I seriously doubt it.

>>>pay them on the basis of how long they've been teaching?>>>

Theoretically, at least, one becomes more proficient at somethin over time. So a 10 year teacher should be better at it than a rookie. I agree that this model has limits. Some people burn out and/or get complacent. Younger people tend to have more energy... a huge asset when you're dealing esp with younger kids.

There are pluses to scaling pay to length of service, however. There is ENORMOUS turnover in teaching. This is a given. Scaling the pay to longevity tends to mitigate that and promote stability.

I have friends in the tony suburbs north of NYC. Their PSs are OUTSTANDING. They RAVE about their schools. There is no merit pay and the chief dissatisfaction is the amount of time spent on test prep... an innovation that was begun in the "lets collect mega-hunks of data" craze ushered in by NCLB.

OTOH, I work in the NYC schools. The system here is an immense disaster. No one has produuced any... ahem.... *data*... to establish or even to suggest that substandard teaching is to blame. Nor is there any reason to believe, logically, that this is true.

>>>>however, reforms must be made to the system because it is not working. >>>>

SOME systems, such as mine, are not working. Some are working quite well.
Reforms should be made to the systems that are NOT working in order improve them but I don't get the jump in logic to "merit pay". There is no reason I know of no reason to suspect that NYC teachers are going to be motivated to work *harder* if they get more money. And that this is going to translate into higher test scores. It's actually kind of amusing. What's wrong with this system has nothing to do with lack of monetary inducements to work harder.

Trust me.... things aren't bad in this school system 'cause we're all locked into a "pay scale."

>>>We can start with how public schools are financed.>>>>

Now yer talking. But it goes way beyond that. We have to figure out ways to lure the middle class back into the public schools. Educated people expect a lot from their kids schools and they tend to get it.

... or where it *could* hurt. At the FCC level.

Good to have a plan; it's better to have a plan that might WORK. Asking the media to report that Delonas and Murdoch have a history of GLBT defamation is a plan, but it probably will not work. Have you seen any MSM accounts of the chimpanzee fiasco that referenced the 20+ year caricatures of GLBT's in the POST? I haven't.

I only know about it because I live in NY and am periodically exposed that particular paper.

By GLAAD's own account, they've issued three separate "Calls to Action" in the past re. Delonas. Anything to show for it?

Sharpton, OTOH, has an ( admirable , in this case) instinct for the jugular and we can learn from it and, in fact, ought to be HELPING him.

Murdoch doesn't care about GLAAD's Calls to Action. He DOES care about his multiple broadcast licences and that freaking waiver that allows him to own so much of the media in this town.

Hmmmm... if I didn't know better I'd suspect that some of our local, ostensibly gay-friendly pols were instrumental in getting that waiver and getting those license renewals.

... cleared the field for Clinton in 2000 so that there would be no primary fight. In effect, appointing her as the candidate.

Yes, it's true she then had to run against a republican. But the arguments against Kennedy would pretty much apply across the board to Clinton.

And ... there's one HUGE difference: Kennedy is a legit New Yorker. Clinton was a transplant.

... nannys, household servants and the like, one is likely to have an understanding of average people that is, shall we say, *limited*. (Compound that with the *extremely* sheltered life that was imposed on her by her post- 1963 circumstance.)

That seems to have been *generally* true of Ms. Kennedy. There's a rumor on the upper East side of NYC that she's "aloof" . Doesn't make her a war criminal; just means that she might not be as equipped to represent the interests of average NYers as someone who comes from a more typical background.

Don't know enough about the upbringings of the rest of the people you mention to comment productively on the comparison. Gore was a senator's and went to private school. I'm not sure that puts him in the same boat, psychologically, as the Kennedys. Kerry married money... suggesting he didn't have that much of his own. So, ditto re.his mind-set.

Everybody "can care about others." ( except some people in prisons/ psychiatric institutions) That bar's pretty low. We might look for a higher bar in a US Senator.

Lots of educated people are not making lots of $$$ for a number of reasons . Mainly they're young, starting out or working part time; or working in poorly compensated fields ( like education; tee-hee.) This would account for the lack of a consistent correlation in both the Field and the CNN poll between YES/NO and income. It's all over the place.

But, if you accept that premise.... education level defines "class"... social "class" is closely correlated with YES/NO in both Field and the CNN survey. The better educated one is... the more one is likely to vote NO. The less educated one is, the more likely to vote YES. This is the only thing that can be said with certainty.

How AAs in Calif. fit is hard to say without more info re. race/education breakdown. What's worth noting is there's a *huge* discrepancy between the CNN poll and the Field poll re. the AA vote. Close to even in Field becomes 70-30 yes on CNN. That's quite a swing in a four days. Since it's not reflected in any other category ( i.e. a *seismic* shift of a comparable magnitude in the last week) one has to wonder about the accuracy of one or both polls where it pertains to this particular demographic.

But this much we can say for certain: the less one knows, the more likely one is to support Prop 8.

... just about anything, *longs* for Hillary's open senate seat. What a stage THAT would be! I'm thinking he's *pinching* himself himself over this ( as of now hypothetical) incredibly good fortune.

A the moment he's up a tree without a paddle. No high profile positions available, the NYC Mayor ( and wealthiest citizen) essentially announced for reeleection as mayor and essentially changed the term-limits law in NYC $inglehandedly ( the idea of changing the law was was "disgusting", he said, two years ago) with the help of the "little gray people" on the council who hope to benefit by going along... in one way or another.

But re the Clinton seat: how will it actually work? Gov. Paterson ( himself an unelected chief exac.) will appoint a Clinton successor. He's already on record as saying that he likes Bloomberg's hypothetical third term ( laws, schmaws). It's believed a busy ( in NYC city hall) Bloomberg will forgo a challenge to Paterson when the Governor's term is up. Either as DEM or Independent... or even as GOP again.

Bloomberg's planning on ... publicly.... spending ( or WAS planning on spending ) 100 million to be reelected mayor. Paterson would probably prefer to run against a less prosperous opponent in... I think he runs in 2010... and would probably like to make Bloomberg happy in another position.

Bloomberg's proved that enough money can make the public believe *anything*, so unseemly appearances wouldn't really be a factor here.


So.... what happens next?

The fact that these two.... let's call 'em "sects" and not "cults" for now...share an odd, peculiar ( even for American Christianity), suspicious, and almost single-minded obsession with open homosexuality says *something* about these organizations, but I'm not sure the article succeeds in making the case that their antipathy hinges on their shared history of child abuse.

I suspect it IS connected but I'm not sure pointing it out is the same as "connecting" the dots.

There's more work to be done if we're going to discredit them as insitutions... or even just discredit their activism ( if you can call it that) on these issues. Otherwise we run the risk of creating ad hominem arguments in response to their slanderous ones. Or even of... umm ...Catholic/ Mormon bashing. ( Oh, the humanity!)


I did get a kisk out of this:
>>>If I know one thing about Catholics, they don't like being linked with cults -- and most Catholics think the Mormons are a cult.>>>>>>

Right. Ya gotta keep an eye out on those crazy *cults*.

http://verizonpathetic.com/pain20.html

Anyone had any problematic dealings w. this entity? I used it as a single line customer for about three years without incident. 450 minutes for about 50 bucks per mos. 12 year old son nagged me constantly to add him to the plan so he could get a flashier ( higher status and more versatile phone; he had been using a simple TMOBILE prepay phone; not flashy, low social status).

So I added a line and switched to family plan: 700 minutes shared for 69.99 minus 20% discount. 6 days later I get the new bill: 638 dollars. For about one week's usage.

400+ dollars attributed to a two and a half day period between the time they put my son's new phone in my hand and I was able to figure out how to use block options feature ("usage controls") they call it... which was about 2 to three days later. In which time, sonny-boy was downloading all kinds of expensive musical and ringtone crap... none of which I understand and none of which I'm interested in. ( Things like VCAST, RHAPSODY, etc. etc. etc. Not cear that they are included or cost money, at least not clear from the site. But they cost money! Whew!)

Anyway, long story short, Verizon... Evildoers Inc.... insists I have to pay for the whole thing. I hung up on them after they refused to negotiate.

My guess is they deliberately make this process as confusing as possible so people spend as much as possible without knowing WTF is going on. If you can make sense out of their website, you're a lot swifter than I.

So I've got two new phones... a contract of one kind or another, not sure how enforceable it is ...and no desire to continue with this cabal.

So... anyone know what my options are.

>>>>If that occurs, please feel free to cram this post back in my face.>>>>

... for future cramming purposes.

I have no illusions about Obama. But his court nominations alone will dramatically affect GLBT life in the USA. I'm quite confident that he will not appoint people to the federal judiciary... and I'm *positive* he will not appoint anyone to SCOTUS... who is hostile to this community.

The other side will continue to work toward our extinction, given the opportunity.

If it turns out I'm wrong, cram away. (Pssst: I'm not wrong.)

http://personals.nydailynews.com/entertain...


Yes, there's a quickie reference to partner Susan waaaayyyy at the end ( Item 4 in "5 reasons I'm a Real New Yorker" sidebar.) Until then I thought that going mainstream was some kind of devil's bargain for RM ( of whom I'm a big fan, BTW.)

I remember her when she subbed on early Air America and some progressive listeners called into complain to other talk jocks that Rachel would actually talk about "gay stuff." Now she's mainstream , but the gay part seems to have been... well I was gonna say 'closeted', but lets just say "scuttled temporarily".

Ok, I'm not complaining; price of going mainstream and all. I *want* people to hear and see her. Still....it would be nice if that, i.e. the scuttling, weren't necessary.

Interesting, if superficial, profile in any case.


Rachel Maddow is MSNBC's prime time star

By LEAH CHERNIKOFF

Thursday, October 30th 2008, 4:00 AM

Rachel Maddow

An instant hit since she broke onto the cable news scene in September, Rachel Maddow has helped catapult MSNBC ahead of CNN in prime-time ratings this past month. Now she's slated to co-anchor the network's Election Night coverage. Here, Maddow, who splits her time between New York and Massachusetts, dishes on makeovers, Manhattan and newfound fame.

How are you preparing for your election all-nighters?

I try to avoid sugar, so as to avoid the inevitable crash. Other than that, I just eat whatever my perpetually nervous stomach allows.

What's it like to be newly hosting a show during these uncertain and often scary times?

Fun! It's the best job I could possibly imagine. Unless there's a job like this that also comes with a bonus of six or so more hours of sleep per night.

Everyone's talking about politics and the news right now - but I've somehow ended up with a job where I get paid to try to do that well, and in public. I'm happy as a clam at high tide.

Are you getting stopped on the street yet?

Every once in a while, someone says hello or they like the show. It's nice to get into a cab when the cab driver is playing my radio show. Tip city, man.

Who is your dream guest?

Do you mean someone I could get to come into the studio with me? Well, I do have a recurring fantasy of personally beating the snot out of Osama Bin Laden - but I guess then he technically wouldn't qualify as a "guest."

Who have been your past two favorite guests?

Tony Kushner, and my weekly radio segments with Paul Rieckhoff - he's the founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a New Yorker, and an all-around hunk.

There was some controversy over your makeover. Is your wardrobe picked out for you or do you get a say?

No one picks out anything for me - are you kidding? You think it would be worth paying someone to choose for me between my eight different, nearly identical, dark gray suits?

And I didn't actually have a makeover - I just stopped fighting the makeup pros once I realized that my resistance to them was making me look like Nixon to everyone else's Kennedy.

Any tips for keeping your cool with heated guests?

Pretend it's just you and your conscience. All the rest is just a peanut gallery. When I get overwhelmed or frustrated on the TV show set, my friend Kent Jones does a really funny turkey noise that makes me happy every time.

Five reasons I'm a real New Yorker

1. I know the kitchen at Daddy-O is open till 4 a.m. Because I need to know that.

2. You can buy Old Charter bourbon at the small but excellent liquor store right by the really good falafel cart near 27th and Madison.

3. At my news agent, the dude only charges me tax on my newspaper when I'm wearing my Red Sox hat, but I DON'T CARE — that's what it's for.

4. My closet space is so limited in our little apartment that Susan and I can only hang up one season of clothes at a time.

5. The Pegu Club bartenders sometimes let me order stuff that hasn't been on the menu since its first iteration.

"The Rachel Maddow Show" airs weeknights at 9 on MSNBC.