jrush

Beavah, keep in mind, the military isn't a blunt instrument. The purpose of a military (any military) is to enforce the political will of it's controlling body. In our case, the military exists to enforce the political will of the electorate of the United States, controlled by elected entities...the House, the Senate and the President. So, view any use of the military through that lens. Not to put a damper on things, but we support most of those Arab dictators specifically because they a) are strategically motivated to sell us oil and b) have little use for extremist islam, neither of which might be true of these populist movements. The US is going to be very careful about supporting popular uprisings in the middle east...that whole "be careful what you wish for". Democracy isn't universally a good thing.

Beavah, I didn't misunderstand you...being a lifelong southerner I have a limited understand of unions...I've only recently gotten to the point where I didn't think they should all be labeled treasonous organizations and banned outright, with their leaderership sent to federal big boy prison out of general principle...so I'm learning. Truth, I support limited government as well. That being said, anything I think the government should be responsible for as a matter of Federal Constitutional duty (and IMO education is one of those), it should own 100%. Again, regional prejudice at work...watching the shenannigans of school board down here makes me think that local yokels have absolutely no business whatsover being involved in education. I think we would get better results if the local school boards and the administration buildings full of untrained, uneducated political hacks and nepotistic appointments need to be dissolved and replaced by a leaner federal system using federal standards. We certainly couldn't get any worse results, and the DOD school system already provides a model...

TAHAWK, Scouts are already taught safe handling of fixed blade knives...they are the same principles behind safe handling of any knife. They also use fixed blade knives on a regular basis...they are part of every chuck box and most tackle boxes. I agree, "banning" all fixed blade belt knives becasue the BSA "highly discourages" "large sheath knives" is probably overkill, but on the other hand, are councils and troops really denying some essential element of scouting or fieldcraft to the boys by telling them they can't beebop around camp sporting a 7" KABAR on their belt?

Beavah, you don't have to deny them the vote, you simply have to end the public unions' power to levy involuntary dues which are used to elect lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with having a public sector union. There is nothing wrong with having a public sector union in a closed shop state. There is nothing wrong with that union monetarily supporting a politician. There *is* something wrong with a union that has a captive workforce levying mandatory dues to support those politicians. The solution is one of two things: change to a right-to-work state and have union membership be voluntary, or keep the closed shop and make union dues be voluntary. The government does need a monopoly on taxpayer-provided education, though. Any program that uses that many taxpayer dollars should be controlled by elected lawmakers. At what level? That's open for debate...

OGE, most of them were busy either getting over, putting down or trying to avoid populist uprisings. No Arab country has the modern AF required to conduct the NFZ and air-to-surface attacks without significant collateral damage to the civilian population those actions are meant to protect in the first place. ETA: no to be snide, but that's why we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on our military...it's not just for self defense...we're buying the ability to enforce stability in strategically important regions.(This message has been edited by jrush)

Sherm, I agree, my use of quotes to paraphrase versus ctrl-c-ing an entire post may lead people to the wrong conclusions. That being said, it wasn't necessary to strengthen my argument. The vitriol that some people have for the actions of the Wisconsin GOP against the public employee unions is strength enough. That being said, I still haven't seen any evidence for why public employee unions deserve to retain their collective bargaining priviledges, or why they should be able to levy involuntary dues to financially support politicians. In a nutshell, why was the attack (whether it was direct or straightforward) unjustified? Granted, I don't care if Walker said it was to save the budget or to save the whales...why was it unjustified?

The difference is the Arab League went to the UN and asked for military help to make Quadaffi act like a grown-up. Everyone else handled their protests without resorting to attack helicopters.

Joe, the BSA still teaches woodcraft and fieldcraft, it's just more in line with LNT, and has been going that way since the mid 80's. Even when I did Paul Bunyan in the late 80's, it was already a case of "you'll do this for PB, and you'll never do it anywhere else in scouting". So, no, a troop doesn't go find a patch of 4" sweetgums and break out the double-bit axes anymore.

Sure, the OA representatives could've gotten upset at the uniform police, turned around and gone home... Another option would've been for them to tell the SM "you're right, we're representing the BSA's honor society, we should be doing elections in Class A's", and for the accompanying adult to tell the former SM the same thing. The BSA is a uniform organization, and appearances matter.

lucky, I agree that teachers need protection and representation...that's where teacher associations come in and have a viable part to play. However, it isn't even the existence of the union that's the problem...it's a) collective bargaining for monetary benefits and b) involuntary collection of dues that are donated to politicians. GOP lawmakers aren't trying to "bust" the public employee unions. First Amendment, free association and all that applies. What they are doing is pulling the public unions' teeth.

Sherm, in the world I live in, "direct attack" and "straightforward attack" do mean the same thing...largely because "direct" and "straightforward" are synonyms...you know, words that have the same meaning. While I'm checking up on "trustworthy" and "courteous", I'll also swing by "mentally awake". (This message has been edited by jrush)

Sherminator, you made an excellent point: the BSA has a training program developed by professional scouters but implemented by and for volunteers...which invariably creates the problems that have been aired out in this thread.

Sherm, I didn't directly quote you. Yes, I said "sneaky political manuevering", because that, essentially, is what the entire pro-union crowd said happened. Maybe not in this or that specific post, but is the message from the union crowd. "The GOP used underhanded sneaky techniques to destroy the unions", or words to that effect. I'll let your reaction speak for how close to the mark I hit it. Next: po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. You say "direct attack on the unions", I said "put control of tax dollars back into the hands of taxpayers". When dealing with public employee unions, they are one and the same. Bottom line, public employee unions are doing two things which (in my opinion) should be stopped: - taking tax dollars paid by one person, sent to a public employee, involuntarily collected as dues and then donated to Democrats, whom the original taxpayer may or may not support. I have a choice to avoid donating money to democrats by avoiding private union-made products, from GM vehicles to Colt firearms...I can buy a Kia or Glock, instead. This is one reason I support federalizing the entire public education system, eliminating locally-elected boards and making all teachers and administrators federal GS employees, same as the DOD school system. - Through collective bargaining, public employee unions shift the power to spend tax dollars from state and local lawmakers to themselves. The problem with this is that the legislator is the Constitutional representative of the taxpayer, and has the duty to the taxpayer to get the most "bang for the buck" for each tax dollar levied. The union has a responsility to its membership...NOT the taxpayer. What a lot of people in this discussion have failed to do is seperate public and private unions. Private unions are not the issue. If a company doesn't want to deal with them, they can relocate to a right-to-work State. If an individual doesn't want to support them, they can purchase non-union made products. Not every car is made by UAW. Not every delivery is made by the Teamsters. Further, private unions do have a 100 year old bloody shirt to wave around, becasue they did fight for to 40 hour week, child labor laws, workplace safety, etc, etc. But, that being said, public employee unions have done none of that. Quite frankly, the only thing they've done is drive up the cost of government-provided services above that of their non-union peers, with NO increase in value. Are union teachers providing a superior education to students, or are they reading 3 grades behind, same as non-union taught students? Are the crime rates in cities patrolled by union cops lower than that of comparable size cities patrolled by non-union cops? Do union firefighters provide a measurably faster response time? If not, then why do they deserve to collectively bargain for higher pay and bennies? Because 100 years ago striking union members routinely got fired on? That's no different than an 8 year old boy parading around school with his great uncle's Purple Heart demanding to skip to the front of the lunch line.

Sherm, the latter *does* negate the former. The job of government is to act, within the applicable Constitutions, to enact the political will of the majority of the electorate. It doesn't matter what the electorate wanted 20 years ago in regards to the power of public employee unions, it matters what they want now. Next, if you are a big fan of unions, you don't vote republican. Period. All of these folks protesting and whining about the vote didn't vote GOP anyways...the GOP-led government has no duty to represent their wishes...it only has a duty to respect their Constitutional rights. Further, stripping the budgetary items and voting to end most of the public unions' collective bargaining priviledges was an act made necessary by the actions of democratic senators. It wasn't "sneaky political manuevering", it was the government doing what it had to in order to fullfill the political will of the majority of the electorate. Finally, it has everything to do with budgets. Collective bargaining is all about who controls the current and future tax dollar. That's what is so inherently malicious about public employee collective bargaining. It allows a current generation to write a check the next generation has to cash, because States don't have the option of bankruptcy court. Futher, by the collection of involuntary dues, the unions are allowed to take tax dollars from me and funnel them to politicians whom I don't support. Quite frankly, that practice should be outright unconstitutional nationwide. This law was about taking control of tax dollars away from the unions and handing it back to the voter. If the majority of the electorate decides that they want to give control of their money back to the unions, they can vote accordingly in the next election. The GOP lost control of that message in all the hubub, but I expect it will start making it onto the airwaves by the time recall initiatives make it onto the ballot, and well before the 2012 election cycle.

JoeBob, it wasn't "castrated", it was simply put in line with reality. How many Troops have double-bit axes and crosscut saws in their kits? In reality, there isn't any field craft a Scout needs to do that can't be done with a bow saw or hand axe. Why not turn it into a service project? That being said, just because a troop doesn't "need" 3/4 or full-size axes, doesn't mean they need to be banned as troops and councils have gleefully done to sheath/fixed blade knives (which I think is silly and ignorant). Skill in safe handling of an axe still needs to be taught.

CP, the government isn't acting in bad faith; it's simply that the political reality has changed. The government isn't obligated to protect a union's collective bargaining priviledges. Note I said "priviledges". There is no right to collective bargaining in State or Federal Constitution. The government is able to grant that priviledge to public and private unions, if it is the will of the voter. Any priviledge the voter can grant, the voter can take away. Furthermore, far from acting in "bad faith", those governments are fullfilling the wills of the voters who elected them. Nobody should be surprised when GOP legislative and executive bodies strip collective bargaining from public employee unions. Yes, it upset liberals and union members, but they didn't put republicans in the statehouses and governors' offices. Well, they did, through acting like using collective bargaining to artificially raise the cost of government services far above what voters were willing to support with taxes was some sort of inalienable right. CP, when you boil it down, we're talking about whether the voter or the union should have control over their State and local budgets. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. We are talking about what is Constitutionally correct. I am aware that these corrections in the balances of power between voters and the unions are going to be painful, but the public employee unions had to know that sooner or later, the jig was going to be up. They haven't been providing services commensurate with the benefits they were able to demand via collective bargaining, and once times got tough, the voter stopped tolerating it.

SA, the coutnerargument regarding what the investment banker gets paid is that his pay rate is determined by the owner(s) of that company...whether an individual, a board, or the stockholders. The problem with the investment bank isn't what he gets paid, it's that we have begun to socialize risk. The bank doesn't have to worry about making bad bets, because they have the perfect hedge...the taxpayer. My problem isn't even with socializing risk with the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is the one authorizing such action via the ballot box. My problem is that we have made the franchise a right, rather than an earned priviledge. Quite frankly, if the only people authorized to vote were those that purchased it through paying federal taxes or earned it through federal service, we'd have quite different results...but that's another discussion.

CP, the answer to your question is: "the market value for a public service is what the public wishes to pay for it through taxation levied upon themselves" So, if the public wishes to pay their city snowplow operators the same thing the 7-11 guy gets paid, that's fair market value. If the public isn't satisfied with the quality of the service, they can raise the pay rate until they are happy. The point is, it should be up to the taxpayer, not the public employee. The problem for the public employee union is why they even need collective bargaining, when they can't prove that paying them more than non-union teachers/cops/etc yields better results. Do these union employees provide lower crime rates, faster fire response time, or better educated students than lower-paid non-union counterparts? If not, why do they "deserve" to collectively bargain for higher wages and benefits? (This message has been edited by jrush)

scoutingagain, everyone has heard that before, but there are two problems with getting support for large-scale wealth redistribution beyond what is already being conducted via the tax code. First, economics are not a zero-sum game, because wealth isn't finite; it can be created. The primary limiting factor of wealth creation isn't wealth or income or even education...it's vision and will. Second, public service is not the place to become wealthy. We are performing a service to the taxpayer. We deserve AT MOST the market rate for the service we are providing, and not one dime more. If we can't afford a 3,000 sf house, 2 new cars and private school for the kids, that's not the fault of the rich banker, nor is it the responsibility of the lawmaker to force him to give us more of the cookies. The wage for a public employee shouldn't be driven by granting us the ability to achieve a certain "standard of living", it should be driven by market value for the service we provide. It is not the place of the government (i.e., the voter) to force the taxpayer to grant you what you failed to achieve on your own. If you want to serve the public, become a teacher/cop/soldier/firefighter/ems/etc. If you want a bigger slice of the pie, invent the post-it note or the personal computer or facebook.

Eagle 732, enforcing no strike clauses is to be expected. The problem with the public unions is they expect the same rules to apply to them as to private unions, and that's not the case. Bottom line, UAW can hold Ford's feet to the fire regarding a 50 year contract, no matter what Ford's current financial status is, unless bankruptcy is declared. When dealing with the government, the government is only required to do what is Constitutionally mandated...and I don't think any State is Constitutionally mandated to fullfill financial agreements. The current electorate has the right to change the terms of an agreement at will. Consent of the governed, and all that. Hypothetically, unless barred by their Constitution the electorate in a State could decide to completly halt all taxpayer funding of public pensions, and tell teachers, fire, police etc they will fund 100% of their medical and retirement themselves. Bottom line, the taxpayer has the ultimate right to decide how tax dollars are spent.

Contracts made 20-40 years ago shouldn't be a problem as long as tax revenues continue to meet the assumptions made at the time.

Correct. The problem isn't evil gubbermint trying to hose the poor defenseless teachers/police/etc, it's that when the State gets in a tight, they get bailed out by taxpayers in other States who had nothing to do with what was previously agreed to. I don't want to bail out Minnesota any more than I want to bail out GM. I say, let Minnesotans agree to whatever bennies they want to give teachers. If those costs exceed what they're willing to pay in taxes, let them (as a State) declare bankruptcy and suffer the temporarily higher bond rate in order to get old contracts in line with what the tax base can sustain. Eagle72, the problem isn't just the contracts they're negotiating today. It's also the contracts they negotiated 20 or 40 years ago.

The only problem I have with public sector unions is that States cannot declare bankruptcy under US Code. If a union/company relationship isn't realistic and the company goes under, it can have its obligations to the union negated in bankruptcy court. As a result, while the anti-union crowd complains about "unions driving companies out of business", fact is, it's in the unions' best interest to keep the company in business and the jobs in the community. Public sector unions, on the other hand, can use collective bargaining to put the taxpayer on the hook for otherwise unsustainable legacy costs. If the State had the option to declare bankruptcy and get costs back in line with reality, I think you would see more realistic union bargaining and a more forgiving taxpayer.

"teaching to the test" always gets a bad rap, but fact is, standardized test taking is a skill which must be taught. Many students do poorly on tests not because the actual material isn't being taught, but they they don't have the commensurate time management and reading comprehension skills. Certification tests are a different matter, but if a student can be taught how to do well on those "grade level" bubble tests, they will tend to do well on subject-specific tests.

It's amazing what one can accomplish with a needle, thread and a couple hours away from the computer.