I remember certain teachers from my childhood as especially kind and decent people. Some of them, not so much.

But overall, I remember them as human beings, and not a priestly caste whose demands must be elevated above the needs of all other members of society.

There is indeed a limit to what people can comfortably pay for their services.

And, frankly? You do not need to be a brainiac to teach math to eight year olds. Much of what teachers do consists of fairly mundane skill sets. This is why you or I can do this at home if we decide to, with pretty good results.

Yes; great teachers make a difference in students' lives. Yes; we believe that the people who teach the future generations should be compensated fairly. No; we do not believe that teachers are more important than every other member of society.

To what can we attribute this strange idea, that teaching children is so exalted a career? It's ridiculous. Lots of people work very hard and you don't hear them crying about how special they are or exhibiting high dudgeon every time they are asked to do more. The world changes; fortunes are altered. We soldier on, because that's what people do. Working with children does not make you better than other people or grant you immunity from a bad economy. It's just a job, with its own peculiar challenges, like lots of other tough jobs with their attendant difficulties. Sweet Jesus Almighty. Get over yourselves.

What I'm trying to say, teachers: we do love you. And yet, you are so replaceable. What we feel for you, we will feel for your replacements. Who hopefully won't have this big chip on their shoulder. So, ultimately I guess, we would like your replacements even better than we like you.

Other people, they can do what you do. And also, lots of other people would really be grateful for your jobs right now. These people would make better public employees than you, because 1) they are capable of teaching children, and 2) they don't have the attitude problem.

There's this saying that 'no one is indispensable.' But at this point in time, right NOW, is exactly when your replaceability is peaking.

This is when you choose to throw your fit? Have you heard of Wisconsin?

There are fewer taxpayers now than there used to be; so many of the remaining middle-class taxpayers are treading the edge of a cliff and are unable to pay, and so many people want your jobs right now, that what you are doing is akin to waving a red flag before a bull.

Even liberal Democrats can do the math.

How about trying to work with us, in a time of devastating financial crisis, instead of blowing up and throwing staplers around when you are asked to work more for the same pay?

Oh, no?

OK. Enjoy your trip to the private sector. I believe your stay will prove quite educational.
UPDATE BELOW THE FOLD. more...

Posted by: LauraW at 07:44 AM | Comments (279)
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.

in Wisconsin, per Rasmussen.

Full poll link when upped on his site.

Looks like our discussion yesterday on the Blue Wall takes another interesting turn.

Obama still leads here in the average, with that poll included, but we certainly need to focus on these "safe" states of his that look anything but. What better way to crush his hopes, see him running from the purple states, and hear the cries of his fans along the way?

Put another way... more...

Posted by: CAC at 06:20 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

The suspect in the Auburn shooting turned himself in yesterday, after a three-day manhunt during which police spent most of a day lobbing tear gas at what turned out to be an empty house. Two people who aided the shooter while he was on the run have already been charged with hindering prosecution.

Mac-heads are enjoying their annual heart palpitations over the newest version of iOS. Meh.

Gamers, I cannot begin to describe to you how amazing this post about playing one game of Civ II for ten years is.

Both Democratic and Republican strategists are noting the Obama campaign's erratic and somewhat vacant behavior. One side frets; the other side is just happy to point it out.

You may hear about a TIME columnist today, a psychoanalyst (this is still a thing?) named Justin Frank, whose published column claims that Romney is comfortable with lying because he's Mormon. The quack makes this claim based on one line out of one book by a former Mormon who is, needless to say, not a fan of Mormonism. No, I'm not going to send TIME the traffic. I note it only to flag it as the latest desperate slander of Mormonism spurred by the election.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:49 AM | Comments (386)
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Good think piece from Kaus, about "bipartisanship."

He questions the liberal conventional wisdom which inevitably emerges when Democrats lose power -- that real solutions must come from the center.

Note, before I get back to him, when Democrats are in power, solutions will come from the Democrats; it's only when they lose power that they begin urging that their Plan B, "compromise from the center," is so wonderful.

You did not hear much about this Plan B when the Democrats were ramming through ObamaCare on a party-line vote. (Not even party-line, actually -- Democrats joined the Republicans in opposition, but no Republicans crossed over to support ObamaCare.)

When they had sole power in Congress, they spoke of never letting a crisis go to waste, and of their "mandate." They continued speaking of their "mandate" even when the public informed them, in rally after rally and poll after poll, that they were not in fact given a mandate to take over the health care system.

But now they're losing, and Plan A (Democratic partisan power) is out the window, so only now do they turn to Plan B (why won't these Republicans agree on some compromise centrist positions)?

So it works like this: When Democrats have all the power, they should exercise it without seeking a centrist compromise with the right; when they lose power, they insist Republicans have no right to behave as they themselves did, and must compromise with the Democrats on everything.

Anyway. Back to Kaus' argument. Kaus points out that intractable problems can be solved one of two ways: Sometimes by a "compromise" from the center, but most often by one party winning decisively and simply imposing its agenda (as FDR and his Democrats did).

Either way, the problem is "solved" (though often at the cost of even bigger new problems -- but the old problem, at least, is "solved").

So he asks: Why are those who pretend to only care about solutions -- about ending the dysfunctional gridlock in government -- only entertaining plans involving compromise? Shouldn't they also simply root for a Big Decisive Partisan Victory, on either side?

To answer his question (this is my answer, not his):

Well, certainly they're really hoping for just that -- a full, indisputable Democratic victory -- but as the prospect of that seems more and more fantastical, they begin agitating more for the more realistic scenario of not having much political power, and so turn, as they usually do, to the Plan B of insisting that only "centrist compromise" will fix our nation.

Kaus is right about this. If liberal Democrats won and had full control over government, there's little doubt the entitlement crisis would be at least mitigated, because they'd tax the hell out of the middle class in order to fund it.

If New Deal-rejecting conservative debt hawks lodged an unambiguous victory, the entitlement problem would also be largely fixed, because they'd scale back on the ambitions of those programs.

There is no particular reason to be antsy about the supposed impossibility of government making changes, because, in seven months, we'll have a new government, and indeed one in which one party will probably dominate.

But if you're not really interested in "solutions" per se, but interested only in liberal-minded solutions, and realize that a one-party victory will probably be had by Republicans, if by anyone... then you'd probably start to agitate for a growing panic about the absolute necessity of Plan B, the compromise.

Something you wouldn't even be mentioning if you thought that in seven months you'd simply win, and then could substantially enact your preferred solutions.

Another good article, sort of on the same general subject, at the Daily, praising partisan fights. It's how things actually get done.

In 2010, former ABC News anchor Ted Koppel blamed the rise of cable news, which “show[s] us the world not as it is, but as partisans ... would like it to be.” In other words, the sudden democratization of opinion journalism — once the exclusive domain of newspaper journalists — has allowed too many easily manipulated people into the political process, who are better off in disinterested ignorance.

Or are they? Loud, rancorous debate is nonetheless debate, and all the evidence suggests that it entices the previously unengaged into the political fray. In Wisconsin, for example, the ferocity of debate actually produced a more informed and committed electorate. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, turnout for the recall was “off the charts by historical standards.” The deeply contentious 2008 presidential election produced the largest voter turnout in American history. In other words, partisanship achieved what public service campaigns never could: It made Americans give a damn about their political future.

...

Because politics is not — despite all clichés to the contrary — about compromise. It’s about making the other guy compromise. And, failing that, it’s about telling any and all who will listen that the country is being torn asunder by boneheaded partisans.

Also known as Plan B. We do it too.

But when we do it, we're entirely ignored by the media, which just talks up how swiftly and efficiently the unified Democratic government is churning out legislation.

We actually need -- at least for now -- more partisanship rather than less. Our finances are catastrophic precisely because a crucial swing bloc has refused to answer the question: Do you want lower taxes and more limited government control? Or would you like more government spending and programs?

For 40 or 50 years, they've answered "Yes." They want both lower taxes, and more government hand-outs, and also more government and also less government.

Our politics is dysfunctional because both sides in this battle are attempting to entice people who simply will not make up their minds, or even engage with the central question. And thus we have both high government spending and (once upon a time) low-ish taxes... at the cost of impending bankruptcy and disaster.

Those assailing "partisanship" -- by which they mean, really, "clear and straight ideological preferences to government" -- aren't really afraid there won't be solutions.

What they're afraid of is that the wrong party will impose its preferred solutions.

It's dishonest, and those making these claims ought to be called out for their dishonesty, rather than being praised as noble. Honesty is noble. Falsely championing "centrism" when your actual goal -- liberalism, straight-up -- is not an option is dishonest, and ignoble.

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (155)
Post contains 1102 words, total size 7 kb.

Someone should give him a glass of water, because he's so dehydrated. From crying. more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:55 AM | Comments (338)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

From one year ago.

...one key economic data component has been quite good at predicting presidential elections, and that is consumer confidence. If the consumer confidence index is at 100 or higher, then the incumbent party is likely to win. If not, then the opposition party wins."

100? Yeah. That'll happen.

Here it is in chart form. Ugly. Hope is a byproduct of lots of opportunities to choose from (jobs), and jobs are a byproduct of a thriving capitalism. Capitalism cannot thrive when capitalists are being discouraged from investing. Capitalism also cannot thrive when capital is excessively diverted into nonproductive government activities (graft and looting).

Barack Obama believes he can go on indefinitely draining the vitality from the private sector and still somehow end up with enough to feed the public sector. This has never worked, anywhere it has been tried. This president has failed to suggest- suggest, never mind implement!- policies that demonstrate he even has a grasp on how the economy works. Thus this president has failed to create hope.

Let's get a new one.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:36 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

FYI the blog now has more aggressive anti-spam filter so if you've been banned by mistake (as opposed to ban-banned), email me your nic and ip address and I'll forward it onto pixy. Also the new registration thingy is still on schedule for Real Soon Now but just remember that we're working on ewok-time here.

Also some of the intrepid moron-types discovered that the Yahoo group has a chat function so go knock yourselves out. Just don't get the blog in trouble or do anything that makes a three-letter agency take an interest in us.

The Suckiness of America

Yeah we're racist, dog-eat-dog capitalists who allow super-income inequality, don't have national healthcare or free universities, let people live in the streets and keep too many people in prison, bla bla bla. So we suck.

But...when you compare us to other first world countries on the OECD Better Life index, it turns out that all the other countries suck a lot more than we do.

On these kind of rankings I always suspect the US gets cheated in healthcare since the scoring is heavily weighted on how 'free' medical care is. But notice that you never hear about Americans going off to Canada or France or the UK in order to get better medical treatment.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:48 PM | Comments (625)
Post contains 632 words, total size 10 kb.

Here's why.

We're paying more than ever for public sector employees.

So why isn't employment in that sector going up?

Because each employee demands higher and higher raises (even in a recession) and greater and greater retirement benefits (even in a depression).

They will not permit the smallest adjustment in their steady march to become Bureaucrat Millionaires.

Ergo, states are finding that even with more money to pay them, they can't pay as many of them.

That's why, champ.

For example, in San Jose:

A lot of that increase is due to rising required pension payments, as the assets in the city’s pension funds have lost value. But much also had to do with what Mayor Chuck Reed, a Democrat, describes as “irresponsible policy actions” over the last 15 years. Here’s his list:

1. Giving out raises faster than revenues were growing.

2. Giving out raises and increasing benefits when revenues were falling.

3. Giving out raises and benefits retroactively.

4. Allowing employees to cash out unlimited amounts of sick leave when they retire.

5. Providing lifetime health care for retirees.

He also notes that “the City Council and outside arbitrators also significantly enhanced retirement benefits. The maximum benefit for public safety employees grew from 75 percent of final salary to 90 percent, and a guaranteed 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment was awarded to all employees.”

In other words, the city made a lot of promises that it could barely afford when times were good, and now that times are bad, it really canÂ’t afford them.

Obama's prescription is not to reduce these ridiculous payments to Democratic Clients, of course. He simply wants to give state and local government more money, to pay for the same number of workers, to insure than public employees never have to modify their pigs-at-the-trough appetites for taxpayer dollars.

Why would we pay for more of the same?

Why should private sector workers just barely getting by wish to pay even higher taxes to support the bureaucrat millionaires' club?

Obama's plan is not to hire "more teachers, policemen, and firemen" (and why do you need more with a population that's only growing a little bit?).

His plan is to just throw money at them, so that the same number of public employees get all their ill-advised, political-payola benefits.

He's not trying to reduce unemployment -- he's merely doing his Clients some Client Service.

Posted by: Ace at 04:22 PM | Comments (200)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and there's no plausible way the GOP wins if even North Carolina won't come back to the GOP column. I think we just have to assume this one (if we don't have this one, there's little point in speculating about other states), but at least Kos pollster PPP finds Romeny with a small 2 point lead, 48-46.

The eyebrow-raising finding is that while Obama won African-Americans 95-5 in NC in 2008, the new poll finds him winning... 76-20, with 4% undecided.

Although doubtful folks can reasonably doubt this dubious finding, it reminded me of what some idiot said recently.

GQ: The election is coming up. You've been a big supporter of Barack. Why do you think so many people are so critical of him?

Spike Lee: I can't say to all the people that are unhappy with him that they're racist people. People ain't got jobs, people are hurting. So I don't care what color you are, if people are out of work, it's tough.

Sometimes the wisest words come from the most stupidest of people.

Of course, Dr. Racewar goes on to say...

And then when you're the first African American president, that's not helping either.

I'd say that's about the only thing that is helping. Obama's now a failure, and can no longer speak hopefully of the future or even his policies, but he's still black. (Half.) Point is, that's the one variable that hasn't shifted against him.

Another suspicious auspicious finding comes from a Sienna poll (linked above, in Allah's post), finding, in New York...

The poll [of New York State], conducted by Siena College, finds that currently President Obama has the support of 51 percent of Jewish voters, while 43 percent are opposed to him. Five percent are undecided. That means, ObamaÂ’s lead among Jewish voters is at 8 percentage points.

Could that be true?

So we have two almost-impossible polls. Almost impossible. And while hard to believe, the both point at the same thing: A long-predicted tipping point.

And whites too. This is the most important racial group, because 3/4ths of the US is white; a small decline in the white vote can doom a presidential bid, and smaller minority groups would have to turn out a great deal more than even in 2008 to even partly make up for such a decline.

Or, as Gallup says:

Even if Obama were to regain his 2008 level of support among blacks and improve his support somewhat among Hispanics, he could still lose if his support among whites slips any further. By the same token, even a slight increase in whites' support could secure his re-election.

Obama's down with all sectors of white voters -- if you divide them by education, age, income, and religion, he's down with all subcategories. Surprised Allah failed to note that among the non-religious/atheist, his support is down 10 points, 71 to 61.

The important swing group of low-income whites, which voted 51% for Obama in 2008, now only support him at the 42% level.

The only bright spot for Obama, it turns out, is Hispanics, who continue supporting him at his crushing 2008 advantage.

I was going to save this, and really think I should save this, but since I haven't posted in hours, and now come at you with another polling post that isn't anything more than what's on Drudge, I'll throw this up there.

From MegaIndependent:

Posted by: Ace at 03:18 PM | Comments (279)
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

So, I've already stated on here that the best indicator of a real flip is if the out-of-power party flips at least one state they failed to at their last successful flip. Going deeper and further back (into the 1800s), the rule stands, because states change. Parties change. If there is a strong enough desire by the voters to flip the party of the White House is is made evident in states once thought safe or at least safer. It has been true every single time the parties have flipped, and will remain so.

So, the last time the Republicans won back the White House, Bush carried the states of Georgia and West Virginia- two states that went to Carter in 1980- and lost the following states:
Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. These states are considered part of the "Blue Wall" and are (for the most part) considered to be President Obama's base states.

How did these states break for Obama, and how are they polling now?

Washington
2008: Obama 57-40
2012: Obama 51-40 (Strategies360)
Oregon
2008: Obama 57-40
2012: Obama 47-43 (SUSA)
California
2008: Obama 61-37
2012: Obama 48-32 (FIELD)
Hawaii
2008: Obama 72-27
2012: Obama 57-32 (PPP)
New Mexico
2008: Obama 57-42
2012: Obama 54-40 (PPP)
Minnesota
2008: Obama 54-44
2012: Obama 54-39 (PPP)
Iowa
2008: Obama 54-44
2012: Romney 47-46 (Rasmussen) (flip)
lllinois
2008: Obama 62-37
2012: Obama 56-35 (MarketShares)
Michigan
2008: Obama 57-41
2012: Romney 46-45 (EPICMRA) (flip)
Wisconsin
2008: Obama 56-42
2012: Obama 48-43 (WAA)
Pennsylvania
2008: Obama 54-44
2012: Obama 46-40 (Quinnipiac)
Maryland
2008: Obama 62-36
2012: Obama 58-35 (PPP)
Delaware
2008: Obama 62-36
2012: unavailable as nobody has bothered to poll. I wouldn't either.
New Jersey
2008: Obama 57-42
2012: Obama 49-39 (Quinnipiac)
New York
2008: Obama 63-36
2012: Obama 56-31 (Quinnipiac)
Connecticut
2008: Obama 61-38
2012: Obama 50-38 (Quinnipiac)
Rhode Island
2008: Obama 63-35
2012: Obama 54-37 (PPP)
Massachusetts
2008: Obama 62-36
2012: Obama 59-34 (Suffolk)
Maine
2008: Obama 58-40
2012: Obama 50-42 (CriticalInsights)
Vermont
2008: Obama 67-30
2012: Obama 58-33 (Castleton)

So far we see two states that have shown favor to Romney. In the remaining states everyone expects Obama to win, his leads have shrunk, in some cases rather dramatically.

In the past month we have seen no nonpartisan polling firms release data showing Obama up in a single McCain state. This is on top of Romney's improving numbers in Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina. The only state he has done markedly worse in is New Hampshire. To say that the electoral map is beginning to fall out of Obama's favor is an understatement.

We saw a similar phenomenon in the "Bush41" states in early/mid 2008 polling. States that went to elder Bush despite Clinton winning in 1992- North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina- suddenly polled a helluva lot closer. Indiana, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina flipped entirely.

While everybody keeps watching the same tired list of purple states, the ones that general consensus assumes are behind the President but are now flirting with the opposition (or polling in the opposition's favor entirely) are the ones we should be focused on. They are the leading indicator, and if they go, the purple states needed to win are already ours.

Posted by: CAC at 01:27 PM | Comments (229)
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.