Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) You're characterizing all unions as large, corrupt bureaucracies that don't advocate for the employees. That is dishonest. "I'm not talking about the 10-15 man local union, but that's hardly the majority in this country." Ok, so that's the argument. I'm saying the at-will isn't any worse, so we can do without the tenure system. Your point is that teachers were smart enough to unionize so don't fault them for having that protection. I get it. But it's still not a good justification for having the tenure system given the negatives associated with it. Ask all those unionized GM workers how well it worked out for them. Unions don't protect s*** right now when businesses are going bankrupt. You're at the mercy of your employer regardless of whether you're in a union or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) At a minimum, to be a HS teacher in IL, you need a bachelor's in your field (english, math, bio, etc.) plus another 18 or so credit hours in education plus a semester of observations and a semester of student teaching. If you want to teach middle school, that's another two or three classes. Teachers also have continuing education requirements, but that's also found in other fields. Which most programs in most colleges is equal to a 4 year degree. All of my teacher friends went through the same amount of undergrad I did, and all became teachers right after school. It's not anymore work.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) That sentence didn't end where you highlighted: "with the expectation of larger salary growth than is possible in most public school systems." Please show much evidence that said friends can "expect" a higher salary that isn't similiar to that of a teacher. There's no guarantees of that. Not all lawyers make a ton of money. Hell, add the pension in and I bet teachers do pretty damn well over their lifetime.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) Then your sweeping generalizations are dishonest and not ignorant. How is it dishonest? Because my opinions are based on my personal experiences? Am I lying about it? I don't fault them for anything. I'm saying Ithat I find the whole tenure situation a joke, and the argument that they need special protection is not a good one. Again, how does this differ from any other employment situation? You have a minority of companies doing that, because an employer that does nothing but screw its employees all the time eventually won't have any employees and will be out of business.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) I have 3 friends that are teachers, none of them have more than a bachelors. I don't think that's a requirement unless you want to go higher than a grade/high school teacher. But your salary always goes up with your degree. And a teacher's salary never increases?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 12:53 PM) I studied labor law, have been exposed to unions and how they operate in a corporate setting as part of my litigation background, and have semi-personal experience of trying to get business in the city of Chicago that is over run with unions to the point where the market is practically closed. So, no, I do have a little bit of knowledge about how they work. Union chapters still have national union associates which give them directives. I'm not talking about the 10-15 man local union, but that's hardly the majority in this country. And I wasn't b****ing about any lack of security, i'm b****ing that you guys think teachers are some how different than the rest of us, who are at-will employees and can be fired at any time. What keeps my job is my own initiative and productivity. Not a contract and union dues. WERE needed. They just aren't anymore. There might be some labor abuses, but you now have things like workers comp or the NLRB and the court system. Unions get in the way of doing business, both for the employees and employers. Why limit it to "some cases?" What's so special about teachers or welders or steel workers or whatever that makes them in need of more protection than your average accountant or other white collar employee?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) 30-50k for a Bachelor's + additional coursework and regular 50-60 hour weeks isn't all that much, even if they receive a lot of time off. Most teachers get paid that for 10 months worth of work, so factor that in. Plus, 30-50k isn't horrible. I bet 35-40 is average for a college grad. I have friends with 150-200k worth of student loans from undergrad and law school that started at 35-40k.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 12:00 PM) Fight to unionize, then. So that I can pay a corrupt bueraucracy whose interests lie with its leaders and not me? No thanks. Unions were needed when there were no labor laws in this country. Now there are, so unions aren't needed. IMO they do more harm than good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) They're paid a lot less than they would be in any other industry given the training and time requirements. Please.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 05:57 PM) Id actually have to look at the Federal Code and the statute that he was accused of breaking, but from what I can remember merely talking about committing a crime is not enough, you actually have to do something. IE I call up some one and say "Lets rob a bank" Thats not conspiracy until I call some one up and say "Lets rob a bank" and then I start creating plans, or then I start casing banks, etc. There mere thought of breaking the law, is generally not conspiracy. Unless the statute has some specific exception that merely discussing breaking the law is conspiracy. Everything I'm reading says no overt act is needed. If you and I agree to rob a bank, we've met the requirement of intent, and we're guilty of conspiracy. Thinking about it isn't enough, but if you call me up and we discuss it, it probably is. It seems the lone juror wanted a smoking gun - i.e., she wanted him on tape saying "we need to get X amount of money before we sell this seat." The way I read the law, and the quotes that I heard, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that Blago and his crew conspired to sell the seat for campaign contributions and/or an appointment to a federal position. The RICO stuff I can see as being less likely, simply because this wasn't some complex criminal scheme. He's just a dirty politician that was stupid enough to talk about this stuff openly despite being aware of the FBI's investigation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) Teachers fought hard for these tenure rights for a reason. Throughout the 60's and 70's, the main reasons given for why teachers were fired were "immorality" and "gross immorality" in one unnamed state. Prior to the NEA forcing a strong tenure system on school districts, teachers were regularly fired because, basically, they were unliked. They had the gall to teach evolution, or to be non-white and non-christian, etc. Now maybe I'd be convinced that anti-discrimination laws have filled that hole...but you're flat out not going to convince me that without the tenure system we wouldn't be firing teachers in many places because of pissed off, rich parents. I'm not going to say it doesn't cause harm in other ways...it clearly winds up protecting teachers who should be removed...but these collectively bargained rules didn't just appear out of no where. They appeared because the alternative was a worse mess. What makes them different than any other employee out there? I can get fired simply because my boss doesn't like me. Where's my union? Where's my guaranteed job? The tenure system is a bunch of bulls***.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 04:22 PM) And prosecutors dont like to take risks. So they make sure that they have far more evidence than necessary in almost every trial. Unlike Blago, if a real criminal get off on a bad case, there are real consequences, they go back on the street and keep committing crimes. I dont know the numbers, but I assure you in large trafficking cases they have wiretaps and the works. They just dont take risks like this on a normal basis. Which is why it strikes me as odd that they took a "short cut" on an extremely high profile case. Now you're just talking to talk. None of this is even remotely true. Prosecutors DO take risks, all the time. They don't ALWAYS make sure that they have more evidence than is necessary. In fact, they'll do cases purely on circumstantial evidence if they have to. I worked at a States Attorneys office for a year and my two partners now started as States Attorneys and everything I've seen/heard leads me to believe the majority of the time if there's even a hint of guilt they'll take the case. Most drug deals they don't waste the time/money/man power on wiretaps. Big big big big big dealers, sure, but not 95% of whats going on out there. So no, they wait for deals because there are stiffer penalties with a deal over a conspiracy so the scumbags are off the street for a longer amount of time. Check out The Wire for that entire issue. What shortcut did they take here? Any potential for them to catch him in the act was about to be ruined by the Tribune. If they waited, there was a potential that Blago and his team could get together and basically make s*** up to make it sound like everything they had been doing was a big joke. When they nabbed him they had tapes up to the point that they got him, without him knowing anything about it. Ideally yeah, it would have been great to catch him in the act, but it just didn't work out that way. As far as the fox news source, they were right as you can tell by the end, when they called her and she refused to comment until she was ready. So, the source was right about her being the juror, and may or may not be right about her making up her mind in early july. And SS, no, any reasonable person would have convicted him for conspiracy, at the least. There are HOURS of tapes those jurors heard of Blago talking with his brother or other people on his staff about the best way to use that senate seat. He was talking about it, he was planning it, he just couldn't find any buyers. He absolutely conspired to recieve something for that seat. She's a former director of a public service office. I'd be willing to bet a lot that she was/is a Blago supporter.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 03:48 PM) Its just monumentally harder to prove. Its a crime to intend to sell drugs. But you wait until the transaction takes place, because otherwise its very very difficult to prove. It is in drug cases, because often times you don't have the money to use wiretaps. Here, it was pretty easy if not for the one juror. Speaking of: "Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health. She was juror 106, college educated, is active in the Urban League and other politics, and listens to NPR." Somehow that description doesn't surprise me. And reportedly she's been saying since July she'd find him not guilty. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro...-trial-20100818

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) Which goes against our entire criminal system. You dont single out an individual defendant to send a message. You treat everyone equally under the law. I dont believe in sending messages, they dont work. The only message that is being sent to politicians right now is: 1) Dont be as stupid as Blago. 2) If youre going to be as stupid as Blago, make sure you play ball with the more powerful politicians. In my opinion this is all about Blago not playing the game with the Madigan's, Mell's, Daley's and Obama's of the world. If you want to send a message, take down a big fish, not a small one. But the multiple counts wont really matter. In all reality he will most likely serve "concurrent" terms, which means that if he gets convicted for 70 counts at 5 years, or 1 count at 5 years, it is still the same time served. As for the country blowing over the crap, its the reality of politics. People enter politics for private gain. They become senators, governors, presidents, for their own gain. We dont have some philosopher king system where the politicians are altruistic and want to help people. As much as that would be great, it is a fantasy world. When it comes to politicians (imo) its just a matter of which one is the worst or the biggest criminal, because I believe almost all of them push the envelope a little. Anyway, I just dont see the need of the govt wasting money on this stuff. It wont change politicians, hell even though governors of Illinois have been convicted, Blago was still "brazen" about it. (1) The counts carry different prison terms and fines, including things like the possibility of parol. So it's not the 1 to 1 ratio you're going with there. (2) Blasphemy! Obama cares about us and wants to help us.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 01:20 PM) I dont think I ever said that. Merely stated that they feds have a conviction that could carry up to 5 year prison term. What more do they want? 20 year term? 50 year term? The guy is in ruins, he wont ever have the opportunity to commit a similar crime again. He poses no real risk to society. I guess Im not into punishment for the sake of punishment. They convicted Blago, why do they need another show? I would prefer that they moved on to bigger and better things. He should get a prison term for each count he gets convicted on. Maybe if this state/country/society didn't just blow over this crap, and hand out meaningful penalties (i.e., you do corrupt things in public office, you're going to jail for a long, long time), these people would feel it's not worth the risk of getting caught and they'd stop using their public office for private gain. How sick is it that the two senators accused of ethics violations are still being praised for their years of service? Yeah, years of service while lining their own pockets, and the pockets of their friends. It's ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) They'll pass an extension. Hell, if I was in the Senate I'd probably even vote for it...it's the only way I can do anything to apply an inflationary pressure through fiscal policy right now. It'd be 20% as effective as NSS's jobs program...but that's better than nothing. So, you'd agree the Bush tax cuts were a good thing?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 09:10 AM) When did you become a Keynesian? I don't think that's Keynesian. I'm saying for those people that don't work but get paid, make them work a little. I'm not advocating that the government hire 10 million new workers to build dams, bridges, etc.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) You realize you're arguing for a large government jobs program, yes? If providing unemployment benefits, with the requirement of having to work for it, is a large government jobs program, then sure.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 08:52 AM) But I thought you wanted them to find all those plentiful real jobs? There's an old saying...finding a full time job is a full time job. You're not finding a full time job if you're spending 30 hours a week doing service for the government. Perhaps we could come to an agreement that there should be some sort of government jobs program, where the government was actively hiring people to complete tasks like rebuilding infrastructure, revamping the national parks, updating the electric grid, building some HSR, etc. I'd be totally game for that. It's an old saying for a reason, it's old and out dated. It is not a full time job anymore. After law school I was unemployed for a year and a half. I worked part time as a clerk and still actively sought full time employment. It takes a couple hours a day, not 8-9. And that's what I mean. Put them to work, even if it's on a part time basis. Actually get something out of the billions the gov't is spending for people to sit at home. s***, even requiring peopel to work at community centers or clean up the street or whatever. Do SOMETHING.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) You hear that unemployed people? Stop being so lazy. It's your own damn fault you can't find a job. No, not saying that. But for people that have been on unemployment for an extended period of time, say a year, I think they should be required to do some public work to get that money.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) What its time for is a measure that doesn't provide just a temporary and artificial bump. Its time to do something that will help energize private sector jobs that will actually result in growth. No, we should just extend unemployment benefits. Screw spending money to create jobs, lets just pay people not to work. Trust me, eventually they'll WANT to go back to work, even if they are being paid to sit at home.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:36 PM) They wont settle at this point, not because Blago wouldnt, but because Fitzgerald is looking bad right now. Its becoming vindictive. You got the guy, hes in financial ruins, he could go to jail for a few months or years. I think thats enough, lets save some tax payer money and move on with our lives. Or convict the guy for being a corrupt ass politician. More insight from the jury. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08...evich-jury.html I think if I were Blago I wouldn't feel very good about my chances.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2010 -> 08:28 AM) Highest since November. Go Stimulus!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) I dont think this is true at all. In fact I think its the opposite. I hate that in this country whenever you don't support the "white mans agenda" you're instantly deemed an Anti-American communist terrorist. A little tongue in cheek but you can make the argument either way, depending on what side of the fence you sit. On a mainstream level it's not even close to equal.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) So would putting a shopping mall in the same place. Where's the outrage there? Yep, just ignore the reality of the situation to fit your argument. It's only because they're Muslim. Context means nothing. Republicans just hate brown people, period. There, you won.