BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[bleeding heart]

Thanks, Michael!

Incidentally, I'm slightly surprised that an out-of-context "it is not because we care about children" (to explain that this, among other things, does not explain the organization's effectiveness) can be read as "we don't care about children."

[Bryan]

Bryan said " he very clearly stated that children are not what they care about, that they do not have a vision for public education, and that advancing the interests of the teachers are what they are concerned about."

So, Bryan, you can read the full quote and see he didn't say that at all.

For the love of god, it's EXACTLY what he DID say, you even quoted it.

[Michael Hardner]

For the love of god, it's EXACTLY what he DID say, you even quoted it.

No. If I say "It's not because I love my wife that I go to work each day...", I'm not saying i do not love my wife. He was saying they are effective for other reasons than those.

[Bryan]

He was detailing that they have other priorities, that the power of the union takes precedence over the students or their education.

[Michael Hardner]

He was detailing that they have other priorities, that the power of the union takes precedence over the students or their education.

My example of the english usage explains it, can you comment on that example first and explain how the meaning of the union leader's quote says that ?

[Bryan]

"I bought a Slurpee, not because I love 7-11, not because Slurpees are the best, not because of the staff, and not because of the decor -- but rather I bought that Slurpee because I was thirsty, and it was nearby."

What were the factors that I felt were important in my decision to buy a Slurpee? What were the factors that I did not feel were important in my decision to buy a Slurpee?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. He doesn't say he does not love 7/11 - and also he is talking about why he bought a Slurpee.

The spokesman also doesn't say they don't care about children, and is talking about why they are effective.

[Bryan]

Effective at union activism, without concern for the children or their education.

[Michael Hardner]

No, he doesn't say that. It's just not a correct meaning to derive.

Let me put it this way - why would he admit something like that, even if it were true? It's ridiculous that he would say such a thing.

[cybercoma]

The quote:

Pct has said "He says exactly what I quoted and you cannot even argue that it is contextually skewed."

Then quoted this:

"Then there was Bob Chanin, who was the outgoing General Counsel of the National Education Association who stated in reference to what the ideology of the NEA was: "it is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. It is because we believe that we are the union that can most effectively represent teachers and can protect their rights and advance their interests as employees." Look up the video of this speech and you will see the room erupt in a standing ovation when he states this."

Completely false. In no way is the quote stated 'in reference to what the ideology of the NEA was'. He specifically refers to why it's effective. The rest of the quote was also chopped up to make it sound evil.

Bryan said " he very clearly stated that children are not what they care about, that they do not have a vision for public education, and that advancing the interests of the teachers are what they are concerned about."

So, Bryan, you can read the full quote and see he didn't say that at all.

Let's see if Bryan and Pct thank me for my 15 minutes' work transcribing this by saying "Oh, I didn't realize that quote was out of context. I'll continue to make my arguments against government waste without misquoting this man. Thankis, Michael"

Thanks for posting this. It's pretty clear that he's saying that they do care about children, but that's not why they're such effective advocates. They're effective advocates for other reasons.

[cybercoma]

Bryan I have to wonder if you're simply pretending to misunderstand this. I don't see how someone could not get what's being said here. He's explicitly saying that they care about children and have a clear vision, but that's not what makes them effective advocates. Not that they don't care about children and don't have a vision for the future. How do you even come to that conclusion?

[Bryan]

How do you even come to that conclusion?

Because it's what he actually said. The best case you could spin it would be that he meant that the union comes first, and children and their education are not their primary concern. In that case, you could perhaps say that there is concern for the children, they just don't come first.

[cybercoma]

Is English not your first language? Serious question. Then I could understand how you are so fundamentally misunderstanding the language here.

[Michael Hardner]

Or perhaps this is just stubbornness.

[Bryan]

Is English not your first language? Serious question. Then I could understand how you are so fundamentally misunderstanding the language here.

In the last couple of days, I've been wondering the same thing about you.

In either case, you're just being an ass, disagreeing with me for sport. My understanding of the speech is an accurate representation of what he actually said. Yours is apologetics for what you already believe he must have meant.

[cybercoma]

I honestly wasn't trying to be an ass. I seriously thought maybe English was your second language because I really don't see how you could interpret what was said the way that you're trying to. Since I guess it isn't, you didn't actually answer me, I'll just assume you're being stubborn, as Michael Hardner said, and move on.

[Pct2017]

Because it's what he actually said. The best case you could spin it would be that he meant that the union comes first, and children and their education are not their primary concern. In that case, you could perhaps say that there is concern for the children, they just don't come first.

I have played that video several times, and it will go so far to say that it is a speech that you can interpret however you want to, depending on your personal views. Yes, I can watch it and see what Michael et al are saying, but I can also watch it with a less forgiving view and come away satisfied that he did just say what I thought he just said. This is particularly so when you view the speech as containing two separate elements. First part is dedicated to why is the union disliked and then the second part is what is the union and what are it's guiding principles.

Michael, you asked why he would verbalize his views that the union is dedicated first and foremost to it's members rather than students. I believe you are missing two things. First, it is his retirement speech. There will be no repercussions for whatever he says. And second, he just seems like a cranky old fart who is going to say his mind.

One way or the other, it was a speech that should have never survived scrutiny before being delivered if his intent was not to say what I hear him saying. In other words, why give those of us who believe that teacher unions are the scourge of the earth such easy pickings.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course there would be reprecussions. If not for him, then for the cause he dedicated his life to. He's not crazy - he's a consummate politican if he won an election of millions of people. His intent was not to say that - his intent was to explain why he was effective. Do you really think they don't care about those things at all ?

[Bryan]

I honestly wasn't trying to be an ass. I seriously thought maybe English was your second language because I really don't see how you could interpret what was said the way that you're trying to. Since I guess it isn't, you didn't actually answer me, I'll just assume you're being stubborn, as Michael Hardner said, and move on.

When I see people putting forth preposterous feats of illogic, yeah, I can be stubborn in my determination to correct it.

[cybercoma]

Bryan, you're so far off the mark here that it's not even worth responding to this anymore, language literally has no meaning to you. If you refuse to accept plain English, then there's no discussion to be had.

[Bryan]

you're so far off the mark here that it's not even worth responding to this anymore, language literally has no meaning to you. If you refuse to accept plain English, then there's no discussion to be had.

Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

Words have actual dictionary meanings you know. Language has a codified structure. If someone makes a statement that actually says a specific thing, then that IS what it says, even if you don't like it. I get it that you don't think that's what he MEANT, but don't bullshit me and try to claim you don't see that is what he absolutely actually DID say.

And you're calling ME stubborn? Give your head a shake.

[Michael Hardner]

no discussion to be had.

Check.

[Wayward Son]

Many years ago I was sucked into the lies spread by the anti-vaccination crowd. At one point a clip surfaced with an interview of Maurice Hilleman (a man who developed most of our current vaccines, and who had worked tirelessly to make vaccines much safer. He is widely considered to have saved more lives than any other medical researcher in the 20th century). Because of the countless lives he had saved, he was hated and hounded throughout his adult lives by nutcases who spread all manner of crazy lies about him.

But anyways at the time due to poor critical thinking skills and a lack of skepticism, I had been suckered by their lies. Then I saw the clip:

After a couple minutes of Maurice Hilleman talking, Hilleman said: "So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.:

Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won’t do to develop a vaccine! (laughter).

Yes, Hilleman said that. Those were his words, and anti-vaxers, who believe every single other thing Hilleman has ever said was a lie, believe that one single line to be 100% true. They don't believe that it was possibly a joke, the kind of dark humor that might develop in someone who had for decades been harassed by lunatics making those types of claims about him. Possibly because the change in his tone of voice indicated it was a joke? Possibly because the people who were interviewing him seemed to understand that it was joke....as they had already asked him questions of those types of crazy claims that he was constantly harassed by? Nope. Those words were all that mattered....because the ideology of those hearing those words would only allow them to mean what they wanted them to mean. I realized at that time that these people were clearly insane.

I watched the union head video, the intent and meaning of those statements are so clear that only those who refuse to check their ideology could come with a nefarious meaning.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Wayward Son

[socialist]

I have played that video several times, and it will go so far to say that it is a speech that you can interpret however you want to, depending on your personal views. Yes, I can watch it and see what Michael et al are saying, but I can also watch it with a less forgiving view and come away satisfied that he did just say what I thought he just said. This is particularly so when you view the speech as containing two separate elements. First part is dedicated to why is the union disliked and then the second part is what is the union and what are it's guiding principles.

Michael, you asked why he would verbalize his views that the union is dedicated first and foremost to it's members rather than students. I believe you are missing two things. First, it is his retirement speech. There will be no repercussions for whatever he says. And second, he just seems like a cranky old fart who is going to say his mind.

One way or the other, it was a speech that should have never survived scrutiny before being delivered if his intent was not to say what I hear him saying. In other words, why give those of us who believe that teacher unions are the scourge of the earth such easy pickings.

Problems are brewing in Alberta too.

http://www.joebower.org/2014/05/9-ways-jeff-johnson-and-his-task-force.html

[overthere]

Problems are brewing in Alberta too.

Actually, solutions are brewing in Alberta.

Here is a little more balanced account than the teachers blog from socialist:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Panel+calls+reviews+Alberta+teachers+competence/9807834/story.html

Of course, the teachers union is in a complete flap about it all.

A couple of the proposals - coming from a panel that had a cross section of stakeholders who held a six month consultative process:

having teachers performance reviewed every five years. A key part of this is that the reviews would be done by somebody outside the same bargaining unit. At present, half assed joke annual reviews are supposedly done by principals, who are part of the same union as the teachers. The panel proposes that the principals be removed from the bargaining unit and be tasked with ther reviews. The union(Alberta Teachers Association) is alarmed by this for a couple of reasons. It makes teachers and principals accountable. And it takes dues away from them as prinicpals would have to form their own bargaining unit.

Another point of dispute is the involvement of the union in competence reviews. At present the union - no, this is not an Orwell short story outline- is both prosecutor and defence when a member is accused of professional incompetence. The result is predictable.