Our education secretary, Roderick Paige, yesterday called the National Education Association (2.7 million member teacher union) a "terrorist organization."
He made the remark during a meeting of the National Governor's Association.
He later apologized, but said that the union was using "obstructionist scare tactics...against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms." He also said taht teh NEA's "high priced Washinton lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bring real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children."
Not that Mr. Paige is biased.
Recall, however, that the TX education reforms that Mr. Paige is famous for are coming under increasing scrutiny after it was discovered that the Houston-area school system routinely "cooked the books" to make it look like they had near-zero drop out rates.
Rock-solid!
Anyway, I think that if the Administration doesn't like lobbyists, they should get rid of ALL of them. Let's do a one-for-one elimination. Stop taking calls from the Banking lobby and the Teacher's lobby at the same time.
Stop taking the Energy company's and the Sierra Club's calls simultaneously.
And then, when all the lobbyists are gone from teh lobby, the administration and Congress could start concentrating on representing the people...not special interests.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with your premise, Bob.
Just remember that a lot of Lobbies are groups of concerned, like-minded people.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, that's true. How about we allow not-for-profit organizations to continue to have lobbyists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe Mr. Paige is currently being investigated for fraud. So we should clearly be interested in HIS opinions. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. The special interest straw man.
"special interest" = "people I don't agree with banding together politically"
Otherwise it's a group of "concernced citizens," right?
Different people have different interests. This is a representative government. How exactly do we remove "interests" from it?
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dagonee...I don't know, but I don't think that the claim that special interests have too much influence in Washington is such a "straw man."
Basically, I've seen bills drafted by lobbying groups become law. If that can happen, it either means that these folks are the best (most expert) sources for legislation, or that they have the political muscle to get their bills passed.
I think that in the case of the pending bankruptcy legislation, for example, there are key provisions that have been entirely left out which would've offered some protection for consumers, capped rates as a quid-pro-quo for helping the credit card companies avoid what they say are huge losses now and that have driven interest rates up...
How does stuff like that happen if not through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts?
It sure isn't grassroots America rising up to tell Congress that Visa and MasterCard deserve relief...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yet you wish to allow lobbyists for non-profits? Why the difference?
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, maybe only certain types of non-profits.
Basically, I'd like to stop industry and unions from lobbying because their deep pockets make it so they get special access to our legislators. And I think it is too much.
The average non-profit isn't in a position to buy votes in the legislature. They don't have the cash.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Back on the Education and "terrorist" issue:
My first thought--our Axiom is changing.
Godwin's law states "Any debate that is argued long enough on the net will result in one side or the other being compared to Nazi's."
That has changed. Now replace Nazi with Terrorist.
My second thought--thank God we are complaining about this.
1) At present, if you are considered a Terrorist, you can be labeled an "enemy combatant" or some such.
2) People labeled as such, regardless of citizenship, can be arrested and carted off to military holding cells without the benefit of legal counsel, a phone call to anyone, or the government even mentioning to anyone that they have taken you.
Now we have a representative of the government labeling political enemies as "Terrorists." What is next? Could we have the military throwing "terrorist" liberal lobbyists into nameless jail cells?
Not likely.
Not in this country.
Not today.
My fear is, tomorrow.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Has anyone else noticed that Dan_Raven hasn't posted since about 5:00 pm EST?
I think he might have been picked up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hush! He's on a secret mission right now and can't be bothered.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Cool. Could he bring me back some ice cream?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He has to crawl under miles of barbed wire, dodge enemy patrols, scale walls, swim moats, and snake his way through the ventilation system and you want icecream?
Rocky road or chocolate chip?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Godiva...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Godiva - proof of your bourgeois class-imperialist mentality.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks for noticing. Grab a spoon.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Paige was right when he said that the NEA was using obstructionist scare tactics. They are. But, let’s remember what the NEA is. 2.7 million EDUCATORS. Their profession is education. Their training is in education. Their expertise and experience is in education. If 2.7 million of the people who know the most about education are determined enough to stop these “real, rock solid improvements” to our educational system, that they will resort to obstructionist scare tactics, shouldn’t we listen to them? I don’t think the problem is with special interest lobbyists. I think the problem is with…okay, what I really want to say is that the problem is with special interest lobbyists that don’t agree with me, but I know that’s not really true to the spirit of high minded debate we hold so dear on Hatrack. I think ultimately, the problem is that money is allowed to talk too much in Washington. The only viable solutions to this problem can be found in my new book which only costs $199.95, or $99.95 after a $50 donation to your choice of ; the NEA, the NAACP, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or the ACLU. Also, for the next ten minutes only, get an additional $10 rebate for writing a dirty letter to the NRA.
P.S. I remember when I was allowed to have ice cream.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I remember when I was allowed to have ice cream.
Ah, the good old days...When labor unions and the government would settle their differences over a nice game of crowbars and revolvers...
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Uhhh bob, want their already a thread about this?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Rhaegar, -- check the time of the first post -- Bob's was first.
FG
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I was let go.
They deemed me incapable of being a mental terrorists due to lack of weaponry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)