When did teachers become the enemy?

Bloated New Jersey Governor Chris Christie picks out a bear claw at the donut shop....

Chris Christie, the new darling of the right, has made a name for himself by being "fiscally responsible".  He's "tough" and he "walks the walk". He says the government must exercise self control and make the tough choices (I always find this ironic; a big fat guy with absolutely no self control over his eating habits goes around telling everyone how to control themselves. Kind of like Bill Bennett, author of The Book Of Virtue. Remember him? Turns out that guy couldn't stop gambling for five minutes....ah, the Republicans....).
Anyway, the Governor recently appeared on 60 Minutes and claimed that if the public employees' unions didn't work with him on modifying their pension plans, they wouldn't have pension plans in ten years.  Now, what did that mean? Did it mean that new employees wouldn't receive pensions as part of their compensation package, or did it mean that the state would default on their pension obligations? And if it did mean the state would default, what does he think will happen to the retired workers who are counting on those pensions? Those pensions are contractual obligations that the state agreed to. The workers spent their careers working in good faith, assuming the state would be fulfilling their obligations when the time came. By the way, the state of New Jersey has failed to fund the pension fund for eleven of the past thirteen years.  Is that the fault of public employees?  Is it the fault of public employees that the state has mismanaged its finances? Is it the fault of public employees that the state has agreed to these pension packages as part of the salary compensation workers receive for their service?
So, let me get this straight: even though we all know that being an employee in the public sector will not make you rich, right-wingers like Chris Christie want to reduce or eliminate pensions, thereby reducing the compensation package for public employees.  Even though we know that teachers do not go into the teaching profession for the money (few people would ever argue that teachers are overpaid), guys like Christie want to effectively reduce teacher compensation by reducing or eliminating pensions!  Just ask yourself, what will be the quality of the teachers when you lower teacher compensation? Well, the truth is, the people making the cuts and the education "reformers" who are currently destroying public education don't care at all about quality. This is about MONEY.  Here is the ultimate goal of the reformers: eliminate pensions for teachers, create an impossible rating system so that teachers can be fired easily, and hire lawyers and CEO's to run the education system.  What will then happen is that most people who go into the field of education will only last a few years and then move on to another career, or you will get retirees from other professions entering the field of education after they finish their first career.  No one will teach for their entire career anymore.  Essentially, it will become a part-time job.  Of course, the level of quality of public education in America will then decline to that of a third world country. But at least the budget would be balanced.

Breaking News: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg appoints another non-educator to lead Department of Education and changes slogan from "Children First" to "Go Fuck Yourself".

A Mosque on Every Corner

There's lots of hubub about the proposed "Mosque at Ground Zero" (which is a misnomer - its near ground zero, not at gound zero, and it is a 15 story building with many facilities including a mosque). Opponents say it is "offensive" to the victims of 9/11 to build a mosque at this location. Really though, these people are opposed to any and all mosques, they just cant say it out loud. Protesters were seen holding signs "We won in Staten Island, we'll win here" (the building of a mosque in the South Beach section of Staten Island was stopped by frightened community members). They forget that in this country, the government doesn't dictate where we can and cannot build houses of worship. If they want to live in a country where the government does dictate that sort of thing, they should consider moving to one of the Islamist states in the middle east. But they probably wouldn't be comfortable there with all those Muslims....

As far as people being "offended", well that is the price of living in a free country. Our Constitution protects the things we don't like as well as the things we do like. Personally, I sometimes think they shouldn't allow any more Catholic churches to be built until the Church does something about all the kid-touchers in their midst. But I have a proposal that might make everyone happy. I propose that on every corner where there is a church, mosque or synagogue, the other two must be built on the opposite and adjacent corners. So at major intersections, you would have a church on one corner, a mosque on the second corner, and a synogogue on the third corner. But what about that vacant fourth corner of the intersection? That fourth corner would be reserved for the construction of a Library for those of us who would like to read, think and learn. At least one of the four corners wouldn't be completely full of shit...