The Unions Are Failing Our Kids

I'm not much of a union fan.  They have a mindset I find offensive.  They don't seem to be willing to admit they are far better off than the average private sector  employee.  They have better salaries and certainly better benefits yet they are continually asking for more as if it were an entitlement. It also seems not to occur to them this is the reason so many people are anti-union.  Their tactics don't help either.

On an adult level a battle can be waged but when kids are used as pawns it's criminal.  After all, kids are the most valuable commodity this country has and it behooves all of us, including the unions, to see they receive the best education possible.

When I read about union efforts aimed at protecting the teacher rather than educating the child I wonder if it isn't time to eliminate them and let school districts and teachers fight over pay and benefits between themselves.  Especially when the unions, as in  New York ,  are using their position to protect sexual predators.  It is beyond defending especially in this age of Jerry Sandusky and/or the Catholic church with their recent problems.

Then too there is union opposition to charter schools.  In  Louisiana they are using their stereotypical bullying to prevent private and parochial schools from accepting students with vouchers.

Their excuse that it's unconstitutional rings hollow.  It will play out in the courts but until then the threats should not be going out stating they will use 'whatever means necessary' to prevent voucher students from attending those schools and additionally threatening them with litigation.

Let's face it, if the schools, the teachers, were doing their jobs there would be no need for charter schools or vouchers.  Even here in little Coeur d'Alene we have an excellent charter academy that's ranked number one in the state and it has a waiting list. This is indicative of parents wanting the best for their children.  Where one happens to live has nothing to do with that fact.

Unions have been around for a long time but have they outlived their usefulness?  Using teachers unions as an example perhaps so.  When it comes to protecting the teachers, good, bad and indifferent rather than working toward improving the educational system as a whole I see no point in having them what's more supporting them.

In the New York cases there is a lengthy process before a final arbitrator is chosen by both the school district and the union. An outrageous paycheck of $1400 a day certainly buys a lot of loyalty to the union representing the offending teacher resulting more often than not with a slap on the wrist when dismissal might be far more appropriate.  Such actions are an insult to not only the students and their parents, but also to every good teacher that exists.  I'd like to think they are in the majority but I'll have to see a great deal of improvement in our kids as they come out of school  to be convinced. The unions could help deliver that improvement but I've yet to see a desire to do so.

Elizabeth Warren - High Cheekbones Do Not An Indian Make

Elizabeth Warren is the perfect example of why 'book learnin' should be trumped by common sense.  Of course I'm referring to her claim of being 1/32 Cherokee because her grandfather had high cheekbones.

Does she have any idea how many other nationalities also have high cheekbones?  Most notably Orientals along with Eastern Europeans and Egyptians.  Okay, she grew up in Oklahoma where the Cherokee flourished.  This makes me wonder where the emphasis was in a relative's comment regarding her grandfather.  "He had high cheekbones like all the Indians do," or "He had high cheekbones like all the Indians do."  There are two completely different meanings.

All the nonsense aside, the question as to whether or not she should be teaching at Harvard does make me wonder.  Women have been defending her all day for what a brillient scholar and lawyer she is and that she absolutely earned her place.  If so why did she use her 1/32 degree of minority ethnicity as a tool?  Could she not have achieved the same without it? Was she so insecure with her own being she felt the need to put this forward?  According to her, not at all.  Me?  I think she just keeps digging a deeper hole.

Her reason that she used it in order to meet people like herself, with similar tribal roots, is laughable.  I don't imagine she found too many Cherokees, or native Americans for that matter, in Boston by doing so.

Actually, I've met quite a few native Americans and have gotten to know many quite well. I don't have a drop of Indian blood in my veins.  It's because Hub and I are interested in their culture, have made a study of it and collect their art.  Everything developed quite naturally.  They are not a mystery people lurking in the shadows waiting to be discovered and recognized.

I will suppose Harvard hired her for her abilities.  I will also suppose it would be a good thing if the quest for 'diversity' be retired and academic excellence be rewarded, no matter what sex,  sexual preference, religion, or ethnicity one may be.

The more a person uses dubious crutches to achieve, the more I question their achievements.