Boortz: Teachers unions "do more damage to this country than all the drug pushers together"
SUMMARY: Neal Boortz asserted that "the single most dangerous entity, group of people in this country right now are the teachers unions," adding that "[t]hey do more damage to this country than all the drug pushers together. ... If I had a button right now, two buttons -- push this button and it gets rid of all the drug dealers; push this button, it gets rid of the teachers unions -- I'm getting rid of the teachers unions."
During the April 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing the issue of public education with a caller, Neal Boortz stated: "I think the most dangerous -- the single most dangerous entity, group of people in this country right now are the teachers unions." He continued: "I think teachers unions do more damage to this country than the Los Angeles Lakers. They do more damage to this country than all the drug pushers together. ... If I had a button right now, two buttons -- push this button and it gets rid of all the drug dealers; push this button, it gets rid of the teachers unions -- I'm getting rid of the teachers unions."
During the discussion, when the caller suggested that Sen. Barack Obama would "put more money towards it [public education] and that's maybe what we need," Boortz responded, "[I]t's never worked in the past," adding, "Look at Washington: What do you think they spend, per child, in the Washington, D.C., school system?" He later answered his own question, saying, "About $25,000 per child." In fact, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, total per-pupil expenditures in the D.C. system for public elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2006 were $13,752. The U.S. Census Bureau listed that figure at $13,446 for "2005-06."
From the April 16 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
BOORTZ: Belinda, why do you have Sean blocked? I wanted to take that phone call.
BELINDA SKELTON (producer): Maybe he hung up.
BOORTZ: He's still on the screen.
SKELTON: Now he's not.
BOORTZ: OK. Hello, Katy, what's up?
CALLER: Hi. OK, so I've been a Barack Obama supporter --
BOORTZ: Will you come over here and swat Belinda for me?
CALLER: No problem, I'll be there soon.
BOORTZ: Yeah.
CALLER: As far as the primary is concerned, I've been a Barack Obama supporter strictly because I think that Hillary Clinton has no positive character to her whatsoever. Now --
BOORTZ: No positive character traits?
CALLER: Yes, like, and I'm defining character as what you do when no one is looking because it's the right thing.
BOORTZ: Woo-hoo! You know what? I don't even want to think about what Hillary Clinton does when nobody is looking.
CALLER: Oh, it'd be an ugly, ugly sight. Ooh, her with no make-up -- let me tell you!
BOORTZ: Oh! I'm eating lunch right now, Katy, thank you very much.
CALLER: Oh, I apologize for that bad image. My concern comes with Barack Obama, and that I -- like the last caller -- take serious issue with the way our public school system works. And thus far, Barack Obama is the only one who is speaking for some type of change, because if you put McCain back in there, he is presenting himself as just another Bush, and I don't think I'm prepared to go through eight more years of, you know --
BOORTZ: OK, what kind of changes, though? You know, 'cause I think the government schools are a principal agent of destruction for our country. So, what kind of change is Barack Obama proposing?
CALLER: Well, you know, you said before he's just going to put more money towards it and that's maybe what we need, because look at all of the schools that don't --
BOORTZ: It's never worked -- it's never worked in the past.
CALLER: I feel like a reallocation of funds is what's needed. And, you know, I don't necessarily agree with creating more government, because God knows our government is not top notch.
BOORTZ: Look at Washington: What do you think they spend, per child, in the Washington, D.C., school system?
CALLER: Ooh, ooh, that's -- that is a figure I don't think I can come up with.
BOORTZ: About $25,000 per child.
CALLER: Really?
BOORTZ: In the Atlanta area, it's about $14,000 per child, OK?
CALLER: And the --
BOORTZ: And the results are horrible.
CALLER: I agree. I completely agree. We don't --
BOORTZ: So, I just -- I just -- you know, I don't see how throwing any more money at this is going to help. The way you help is by making the teachers and the administrators accountable, and the way you do that is by getting rid of their unions, so that you can fire them.
CALLER: OK. I completely agree with that.
BOORTZ: Overnight.
CALLER: So, you're saying, as far as our country's going, unions are one of our biggest issues.
BOORTZ: Oh, I think the most dangerous -- the single most dangerous entity, group of people in this country right now are the teachers unions. I think teachers unions do more damage to this country than the Los Angeles Lakers. They do more damage to this country than all the drug pushers together.
CALLER: Yeah?
BOORTZ: If I had a button right now, two buttons -- push this button and it gets rid of all the drug dealers; push this button, it gets rid of the teachers unions -- I'm getting rid of the teachers unions.
CALLER: Yeah, I can agree with that. I think that -- you know, I grew up in a private school system my entire life, and I have always looked at the problem with public schools being the overcrowding, which no one can really help, and the fact that the teachers aren't held accountable. So, it's interesting to hear that that's because of the unions, 'cause I don't think I've ever really thought of that.
BOORTZ: OK, by the way, Katy, one thing here.
CALLER: Hmm-mm.
BOORTZ: Here's something else: You haven't done anything your entire life. It's like when you ask somebody, "How long have you lived here?" "My whole life." Not yet you haven't.
CALLER: That's true. Well, my life thus far.
BOORTZ: OK, that's good. See, I'm just screwing around with you, I'm sorry.
CALLER: I enjoyed it.
BOORTZ: OK. Well, I did, too.
CALLER: Have a wonderful day.
BOORTZ: You too, Katy.
CALLER: Bye.
BOORTZ: OK, bye-bye.
Well, maybe not all the drug pushers "put together"......ok, maybe half.
;)
Please justify how disbelievers in union theology is worse than murders and rapists.
I believe that the main reason that so many conservatives are so relentless in their attacks on public schools in general and the teacher's unions in particular is that the teacher's unions have traditionally supported the Democratic Party.
It's the same reason that Republicnas have been behind all the so-called "right-to-work" laws - it's a ploy to diminish the power of unions that have traditionally been pro-Democrat when it comes to politics.
The hierarchical conservative mind sees labor as a commodity which has a cost that must be minimized. They don't see workers as moms and dads with kids and old folks to care for. Laborers are simply the bottom wrung on their ladder to the top and as such working folks are unrincipled because they haven't climbed that ladder and don't deserve to organize for protection.
I'm sorry but you couldn't be farther from the truth. Though I'm not Repub I do lean conservative. I worked at Grumman on Long Island during the 80's in a management capacity. We had thousands of blue collar laborers building aircraft and defense systems. We were a non-union shop - and in the greater New York area that was rare. We constantly had groups trying to unionize our workforce but out employees were not interested. We gave our employees good benefits, good wages, and treated them like family. At one time we had as many as 25,000 employees. Our competition, Fairchild Republic in Farmingdale, was a union shop. Many of their workers would come to our shop when positions became available - which was rare as our average employee longevity was over 25 years.
The Fairchild guys would tell us that while their labor rate was slightly higher than ours they did took home more from our dhop and had better benefits. Therefore the largest cost in manufacturing, labor, was higher for Fairchild than it was for us. Our lower cost of labor allowed us to win more contracts and keep the employees busy. Fairchilds problem was that many of it's workers were protected and could not be laid off whan work stopped. This further increased their labor cost as they were forced to keep idle emplyees on the payroll. The disparity between our labor cossts continued to grow and we won substantially more business.
(continued - the close to my above post disapperaed))
So without respect for our manufacturing labor force there is no way we could have continued to operate efficiently and effectively. Their "protection" was the fact that they were non-union.
Your company didn't need unions, because as you said, they gave good benefits, paid good wages and treated employees like family. One of the reasons a union is in place is to support workers who need good benefits, good wages and good treatment. In your case, the union wasn't necessary.
During my college years (early 90's), I worked in a slaughter house in Kansas. It was one of the worst places a person could work. No union, low wages and no benefits. No union was allowed. There weren't any worker protections. Turnover, injury and illness were commonplace.
It's because of good Democrats and liberals that we as workers have the protections we have. Unions are a good start and they serve an higher purpose in maintaining the dignity and health of the common blue-collar worker. Some unions, mind you, are corrupt and, like government, the leaders should be replaced. Not all unions are good, but most are - and without unions, we might not have some of the job protections we enjoy today.
And don't try to argue that the union was a source of woe just because folks were less than happy with their job. Most of us don't really like the work we do but we persevere. And don't insinuate that the folks at your shop were thoroughly satisfied being there or pretend you didn't lose some folks to the union shop. It's just not realistic.
Anyway, you talk about laying people off during work stoppages. You call that treating people like family? I bet those laid off folks didn't experience a stoppage in mortgage or rent. Family indeed.
But could you point out where I erred in describing the overarching principles that inform the conservative worldview? You guys always take the profit first approach.
First of all - we did not employ "progressive" business practices - we employed sound business practices. Your contention that the majority of business do not care for their employees is rhetoric. Next time show me some numbers on how many care for their employees vs. those who do not. I can tell you that I have worked for six different employers throughout my carreer so far and in no case did I experience your contention. I was laid off once during an industry downturn and had to find contract work for a period before I found permanent employment again. I was optomistic and survived just fine. I am not alone - many others share in my experience.
At the forementioned company we had a good outplacement program for laid off employees. Laid off employees were also the first ones called back when business picked up again. Our employees as a group had the opportunity to organize - they chose not to. Not everyone in a group thinks alike so I will give you that there may have been some who left for union shops.
What do you see as the purpose of business? In a Capitalist system business exists to produce a product and make a profit. It provides an opportunity for people to make a living, not a guarantee. As an employee even, if I do the best job I can, I have to be prepared for the day when I have to look for another job because the business can no longer afford to keep me.
I've had a few jobs myself. I've been unionized and independent. My experiences in the non-unionized shipping companies is the stuff of an Upton Sinclair novel. No safety standards to speak of, no job security and violent intimidation of labor organizers. Only my current non-union job in a service sector company embraces progressive labor practices.
And you're misguided about the mission of business. It is the patriotic duty of business to serve the interests of the American people at large by being good sheppards of families and communities. It's that conservative obsession with profits instead of well being that makes the conservative position so indefensible.
Round - I'm assuming by your contention that by my misguided ideas about business you are implying business exists for the primary purpose of employing people. I would love to see some examples of successful business' that follow that model.
By providing employment opportunity to a community a business is indeed a steward of the local economy. Providing an employee base provides federal and local tax revenue as well as economic fuel for local business suppliers, sales tax revenue, foods & material goods stores etc. . A business that operates for the purpose of employing the community without regard to making a profit will soon be operating at a loss, and eventually be out of business. When that happens instead of laying off some of the workforce - nobody has a job. Tax revenue declines, cash flow in the area dries up, the smaller stores supporting the community are strapped, etc.
The only way for a business to survive as an employment centered provider is to have the ability tax the community to increase it's revenue when expenses exceed income. As only governments have the ability to tax, government would then have to own the business - which of course is Soci.... nevermind - we don't want to start that thread again.
Profits are fine. I'm talking about acknowledging that wealth is more than just the accumulation of profit. Wealth is well being. It's long past time to put to rest the obscene disparity between worker and CEO compensation. Take all those wasted expenditures in executive pay and invest it in profit sharing for all employees.
And businesses do tax our communities by externalizing to the customer the cost of healthcare, pensions and pollution clean up.
I find it ammusing that whenever true conservative principles are presented as a rebuttal to illogical liberal ideas the "strawman" is thrown on the field like a referee's flag at a football game. If you are going to handicap your argument by claiming there are bad companies with excessively compensated CEO's I will counter that there are bad unions with excessively wealthy union leaders. It happens both ways. But the next time you want to claim that "most" business operates this way show up with some backup to support your rhetoric please. Also - please expand on your premise that business taxes a community via health care and pensions.
I will counter that there are bad unions with excessively wealthy union leaders.
Apple meet orange.
No, seriously I don't see you laying out any principles other than, "In a Capitalist system business exists to produce a product and make a profit." Who wrote that in stone?
That's hardly a principle worth touting. It's arbitrary and hard hearted, in fact. Business colleges used to teach exactly the kind of ethics I'm talking about: Corporate responsibility. Now they just don't. It's all profit all the time.
You used a classic strawman. You wrote, "A business that operates for the purpose of employing the community without regard to making a profit will soon be operating at a loss, and eventually be out of business."
You implied I oppose profitibility and attacked my argument from that angle. In fact, I never cursed profits, I cursed your profit over people mentality. Straw man.
"If you are going to handicap your argument by claiming there are bad companies with excessively compensated CEO's... the next time you want to claim that "most" business operates this way show up with some backup to support your rhetoric please."
Why? It's common knowledge that CEO's make around 450 times more than the average worker. That's up from the pre-Reagan 70's when execs made about 25 times the average worker.
"Also - please expand on your premise that business taxes a community via health care and pensions."
Now this is where you really expose your detachment. It takes tax dollars to fund social securtiy and public healthcare. If a company does not provide pensions or healthcare, that cost, that responsibility is passed on to publicly funded
government sponsored programs. It's really that simple. Companies shirking their responsibility to the greater good is an externalized cost to doing business which amounts to a greater tax requirement for communities.
And don't forget that federal agencies charged with the duty of cleaning up after polluters requires tax payers to foot that bill.
If I had no sense of humor, I'd say that your post and Boortz's ranting were pretty hateful towards my daughter who chooses to teach school in one of the nations poorest school district.
But I know you were kidding.
Aren't you the one who criticizes us hateful ageists?
Anyway, nobody really gives a crap about this mealy mouthed whining about unions anymore. People are desperate and worried about their jobs and you conservative pinheads have proven you could care less about job security for working folks. Cons have made it crystal clear the romantically selfish CEO is their cultural hero and any union, activist group or government agency that stands in the way of his profits are nothing but undisciplined free market losers.
Same for my Dad. He worked in a Union shop for 44 years. I saw several strikes in my lifetime, and saw how the local company treated the people who made the money for them, and how the union protected them. I'm not saying that they're required all of the time, but I still think that unions serve their members well, and protect the rights of the workers.
I mean, we should just de-unionize the entire country right? Then companies could really maximize their profits, and keep the little guys down even more. Hell, might as well go back to the late 1800's when workers had no rights, and in keeping with Boortz's "government school" outrage, we can just send the poor kids to work in the mills again, while the rich elite kids get to go to school, and then run everything later on down the road.
Yeah, unions, so bad... I can't believe they haven't destroyed the country sooner.
Why does the right vilify unions and labor organizations while they support manufacturers associations, marketing associations and the National Rifle Association?
Simple. Because most unions support the Democartic Party and Democratic candidates, while manufacturers associations, marketing associations and the NRA mostly support Republicans.
Tommy
Teachers unions are made up of teachers... including the representatives and presidents. I was a teacher for well over 32 years and I was a member of the union all that time. They did not necessarily represent my views 100% of the time, but they did improve working conditions, which translates into better educational opportunities for the children we had in class. However, sometimes we failed: examples, Boortz, Rannity, etc.
Careful there Mr Boortz.....
In less than two years I'll be a member of that particular union.......
I wonder though..... which kind of dangerous drug pushers is he talking about? ..... the ones at the street corner named Lazer, Spike, or Killer or the ones that have the blessing of Bush/Cheney and call themselves pharmaceutical companies with names like Pfizer, Baxter, or Merck??
My teacher told a story about his friend Boortz, who on his radio show said he called my teacher multiple times during the day to talk to him during the day to comment on a certain local topic. My teacher never got a message on his voicemail or from his assistants, and was even told that Boortz had never called (Even as his colleages told him he needed to call into the show because he was getting hammered).
Also, each year the teacher would invite some of his friends each year to give a lecture. (I heard local political reporter and Johnny Isakson (then Congressman) who lied to me personally) to speak to our class.
Someone asked if Boortz would be willing to come and speak and my teacher said Boortz replied, "I would not be able to stand up to the scrutiny of political science students." Nice for someone who tries to inform people.
OK Neal. Whatever you say there chump.
As I've said before, Neal talks about the same things. Day in. Day out. You know that if you listen, at some point in time the following issues are going to come up on this guy's mediocre show:
1. What he calls "government" schools. Meaning, any public school in the country. And of course, he'll find some sort of news nugget out there, normally taken from World Net Daily, or some other bastion of journalism, and tout it as being some sort of government plot to turn all of our children into flaming liberals. Or, in other cases where he has gone so far as to call the victims at VT not victims of the gunman who shot them, but rather victims of the government school system that turned them all into wussies. Wussies for not tackling or taking down the guy that was shooting them.
2. He'll let someone call in who disagrees with him on his Fair Tax proposal, and then cut off their call, talk down to that person, berate them, call them stupid, and the other person never has a chance to actually say anything.
3. He'll talk about how some small funding provision in the budget somewhere is just a gigantic waste of your tax dollars.
4. He'll insult Mexicans.
5. Talk about flying his plane somewhere.
6. Talk about playing golf somewhere.
And that's about it. He could have taped his show in probably 2000, and just kept re-playing the same one over and over again, that's how similar they sound.
Hey, hey now... Neal is a "libertarian"...
Yeah right and I voted for George W. Bush. Twice...
Hey, hey now... Neal is a "libertarian"...
Tell me - have you ever met a liberal Libertarian????
Libertarians are just conseratives who can't afford to join the GOP.
I thought Libertarians were just Republicans who smoke pot.
But back to Boortz-- He sure is a rascal ! Makes you think!
They're pot-smokin' pro-choice Republicans.
And they masturbate to their well-worn copies of Atlas Shrugged...
True for both what you AND the Colonel said.
Libertarians are just republicans. Why don't they just give up and realize that?
I haven't voted for a Republican since 1988, with the exception of Ron Paul in this primary. Though, to be fair, I have "colored outside the lines" a handful of times - I voted for one Democrat in the 2004 election, and two in the 2000 race.
I have zero respect for about 99% of people in public office, without regard to party affiliation. So, I'd say your assessment is incorrect, in my case - and I'm not the only one. We're out there, and we refuse to buy into either Brand X Party line.
Big differences between the two, even if you don't see it. We're not just "Republicans who smoke pot" - for the record, I know several Libertarians who don't even drink alcohol.
Todays' GOP - with very few exceptions - are fiscally conservative, nor do they seem to care that the Constitution is supposed to limit the power government has over the people. We do. And that's one reason why we aren't members of the Republican Party.
Using your logic, Green Party members are really Democrats, and why don't they realize that? you should ask. But they aren't, even if they have elements of thinking in common.
Have a government-approved day.
Funny that Hartmann would use the same "argument" slash stereotype to describe libertarians, that right-wingers use...
"Yeah, I can agree with that. I think that -- you know, I grew up in a private school system my entire life, and I have always looked at the problem with public schools being the overcrowding, which no one can really help, and the fact that the teachers aren't held accountable. So, it's interesting to hear that that's because of the unions, 'cause I don't think I've ever really thought of that."
Imagine relying on Boortz to do your thinking for you.
Actually, if it weren't for unions, the school districts would have 17 year-old high school kids teaching classes for free, but would be paying the kids to show up for class.
Which many libertarians would think was just great.
Come now, gentlemen. You both know it would be as it should be in conservative dream land, there would only be education for those who could afford it.
And everybody else would be out back picking cotton.....
*** bursting into song ***
"Oh, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more..."
(Thank you, Bob Dylan.)
the reason Right wingers are so against public schools, is that they don't want anybody educated. Educated people don't fall for their drivel. If they can keep people ignorant, their lies and fallacies go down much easier. They're REALLY against Logic classes.
I've always though it significant that the rise in conservatism in this country came about as SAT scores were falling......
BOORTZ: Woo-hoo! You know what? I don't even want to think about what Hillary Clinton does when nobody is looking.
CALLER: Oh, it'd be an ugly, ugly sight. Ooh, her with no make-up -- let me tell you!
BOORTZ: Oh! I'm eating lunch right now, Katy, thank you very much.
--------------------------------------------
Whether this was a stab at sexual innuendo or bathroom humor, it was distasteful, and importantly offensive to those who he could otherwise have possibly persuaded. After hearing that sort of denigration, those people will not be listening long.
As bad as the big three on radio are, I don't think you're likely to hear that on their shows. At least I can't remember it. They are all character assassins, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it if you want to maintain an audience which is not all already singing in your choir.
I think if you would actually listen to conservatives' main argument against teachers unions, you would at least agree that there needs to be a change in the way things operate.
First, I think we can ALL agree that many aspects of the American school system are broken. How much each bad aspect affects the problem as a whole can be debated, but the teachers unions are at the very least contributing to the problem, mainly by doing what they are supposed to do: protect teachers' jobs.
And what is wrong with the unions protecting teachers' jobs? It's a problem when they use just as much resources to protect the good teachers' jobs as the BAD ones.
If a school district wants to fire a teacher (even for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance, bad attendance, moral/criminal issues), they are pretty much looking at $100,000 in legal bills if they are lucky. The average though is closer to $219,000. Now, this can end in three differnt outcomes.
I would hope that we could at least agree that THAT aspect of the teachers unions needs to be changed.
Since it is somewhat on subject, I would like to give Obama props for his proposal to award teachers based on student performance. Being a conservative, I don't agree with him much, but I hope whether he becomes President or remains a Senator, that he does all he can to press that forward.
But given the NCLB assembly line approach to education too many effective teachers could be improperly assessed as sub-optimal teachers because their teaching talents do not rely on rote memorization as a way to educate.
No. NCLB needs to be scrapped first and scrapped fast. I have a daughter and it scares me to death to think about her being subjected to this lifeless teach to the test nonsense.
Education is not a one size fits all proposition. Each one of us learns organically not mechanically so get rid of NCLB first, let teachers educate and then we can talk about which teachers are best.
"Since it is somewhat on subject, I would like to give Obama props for his proposal to award teachers based on student performance. "
Yes, and the favored teachers will get the good classes and the good schools and the better students.
Your figure about spending six figures to fire a teacher is absurd. It is very easy to fire a public employee-- all you have to do is paper their personnel file. Takes -- at the most-- 6 months.
It's called 'due process' and all employers do it-- public and private-- if private sectors don't they get sued, too.
Glenn -
There are certainly inefficiencies in the system, as there is in most government programs. That doesn't mean that unions are altogether bad.
Look at the Department of Defense, I'll bet the government could save 100 times what they'd save on education by removing inefficiencies in defense contracting.
GlennJericho wrote:
>>First, I think we can ALL agree that many aspects of the American school system are broken. How much each bad aspect affects the problem as a whole can be debated, but the teachers unions are at the very least contributing to the problem, mainly by doing what they are supposed to do: protect teachers' jobs.
Groan! No, we all can't agree with this. This statement comes from someone who has not set a foot in the public system as an adult. No, the school system is not broken in the way you suggest. It is mainly broken because Americans don't give a fig about education, send their kids to school with a hostile attitude, and then can't figure out why Johnny can't read.
Glen
I've worked in special education for quite a few years. My students could not take standardized tests. Some of the students learned quickly, some learned slowly, some had issues that included aggressive or self injurious behavior. How do you plan on accounting for all of the variables and decide if my salary should be higher or lower
I was the negotiations chair of my local for several years and while it is true that we protected the mediocre teachers as well as the excellent teachers, I would say there were more good and dedicated teachers than there were poor teachers. We don't go into this profession for the money. We go into it because we care about children. Really bad teachers generally do not last in the profession because it is too difficult.
Just thought you would like to know.
BTW I am now an administrator and I encourage the teachers that work in my department to go to the union if they have problems. Our union has always been a reasonable and fair orginization that it a positive influence in our school.
I wonder if Boortz is a member of this group:
http://www.aftra.org/locals/atlanta.htm
I bet he is...
Why do unions want to do away with the secret ballot?
What a sad gasbag. Why does he hate hate so much? My father was not a member of a teachers union, because the Orange Unified School District convinced the teachers that the district would take care of them for life. They were not given COLA raises because the Reagan administration said the had "pyschic pay".
Well surprise surprise, my father and his colleagues had to sue the district, a lawsuit that went on for over a decade to get the health benefits they were contractually promised.
Do any of you right wing union busters have an example of teachers having to sue a union to get benefits?
There's such a thing as "libertarian socialist", but to me that's like mixing axle grease and vinegar and calling it "Italian dressing".
This is absolutely true. Thank you to Mr. Boortz for having the courage to tell the truth.
If the KKK were put in charge of the inner-city school systems with the express intent to destroy the futures of minority children, would they be doing anything different from the current system?
I suspect there is a conspiracy between the Dems and the teachers union to keep future generations stupid because that is the only way Dems can get any votes.
This is why my kids are in private school. Granted, they are not taught diversity, sensitivity, condom usage, and animal rights, but they are taught how to read write and do math.
Public school graduates will be working for them.
Wait a minute? I thought republicans such as yourself are always saying how elitist us liberals are and things like that. When in fact, it has been proven time and again that people who tend to vote democratic are, get this, more educated than republican voters in general. Keeping kids dumb has been the job of NCLB, for the mere fact that teachers are now teaching their students how to do well on a test, and not actually educating them, and or teaching them critical thinking skills.
Boortz of all people should be one of the last people on earth to talk about Public Schools! Boortz is a product of public schools!
Boortz also is "ONLY" a high school graduate, from a small town high school is the panhandle of West Florida! Up until Aug of 2005, all his bio's ,feel good articles about him, and he himself had bragged on-air that he was in fact a graduate of Texas A&M, Class of '67! Little could be further than the truth, Boortz flunked out, or quit the University on June 1967 for good as a Junior after 4 years, never graduating! He has claimed he's only 6 hrs short of a degree, wonder why in 41 years he hasn't taken those so-called" 6 hours"? Have you got a answer to that question, Boortz?
However to show you how what pains he went to in pulling off his charade until outed in Aug of '05, he purchased a Class of '67 ring from the University on May 26, 1967, 9 days before he dropped out for good!
In the mid 90's, he was constantly whining on-air here in Atlanta, about how terrible the Fulton County Library System was, and how if he was on the Board things would change! Well he got appointed to the Libary Board, attended one meeting and quit, never doing anything about the mess the system was in! He's all hot, stale, foul air!
He's a aging,bully, and without the microphone he would more than likely be on the public dole!
At BuzzFlash.com Boortz was named "The Media Putz of the Week," this week!
In closing, his name Boortz is pronounced exactly like gas escaping from one's arse!
BBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTZZZZZZZ!
One of my happiest childhood memories was when my Dad and I crossed a picket line. In the 1980s, my Dad was an executive at a defense contractor (they made the engines for the jets that are dropping bombs on the terrorists). The union went on strike and my Dad had to work extra hours.
We had to cross a picket line. My Dad told me that they were lazy, greedy, and ungrateful. Afterward, I realized that it required courage to cross a picket line. Twenty years later, I was a grad student in London. A hotel was on strike. I walked right across their picket line and felt proud. I knew my Dad would be proud of me for doing so.
Proud of what? Being a scab?
Your dad had to work because he was management, as you said, and probably a salaried employee of the company and all. You on the other hand are a piece of trash for crossing the picket line, and for trying to take someone else's job when they were probably striking for improvements in their conditions of work.
I'm sure your dad might be proud, but my dad would kick your arse for it.
My dad was management too. He had to work during strikes and I grew up thinking that the unions were bad because my dad had to work harder. I have a difernt opinion of unions now and although I am sorry my dad had to work extra time, the union ha the right and responsibility to its members to do what they could to improve the lifes of their members.
Union are not the great evil that you think. They have helped regular workers to lead decent lives. I don't think the economic system of the 1890s is one that we want to emulate.
BAD
Perhaps an English teacher could help ith the punctuation and the run-on sentences.
Way to go, Scooby-Doo. You've found me out! When I started teaching - I was making a big $25,000 per year - I immediately joined the union so that I could do damage to the nation. Heck, that's why I became a teacher in the first place. I minimized my earning potential solely so I could join a union and damage this country.
And to be fair to Neil, I also deal drugs on the side, so on the off chance that he's wrong, and drug dealers harm the nation more than teachers unions, I have that covered.
My dad was a union guy. Twenty years, he worked at Dayco in Springfield, Missouri, paid his dues to the Unitied Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers organization.
He still lost his job, in the end. Fat lot of good it did.
I'm a non-union teaher (prof actually), but
the best support for the position put forth by Boortz and the caller would be proof that they were educated by unionized teachers.