Beavah

Yah, da problem is one of adult behavior, eh? We could wish that most folks would realize, as we try to teach the scouts, that it's up to them to behave like responsible and reasonable human beings and resolve their own disputes equitably among themselves, eh? But when adults start bashin' each other around the head, one or both or multiple sides want to win, and they try to do that by running off to mommy and daddy to complain about what Johnny fellow adult did. Mommy and daddy being the "Ultimate Authority" to appeal to to get their way. Da proper advice on da forums is probably the same as da proper role of a UC, and that's to try to get 'em to understand where da other side is coming from and get 'em to sit back down and work their problems out like adults, eh? It's probably not to give in to their desire to find an authority figure to take their side so they can win in da game of bashing their fellow adults. But if they insist on goin' there, the truth is that da authority figure is the CO. It's not the DE, the SE, or any of the commissioner corps. It's not whomever they managed to get on da phone in Irving. The CO is their "employer". It's the parish pastor or the head of the VFW post or whatnot that is the Authority. "But I don't know him!" "But they're not involved!" Yah, they're not directly involved because they expect yeh to behave like rational adults and be able to resolve your disputes on your own. There should be a sense of barrier there, eh? It should be a big deal to have to approach the IH or COR with somethin' as petty as a scouting dispute. So directing 'em to the proper authority is honest, eh? And if it also gives 'em pause to rethink things, then I'm not sure that's a bad thing. ---- Aside to UCEagle72... much as I think UC visits are fine and havin' good UC assignments are fine, da struggle I have with the "numbers emphasis" on such things is that generally speakin' the quality of commissioners and commish contact is pretty low. Yah, yah, I know Irving loves da numbers games. But that push to fill slots like as not means that some Cub Scouter becomes UC for a crew, and doesn't know beans from turnips. I'm curious how you're addressin' da quality issue, or if you're even lookin' at it. UCs are only effective if they have some real depth of knowledge and wisdom beyond da trainin' courses. Probably should be spun off... ---- Beavah

I have asked to IH for someone who could act as an adviser to us on how to be more a part of the parish community. She pointed us to our Tiger Cub Den Leader, one of our two families that are members of the parish. Yah, tryin' to troubleshoot this a bit for yeh, but I'm confused, SP. Yeh said your CO is a Catholic parish, but then yeh mention in the quote that your IH is a "she". Did I get that right? In da Catholic units I know that would be ... odd. Someone who knows the church well might be able to say better, but as I understand it the IH of a Catholic parish is the pastor, and he's a he . He's also da only fellow who can legally sign the paperwork. So it might be that yeh need to find the real IH . My understanding is that like most pastors, da Catholic clergy is pretty overworked, underpaid, underappreciated and spread thin. So yeh probably can't expect 'em to do too much. Some thoughts for yeh... Consider whether the elementary school principal or one of school teachers from da parish school could/should be COR. They're often more in tune with youth work and might have more time and willingness to engage with yeh. The elementary school might also have a gym teacher / coach, and he or she might make a good contact, if not as COR then as an added MC. Odds are yeh also have one of the Knights (can never remember what they're called... Malta or Columbus or somethin') mens' groups. They're a bit hit or miss in our neck of da woods, but I understand that their national leadership is pushin' 'em toward being more heavily involved in youth work, includin' Scouting. The Knights youth outreach person could also make a good COR, and plug yeh into that resource as well as the parish. Yeh might not get to ScoutNut's level of relationship, but yeh can do pretty well if yeh just find a few key people who have da time and commitment to interface with yeh. A conversation with the pastor about who he'd like/suggest might be a good way to start. Your DE or UC could/should help. Beavah

Personally I would like to see this become the final requirement for the highest scouting honor, the Eagle, "the candidate will sucessfully lead a patrol on an expedition of at least two nights using and teaching as many of his scoutcraft skills as possible, and without any adult supervision." Nah, that's First Class, eh? The old 15 mile hike weekend. Let's not dumb Eagle down to da First Class level. For Eagle it should be "the candidate will successfully plan and lead a group on an outdoor adventure expedition of at least 7 nights and covering at least 50 miles afoot or afloat, or at least 250 miles by bike, without any adult supervision." Just for da bureaucrats yeh can add "plans must include proper budget, transportation, safety, training, and gear preparation and approved on form 56-3927" (just kiddin'). That's da real deal. For palms, yeh have to run another expedition incorporating instruction and an activity like climbing, whitewater, etc. Beavah

An exploding propane tank could hurt many more. Has anybody anywhere ever seen a propane tank explode on a campout? Other than in Hollywood? I'm pretty sure it'd be hard to get a real one to burst even if yeh tossed it into a roaring bonfire. Gotta protect da kids from Hollywood, though. Or maybe that's the adults we have to protect. Beavah

If one of our patrols want to camp on their own, this won't stop it. Of course not. If they're already there, this will just cause 'em to think scouting is little kids stuff and they'll do it on their own. But what it will do is discourage troops and SMs everywhere from pursuing it as an option, as somethin' to prepare their kids for, as a way of encouraging real growth. Just look at the responses from folks who changed their RT presentations and training. And it will cause the many troops that do allow and encourage it to reconsider, and for hovercraft G2SS parents to waive the rules and object because their little 16 year old baby can't possibly be allowed to be on his own for a night. Yah, yah, so many troops have lost da scoutin' flame that the challenge isn't being on your own and capable anymore, it's jumpin' through hoops to get badges. They won't notice da change. So overall it's just one more incremental erosion of a fine program. Beavah

Yep, COs are busy with lots of things. I bet da pastor of your parish, SP, doesn't even pay close attention to other ministries. Too busy doin' what pastors do. So he let's da sacristy ladies do their thing, the knight fellows to do their thing and so on. No different for scouting. I think it's mostly our job as scouters (or sacristy ladies) to "stay on the radar" of the CO, but it's a two-way street. Yeh should report at least once a year to da IH, share your financials, share your successes... And share your needs. Ask for stuff. For one, I always try to encourage da CO to pay the recharter fee for the unit and at least for the adults, eh? They have to have some skin in the game, and have to see that they are payin' for the adults they selected. Even if the unit in turn gives 'em a donation that more than covers it, the expense should show up on their financials. Get 'em to pay for the kids, too, or for training or camperships. Don't take the fact that doin' full time ministry work takes up their time. Be grateful yeh have a relationship with such dedicated folks who still care enough to accept responsibility for your work and to enable your ministry to kids. Same with districts, eh? Da BSA is just one small-potatoes service provider for a CO. It's nice sometimes when a vendor takes yeh to lunch, but only if yeh happen to be free. The BSA is just a vendor. If a district isn't gettin' attendance at it's events for customers, yeh work harder to figure out what your customers want or need. It might not be lunch. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

On da practice of community medicine? Absolutely, vol. On how to write legislation that can pass or on making macroeconomic policy decisions? Probably not. A good community doc doesn't have time for that kinda stuff. Of course I wish they would have consulted with anybody who knew how to write well-crafted public policy, eh? Beavah

Yah, well, I reckon I might have finally found da issue that gets me to turn in my khakis and leave the BSA. Never leave scoutin', but yeh reach a point when yeh realize an individual organization is no longer livin' the mission and therefore not worth supporting. Engineer61, there's been no change. The COs have always been da party responsible for units and their leadership. A troop is a youth program of the CO, not of the BSA. Unit volunteers work for the CO, not the BSA. The CO hires and fires their own volunteers, not the BSA... da BSA only approves their membership. Yeh can think of it like membership in da bar association. Yeh work for a law firm, but have membership in the bar. Your membership can be revoked for ethics violations, but it's the law firm, not the bar association, that's legally responsible for your actions as its agent. Whether a CO fully understands that or just accepts that da BSA insurance will cover any likely defense without thinkin' it through depends on the CO. Eagle92, da situation out in Utah with the forest fire involved a summer camp Wilderness Survival MB class with under-18 counselors. It was not a patrol outing. Liability had nuthin' to do really with the lack of adult supervision. The counselors were still employees even though they were under 18. So da camp had vicarious liability because of the employer relationship. To my knowledge, there have been no incidents or accidents on patrol outings to justify this change in policy. As yeh imagine possible scenarios, can yeh imagine communities and jurors where da thought of boys campin' in the big, scary wilderness on their own is viewed as irresponsible? Of course. Campin' and hikin' are probably one of da safest things yeh can do other than couch surfing, but it's becomin' an increasingly unknown thing to our modern sedentary lifestyles, and da unknown is always scary. Yeh could find some communities where jurors would find it irresponsible for a lad of age 16 to go out hunting, too. And others where it would be typical. The BSA has chosen to take a stand on some cultural issues, even though they are fairly peripheral to the program, even at the cost of expensive (and sometimes losing...) litigation. I've supported 'em in that stand. I wish they'd have the courage of their convictions to take a stand on an issue like this that actually goes to the core of our mission. Young men learn character by exercising judgment and making choices, without havin' some adult hovering over their shoulder to look sideways at and try to read their expression or to whine in front of or to manipulate into providing a "hint." More than any other part of Scoutin', preparing for da First Class outing as an independent patrol teaches real character and values, not da sort that yeh make up words for to please some adults at a BOR. And yep, I know plenty of troops that still run patrol outings, without adults. Uniformly, universally, they are the best troops in any district and council, with young men we can truly be proud of. Beavah

But given the nature of most elections, a 10% voting bloc is a huge electorial mass. No different than the party-line voters who make up 20% or more in some places, or da Chamber of Commerce / business voters who make up another block, or the senior citizen voters who make up a darn large block to protect their interests. What, yeh think those military folks and defense contractors and high-tech firms and employees and oil drillers don't have lobbyists or vote their own financial interests? Only a fraction of voters in any block votes da party line all the time. Teachers and public employees are citizens just like da rest of us. Some vote union issues, some vote based on their religious convictions, some vote party, some pocketbook, and some actually vote after carefully weighin' all da issues. Imagining that there's some lockstep public union votin' block is as fictional as imagining that any other group of people behaves that way. It's just a fiction, eh? A phantom conjured up by demagogues. Now, I reckon what is true is that folks tend to vote their own interests, all else bein' equal. Parents of young kids tend to vote pro-education, while folks without kids and those whose kids are grown do so less. So what we're seein' is that shift, eh? As an aging populace, we're gradually less willing to contribute to education on average. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Thanks for tryin' folks. That was all as clear as mud. Close as I can tell this is some sort of new-fangled buzz word of the Tea Party right, which draws on da long and mostly ugly tradition of Populism, as Eagledad suggests. Am I gettin' that about right? Guess that makes me an "elite", eh? If I'm sick, I want to go to a doctor, because I reckon he or she knows better than I do what's good for me. If I'm buildin' a house, I want a good architect and top-notch tradesmen, because I'm sure they know better than I do how to build a house. If I'm sendin' young folks to war, I want a real honest-to-goodness non-political general callin' the plays. I definitely don't believe that da "populace" has any special magical talent to know how to do stuff. A populist believes that da populace as a whole somehow possesses magical, unearned skills that they never had to work for. Somehow the fellow at the bar knows as much about diplomacy as da professional diplomat who speaks da language and has worked 30 years in the field. But they don't, of course. That's why just about every populist movement in history leads to dictatorship, and why da most despicable despots like that twat in Libya always base themselves in populist ideology. So long as yeh keep denigrating hard work and competence, yeh can justify foolishness. Hand da government over to that Bedouin who just graduated military school, eh? He's for the people! He's one of us! Competence not required. Yep, sign me up as an "elite." I believe in hard work, earned experience, and personal competence. Beavah

Yeah, that's the theory Beav, but I suppose there are places where the beneficiaries of government largesse (be they unions or anyone else) are in the majority at the ballot box. Yah, and I've written about that danger in terms of lettin' government get too big, eh? Once government is responsible for a big fraction of GDP, yeh get a big fraction of voters who benefit from votin' increases to the government... and who in turn are dependent on it and can be abused by it. What I can't figure out though, is that there's nowhere outside the beltway where government worker unions amount to more than 10% or so of da population. So if they're really the majority at the ballot box, then yeh have to wonder where everyone else went. Beavah

Michigan teacher salaries, for example, averaged $57,958 in 2009-2010, according to the National Education Association... The annual 2009 average for kindergarten teachers, for example, was $50,500; for special education teachers at that level, the annual salary was $56,830. Secondary school teachers in Michigan earned an average of $52,110. Yah, acco, me thinks yeh have a math problem there, eh? Yeh can't have an average that's higher than all of its components. By comparison with your figures, da national median for people with da same education level (masters and above) is over $70K. So da question we have to ask is why would anybody that we really want to be teachin' the next generation of Americans take the job at a 25% lower level of pay than what they could get elsewhere? Especially when their university tuition costs and loan amounts are higher than ever? I expect there are two reasons. First, yeh get better benefits, which might make up for da lower salary in the long run (includin' those summer months which account for a fair chunk (but not all) of that 25% premium even with usin' some of that time for required professional work). Second, I expect we don't quite attract da above-median quality folks into teaching. In that way, we get what we pay for. Honestly, would anybody with a brain go work in Detroit for only $48K, 32% less than what they'd earn elsewhere, given everything you and Lisabob are sayin' about the place? And then yeh want to take more away from 'em or double their load? Are yeh planning on actually employing teachers who are literate? Beavah

And so in the end, non-elected union officials are setting the pay level of the taxpayers and not the elected representatives, those who are elected by the electorate who assign responsibility for that process. Yah, hmmmm.... Can yeh explain that to me, jblake? Last time I checked, everywhere in da nation there had to be two parties to a contract who have an actual "meeting of the minds" agreement. For a public employee's union, one party is the union. The other party is the body of elected representatives, supported by a paid professional staff. So it sure seems to me like the elected representatives are doin' their part to set the salaries. If yeh don't like what they're doin' you should vote them out. If you don't monitor what they're doin', then that's your own fault. Blaming the union for not doin' your job as a voter and taxpayer or blamin' the union for not doin' the job of your elected representatives or their highly-compensated professionals seems... silly. Da union is doin' the job its members pay them to do out of their own salaries. If it didn't, those union members would vote 'em out. Why can't you do the same to your representatives? Beavah

Kerplunk. That would be da sound of sherminator trippin' over Godwin's law and fallin' face-first into da mud pit. Much as we might disagree with people's policy positions or tactics, I reckon it's best not to ascribe as evil what really are just policy disputes, or what can be explained by ham-handedness, ignorance, or incompetence. And even genuinely bad choices very rarely rise to da level of 1933. As we saw in Arizona, there's only one reasonable response if someone is a Hitler or a Quadaffi or whoever, and that's to put a bullet in his brain before he does any more harm. I don't reckon that's an approach we want to encourage in da U.S., so it's incumbent on all of us not to take the rhetoric to that level. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

you've got to free up local government officials to not be strangled by things like mediation and arbitration Yah, this is where yeh just have to shake your head at da level of ignorance, eh? Mediation and arbitration are alternative dispute resolution strategies, which save yeh from having to go to court most of da time. Da solution to not be "strangled" by disputes is not to make contractual promises that yeh can't keep or that yeh try to renege on, eh? And to treat grey area cases with fairness and compassion so that they don't turn into contract disputes in da first place. In short, yeh can avoid mediation and arbitration in many cases if yeh simply live by the Oath and Law. But when there are disputes, yeh generally want mediation and arbitration. Parties generally agree to mediation and arbitration clauses in contracts because it's MUCH faster, easier, and cheaper than goin' to court. If yeh eliminate alternative dispute resolution, then every dispute goes to a regular trial. Good luck savin' money that way. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Lisabob, I think yeh misread Mr. Boyce, eh? I think what he's sayin' is that if collective bargaining goes, then so should the argument your college president makes that "based on salaries of college presidents at peer institutions, my salary should go up 20%" (and then become part of da magical "salaries at peer institutions" for a neighboring college president). Essentially, that's an odd form of collective bargaining. That's what's been drivin' the almost insane salary inflation of business CEOs for years, and of college presidents and folks like BSA Chief Scout Executives. Beavah

Wait a minute, you just got through saying management controls hiring, firing and salaries. Now management has crossed the line? Let's be clear here, they can still negotiate just like folks who don't have a union job or dont have collective bargaining rights, they just can't strike and expect to keep their job if they don't like the offer, "just like most normal folks trying to make ends meet". Yah, sorry for my lack of clarity, Eagledad. Da action is nearby, so I'm followin' it closer than most of yeh might be. The governor is tryin' to maintain da fixed salary structure, and prohibit bargaining on benefits and working conditions. Last time I checked if you were an ordinary private citizen yeh could, at your option (1) choose to form and join a union, and (2) choose to negotiate with your employer on salary and benefits and working conditions. So what's crossing the line in terms of ethical behavior is trying to give public employees fewer rights than private employees. Whether you're a private or a public employer, yeh have a moral obligation to treat fairly and justly with your workers. That's a part of the Oath and Law. This isn't doin' that. Da second bit is that a provision of the package also prevents local municipalities and school districts from doing anything different, eh? Remember, it's da local entities that employ most teachers and other public workers, not the state directly. So they're taking away local control of such things as taxes and terms of negotiation. That's what's not conservative, it's a very liberal-style move. Centralize everything to the state because the state knows best, not the local people who know their kids and their community and its needs. So yeh have a fellow who is usin' a fiscal shortfall to behave like a big-government liberal and to be less than ethical in da treatment of his employees. Even though I agree with some of the fellow's policy positions, his actions and behavior are nuthin' to celebrate. Beavah

Yah, JoeBob, I am on board, eh? The governor should negotiate a tough contract. The union has already agreed to substantial economic concessions, and that's a good and responsible thing. If you've read me these many months, yeh know I'm a fan of school choice, vouchers, eliminating tenure and seniority systems, bidding out health care and the lot. I'm not as comfortable with da notion that rather than negotiate a contract, the governor should pass a law eliminating the workers' rights to bargain, and eliminating local control of their budgets by school boards and municipalities. Those are very different things, eh? Eliminating local control is not da sign of a real conservative, it's a sign of a fellow who wants to be king. And legislating away peoples right to bargain just crosses da Oath and Law line. The ends don't justify the means, eh? Beavah

And not surprisingly, the elites HOWL! Yah, I hear this sort of thing from folks sometimes. I expect I'm just out of the loop on modern vernacular. Could someone explain who the "elites" are? As close as I can tell from context it often seems to refer to "anyone with more education than I have." That confuses me, since I thought education was a good thing, that folks should aspire to. Sometimes it seems to be a throw-away synonym for "liberal twit" or somesuch. That confuses me too, since if yeh are going to denigrate them or their position, why would you call them elite? Sometimes it seems to refer to social or political leaders. That confuses me, too, because as oft as not those folks are conservatives and Republicans, and da way SP used the term that doesn't seem to fit. Can someone help out an old furry fellah? Beavah

Yah, so BrentAllen, if some tom-fool of a CEO agrees to such a contract, isn't that his fault? Where is the management's responsibility to the board and the shareholders? The union is doin' its job of representing the interests of the workers. We can accuse 'em of being unrealistic or short-sighted, but they're at least doin' their job. Why didn't GM's very well compensated management do theirs? Again, as an employer, if I were goin' to automate and as a result lay off a mess of people, I'd do what I could for 'em. That's just the decent Scout Oath & Law thing yeh do when you've had a good, loyal worker for many years and da business model changes. But I wouldn't jeopardize the business or the livelihood of other workers. It's management's job to do those things, eh? To treat its workers well and at the same time not to compromise the business. It's like da boom and bust cycle has compromised our integrity. Yeh know yeh can't overextend during the booms or you'll surely bust in the downturns. Everyone knows that, or should. If you're a competent and conscientious manager, yeh have to live up to that responsibility. The penalty if yeh don't is bankruptcy, but it should also be shame. When was the last time one of these "I led the company to ruin" CEOs admitted that he was ashamed. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Districts that have been mismanaged as badly as Detroit I reckon deserve to fail. I don't think yeh can ever save 'em. Isn't this like da third time Detroit has been in receivership (or emergency state financial management or whatever yeh call it)? Or am I thinkin' of Cleveland? That's a management thing more than a teacher thing, eh? I'm sure Detroit gets more money per pupil than most in Lisabob's state, and that da teachers get lots more than she does as a college instructor. It's not a money thing, it's a management thing. Public education means yeh have to have a public (i.e. elected) board, eh? No taxation without representation and all that. The thing of it is, as close as I can tell by watching 'em, yeh never want your school district run by elected officials. First, da sort of people who get elected to such boards typically don't have experience running any sort of business, let alone a multi-million-dollar one. Second, they don't tend to be at all competent in da business of education. All that is made worse when yeh have an undereducated electorate, like yeh do in Detroit. Then yeh get corruption as well. Wasn't it the Detroit board that took the Cancun junket at $10K each the week before they were thrown out the last time the district went into receivership? To my mind, that's da core of the problem. That's why it should all be privatized. Public money for universal vouchers. We invest in education, but we let da parents decide the best place for their kid, and we let educators create and run da schools. No one-size-fits-all, no union-gets-to-elect-their-boss, no griping-parents-get-to-fire-the-superintendent, no excessive regulation or management by elected nitwits. Just educators doin' what they do best, parents doin' what they do best, and the public making an investment in the kid rather than the delivery system. At da same time, of course, that has to be a real investment, eh? We can't have our college teachers being paid wages barely above da poverty line either, leastways not if we're goin' to remain a first world country and be able to compete in the world economy. Yeh don't think there's a college instructor anywhere in Korea or China or Japan or India that is making anything other than top dollar and being treated with da utmost respect, do yeh? And here we have a state payin' college teachers poverty wages? No wonder Michigan's economy is in the tank. Yeh can't make an economy run on a population that isn't well educated. That's an investment yeh have to make. If yeh don't, yeh better hope they're really, really, really good at pickin' tomatoes. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BrentAllen, but then we have to continue to be honest, eh? Toyota plants are relatively new compared to GM. The Toyota work force is therefore younger on average than da GM workforce, by a considerable amount. What does that mean? The GM health care costs with an older work force that have been doin' heavy labor in da factories for many years is naturally goin' to be much higher. And of course da Japanese component of da Toyota workforce gets free government health care. The GM pension burden is also much higher. Toyota doesn't yet have many retirees, but GM has loads of 'em, and they're all living a lot longer than was projected when their pensions were established. A younger workforce in heavy labor is also more productive, so Toyota benefits from that as well. But I don't think we want to encourage companies to lay folks off when they turn 40 and start to have aches and pains that slow 'em down a bit. And finally, Toyota established factories in areas where the cost of living was low, so they could afford to pay less and still get good workers. GM factories were once in such areas, but their success improved da local economy so cost of living rose, and their salaries had to match that rise. It's hard to move an established plant. So yeh aren't comparing apples to apples, eh? Now, I agree with yeh like I said, the unions were foolish in not taking into account the economic cycle, competition, pension planning and all da rest. They could have been better partners with management, or perhaps insisted on higher management competence. But really, like Lisabob says,that's not their job. Those things are really management's job, eh? And it was exceptionally poor management (with insanely high salaries) that sunk GM. When yeh look at exec pay vs exec performance between Toyota and GM, it's a lot more stark than da worker figures. Beavah

So, do Medical Schools teach to the Medical Certification test? Law Schools teach to the "Bar" Accounting School to the CPA I can only speak to one of those, eh? But I expect da same holds for the others. Only da lowest tier schools would ever teach to the test.. For one, da tests differ between states, and da best schools are preparin' folks for multi state practice. But what yeh want out of any of those schools is to be prepared for practice, not for a test. So that's what all da good schools teach to. Whether it's da bar exam or the boards or the CPA exam, those are only partial measures of basic knowledge. They aren't comprehensive, and they aren't anything more than basic knowledge for da field. That's why yeh have extended internship periods for all of 'em even after yeh take the test. Good schools prepare yeh for da practice in those internship periods and beyond. Beavah

If the test is comprehensive enough, there is only one way to teach to "the test"--teach the subject to a level of complete understanding. Yah, dat's a big "IF", perdidochas. I think if yeh think about it for a minute you'll realize it's an economically impossible "if". The cost for that sort of comprehensive test for most areas, especially da general knowledge taught in schools, is impossibly high. I'm a pilot, eh? Just for fun and some work, just small planes. For da FAA licensing exams there's a well written paper test, followed by an oral, followed by a flight test. Cost per person per test for just that one subject at one level is hundreds of dollars. And let me tell yeh, if that's all I was taught or knew as a pilot I would be an absolute danger to myself and others! So to do a truly comprehensive test for just one subject at just one level would cost thousands per person. Yeh can say da same for the bar exam, or the various medical licensing tests. All very good, all extremely costly, none of 'em covers anywhere near enough to actually measure mastery. The problem is that too many teachers think that teaching the answers to hundreds of questions is teaching to the test. It really isn't. It's lazy teaching. Properly speaking, teaching to the test is teaching towards a high level of knowledge on the subject. Yah, we gotta be fair, eh? I don't think you'll find one teacher in 50 who is in favor of da current testing regimen. I doubt any think teaching to the test is good teaching. It's what they feel is a necessary survival mechanism given an impossible mandate. If we knew on average that it takes 80 hours of flight time for someone to be able to pass their private pilot test, but we were only given 60 hours, some without a working plane, and required to get everyone to pass the test in that time, includin' those that we know started with less skills than the rest and would properly take 120 hours, then I reckon we'd be tempted to try to teach to the test, eh? Beavah

the UAW workers just about killed GM. Their labor costs were far higher than the competitors. Their benefits were over the top. Now, this is where we have to be careful if we're goin' to be honest, eh? A significant part of da reason that labor costs for GM were high was because management never reinvested in da factories, eh? Yeh could always goose the quarterly or annual report bottom line by not modernizing your plants, or delaying capital purchases another year. And if management decides to build nothing but trucks goin' into fuel price inflation and recession, then I reckon that's what will kill a company. Autos are a cyclical industry, and yeh really do see union-pushed contracts during boom years that don't take that into account. If yeh set a contract that assumes a never-ending boom, then yeh are sure to bust. That's mansgement's fault mostly, IMO, but yeh can blame da union leadership for being ignorant and not plannin' for it too. No different for da public sector. The unfunded pension benefits are da fault of management (the state), though the unions shouldn't have been so ignorant as to let 'em get away with it. Similarly, not planning for the economic cycle is da fault of management too, eh? The state again. And if public sector unions really can manage to get people elected despite being less than 10% of da population, then I don't think that's the union's fault. It just shows that they're being more active citizens than the rest of us in da 90%. Yeh don't get to complain about your school board signing an unsustainable teacher's union contract if yeh didn't get off your duff and vote responsibly in da school board election. So let's be careful not to blame da unions for somethin' that is really management's fault, or ours. We can wish that da unions would be smarter or more responsible. It's always nice when we can get other people do our job for us, so that we don't have to be responsible ourselves. But it ain't their job. I personally want my elected representatives to act the way that I would as an employer, eh? And I would treat my workers with compassion and dignity, as partners, and work with their elective representatives responsibly. To my mind, governor Walker has more than crossed da line which is drawn by the Scout Oath and Law. For da rest, I don't reckon we need the state to tell the locals what we can and can't do in terms of taxing ourselves, or negotiating contracts with our workers. Since when is it considered conservative to increase da scope of government by centralizing that to the state? Beavah