Christie in trouble for speaking the truth

[~Rocktar~]

While I can't always agree with HOW Chris Christie says things, I have to agree, his opinions on teachers unions being destructive and not really for education our young are spot on. OH, and here is a nice way for people to try and say he said something that he didn't say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/teachers-demand-chris-christie-apologize-for-face-punching-comment/ar-BBlqJc0

Pretty sure he didn't threaten to punch any teacher in the face anywhere but far be it for the Leftist media outlets to let facts get in the way of serving up a steaming pile of shit in an attempt to stir the pot.

[MesaPaen]

He didn't state an individual; in response to the CNN question 'at the national level, who deserves a punch in the face' Christie replied, "the national teachers union".

My question is, Rocktar, why do you think the teachers' unions are destructive (what are they destroying?) and "not really for the education of our young"?

I'm genuinely curious.

[Buckwheet]

He didn't state an individual; in response to the CNN question 'at the national level, who deserves a punch in the face' Christie replied, "the national teachers union".

My question is, Rocktar, why do you think the teachers' unions are destructive (what are they destroying?) and "not really for the education of our young"?

I'm genuinely curious.

They protect bad teachers and poor tenure rules.

Disclaimer: I work in education in a highly technical profession. Educational institutions are some of our customers. The number of reported issues we get where "teachers refuse" is included in the problem a high school, or district report, is stupidly high. Ask teacher unions how they feel about teacher of record initiatives so that schools/districts/states can determine who is responsible for what portion of single child's learning and hold that individual accountable. The main excuse we get is "Teachers are too busy teaching to record what they taught and with who.", yet every teacher/para that would be involved with the program has a calendar/schedule that tells them exactly what student they are going to pull out and for how long.

[MesaPaen]

That's always the standard rote answer. I'm asking for a particular example -- because there are "bad" employees in every arena, public and private.

[Buckwheet]

That's always the standard rote answer. I'm asking for a particular example -- because there are "bad" employees in every arena, public and private.

I can't give you specific examples because it breaks the NDA's teacher unions require myself and companies like ours to sign. I can tell you I just got done scripting in over 1200 gradebooks for teachers because "our teachers aren't willing to setup their grading curves to work with the state initiative."

Edit: The state of South Dakota requires my finger prints on file with a full government clearance/background check along with multiple signed NDA's for example.

[MesaPaen]

I'm not disagreeing that teachers may do questionable things. I work in education. I see the same things I've seen working in the private sector as well- human nature is what it is. I don't disagree that in - say a group of 200 educators - there are perhaps 2 who should not be teaching any longer. Perhaps 5 -10 who've made a career of skating. (Aren't these people in every office/building/arena everywhere? There's always that guy who somehow keeps hanging on no matter what the rest of the staff thinks.)

I'm simply wondering how many of these questionable things are ruining the future generations and ruining the education process as a whole. That seems to be the basis of the argument.. the age-old "but what about the children" rally cry.

[Buckwheet]

I'm not disagreeing that teachers may do questionable things. I work in education. I see the same things I've seen working in the private sector as well- human nature is what it is. I don't disagree that in - say a group of 200 educators - there are perhaps 2 who should not be teaching any longer. Perhaps 5 -10 who've made a career of skating. (Aren't these people in every office/building/arena everywhere? There's always that guy who somehow keeps hanging on no matter what the rest of the staff thinks.)

I'm simply wondering how many of these questionable things are ruining the future generations and ruining the education process as a whole. That seems to be the basis of the argument.. the age-old "but what about the children" rally cry.

I have done 4 investigations from a database perspective where all attendance changes are logged. All four instances were found that the teacher knowingly falsified student attendance in order to make their classroom appear more attended. They got funding for this.

In all four cases the teachers are still at the schools were they did this. If most people falsified their attendance records for work, or falsified other co-workers attendance, they would be fired.

[MesaPaen]

I have done 4 investigations from a database perspective where all attendance changes are logged. All four instances were found that the teacher knowingly falsified student attendance in order to make their classroom appear more attended. They got funding for this.

In all four cases the teachers are still at the schools were they did this. If most people falsified their attendance records for work, or falsified other co-workers attendance, they would be fired.

I'm not disagreeing with you. This is unacceptable, but who might be pushing (read- admin) for funding regarding attendance? I know nothing about policy in the state you're referencing, but I highly doubt any money regarding attendance goes anywhere near the teachers.

Again, this is not acceptable. However, HOW does this in any way have anything to do with the ruination of public education?

Tenure is protection for due process. It does not always protect those who should be protected. More often it does.. in my experience, there was a male teacher accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. The district wanted the male teacher out immediately, as they did not want any publicity. The union stepped in, long story short, all accusations were fabricated by an emotionally disturbed HS girl.

Teacher colleges in this area have advised for years now: Do not give extra help with the door closed. Do not hug a child of any age for any reason. Do not "give a kid a ride". Do not comment on a student's clothing, etc..

I think there are greater issues at work, here, and simply fail to see how some protection while working with minors is the ruination of 'Murica.

[Buckwheet]

I didn't say that it doesn't protect people. But when you are guilty and don't get in trouble because of tenure its fucking stupid.

[Kembal]

Kansas blew up its job security protections for teachers, and didn't increase pay. Not surprisingly, they now have a shortage of teachers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/02/why-teachers-cant-hotfoot-it-out-of-kansas-fast-enough/

Tenure/job security is part of the compensation package. If we want to keep paying teachers at lower salaries, then we have to offer some other benefit in return. Historically, that's been job security. Take that away and also cut education funding...not surprisingly, the labor market responds by running away.

No business that values its employees would act in the same manner.

[Wrathbringer]

While I can't always agree with HOW Chris Christie says things, I have to agree, his opinions on teachers unions being destructive and not really for education our young are spot on. OH, and here is a nice way for people to try and say he said something that he didn't say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/teachers-demand-chris-christie-apologize-for-face-punching-comment/ar-BBlqJc0

Pretty sure he didn't threaten to punch any teacher in the face anywhere but far be it for the Leftist media outlets to let facts get in the way of serving up a steaming pile of shit in an attempt to stir the pot.

Who cares? He's fat. The guy can't even regulate his own fat intake, much less run the Illuminati agenda.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say that it doesn't protect people. But when you are guilty and don't get in trouble because of tenure its fucking stupid.There are people who are guilty of murder and don't get in trouble because the police illegally searched them. That doesn't mean the Fourth Amendment is stupid.

[ClydeR]

CHRISTIE: Yes, I do. And I’ll tell you why: because I’m the only person on this stage who’s actually filed applications under the Patriot Act, who has gone before the federal — the Foreign Intelligence Service court, who has prosecuted and investigated and jailed terrorists in this country after September 11th.

I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state.

More... (http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/)

The above is part of Christie's fiery exchange with Paul in the debate. Is any of it even remotely true?

Did the second President Bush appoint him as a US Attorney on September 10, 2001? No. (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011207-9.html)

Did Christie ever file an application withe the FISA Court? I can't say for sure, since those records are sealed for one day longer than forever, but I'm guessing no.

[Buckwheet]

There are people who are guilty of murder and don't get in trouble because the police illegally searched them. That doesn't mean the Fourth Amendment is stupid.

That is a bit of a stretch in this instance. Murdering someone on camera at your place of work, but being illegally searched or rights violated to the point that you would go free from criminal charges, would not preclude you from being released from your job at the place you killed someone.

Due process is one thing. Giving someone blanket immunity for most offenses is another.

[~Rocktar~]

He didn't state an individual; in response to the CNN question 'at the national level, who deserves a punch in the face' Christie replied, "the national teachers union".

My question is, Rocktar, why do you think the teachers' unions are destructive (what are they destroying?) and "not really for the education of our young"?

I'm genuinely curious.

There are several reasons I disagree with teacher's unions. I don't like tenure that makes it nearly impossible to fire teachers for just cause. Teachers who have committed many crimes are still on the payroll. I don't want to git rid of tenure, I want to make it easier to deal with shitbags. I want to stop the whole "Only way to improve education is to throw more money at it" bullshit. If money fixed all the problems, than the DC public schools should be the best in the country. They pay nearly as much per student as the finest private school in Virginia where the politicians and diplomats send their kids.

The NEA has opposed any kind of teacher skills testing or results testing/grading for pay, promotion and advancement. The NEA has continually pushed for every new and idiotic teaching method that obfuscates the fact, kids are not learning basic skills. The NEA has continually pushed things like grading rubrics and removal of grades. They like Common Core and if you really look at it, the methods used to teach are just shit. I have seen good principles that get fucked because teachers don't like them or are the union officer or whatever.

Lastly, they have propagated the inane idea that it is the job of the parent to help the teacher and serve them in educating the kids when it is the teacher that is hired and paid to help the parents raise their kids.

They have jacked things up badly so why should we let them continue with what they are doing? I am all for updating our education system and methods, I want to do it with tested and proven methods that get better results than what we have now and not some fantasy bullshit that some semi-function PhD pulled out of their ass and made sound good. I am also not up for just throwing more money at it blindly.

[MesaPaen]

There are several reasons I disagree with teacher's unions. I don't like tenure that makes it nearly impossible to fire teachers for just cause. Teachers who have committed many crimes are still on the payroll. I don't want to git rid of tenure, I want to make it easier to deal with shitbags. I want to stop the whole "Only way to improve education is to throw more money at it" bullshit. If money fixed all the problems, than the DC public schools should be the best in the country. They pay nearly as much per student as the finest private school in Virginia where the politicians and diplomats send their kids.

The NEA has opposed any kind of teacher skills testing or results testing/grading for pay, promotion and advancement. The NEA has continually pushed for every new and idiotic teaching method that obfuscates the fact, kids are not learning basic skills. The NEA has continually pushed things like grading rubrics and removal of grades. They like Common Core and if you really look at it, the methods used to teach are just shit. I have seen good principles that get fucked because teachers don't like them or are the union officer or whatever.

Lastly, they have propagated the inane idea that it is the job of the parent to help the teacher and serve them in educating the kids when it is the teacher that is hired and paid to help the parents raise their kids.

They have jacked things up badly so why should we let them continue with what they are doing? I am all for updating our education system and methods, I want to do it with tested and proven methods that get better results than what we have now and not some fantasy bullshit that some semi-function PhD pulled out of their ass and made sound good. I am also not up for just throwing more money at it blindly.

A few things from my personal experience. There aren't many "rubber-room" cases out there, they're mostly political fodder. And most teachers, union or no, agree with you that it should be easier to remove those few.

Secondly, without the involvement of parents, its a losing battle.

Thirdly, there is not ONE teacher I know who supports the implementation of Common Core in any way. It's a bunch of bullshit wrapped in more bullshit.

[Pin]

I would just like to point out that most states that have strong teachers unions have some of the best public education available; where states that are notorious for weak teachers unions are constantly rated very low, like this example from Florida:

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/7/21/volusia_teachers_let_go.html

[Warriorbird]

They protect bad teachers and poor tenure rules.

Disclaimer: I work in education in a highly technical profession. Educational institutions are some of our customers. The number of reported issues we get where "teachers refuse" is included in the problem a high school, or district report, is stupidly high. Ask teacher unions how they feel about teacher of record initiatives so that schools/districts/states can determine who is responsible for what portion of single child's learning and hold that individual accountable. The main excuse we get is "Teachers are too busy teaching to record what they taught and with who.", yet every teacher/para that would be involved with the program has a calendar/schedule that tells them exactly what student they are going to pull out and for how long.

The lack of them produce non competitive salaries and no greater NAEP scores. This is all just a stalking horse to mess up teacher salary growth. Ironically, if you wanted to actually reform educational expenses you should target administrative and support staff bloat and the cost of all the testing and "reform" programs.

In spite of your "work in education" you don't seem to be familiar with the sheer difficulty of coordinating nice talking points like pullout programs when you have 149 other students to deal with.

There's logistical problems with value added testing. Material is often VERY different year to year (Algebra -> Geometry is an example) and it does a poor job of applying external to classroom events to the process.


I am all for updating our education system and methods, I want to do it with tested and proven methods that get better results than what we have now and not some fantasy bullshit that some semi-function PhD pulled out of their ass and made sound good. I am also not up for just throwing more money at it blindly.

The problem is most of the "reform" stuff is fantasy bullshit too. If teacher unions were as evil as they get made out to be they wouldn't also be most of the highest performers. Scott Walker ravaged the best education system in the country, scores wise.

[Latrinsorm]

That is a bit of a stretch in this instance. Murdering someone on camera at your place of work, but being illegally searched or rights violated to the point that you would go free from criminal charges, would not preclude you from being released from your job at the place you killed someone. Due process is one thing. Giving someone blanket immunity for most offenses is another.You're mixing the analogy.

Teacher's union protects teachers from firing due to XYZ reason
Sometimes it protects poor teachers

Fourth Amendment protects people from conviction due to illegal searches
Sometimes it protects guilty people

If you use the argument "sometimes X helps bad people" to conclude that teacher's unions are stupid, you must also conclude that the Fourth Amendment is stupid. That's the point of the analogy: you DON'T conclude that about the Fourth Amendment, therefore you should reconsider your argument against teacher's unions.

[Tgo01]

There are people who are guilty of murder and don't get in trouble because the police illegally searched them. That doesn't mean the Fourth Amendment is stupid.

I think you've been watching too much TV.

The police violating someone's rights is not an automatic "get out of jail free" card. If the police illegally searched the person's home or whatever then the most that will happen is that evidence will be suppressed at trial. Sure, if the state has literally nothing else to implicate the person in the murder other than what the police found at their home then they will get off but then again if that's all the state had to begin with then they didn't really have much of a case anyways.

[Latrinsorm]

Fruit of the poisonous tree, Terrence. If you find the murder weapon in the person's home, and therefore take a DNA sample and confirm their blood was at the crime scene, and therefore question them and they confess, it all goes away if the initial search was inadmissible.

[Tgo01]

Fruit of the poisonous tree, Terrence. If you find the murder weapon in the person's home, and therefore take a DNA sample and confirm their blood was at the crime scene, and therefore question them and they confess, it all goes away if the initial search was inadmissible.

I don't think so. The murder weapon would be inadmissible and probably the DNA evidence, but I'm not so sure about the confession.

You say there is DNA evidence at the crime scene, surely the police could gather DNA of the suspect some other way. If they made a match then questioned the person about the match he might have confessed anyways in which case the confession would be admissible.

But see even in your hypothetical the police have evidence, they apparently have a suspect in mind, they most likely have more on him (yes it's a man because men suck) so it's highly unlikely all the state has against him is the murder weapon they illegally found at his home. I'm not saying the jury will for sure convict him anyways, suppressing the murder weapon might be enough to sway them to find not guilty, but not each and every single bit of evidence is going to be suppressed.

The only way this might actually happen in the real world is if the police illegally searched someone's house on a completely unrelated matter and happened to find a murder weapon for a murder they didn't even know the suspect was involved in. At that point the only evidence they have to link him is in fact the murder weapon. Even then though, even if they had a legal search warrant and found the murder weapon and that's all the evidence they have then they might not even have a case anyways. The murder weapon might have been given to him, he might have found it. If the police legally obtained the weapon they better hope the guy's DNA was found at the crime scene or else they have a lot of investigative work to do.

[Wrathbringer]

I love it when we have people who are TOTALLY lawyers debate 4th amendment issues.

Me too. Leaving all this to the experts is what got us into this mess.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think so. The murder weapon would be inadmissible and probably the DNA evidence, but I'm not so sure about the confession. You say there is DNA evidence at the crime scene, surely the police could gather DNA of the suspect some other way. If they made a match then questioned the person about the match he might have confessed anyways in which case the confession would be admissible. But see even in your hypothetical the police have evidence, they apparently have a suspect in mind, they most likely have more on him (yes it's a man because men suck) so it's highly unlikely all the state has against him is the murder weapon they illegally found at his home. I'm not saying the jury will for sure convict him anyways, suppressing the murder weapon might be enough to sway them to find not guilty, but not each and every single bit of evidence is going to be suppressed.The bolded portion is incorrect, and everything that follows from it is incorrect. Ironic, considering the topic at hand!

Anyway, fruit of the poisonous tree isn't something I (or the teevee) made up, and a cursory search backs that up. I don't know why people are so reticent to admit that I could be right about something. Just ask a neutral third party observer like myself. I'm always right! ;D

[Tgo01]

I love it when we have people who are TOTALLY lawyers debate 4th amendment issues.

I'm not an astronaut yet I still think we should fund space exploration and I can totally cite shit to back up my position.


The bolded portion is incorrect, and everything that follows from it is incorrect. Ironic, considering the topic at hand!

So why were the police illegally searching this person's house in your hypothetical situation? For shits and giggles?


Anyway, fruit of the poisonous tree isn't something I (or the teevee) made up, and a cursory search backs that up.

I didn't say you made it up, I just said I found your lack of knowledge of the subject...disturbing...

[Warriorbird]

I'm not an astronaut yet I still think we should fund space exploration and I can totally cite shit to back up my position.


More like flying a plane without a license. In retrospect, you and the person (probably Wrathbringer trying to pretend not to be Wrathbringer) repping would probably try that too.

[Tgo01]

More like flying a plane without a license. In retrospect, you and the person (probably Wrathbringer trying to pretend not to be Wrathbringer) repping would probably try that too.

You are comparing discussing laws and the bill of rights to me attempting to fly a plane without a license?

I mean, sure, this would be an awesome analogy if I were attempting to actually start a law firm and represent people in court.

[Parkbandit]

You are comparing discussing laws and the bill of rights to me attempting to fly a plane without a license?

I mean, sure, this would be an awesome analogy if I were attempting to actually start a law firm and represent people in court.

LOL.

Exactly.

[Taernath]

I love it when we have people who are TOTALLY lawyers debate 4th amendment issues.

Everyone has a degree from WikiU.

[Warriorbird]

You are comparing discussing laws and the bill of rights to me attempting to fly a plane without a license?

I mean, sure, this would be an awesome analogy if I were attempting to actually start a law firm and represent people in court.

That'd be the astronaut level. This is you thinking you understand the rules of evidence to the point you can argue with other people.


Everyone has a degree from WikiU.

Exactly.

[Tgo01]

That'd be the astronaut level. This is you thinking you understand the rules of evidence to the point you can argue with other people.

Alright WB, enlighten us. Wait, are you a lawyer?

[Warriorbird]

Alright WB, enlighten us. Wait, are you a lawyer?

Not at all... in spite of multiple classes on evidence. I know enough to know I should not make all sorts of grandiose statements in this area.

[Tgo01]

Watch as WB debates himself!


Not at all... in spite of multiple classes on evidence. I know enough to know I should not make all sorts of grandiose statements in this area.



I love it when we have people who are TOTALLY lawyers debate 4th amendment issues.

[Warriorbird]

Watch as WB debates himself!

One can rather easily know the difference between the talent required to change oil and rebuild an engine. It's okay though. I know you feel you're an expert in everything. You could have a little program on YouTube with Back.

[Tgo01]

One can rather easily know the difference between the talent required to change oil and rebuild an engine.

Not according to you though. One must be a lawyer to understand laws and the bill of rights, after all they are written with so many words and whatchamacallits, punctuation.


I know you feel you're an expert in everything.

I love it when people who aren't me think they are an expert on me.

[Warriorbird]

Not according to you though. One must be a lawyer to understand laws and the bill of rights, after all they are written with so many words and whatchamacallits, punctuation.



I love it when people who aren't me think they are an expert on me.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between some training and none at all. Please get back to me when you do.

[Latrinsorm]

So why were the police illegally searching this person's house in your hypothetical situation? For shits and giggles?Racism. Personal beef. Honest mistake. Who knows? Who cares? All I said was that there are people who do wrong and get away with it because of the Fourth Amendment. Unless you're prepared to claim that that has literally never happened, we agree in principle. Therefore you must acquit.
Not according to you though. One must be a lawyer to understand laws and the bill of rights, after all they are written with so many words and whatchamacallits, punctuation.Objection! Number disagreement between whatchamacallitsuh and punctuation, a collective noun but a singular nonetheless. Move for an immediate mistrial and dismissal of all charges and apology on legitimate stationery and a million. Cash.

[Tgo01]

Racism. Personal beef. Honest mistake. Who knows? Who cares?

Because it's an important distinction to your argument.


All I said was that there are people who do wrong and get away with it because of the Fourth Amendment.

You are phrasing this wrong because you suck. You phrased it wrong in your original post too.

No one to my knowledge has ever gotten away with a crime because of an illegal search. Let me clarify this since you suck. I am not aware of any case where the state had a solid case against a defendant then all of a sudden the defense lawyers stands and says "Your honor, the police violated my client's rights" then explained himself then the judge said "You're right. Because your client's rights were violated I am dismissing this case."

If you can cite such a case ever happening I would love to hear it.

The most the fourth amendment can do is suppress evidence, that is to say that evidence never existed. If all the state has was that evidence then they didn't really have much of a case to begin with. You just got finished saying that in your hypothetical the police didn't suspect the person in the crime, rather they illegally searched his house because of "Racism. Personal beef. Honest mistake." Well okay. So the police didn't even know this guy committed the crime yet you think they are going to walk through his house and find a murder weapon and convict him on that alone, even if the search was legal? Let's get real for just a moment please.

Also you're not a lawyer so you shouldn't even be discussing these things. /WB

[Latrinsorm]

I am not aware of any case where the state had a solid case against a defendant then all of a sudden the defense lawyers stands and says "Your honor, the police violated my client's rights" then explained himself then the judge said "You're right. Because your client's rights were violated I am dismissing this case."What makes you think this disagrees with what I said? :)
Well okay. So the police didn't even know this guy committed the crime yet you think they are going to walk through his house and find a murder weapon and convict him on that alone, even if the search was legal? Let's get real for just a moment please.People have been convicted on far less.

[Tgo01]

People have been convicted on far less.

I'm gonna convict your face!