I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400,
wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:

It is not the case here.
The issue is unions buying politicians with millions of dollars of dues
money, then going to those same politicians to negotiate their own
benefits. If they don't get what they want, they can buy someone else
and he pols know that. It's called racketeering, or "business as usual"
for Unions...
You ignorant little slut. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for
political purposes. Unions may collect voluntary gifts from members for
political action.
Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Harry is full of ****... He will certainly insult us though for asking

You ignorant ass.

18 U.S.C. § 610 prohibits a labor organization from making a
contribution or an expenditure in connection with a federal election.
Many states have similar regulations.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 added a paragraph at the end
of § 610 that expressly authorizes labor organizations to establish,
administer, and solicit contributions for political funds, provided that
the fund not make a contribution or expenditure in connection with a
federal election by utilizing money or anything of value secured by
physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat
thereof, or by monies required as a condition of employment or union
membership.

That's why unions have PACs. It is legal for a union to raise non-dues
money for its PAC.

There have been some few cases, successfully prosecuted, against union
officials who broke this law.


Stick to shoveling **** in barns. It obviously is what you know best.
You're not equipped to deal with adult, knowledge-based political
discussions.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:06:35 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:09:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:05:55 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:32:51 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.
Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.
Too many variables in your argument. You're making assumptions the kids
in each class are pretty much the same kids, with the same home life.
When I was in public school, the older, more experienced teachers were
by far the better teachers.
Maybe but I had a terrible crush on Mr. Hansen in 8th grade. He was
one of the younger ones. Of course, I can't remember a single thing he
said.

Most of my public school teachers made really strong, positive
impressions on me. In all those years, though, there was only one young
woman I considered cute.

In those days, just after Franklin "discovered" electricity, the
teachers did not have to take the amount of b.s. dished up to them today.

Ah yeah, the 50s when teachers could smoke in class and slap the
students. Those were the days. We did seem to learn more and classroom
discipline was a whole lot better. They still measured our progress on
how we did on those evil tests. In fact there was one every Friday.

Hmmm. I don't recall teachers smoking in class or on school grounds, nor
do I recall students being slapped. Of course we had tests, and lots of
them.

The teachers all could smoke in the teacher's lounge and a few
extended that to the classroom. Nobody ever said a word.
My 8th grade social studies (AKA Core) used to bum a smoke off of our
"Jethro" student, a kid from West Virginia who was about 18. They
would both spark up right there in class. The teacher was only about
23-24.

Actually that may have been the best class I had as far as learning
anything. The algebra teacher was some old crone who just droned on
and on with virtually zero interaction with the class. I think about a
third of the class was really not getting the material. I know it
baffled me and in summer school it seemed easy. The teacher (in the
private school) actually made some effort to help us understand
instead of just making it a lecture.

That was my last year in Public school.

When I first started teaching, in '92, we could smoke in the lounge. Then they
tightened up. We could smoke in the furnace room. Then they tightened up again,
We had to be 50' away from the building. That's when I'd go to the pickup and
smoke two cigarettes and be back in the room within 7 minutes. [I know, it's
self praise and it stinks (sucks?...don't remember).

Then I wised up and quit smoking. Which reminds me, I haven't posted my stats
lately:

This will certify that John Leo Herring has not smoked cigarettes for ten years,
three months, four days, 18 hours, and 56 minutes. This has resulted in 187339
cigarettes not smoked, saving $28,100.61 and a great reduction in his Global
Warming Carbon Dioxide Footprint. Furthermore, this will provide him an
additional 1 year, 40 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, and 35 minutes to spend his
daughters' inheritance.

So there. That's why good cameras don't cost all that much!

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:


It is not the case here.

The issue is unions buying politicians with millions of dollars of dues
money, then going to those same politicians to negotiate their own
benefits. If they don't get what they want, they can buy someone else
and he pols know that. It's called racketeering, or "business as usual"
for Unions...

You ignorant little slut. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for
political purposes. Unions may collect voluntary gifts from members for
political action.

Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Wow, if what Harry said is true, then this must be all false! [It didn't
reproduce all lined up, but even a dunce can figure it out.]

Leading Union Political Campaign Contributors
1990-2010
Democrats Republicans
American Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees $40,281,900 $547,700
Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600 679,000
National Education Association 27,679,300 2,005,200
Service Employees International Union 26,368,470 98,700
Communication Workers of America 26,305,500 125,300
Service Employees International Union 26,252,000 1,086,200
Laborers Union 25,734,000 2,138,000
American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800 200,000
United Auto Workers 25,082,200 182,700
Teamsters Union 24,926,400 1,822,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100 2,658,000
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600 226,300
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000 334,200
AFL-CIO 17,124,300 713,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200 342,800
Plumbers & Pipefitters Union 14,790,000 818,500
Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000 2,309,500
Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600 2,398,300
International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700 2,685,400 United
Transportation Workers 11,807,000 1,459,300
Ironworkers Union 11,638,900 936,000
American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100 544,300
Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400 2,294,600
Seafarers International Union 6,726,800 1,281,300
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Washington, D.C.

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:21:39 -0400,
wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:

It is not the case here.
The issue is unions buying politicians with millions of dollars of dues
money, then going to those same politicians to negotiate their own
benefits. If they don't get what they want, they can buy someone else
and he pols know that. It's called racketeering, or "business as usual"
for Unions...
You ignorant little slut. It is illegal for unions to use dues money for
political purposes. Unions may collect voluntary gifts from members for
political action.
Cite that law. I would like to read what it actually says because it
is clear the unions are spending a lot of money.
More than half of the top 20 contributors to the 2010 cycle were
unions.

Wow, if what Harry said is true, then this must be all false! [It didn't
reproduce all lined up, but even a dunce can figure it out.]

Leading Union Political Campaign Contributors
1990-2010
Democrats Republicans
American Fed. of State, County,& Municipal Employees $40,281,900 $547,700
Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 29,705,600 679,000
National Education Association 27,679,300 2,005,200
Service Employees International Union 26,368,470 98,700
Communication Workers of America 26,305,500 125,300
Service Employees International Union 26,252,000 1,086,200
Laborers Union 25,734,000 2,138,000
American Federation of Teachers 25,682,800 200,000
United Auto Workers 25,082,200 182,700
Teamsters Union 24,926,400 1,822,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union 24,094,100 2,658,000
Machinists& Aerospace Workers Union 23,875,600 226,300
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 23,182,000 334,200
AFL-CIO 17,124,300 713,500
Sheet Metal Workers Union 16,347,200 342,800
Plumbers& Pipefitters Union 14,790,000 818,500
Operating Engineers Union 13,840,000 2,309,500
Airline Pilots Association 12,806,600 2,398,300
International Association of Firefighters 12,421,700 2,685,400 United
Transportation Workers 11,807,000 1,459,300
Ironworkers Union 11,638,900 936,000
American Postal Workers Union 11,633,100 544,300
Nat'l Active& Retired Fed. Employees Association 8,135,400 2,294,600
Seafarers International Union 6,726,800 1,281,300
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Washington, D.C.


What part of "It is illegal to use dues money..." do you mooks not
understand?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:54:16 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:10:48 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:17:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:42 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:28:38 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:34:07 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.

Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.

School teachers.

Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.

Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.

It's just the way of the unions. When I got laid off from Finast I was
number two from the bottom of siniority, so I went second. At the same
time, I was consistently in the top ten percent of production, day after
day. At the same time the union worked very hard to keep guys caught
sleeping in the bathroom or stealing, earning a steady paycheck.

There is something inherently wrong with Unions taking millions from
their employees, handing it to politicians, and then going to those very
same Politicians for negotiations... Period.


We just had an article in the paper about suspended employees who were
still being paid. Their top example was a teacher who was suspended
for sexual assault on a faculty member, off on "suspension" for over a
year and still getting the $61,000 salary. Not bad money for staying
home and watching soaps all day. This person was reinstated, back to
teaching. What do you learn in that class?

So, because there's occasionally abuse of the system, that means the
system is bankrupt and should be discarded? Nonsense.

We are just talking about fixing the system so that doesn't happen and
so you can give those younger teachers who do have a good success
record, more money.

Fixing it how? So far the only "proposal" is to strip teachers of
their rights to bargain collectively.

That is what the union wants you to think.

It is not the case here.

Where is here? Florida? That's what's going on in a bunch of other
places. It's nonsense. It's union busting pure and simple.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:56:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:13:35 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:14 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:02:00 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:29:51 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:35:42 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:12:34 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:12:26 -0400, wrote:

I enjoy bantering with Plume. The naivete of youth is always
refreshing.
Gee I didn't realize senility was considered an advantage! LOL
I am not the one who has trouble remembering what we were talking
about ;-)
What were we talking about? Oh wait...
Don't ask me, I am senile, now where did I leave my teeth? ;-)


It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Be sure to let us know when a system is devised that actually is capable
of judging teachers on merit. It sure as hell isn't the standardized
testing bull****.

They don't want to see any merit based pay. This "testing" thing is
just a red herring.

The unions are not opposed to merit pay that is determined by fair
testing on the basis of merit.

We will see. Scott just signed the bill yesterday that will do that.
So far the school union seems pretty much opposed.

You tend to end up with a comment like that... "we'll see." Basically,
that means you don't know and just guessing.

The only thing we "will see" is whether paying younger teachers who
perform better actually raises achievement overall.
The adverse reaction of the union is a fact.

Why the discrimination against older teachers? Are you claiming that
only the young ones are capable of teaching well?

The problem is, you can't get rid of a teacher who is not performing
so they keep moving up through the system, sucking up money you could
be using to attract new teachers.

The problem is that this is intellectually dishonest. Sorry. I know
that's harsh. This is a tiny percentage of the problem.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:57:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

This will certify that John Leo Herring has not smoked cigarettes for ten years,
three months, four days, 18 hours, and 56 minutes. This has resulted in 187339
cigarettes not smoked, saving $28,100.61 and a great reduction in his Global
Warming Carbon Dioxide Footprint. Furthermore, this will provide him an
additional 1 year, 40 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, and 35 minutes to spend his
daughters' inheritance.

I quit in December 1974.

What are the stats on that ?

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:18:42 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:09:33 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:05:55 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:32:51 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:03:24 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:49:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:37:33 -0700, wrote:

It is a strange comment from a person who believes in the unions and
their policy of paying the oldest and longest serving employees the
most, regardless of performance.
Who believes that? I don't think you'll find anyone who does.
School teachers.
Nonsense. They believe performance does matter, and they're sick of
teaching to tests that don't teach kids anything useful except maybe
how to take tests.
Taking tests is a very important skill but these teachers do not want
their salary tied to any measure of performance. They want to be paid
by credentials and time in grade.
Make that sound reasonable to me..
A totally out of touch teacher with 20 years on the job and a PhD, who
gets horrible results, makes 3 times as much as a new teacher who
connects with the kids and really gets something done in the
classroom. That is ridiculous.
Too many variables in your argument. You're making assumptions the kids
in each class are pretty much the same kids, with the same home life.
When I was in public school, the older, more experienced teachers were
by far the better teachers.
Maybe but I had a terrible crush on Mr. Hansen in 8th grade. He was
one of the younger ones. Of course, I can't remember a single thing he
said.
Most of my public school teachers made really strong, positive
impressions on me. In all those years, though, there was only one young
woman I considered cute.

In those days, just after Franklin "discovered" electricity, the
teachers did not have to take the amount of b.s. dished up to them today.
Ah yeah, the 50s when teachers could smoke in class and slap the
students. Those were the days. We did seem to learn more and classroom
discipline was a whole lot better. They still measured our progress on
how we did on those evil tests. In fact there was one every Friday.
Hmmm. I don't recall teachers smoking in class or on school grounds, nor
do I recall students being slapped. Of course we had tests, and lots of
them.
The teachers all could smoke in the teacher's lounge and a few
extended that to the classroom. Nobody ever said a word.
My 8th grade social studies (AKA Core) used to bum a smoke off of our
"Jethro" student, a kid from West Virginia who was about 18. They
would both spark up right there in class. The teacher was only about
23-24.

Actually that may have been the best class I had as far as learning
anything. The algebra teacher was some old crone who just droned on
and on with virtually zero interaction with the class. I think about a
third of the class was really not getting the material. I know it
baffled me and in summer school it seemed easy. The teacher (in the
private school) actually made some effort to help us understand
instead of just making it a lecture.

That was my last year in Public school.

I was in public school all the way, K-12. There were plenty of "prep"
and parochial schools in New Haven and in Connecticut, of course. Some
of the "snooty" kids went to the fancier prep high schools.

The school I went to (Woodward) was a mix of kids trying to stay out
of reform school and the rich and famous. Chris Dodd was there,
punching up his transcript I suppose, since it doesn't show on his
bio.

It could be because his handlers said he should not list a school
where the most famous graduate was L Ron Hubbard ;-)

The thing I liked about it was few of the teachers were actually
career teachers. They were usually on their way up the food chain or
they were retired from something else.
It gave us a more rounded view on things.
My math teacher taught math and engineering at West Point. The
chemistry teacher was a PhD chemist, retired from a number of federal
government lab operations. USDA, FDA, BADD. (what became BATFE).
The Science teacher was a PhD from Germany, looking for a better gig
here. The latin and ancient history teacher was in law school, having
taught an ancient cultures course at GW and decided he wanted more
from life.
These guys liked it because they might only be teaching a couple
classes a day. The biology teacher was also working on a grant from
NIH doing some kind of study. He taught 2 classes, then he went off to
his real job. He certainly seemed to know a lot of stuff that wasn't
in the book. We were talking about DNA sequencing at a time when most
people had never heard the term,.

I went he

Hillhouse High School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from James Hillhouse High School)
James Hillhouse High School
Address
480 Sherman Parkway
New Haven, Connecticut, United States


James Hillhouse Comprehensive High School is the oldest public high
school in New Haven, Connecticut.


Established in 1859 as New Haven High School, Hillhouse High School is
New Haven's oldest public high school. Located on Orange Street, it
adopted its nickname, "The Academics," in acknowledgment of its close
association with Yale University. In 1863, the school was moved to a
building at Orange and Wall streets, which was replaced in 1871 by a new
school. The school is named in honor of James Hillhouse of New Haven,
who represented Connecticut in the U.S. Congress in the early years of
the United States' existence as a nation, serving as both a
Representative and a Senator.

For many years, Hillhouse served not only New Haven but also suburban
towns around the city that did not have high schools of their own. Its
peak enrollment was nearly 5,000 students, when the school had to
conduct double sessions to accommodate the large enrollment.


The school includes grades 9 through 12 and enrolls about 979 students.


Hillhouse became involved in athletic competition as early as 1866, when
some boys formed a club to play a sport that is described as having
"resembled rugby and soccer." By 1884, students were participating in
several sports, including modern football, which had been invented by
Walter Camp of New Haven. Team competition in baseball, tennis, ice
hockey, indoor polo and yacht racing also had been established around
this time. Basketball was introduced around the beginning of the 20th
century.

In the school's history, Hillhouse football teams have won 17 state
championships, ranking the school third in the state for football
championships. The boys? and girls? basketball teams have a combined
total of more than 25 state championships. The boys? and girls? track
teams also have more than 25 state championships between them. The
Academics also have won state championships in baseball, swimming, ice
hockey and tennis.


Among the school's notable alumni a

David Beckerman, founder and CEO of the Starter Clothing Line[4][7]
Albie Booth[5]
Ernest Borgnine, actor[4]
John C. Daniels, mayor of New Haven[5]
Robert Giaimo, U.S. Congressman[5]
Louis Harris, pollster[5]
John Huggins, leader in the Black Panthers
Levi Jackson, first African-American to play football for Yale
University[5]
Richard C. Lee, mayor of New Haven[5]
Marvin Lender of Lender's Bagels[5]
Floyd Little[4]
Constance Baker Motley[4]
Eugene Pergament, geneticist and 1951 graduate of Hillhouse who has
donated $1 million to the school to fund scholarships for graduates[8]
Maurice Podoloff, first president of the National Basketball
Association[9]
Vincent Scully, architectural historian[5]
Terrell Wilks, sprinter and All American at University of Florida


Johnny Huggins was one of my best buddies. He was a year or two behind
me. Floyd Little was a year ahead of me. Maurice Podoloff was the father
of my father's best buddy. I wasn't aware that Vince Scully
was a graduate.

More WAFA bull****.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:30:42 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:57:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

This will certify that John Leo Herring has not smoked cigarettes for ten years,
three months, four days, 18 hours, and 56 minutes. This has resulted in 187339
cigarettes not smoked, saving $28,100.61 and a great reduction in his Global
Warming Carbon Dioxide Footprint. Furthermore, this will provide him an
additional 1 year, 40 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, and 35 minutes to spend his
daughters' inheritance.

I quit in December 1974.

What are the stats on that ?

Go here and download the meter. It tracks the info. You have to enter your quit
date, how much you smoked, the price of cigarettes (which reminds me that my
prices/pack are way out of date), and some other stuff.

http://www.silkquit.org/stop-smoking/quit-meter.aspx

The 'stats' (the paragraph I posted) can be put into any document on which you
can type simply by hitting 'ctrl +' at the same time.

You'll be surprised how much money you've saved.

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:30:42 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:57:09 -0400, John
wrote:

This will certify that John Leo Herring has not smoked cigarettes for ten years,
three months, four days, 18 hours, and 56 minutes. This has resulted in 187339
cigarettes not smoked, saving $28,100.61 and a great reduction in his Global
Warming Carbon Dioxide Footprint. Furthermore, this will provide him an
additional 1 year, 40 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, and 35 minutes to spend his
daughters' inheritance.
I quit in December 1974.

What are the stats on that ?

Go here and download the meter. It tracks the info. You have to enter your quit
date, how much you smoked, the price of cigarettes (which reminds me that my
prices/pack are way out of date), and some other stuff.

http://www.silkquit.org/stop-smoking/quit-meter.aspx

The 'stats' (the paragraph I posted) can be put into any document on which you
can type simply by hitting 'ctrl +' at the same time.

You'll be surprised how much money you've saved.

187,339 cigarettes over 10 years?
An average of 18,700 cigarettes a year
About 1560 cigarettes a month
52 cigarettes a day

What are there, 20 in a pack?

Two and a half packs a day

I presume you get annual lung x-rays.