Throughout the No Lakota Levy campaign, it has shocked me how many people are willing to overlook obvious problems in favor of their own short term gain. I can only attribute this behavior to a perfectly normal, and sane individual seeking to get drunk, or “trashed” as they like to term it, for the short term gain of being free of regulation and responsibility along with the bliss of debauchery and ignoring the frequent urination and eventual hang-over that will inevitability ensue.
Has everyone forgotten this from 2008? I haven’t. Talk about a hang-over. This is why things cost so much.
Now that it’s on the table, teacher salaries make up that drunken metaphor. People that want to keep everything status quo are now willing to overlook the obvious overpayment to employees of the district in favor of the short term gain of keeping everything as it is. For these drunken drink seekers they are willing to ignore the obvious question, that if school districts are in financial trouble, and they proclaim that they do not have enough money, and then inquiring minds look at their expenditures and see that they are spending 75% to 85% of their expenditures on wages and benefits, they are unwilling to proclaim that the market economy cannot support the step increases and wage rate that the collective bargaining system has negotiated across the state. They are unwilling to look at how unions have created in Ohio legislation many of the back breaking policies that districts are facing now without money to apply. And they are unwilling to look at why it is a problem for public employees to be organized under a union.
Nothing in this video is conservative. All the players speaking are from the left. I think this video displays the beginning of the education problem.
The NEA contributes over $40 million dollars to democratic candidates. And recently a democratic strategist was hired to attempt to assassinate my character. Why wasn’t it a republican? Because the money that goes into education unfortunately finds its why into the politics of the Democratic Party. And I’m not a supporter of the Democratic Party. I can’t help it that they have attached themselves to our children. That’s why in my view, that separation needs to take place before we can have an intelligent conversation of how we can properly fund schools. But having organized unions collectively bargaining for any tax payer funded occupation is unethical, because there is no way the tax payer can get the best value from a government employee if wages cannot be driven down competitively. And again, when overwhelmingly, organized employees vote democratic, which means as long as public positions are unionized, a true balance within our republic can never be achieved. Such an arrangement is great if you sympathize with democratic platforms, but if you don’t, you are forced to fund democratic activity with your tax dollars, which is wrong and creates an unhealthy political climate.
Unfortunately this is a realistic portrayal. This lady is just saying what most everyone in public employment thinks.
I learned in the Pulse Journal’s October 21, 2010 edition that my views are considered by some to be of the more radical view.
Well……this is new to me. It leads me to wonder what views I had that were considered radical. I can see where people may have trouble with the things I proclaim because they are difficult to admit. But radical, why would they be proclaimed radical?
Maybe it was that I used bullwhips to demonstrate how governments can cut taxes. After all, using whips to make a point is different, so taken only by word it might sound that way if the person describing it presented it that way. After all, the traditional format would be for a person to present the information with a suit and tie and some charts. The trouble with that is I do present information in that format. And I’ve watched for years others present information in that format. And I’ve watched established politics routinely suppress the view points of statements made in a traditional format. So to get your story told in this political climate unfortunately, you have to find your unique voice, and use it.
The other thing that may indicate that I’m a radical, or as pointed out by the OEA, I am one of those vocal conservative voices that are in the minority. And that my statement that unions should not be funded in any way shape or form by tax payer funds is in some way radical.
Well, because the word radical has been used in my direction, and democratic strategists have been hired to defame my name, it is time to reveal that my use of the whip at the beginning of the No Levy Campaign was by design. The reason is that the traditional methods do not work any longer. So a new strategy is needed. So I used another talent that I have to help me communicate my point in a fashion that the opposition was not prepared for.
Why don’t traditional methods work any longer? Because, Saul Alinsky came along and created various methods of consensus building that have been used against the middle class to enact various goals under collective bargaining.
Saul Alinsky started in the 1950’s to help the poor communities to improve their situations, which in itself seems to be a noble goal. However, his tactics were used by universities in the late sixties to create a new level of radical behavior that was unleashed upon the United States like a cancerous disease called the hippie movement.
In 1971 Alinsky published Rules for Radicals a year before his death in 1972. It was in his work and reputation that unions began to adopt his methods for their collective bargaining. After all, Alinsky had the Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson’s admiration so he had enough credibility to be very well known by the 1950’s across the state. In Rules for Radicals he states, “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”
Alinsky along with a couple of other guys started the Industrial Areas Foundation, in January of 1972 and began teaching members of the NEA UniServ personnel in Kentucky and then in February, Illinois’s UniServ personnel. And from there, the teaching has branched out.
Who are the radicals?
A technique that was developed is called The Delphi Technique. I’m not going to get into the details in this essay, but will leave it to say that it is a form of consensus building. Google it and be ready to read a lot. It is not a far stretch to say that The Delphi Technique has been used extensively by more and more unions for many years now to completely undermine the power bases of tradition, all in the spirit of noble quests such as women’s rights in the workplace, proper compensation, and work load concerns.
Various forms of The Delphi Technique are found in many different business strategies. I ran into it first while having to study Six Sigma for companies I’ve worked for. The Delphi Technique comes up as a way to build consensus among a large group, and then letting the group believe that they arrived at the conclusion on their own, when in fact the facilitators of the group had the outcome already decided prior to a meeting.
Keep in mind that the Department of Education did not exist prior to 1979. And Rules for Radicals was introduced in 1971. So many realities that we now consider normal had only come into being during the late 60’s and 70’s. Fast forward to the current time, is it any surprise that across the nation wages for members of unions, that have used these techniques have soared to tremendous levels. And in the case of the local issue I have been dealing with at Lakota, the level of wages is exclusively the reason for the current financial calamity the district is in.
The problem with the union model is that they have only most strongly survived in public sector jobs, which is why unions are pushing government to add more government expansion and thus union power. In the private sector, businesses that have tried to function with a union ideology have been crushed out of business. This is why unions tend to dislike capitalism. Capitalism favors the strong and successful, while the weak are left behind.
Saul Alinsky started his crusade to assist those poor that had been left behind by capitalism, so it is only natural that people educated by such methods, will sympathize with those left behind in the economics of capitalism.
Here is what Hollywood has bought in to. Let Alec Baldwin tell you about Saul Alinsky
But the world is changing, and not in the way the union and large government people would desire, in spite of their efforts. In schools, they proclaim that a community should value an education by paying a teacher top pay. But the world is requiring us to learn faster then traditional teaching. Rosetta Stone Software for instance is immensely effective as a computer based foreign language program, that traditional education would spend years instructing. Many electives, traditional mathematics, English, etc can now be learned with computer programs. It is not a surprise that more and more parents are choosing Home School as an option. Is it surprising that a home schooled student out performs their public school counterparts by 30% or more in all categories. What does that mean?
Of course the downside to home schooling is the social interaction that takes place. But what does that social interaction have to do with a teacher. When we talk about social interaction, we’re talking about the peer groups that form in school. Not the academics.
When people talk about the cost per pupil of teaching a student that cost is directly attached to the expenditures of a district, and as pointed out already, at least 75% of that is wages and benefits. So if a district or the state determines that they need to bring the cost per pupil down, so they can have a conversation on how to properly fund education at the state level, they can’t discuss it, because the funding system is kept in chaos by unions seeking first the goals of their collective bargaining intentions. It doesn’t matter if the results of their collective bargaining break the back of the tax payer. They don’t think that far, just like the party goers seeks to get drunk for the short term gains. And nobody wants to discuss if education needs a complete overhaul in general, because of the success of the home schooling sector of the population. Again, that conversation can’t begin because too many wish to just keep everything as they are now, because that’s the only way to maintain the system that can support the collective bargaining agreements gained through years of using Saul Alinsky’s techniques.
They call me radical, LOL
The bottom line is that we are on a technological frontier and the way we learn is changing, and is becoming more and more interactive. A traditional teacher standing in the front of a class is becoming more and more irrelevant. Such methods will always be needed for higher degrees and technical experience. But for the basics, much more efficient methods are available. And while all this is going on, we are paying educators top level pay which is causing trouble with school district budgets.
Last week I had more than a few people tell me that the only way to handle the education funding problem is with property taxes. This was a shocking statement to me. They professed to say that the state of Ohio has no money and that other programs are bankrupting the state. So education money is not even an option.
My response was simple, and was directed at a VIP who’s on the inside at the state level. “It’s not that the state does not have the money. Taxpayers sent money to the state, but you guys spent it on things, and the money did not find its way to education. You have a priority problem. Not a revenue problem. You have to sit down and figure out what revenue you have, and then figure out where your priorities are, just like any household. You guys did not spend money on education because you knew that the property tax system would allow you to spend money on other programs that in all reality are probably less important.” We don’t have enough money for Medicare. We don’t have enough money for Social Security, and we don’t have enough money for education. So how do you get more money for those things? You have to bring the costs down. What are the costs? And how can they be brought down?
It is the drunks that are calling me radical. They look at me with glazed over eyes and a mantra they have accepted through talking points given to them during the party. And since the hosts of the party have more value to the drunks enjoyment than what I’ve been saying, once drunk, they are left to only call me names because their logic is no longer with them.
But when the party is over, they’ll be the first to vomit and cry out for someone to help their headache. And when that happens, I won’t help them. It was their poor planning that led them to drink themselves silly, and dehydrate themselves to such an extent that their overall health in now in jeopardy. And the value of such a lesson learned is much more valuable than the relief they’d gain from my charity. And such a hang over is the result of this election. They cry out for more funding, or more to drink so the pain can go away. But I’m not giving them any. Because for the benefit of their own sustained health, they need to work through the head ache.