Fairweather

A nice sentiment, for sure. But Seattle has far too many Fellow Travelers.

The solution is easy: eliminate all of the forums except Olympic and Mount Rainier.

Naw, Rob's always been the lapdog/jellyfish. You're the ropegun, apologist, and, far too often IMO, password provider during his increasingly-frequent off-his-meds bannination periods. Not sure your thesis re unions and average pay by state is valid. Could be, but we'd have to superimpose COLAs by state for a true picture. In any event, the argument that collective bargaining stands in the way of more equitable pay-for-performance (and in-demand subject matter skills) seems pretty strong, IMO. Wisconsin will provide a laboratory in the years ahead, so we'll have to wait and see. As for your "isn't improving their lot a better solution than dragging public employees down into the same swamp" argument, well, I couldn't agree more. This is why we need to un-elect the social theorist you & yours put in office, and replace him with someone who understands economics.

Speak of the devil...

Now do you see what I have to go through with these people, FW? I know you're already wise to this, but stick with dumb friends. Cow-eyed head nods - so much easier. Ah yes, more personal insults along with the private club/my friends/our sandbox meme you're so fond of. Love it. One of my favorites. Still, you should see some of the PMs I've received about you from your very own entourage over the years. Not flattering at all.

lol. OK, so it's annoying because the website makes you subscribe if you have more than like 5 views, which makes it hard to average any kind of numbers -- but I assumed you must have done this since you certainly wouldn't have just jumped to the conclusion that "I see a whole lotta $70-$85k" just by glancing at the first page of 20 employees out of tens of thousands, right? so imagine my surprise when I discovered that a) it's pretty easy to bypass their registration screen and even query their database yourself and b) the average pay for teaching positions is not anywhere near what you suggest it is. Weird, right? Not sure how TTK's pet jellyfish derives average from I see a lotta, but hey, the point remains that teacher's poverty claims are questionable--at best. Especially given their 180+ a few schedule. As to Ivan's more thoughtful response, well, I agree it's total bullshit that a salary sort for, say, Seattle SD reveals pages of admin jobs (non-union, even!) that are pulling down more than the state Governor. Not to mention the guaranteed pension and health benefits that the common folk in the private sector no longer enjoy...

I see a whole lotta $70-$85k. Pretty good money, IMO. My guess is that most deserve it--but far too many don't. http://wwwb.thenewstribune.com/databases/school_pay/

Not sure this is true at all. Didn't pretty much every local education measure on the ballot just pass across the state last night? I think the people really just want to see the shitty teachers gone and the good teachers properly rewarded. Too subjective a standard for the WEA? Not fair? Well, welcome to the real world.

You, of course, being one of the grownups. Forgive me if I crack a smile, but this is kind of funny coming from the same guy who has been banned here repeatedly for his boorish and downright vulgar behavior. I was hoping to engage sans the personal attacks--since we do agree on a few things--but this has once again proven impossible to do with cc.com's resident narcissist. You're a pretty weird guy.

I think private sector collective bargaining is necessary to offset wage-fixing that takes place in the corporate world. No problem with private sector unions. And, on the public side, I agree that teachers should be paid what they're worth. Unfortunately, the NEA/WEA thinks all teachers are all equally qualified. Good teachers ought to be outraged that they are being paid the same as the the bad ones. No reason they ought to be allowed to bargain collectively--at least to the degree that they presently are. (Ditto police and firefighters, BTW.) FDR was a "tool" too, I guess: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445

Don't know how to break this to you, but, other than your fellow teachers, there aren't too many folks who actually like your union. There are those who hate it, and those who tolerate it. And when the bill for McCleary comes due, it's gonna be even less popular.

Good ideas all, but even if you can get such legislation passed, politicians and law bullies will always find wiggle room--or a sympathetic judge who doesn't give a rat's ass about the 4th.

That was Taft--my favorite. He also had to have his car towed the final quarter mile to Paradise by a team of mules when it got stuck in the mud during the summer of 1911.

Maybe, but a healthy fear of slippery slopes (left and right) provides a useful tension. As for the drones and phones and NSA and all the other bullshit, I think anything less than a constitutional amendment is leaving free a door that swings wide with each new administration. Especially since recent execs (GW and BO) have grown fond of signing statements and other bizarre interpretations of Congressional legislation.

Good call, I guess Harrison didn't last long enough to ring up a tally. Go ahead and take #9 off the evil list.

Not sure who these benevolent leaders are. Show me one and I'll bet I can show you the mass grave in his back yard.

Not sure I agree with you re Garfield. Famous for other reasons.

Pretty much #7 through #15 were evil. Except maybe number 13. Nobody gives a shit about him.

He was pretty fucking evil.

Does your ATM spit out 20s or 5s?

Hard to disagree with that sentiment.

I think ole Fremont Lenin has been splattered with red paint representing blood once or twice, so I gotta agree with the usual suspects here this time. My problem would be with the useful idiots who washed it off.

Not to worry, GGK, your new overlords are getting raises to pay for their dachas on Hood Canal and Mazama and Leavenworth. Meet your new bosses, same as your old bosses: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/CEO-of-Washington-health-exchange-gets-13-percent-raise-232750371.html

I agree 100%. Still, admissions criteria in the Wilderness Act didn't stop advocates for Wild Sky--or prevent gerrymandered additions around Mount Hood. I think many of our elected reps still truly believe that recreationalists and hard-core greens are on the same page. It's up to us to let them know this is, for the most part, no longer true. Congressman Derek Kilmer was off to a good start--but it looks like he's going to get it wrong. (Page 6 seems to underline his support for Wild Olympics/Rivers). http://kilmer.house.gov/sites/kilmer.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/Olympic%20Peninsula%20Economic%20Development%20Initiative_3.pdf

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On one hand, a radical "repeal the Wilderness Act" stance would open up a real can of worms that none of us, I suspect, want to eat. "Amending" the Act is a good idea, but since the 1964 Act has no sunset provision like most other environmental legislation, the original would, I believe, have to be repealed to move forward. Again, this could turn out badly. My thoughts might look something like this: Pass a new Act that looks exactly like the 1964 original--not a letter or semicolon out of place. But add a ten-year sunset provision at the end of new law--again, one just like most other environmental legislation already has. This would put the debate back into the hands of the people and we could have this new ten-year discussion through our elected representatives minus all the judicial (and administrative) nonsense that has made such a mockery of the original legislation.