bess.bigwhoop.org

People that try to turn through an intersection at a green light when you're coming from the opposite direction going straight, causing you to have to break.

People that text message at the movie theater.

People that park way too close to one side in their parking spot, throwing off the dynamic of the entire row.

Sand.

Anyone selling anything outside of the grocery store.

Anyone that doesn't like Grosse Pointe Blank.

What exactly does threading one's eyebrows entail?

I just caught the end of the Daytona 500 and I thought it was good 'reality' television.

Care and entertainment are 2 different animals.

I am an animal.

You have a nice day.

I am also against guys who care about sports but I don't mean guys who watch every second of the Tour de France, and then a 165 game season of baseball, and the ensueing exhaustive schedule of playoffs followed (I pray) by a seven game world Series. Any other sports viewing is creepy. I also don't like people who go to the gym when doing something outside is available unless they are there to to watch one of the above-mentioned, life-essential sporting events. I think that lap dogs are cool if you have about 100 of them bred to pull a sled up in the Klondike.

Rich people who think a dog is an accessory and visibly tote one everywhere, driving up demand and thereby inflating the market price of such dogs.

Drivers who block the right turn lane, even though they are going straight.

Haters. Self-righteous haters, ignorant haters, recreational haters, committed haters, casual haters. I'm against them.

Also people who write crappy tripe for kids and think no one will notice.

Anyone who doesn't like the soundtrack to Grosse Pointe Blank.

AE, Kudos on the thumbs for the Grosse Pointe Blank soundtrack. I have the soundtrack as well as the dvd and both are outstanding.

I would put Walmart first. There is a Walmart within seconds of my man's new apartment and every time he goes there, I die a little inside. At least he's learned not to buy anything there but uses it for a price comparasion study.
I would also add to the list:
People with bad manners
People with bad manners that work in customer service
Mondays
Parents who allow their pre-adolescent daughters to dress like 24-year old pop stars
Stores that only sell the most bland flavors of VitaminWater, or don't sell any at all but have 15 flavors of Gatorade

I'm against those who hate on women who wax themselves.

What about Guitar Center? They need to make the list. To me, Wal-Mart is just a big store, but Guitar Center is franchising music, which is just wrong.

Wal-Mart is not "just a big store." Wal-Mart is bad because

1-They are anti-union. There are numerous cases of them firing employees who try to form a union. While the employees are later re-instated because it is illegal to do so, it sends a good message to everyone else who wants to try to organize.

2-They are the largest corporation since Ford when the automobile first came out. However, Ford was a "home-grown" corporation that came up with a product so desirable that it took several years for competitors to develop a similar product. Wal-Mart is the largest retail manufacturer in the world.

3-The low-prices come at a big price to communities and manufacturers in the US. Many suppliers have had to ship manufacturing oversees in order to "compete" at the loss of American jobs.

4-The government, and current administration, in their laissez-faire ways, has basically given Wal-Mart free will to violate many laws: http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/002197.shtml

Hating Wal-Mart is something I nearly love.

Not to mention the fact that WalMart won't fill birth-control or morning-after-pill prescriptions if doing so interferes with the pharmacist's "moral values".

Hmm, I think I'll become a pharmacist and then refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions. And then I'll become a WalMart purchaser and refuse to stock my branch with video games, televisions, or Koolaid, because it interferes with my personal way of life.

I love you America

Unions are bad. Anyone who tells you differently is selling you one. Why do you think everyone needs to offshore work? Unions have priced American labor out of the labor market. It is not worth $20/hour to pay someone to stitch towels, just because the union says you must. The days when unions represented the interests of the people are long gone. They're greedy, over valued, and, like American government, they only function to satisfy their (that is, those in power in the union)'s needs. If I owned a company and the employees tried to unionize, I'd fire every one of them, and replace them with employees who gave a crap about my company.

Jayko, are you aware that your one and only young Bess is in a union?

Your vision of unions is categorically incorrect. And firing employees who try to unionize is illegal. Unions provide a balance of power between the interest of business owners and the interests of employees. Sometimes, just knowing the company next door is unionized provides an impetus for employers to pay more. And unions cannot mandate a pay-rate of $20, the employer had to agree to that pay rate. Unions are still strong in many industries in the US, but unfortunately the fast-growing service sector where people get paid $5.15 an hour to scrub the nails of rich women have yet to unionize. Those who say unions are wrong need to look back on their family tree a bit and see exactly how it was their family entered the middle class. Chances are, it was somebody who worked a unionized job in hte 1940s or 50s. Unless their family is old money, and then they will never understand because old money never got it to begin with.

Christ almighty, we've been over this so many f-ing times, I'm not even gonna repeat myself. The only new thing I'll add this time is that there are 2 types of people in the world:

1) People who are okay with "getting by", being able to provide for their families, and maybe having a little bit "extra" every once in awhile.

2) Greedy fuckers who want to strike it rich to buy several mcmansions and a seaside chalet in Greece.

I have nothing against either category -- to each his own, I couldn't give a crap less -- but the second group will never embrace the idea of unions, because they know deep down inside that some of the money that could be going towards their flat-screen televisions is instead being distributed among people who (a) likely work harder than they do, (b) are grounded in reality, and (c) possess souls.

If you want to be super-super-rich, you -necessarily- believe in oppressing those below you.

If you don't care about becoming a billionaire, there's no reason you shouldn't agree with what unions stand for.

Your pay rate should be determined by your skill level. If you have no real marketable skill to speak of, as, one might arguee, the cashier at WalMart doesn't, you're not 'entitled' to a $20/hour job, or all the benefits given to skilled workers. And if the unions didn't make it so effing expensive to do business in the US, you might not be having a shortage of unskilled labor jobs here.

No matter what your "skill level" is, you should be able to earn a living wage with a 40-hr/week job in this country. By living wage here, I mean that you should be able to afford a reasonable amount of food and a place to live within afforable commuting-distance of your job. At $5.15 an hour, that isn't possible. And the motivation to "get ahead" and earn, say, $10/hr is a distant point on the horizon when you're malnourished and exhausted from working that second job that pays $2.00/hr + tips.

What if somebody WANTS to be a cashier at WalMart, full-time, forever? What if that's somebody's dream? Why should they have to live below the poverty level?

Why should the employer be forced to pay more than a job is worth, simply because someone wants to be a cashier? I'd like to be a rockstar, but whos tree can I shake for better paying/more gigs? The job you take is your choice, for the good and for the bad. If a job has a shitty pay scale, get a new job.

I've never really understood the requirement for employers to listen to unions and allow employees to unionize. Well I mean, I understand it in the sense that it's something unions obviously lobbied for and got put in place, but I mean, on a level of justice or fairness or equality or whatever ideal you subscribe to, how is that rule necessary?

I feel like it unfairly dictates the actions of two groups of people to the advantage of one and at the expense of another.

Note that I'm not questioning the validity of a group of people banding together to negotiate in aggregate as opposed to individually, that's a legitimate market force as much as the next one, so whatever. And we've been over that. I'm just saying how does that rule fix a problem that exists? What is the problem, how is it fixed by the law, etc...

I am really annoyed by the $20/hr thing, what person do you believe it unskilled getting paid over $40k/yr? The average "blue collar" worker only gets paid $15/hr, with service workers getting paid just over $10/hr including all of the skilled workers and supervisors in these industries. Cashiers, only about $8/hr, including those who have been ringing up for 10, 15 years.
"Get a new job" is a bit constrictive for those who can't afford a car to travel to a new job area.
As far as delving into the history of the NLRB, I just read "The Jungle" (not to be confused with "The Jungle Book").

Categorically Incorrect? I can't get over this statement. What was categorically incorrect about saying that unions lead to higher wages, and that this can lead to companies moving off-shore? Sure the unions cannot actually mandate a specific wage, but aren't we splitting hairs a bit by implying this is a ridiculous statement? The unions do have the power to push owners into paying higher wages.

If they aren't serving their own needs, who's needs are they serving? The public/consumer? The employer?

Um, maybe the needs of the employees they were created to represent?

The "including those who have been ringing up for 10, 15 years" thing irks me too. The implied premise is "you deserve more for doing the same thing you've been doing for 10 years, even when there's someone willing (and able) to do it now, for less". Where does that entitlement come from?

That's called experience and someone who knows the barcodes for yuca versus dakkon, how to adjust a receipt or spilt a bill between a credit card and cash, how to treat customer requests and who to refer customers to if they can't resolve and issue and so forth. I believe someone who has worked for 10 years is "entitled" to a higher wage than someone who just started, due to the variety of tasks people learn in that time period.

One arguments for the low starting wage of $5.15 is that employers don't know if these people will work out and they'd rather not have to pay someone $6 an hour to learn the ins and outs, and then leave. When someone has been working for years, they deserve to be paid $8 as the cost of replacing that worker, the hours that would be needed to get someone up to their skill level is worth the wage.

That is why they are being paid whatever rate cashier's get. Someone takes a 3 hour course and basically has all that stuff down. I dont think it takes 10-15 years to master hitting the "cash" key on the "register."

What "register" are we talking about here, Seamus?

"Um, maybe the needs of the employees they were created to represent?"

You're right. My mind is pretty skattered at the moment I wrote that post. Basically, when I read the "categorically incorrect" post I came up with the following points:
1.) The opinion that unions are bad
2.) Unions result in higher wages union members than their nonunion equivilent
3.) These higher wages push US based companies to look for cheaper labor abroad.
4) Their only function is to satisfy their needs and that they overlook the negative impact they may be having on others (business owners, consumers, nonunion members). This selfishness is viewed as greedy (by Jayko)
5.) In a hypothetical world, Jayko would fire his employees if they tried to form a union.

I find nothing wrong with any of these claims. Most of my questions addressed these points, as I was trying to find anything you might find so absolutely wrong about any of them. Who benefits falls under #4. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I was referring to an adjustable, grill-like device through which heated or cooled air is released into a room.

Huh?

Dearest Seamus, if I administered you a 3-hour course on apostrophes, would you have them "down"?

Let's focus on the "higher wages [achieved by unions] push US-based companies to look for cheaper labor abroad" aspect for a second:

1. Is looking for cheaper labor abroad the only solution?

2. If not, what are the other solutions?

I think that, regardless of whether the higher wages were caused by unions pushing them up or not, looking abroad for cheaper labor is a good solution. In fact, you'd be failing both your stockholders (if you have them) and your customers by NOT looking abroad.

The PRIMARY goal of running a business is typically not "pay my employees the highest wage possible" - that's usually one of a number of actions you would take to achieve what is your primary goal, ie, making a profit, staying in business, eating, etc.

For the record, I know EXACTLY what seamus meant by "cash" and "register". Let me tell you, it's less innocent than you think.

Okay, but regardless of what anyone thinks are "good" or "bad" solutions, what ARE the other solutions? Or is finding cheaper labor abroad indeed the only one?

Sincerest Bess, I probably could "learn" the appropriate usage of apostrophes during your special 3 hour "course." I feel that, this being one of the internets and me being me, the laws of grammar do not apply.

As for your questions:
1. Looking abroad isnt the only solution but its probably the best one right now for businesses since that is what a lot of them are doing and they wouldnt be doing it unless it was the most efficient thing for them.

2. Another solution would be designating parts of this country third-world areas and paying the people that live there third-world wages to perform non-skilled jobs.

Another solution would be to NOT buy $15 dollar jeans from Wal-mart, which started this whole thing. American labor, unionized or not, at any pay scale cannot survive on $.25/hr which I assume would be what you'd have to pay someone after paying for materials and cost of running the factory. Plus, when Walmart pays another amount just to send them to the US and have truck drivers deposit $15 jeans all over the country.

Do we honestly need $15 jeans? What's wrong with getting by with less, say only 1 pair of $45 jeans instead of 3 at $15?

I believe a lot of the trend of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas has to do with the intense desire for Americans to buy and buy beyond what is sustainable. If $15 jeans were something one could only buy second-hand, I think the country could survive.

I appologize for saying "categorically incorrect". I should have said "arrogant" or somethign else that expressed my distaste.

Tara,

"I am really annoyed by the $20/hr thing, what person do you believe it unskilled getting paid over $40k/yr?"

My statement was made, in general, about the UAW and the steel workers unions, probably the most powerful unions (besides, maybe, the teamsters). Maybe 'unskilled' was the wrong word; perhaps 'underskilled' would be better. American auto manufacturers lost their market domination because the unions mandated manitory raises and huge benefits as employees grew older. I don't think a welder gets better, say, after five years of experience. Between five years and thirty years, however, the wage he earns grows from $35K to $80K. The same can be said of the steel unions in PA. Now all steel is made in Japan. So you say "Union Yes"? I say "Union, you screwed Pittsburg."

And by the way, please don't call me arrogant. I may or may not be, but its incredibly arrogant of you to pretend that you know anything about me, or to assume that because I disagree with your opinion that I'm arrogant.
Tara, do you shop at the Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy? Everybody does...and you're proping up sweat shops and killing american jobs. I would love to know where the jeans you're wearing are made...IE do you really care about American jobs or do you just pay it lip service?

Why the hell would anyone want to buy one pair of Jeans for $45 when they could buy three for $15 each? Assuming that we're talking about comparable items here, of course.

I think that asking people to make three times the investment for 1/3 the return is a lot to ask in order to, uh, what is that trying to accomplish?

I did not call you arrogant, but rather said that it would be better for me to say I found your opinion to come off "arrogant" or something of the like that expressed my distaste. I apologize if my unclear statement offended you personally, or if this clarification only further offended you.

I own zero pairs of jeans and a Japanese car.

What do I not do is shop at WalMart, as I believe that they are a market power that needs to be checked. Unions have served as a way to check the power of large corporations that expand rapidly at the expense of their employees, or the employees of their suppliers. I believe unions are important part of the market for this reason and a unionized WalMart wouldn’t be able to offer goods at the prices that they do at the current time. Which is only the tip of the iceberg in my hatred of WalMart.

While some unions, as you pointed out, have increased the price of labor beyond the price of the worth of the worker, unions as a whole should not be abolished. However, keep in mind that not the entire situation regarding the collapse of steel and auto in the US is due to unions, but rather also due to changes in trade laws that made the American work “appear” overpaid in comparison to some third-world person who the American conscious does not see as deserving of a decent wage as its fellow citizens.

By in large, however, I feel that unions give the worker the fair price for their work. The fact that the “gender gap” in pay is lower the unionized workforce than in the workforce as a whole is something to keep in mind.

By the way, in China, WalMart workers are unionized. The Chinese government wouldn’t allow them to open a store without agreeing to this. However, the thousands or possibly millions of Chinese workers that make the goods that eventually wind up on WalMart shelves are not. I don’t know what that says or means.

Unions breed on inefficiency.

The ultimate goal of any union, or any individual or corporation or entity for that matter, is securing its own existence. Their lifeblood is the dues that they collect from the unionized workers. Many unions use tactics such as giving employees their birthdays off, mandatory furlough, or excessive sick time, for the simple reason that, the more non work time any worker has, the more total workers are needed, and the more dues are collected. An efficient workplace would yield substantially lower dues.

My wife is a school teacher (union), and as such, has mandatory duties that she must perform, such as office duty. I cannot see any reason why it makes sense to have a teacher earning 70k/year answering phones for the 40k/year receptionist, other than it reduces the periods she is actually teaching to 4 instead of 5. In the end, a school of 100 teachers could become a school of 80 teachers, if the educators did nothing but teach (a task that my wife much prefers to filing or watching pre-adolescents eat). They don’t have to work any harder for that savings. Those extra 20 teachers represent an influx of dues for the union.

Someone mention Ford earlier. The real contribution that Ford made was not the car or the assembly line, but the creation of the $5 day. Ford paid his workers $5 per day in a time when the average wage was in the $2 day neighborhood. He made his intentions clear; he wanted his workers to be able to afford one of his cars. He wound up creating not only a whole new market for his product, but ultimately what would become middle class America.

"but rather also due to changes in trade laws that made the American work “appear” overpaid in comparison to some third-world person"

The definition of Overpay is "To pay (a party) too much." Isn't paying a 50% premium to have an American make your steel when it can be done for half the price overseas overpaying, by the definition? Its just bad business.

I thought Argie was Dowdell, avoiding having his picture posted on Matt's website. Who is this mystery Argie?

Tara, I'm not understanding your beef with Walmart making less profit on jeans than say, the Gap. All of those jeans are produced in the same factories, same wages, same costs of production. Then the Gap, BR, Walmart, and whoever else, sell them at different prices. At least Walmart is giving the consumer a cheaper product and pocketing less money.

Almost all of our clothes and shoes are made in sweatshops. I hate Walmart as much as you, but they aren't the only ones to hate in this race to the bottom...

Damn, Argie, if your wife is bringing in 70k as a public school teacher, the union must be doing its job, because that's unheard-of. Where does she teach? My mom has been teaching at Washingtonville for 30 years and makes nowhere near that salary, but the little raises she's gotten over the years have been won via some pretty long & drawn-out negotiations and strikes. She went without a contract for years and years when I was a kid. I vividly recall walking with her through parking lots, picketing outside board meetings. Without the work of teachers' unions, teachers would still be considered spinster school-marms who just teach because they're female and maternal and enjoy being around little kids, that they'd otherwise be bored to tears during the day, sitting at their looms while hubbycakes is bringing home the bacon.

Before unions in general, employers ACTUALLY used the rational that if you were an unmarried female and therefore had no family to provide for, you shouldn't be making as much money as Joe Ball & Chain & Co. Female/male pay STILL isn't equal, but unions are the only reason it's getting there.

"I believe unions are important part of the market for this reason and a unionized WalMart wouldn't be able to offer goods at the prices that they do at the current time"

Doesn't this amount to "I think unions are good because they slow down progress and force prices up"? Interesting position.

Lara, I also hate WalMart for the other reasons cited above, not just the fact that they insist on driving prices to a level that leads to shipping jobs overseas. MSNBC or someother cable new station has a pretty good documentary on Walmart, which relatively balanced in its approach.

Yeah, I think offering Bess, my dad, my sister, and everyone else in unions a fair wage is slowing down "progress" and "forcing" prices up.

Either you have a place for unions in your economic model of the world or you don't. It's apparent who is on what side here.

This is my wife’s 8th year teaching in Rockland County, she’s been Masters +60 for the last 5, putting her at the top of the pay scale. Although she makes the same amount as my mother who’s been teaching for 30 years (currently in Chester), I’m not sure how good of a job the union is doing. Rockland is an affluent area. On her salary alone, she could not afford to live within her district. She also pays 6k a year (I know this because we just met with our accountant) in medical insurance premiums. While an expense of 6k when you’re making 70k (a little more actually) isn’t too bad, it’s the same amount for brand new teachers making 30k. It certainly doesn’t look like the union is doing them any favors.

Like I said before, people banding together to negotiate as a group rather than as individuals is a totally legitimate market force, and I think being opposed to that concept entirely would be a strange thing to be opposed to. I'm just unsure as to why the law that requires business owners to operate that way exists.

...and we're back to my favorite question ever. Tara, can you define the term "fair" as it's used in your "fair wage" example? Why is a certain wage fair or unfair, who is it fair to, why was it unfair before, etc...

Basically, BR, Old Navy, and the Gap are all owned by the same parent company. All three + Walmart are soulless, as are Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, etc. They don't need to exploit workers for me to hate them. Walking into them and feeling like a cyborg is enough to keep me away -- especially with those new self-pay register thingies. I mean, now we can leave our mcmansions to go shopping without interacting with a single person? Christ almighty.

The question that's gone unanswered here is: What would be so bad about the CEO getting rid of one of his private jets so that, say, Joe Schmoe in Accounts Receivable can pay his electricity bill this month? I mean, is it THAT much to ask for the people at the top to lower their standards a LITTLE? Like, say, maybe Biff & Mindy don't need to be sent on 6-month trans-European vacations out of daddy's pocket upon Ivy League graduation? Maybe we could put pork fried rice on the tables of our employees, instead of $1,000-a-plate delicacies on the tables of our banquet halls?

I know that this is a "moral values" thing, and I don't think it should be dictated what people do with "their" money, but I do think there needs to be some kind of spiritual/cultural awareness movement that will make everybody realize that having a shinier lamborghini than your neighbor isn't all it's cracked up to be. But until then, we'll continue offshoring jobs so that Wifey can continue receiving botox injections.

Retailers moving toward a cloned, “big box” strategy is a totally different issue from the effectiveness of unions. It’s really sad, in an Orwellian kind of way, that all towns, regardless of their own flavors or cultures, are beginning to look so much alike. In the west there’s even a highly successful chain (although for the life of me I can’t remember its name now) of funeral homes, all as carbon copy as any Home Depot, or Chili’s, or Old Navy etc. Feeling like a cyborg when buying a box of nails is one thing, but when saying good bye to grandma??

Speaking of unions.....

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/03/05/wakefern.htm

I think you might need a password to look at the article, so here it is:

Wakefern closing to cost 500 jobs

Town of Wallkill – Wakefern Food Corp. will close its warehouse complex on Ballard Road, eliminating 500 local jobs, the company announced yesterday.
Employees were handed letters yesterday informing them of the decision, which was reached after union employees voted down a company contract proposal last fall.
"People are in shock," said one longtime employee yesterday afternoon, "but they continue to work like they've always worked. It takes a lot to slow somebody down here."
Wakefern has signed a lease for a new warehouse being built in Pennsylvania, said spokeswoman Karen Meleta, who declined to specify the location.
"Since the onset of the negotiations, we were hopeful that we would be able to resolve this contract successfully," Meleta said. "It didn't turn out that way."
Wakefern recently signed a lease for a planned 1.1 million-square-foot building in the Boulder Business Center near Allentown, Pa., according to a newsletter published by real estate consulting firm Colliers Lanard & Axilbund.
The company is committed to leaving Wallkill once the warehouse is completed. That could happen as early as August, when the union contract expires.
"They claim they're going to be able to save $10 million down there every year," said Fred Smit, secretary/treasurer of Local 445, which represents 400 Wakefern drivers and warehouse workers in Wallkill.
The letter distributed yesterday to employees says that the new warehouse will reduce operating costs and position Wakefern "to fight the threat of big box retailers and other non-union competitors."
Wakefern is the cooperative buyer/distributor for ShopRite supermarkets. The company opened its massive Wallkill warehouse – two buildings totaling more than 700,000 square feet – 25 years ago.
"They have been a tremendous company, tremendous corporate citizens," said Maureen Halahan, president of the Orange County Partnership. "It's a blow."
Most employees have worked at the warehouse a decade or more, Smit said. That's a stark contrast to the rampant turnover characteristic of several other local warehouses. Many longtime employees earn $20 an hour, with company-funded health and pension benefits.
Contract negotiations began in 2003, at the union's request, after its health-and-welfare fund ran short and workers' dental, vision and life insurance plans were suspended. Smit blamed the shortfall on miscalculations by the union's actuaries.
Talks stalled at first, then resumed last summer. Wakefern representatives repeatedly threatened to close the warehouse if a deal could not be reached. On Oct. 29, the warehouse workers and drivers rejected the company's final offer, a six-year contract that would have raised wages and restored the suspended benefits. There have been no formal negotiations since.
Employees and union representatives pointed to two reasons for the no vote: reduced company contributions toward employee pensions and displeasure with the company's threats, a negotiating tactic Wakefern had used in previous negotiations.
Smit suspects that if workers had believed Wakefern's stance – that a no vote would cost them their jobs – the contract would have been approved.
"I think a lot of people voted no on this particular proposal thinking that this was Wakefern as usual," Smit said. "Did we get the pension increase we wanted? No. But we could have lived to fight another day. And now we can't."

Does anyone besides me think that the teachers unions, and their successful defense against any actual measurements of student performance has played a huge role in the dumbing down of American youth? Not that all teachers are bad, but it is truly the only job in the world with no measurement of success. You just keep going and don't piss anyone off.

Jayko, honey, it's the parents who are against any measurement of student performance, not the teachers or the unions. Public schools are first & foremost controlled by parents.

Lets agree to disagree.

I think that the concept of tenure, as I've seen it implemented and heard about it from other people, is certainly a contributor. Not necesarily to the overall dumbness of America (I blame myself for that), but certainly to the 'problem' that is the public school system.

I mean, I understand that there's some value in "ensure good teachers that you'll keep them around so that they can be most effective", but I feel like that could easily be accomplished by a good school administrator, without the policy of tenure. I'm not sure what other job has a "work here for 3 years and we'll make it essentially impossible for us to get rid of you unless you molest one of us" policy.

According to Young Bess, thats at the behest of the Parents, because they, first and foremost, control the schools.

Bess, please don't murder me.

Well I mean, to the extent that the taxpayers in a district directly control their own school, it IS in the hands of the parents and other landowners. Of course, there's state and federal monies tied in, and it's probably more complex than that. I'd be curious as to what things you have to agree to, if any (in terms of unions and tenure and so on) to get state money. I know there are curriculum reqs in most states, I wonder what's beyond that...

The "I'd rather see our areas teachers employed and secure in their jobs than to see the future of our community educated as well as they could be" is another boggling position for me to think about.

You guys might not be aware of this, since your parents weren't totally, unhealthily domineering rulers o' your fates when you were children, but -- as the daughter of a mother, father, stepmother, and stepfather who are/were all teachers or administrators their entire lives -- it has been brought to my attention over the years that A LOT of parents -- surprise, surprise! -- only want what's best for Little Johnny and not what's best for Education as a whole.

This means that they'll demand that Little Johnny not be placed with the other ADD kids, even if he's the ADD-est kid this side o' the Mississipp', and they'll demand that even though Little Johnny hasn't learned how to read by third grade, he be allowed to move on to fourth, because it would hurt his feelings and ostracize him from his classmates if he were left back. And the schools allow it, because yes, the parents are taxpayers, and yes, it's better for the school's image not to have screaming parents writing angry letters to the editor.

My mother spends WEEKS expertly crafting her report card commentary (actually, I think the whole goddamn thing is written commentary at this point -- there are no longer actual numerical/letter grades, since the parents decided this was too harsh), because she's become so attuned to what the parents will flip out about and therefore tries to avoid the backlash. It seems like far too much of her time is spent warding off parents just so that she can do her job.

I remember reading that a couple years ago, some school district somewhere decided that grading in red pen was too harsh, so they switched to purple. When I sent the article to my mom, she was like, "Oh yeah, well, don't worry, because we use blue. We've been off red for years."

Right. I guess look at "the school system should educate my children, not make me or them feel better about them" as a view that's not terribly hard to hold. I'll comment further when I have children, and if they are unable to complete the watered down education they're getting, I'll consider myself to have completely failed in my task, and write letters to the editor asking for remedial classes for parenting.

I have changed my mind about Wal-Mart. While searching for appropriately modest and decent undergarments for my daughters I found a hot-pink, glitter encrusted, matching pantie and padded-bra set at my local Wal-Mart. In a girls' size 7. And 8 and 9 and 10. It pretty much screamed, "I am destined to be your fuck-toy for life! How about TONIGHT??"

You had to see the thing. It was totally hot, very trashy sexy. In a girls' size 7. And 8 and 9 and 10.

I wanted to puke. This is on the racks, but they won't sell birth-control pills. I still want to puke.

Did you say "PADDED" bra!!!!?

It's no wonder we have children AGED 6 with STDs in foster care!!!!!!! Yes, that's right...and they weren't born with them!!!!!!!