Milwaukee Public Schools

[mu03eng]

No, we are not. We do not physically defend this country on a daily, yearly basis like other nations and regions. Stop this lie. No one is protecting our freedom 5000 miles away.

One thing I do know, is that NO society sends its most valuable members off to die in a foreign country that does not directly threaten it. Is it really a coincidence that the majority of soldiers in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are poor, lower middle class? NO!

How we impact the youth of the future will always be more influential and important to a society.

If you want to get all preachy about foreign wars that's fine, that's on you.  I make no reference whatsoever to foreign wars, I simply said, disband the military and see how quickly we continue to exist as a nation.  I would put existing as a nation as #1 requirement, without a military that doesn't happen, therefore a higher societal value should be placed on the military....by your standards.  Heck, by the same standards police and fire services should have a higher value, lets pay them more.  Education is critical but from a societal value that you preach its not even top 2 or 3, where are we getting all this money to pay everything more because they aren't talented enough by your own statement.

[Aughnanure]

OK, let me see if I understand this.....I said most people could be trained to be a teacher and that is a sexist thought.....however you are arguing that we need to raise income levels to attract more talent, which implies the current talent is not good enough, and if the current talent is predominantly women are you then not saying women are not as talented as those who choose other fields?????  And I had the sexist thought, because I think a majority of people can be trained to be teachers??

No, that is not at what I am saying. You really don't get it, do you?

[Aughnanure]

If you want to get all preachy about foreign wars that's fine, that's on you.  I make no reference whatsoever to foreign wars, I simply said, disband the military and see how quickly we continue to exist as a nation.  I would put existing as a nation as #1 requirement, without a military that doesn't happen, therefore a higher societal value should be placed on the military....by your standards.  Heck, by the same standards police and fire services should have a higher value, lets pay them more.  Education is critical but from a societal value that you preach its not even top 2 or 3, where are we getting all this money to pay everything more because they aren't talented enough by your own statement.

I believed you were insinuating current soldiers, etc., and thus current fighting/wars. I apologize for that misrepresentation. However, I do think its a bit insulting that you would think without a standing army this country would just disappear and cease to exist (unless you are looking at this only from a historical aspect).

I would agree with you on police, an argument can definitely be made that they are the single most important profession in our society.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

My friend's father is a retired MPS teacher. I asked him about this subject the other night.

He said the issues start with:

1. Not enough parental emphasis put on education. Single parent or not, the kids are not consistently told that school is VERY important.

2. Truancy (likely an effect of #1). He said that if he could get a kid to come almost everyday, for 4 years, he had a pretty good chance to get the kid excited about something.

i.e. "Hey, math isn't so bad, maybe I could do something with numbers."
"I'm pretty good with my hands, maybe I could be a carpenter"
etc.

He said keeping a kid in class isn't going to make him/her a rocket scientist, but it allows for growth and exploration that doesn't happen if they drop out at 16. At 18, they might have a little better idea what they want to do, and at least they will have a HS diploma.

With all of this said, I asked him what MPS could do now, and he didn't have a lot of answers.

[🏀]

My friend's father is a retired MPS teacher. I asked him about this subject the other night.

Is it difficult to talk to him when he sits up high upon his mound of money?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Is it difficult to talk to him when he sits up high upon his mound of money?

I have to yell for him to hear me.

Ironically (at least to some), he leans right politically.

I never asked him about the Walker stuff though. I'm not into politics. I do find the MPS stuff interesting because the system isn't really working well, so maybe we should re-think the system.

[mu03eng]

No, that is not at what I am saying. You really don't get it, do you?

If I don't get it, explain it to me again, slower and with smaller words.  You indicated the gap is because we don't put enough value on teaching and that we needed to raise income to attract more talent.  Agreed so far?

Does this not imply the current talent is insufficient?

[mu03eng]

I believed you were insinuating current soldiers, etc., and thus current fighting/wars. I apologize for that misrepresentation. However, I do think its a bit insulting that you would think without a standing army this country would just disappear and cease to exist (unless you are looking at this only from a historical aspect).

I would agree with you on police, an argument can definitely be made that they are the single most important profession in our society.

I think you are naive at best if you think eliminating a standing military wouldn't lead to the ruination of this country.  Take Cuba for example, what would prevent them from taking control of oil reserves in the gulf?  Its not like the UN is a fast reactionary force, talk to Darfur about that.  Place NATO would cease to exist, which would take away any leverage we have with the Russians and influence on the European continent.

That's just off the top of my head.  No standing army means we are no longer a world power within 5 years and no longer a country within our lifetime.  Obviously no way to prove it, and the military would never go away, but I think you grossly underestimate the value of the military in global affairs, simply because it has been there for so long.  Unfortunately, you are not alone.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I think you are naive at best if you think eliminating a standing military wouldn't lead to the ruination of this country.  Take Cuba for example, what would prevent them from taking control of oil reserves in the gulf?  Its not like the UN is a fast reactionary force, talk to Darfur about that.  Place NATO would cease to exist, which would take away any leverage we have with the Russians and influence on the European continent.

That's just off the top of my head.  No standing army means we are no longer a world power within 5 years and no longer a country within our lifetime.  Obviously no way to prove it, and the military would never go away, but I think you grossly underestimate the value of the military in global affairs, simply because it has been there for so long.  Unfortunately, you are not alone.

Well, on the positive side maybe Finland or Sweden one of the other countries with a top-performing educational system could invade and solve our problems in that area for us.  Lutefisk isn't that bad, is it?

[mu03eng]

Well, on the positive side maybe Finland or Sweden one of the other countries with a top-performing educational system could invade and solve our problems in that area for us.  Lutefisk isn't that bad, is it?

Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it.  Same with Herring. 

Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?

[Aughnanure]

My friend's father is a retired MPS teacher. I asked him about this subject the other night.

He said the issues start with:

1. Not enough parental emphasis put on education. Single parent or not, the kids are not consistently told that school is VERY important.

2. Truancy (likely an effect of #1). He said that if he could get a kid to come almost everyday, for 4 years, he had a pretty good chance to get the kid excited about something.

i.e. "Hey, math isn't so bad, maybe I could do something with numbers."
"I'm pretty good with my hands, maybe I could be a carpenter"
etc.

He said keeping a kid in class isn't going to make him/her a rocket scientist, but it allows for growth and exploration that doesn't happen if they drop out at 16. At 18, they might have a little better idea what they want to do, and at least they will have a HS diploma.

With all of this said, I asked him what MPS could do now, and he didn't have a lot of answers.

^This. Its amazing how many of my girlfriend's kids don't show up every day. Not many can even go one full week in attendance.

[Aughnanure]

If I don't get it, explain it to me again, slower and with smaller words.  You indicated the gap is because we don't put enough value on teaching and that we needed to raise income to attract more talent.  Agreed so far?

Does this not imply the current talent is insufficient?

Yes, it does. But it does not prove that the current talent is insufficient because it is primarily women.

[Aughnanure]

I think you are naive at best if you think eliminating a standing military wouldn't lead to the ruination of this country.  Take Cuba for example, what would prevent them from taking control of oil reserves in the gulf?  Its not like the UN is a fast reactionary force, talk to Darfur about that.  Place NATO would cease to exist, which would take away any leverage we have with the Russians and influence on the European continent.

That's just off the top of my head.  No standing army means we are no longer a world power within 5 years and no longer a country within our lifetime.  Obviously no way to prove it, and the military would never go away, but I think you grossly underestimate the value of the military in global affairs, simply because it has been there for so long.  Unfortunately, you are not alone.

As long as we are the most powerful consumer base on the planet, we will continue to be a world power. Maybe I am naive, but I think any type of global war will be become less and less likely as our economies become ever more dependent on each other.

But, yeah I get it. We would be susceptible to being abused by other powers. I guess my bigger point is that I don't think we, in any way, need 493,000 active-duty soldiers, 900+ bases, etc to maintain our existence as a country.

Oh, and I think Exxon-Mobil would have quite something to say about Cuba taking control of the oil reserves. But now I'm just getting silly.

[Benny B]

Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it.  Same with Herring. 

Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?

Puerto Rico

[ATL MU Warrior]

Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it.  Same with Herring. 

Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?

France.  Because we could kick them the hell back out whenever we wanted to.

[Pakuni]

Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it.  Same with Herring. 

Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?

Brazil.
Assuming they send an all female armed forces.

[mu03eng]

Brazil.
Assuming they send an all female armed forces.

I'd go back to Sweden if that's the conditions we are dealing with.

[mu03eng]

Yes, it does. But it does not prove that the current talent is insufficient because it is primarily women.

OK, so you agree that you are saying that the current talent is insufficient.  You are also saying the current talent is majority women correct?  So then are the men the ones providing the talent gap???

For the record you are the one that leveled the sexism charge, I just want to point out that my position has been consistent, the talent we have is good and properly compensated.  The changes I advocate are the tools and system that talent is working with/in.  You seem to think we need better talent.

[🏀]

Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it.  Same with Herring. 

Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?

I always thought the USSR was onto something...

[Aughnanure]

OK, so you agree that you are saying that the current talent is insufficient.  You are also saying the current talent is majority women correct?  So then are the men the ones providing the talent gap???

For the record you are the one that leveled the sexism charge, I just want to point out that my position has been consistent, the talent we have is good and properly compensated.  The changes I advocate are the tools and system that talent is working with/in.  You seem to think we need better talent.

What? No. Your original position was pretty simple - that teacher skills are less difficult to develop than other professions and are not valuable enough to pay more.

"I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more."

My counter-point was that this is a largely sexist view, that careers traditionally dominated by female are seen as less skillful than those traditionally dominated by men - thus justifying the practice that we don't need to pay them more.

Then you tried to skew this all by saying what if the military didn't exist? Wouldn't that cause the country to not exist? Which is a pretty disingenuous statement, as one could make that same point about many industry/fields.

[Benny B]

What? No. Your original position was pretty simple - that teacher skills are less difficult to develop than other professions and are not valuable enough to pay more.

"I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more."

My counter-point was that this is a largely sexist view, that careers traditionally dominated by female are seen as less skillful than those traditionally dominated by men - thus justifying the practice that we don't need to pay them more.

Then you tried to skew this all by saying what if the military didn't exist? Wouldn't that cause the country to not exist? Which is a pretty disingenuous statement, as one could make that same point about many industry/fields.

Given that most of the menial, unskilled jobs in this world are dominated by men, I'm not buying this.  And how skilled your job is usually has very little to do with what you're paid. Examples: sanitation workers, real estate agents & President of the United States.

[Pakuni]

Given that most of the menial, unskilled jobs in this world are dominated by men, I'm not buying this.  And how skilled your job is usually has very little to do with what you're paid. Examples: sanitation workers, real estate agents & President of the United States.

Those aren't men slaving away in Asian garment factories, cleaning your hotel room or working the checkout line at the Kroeger.

[Aughnanure]

Given that most of the menial, unskilled jobs in this world are dominated by men, I'm not buying this.  And how skilled your job is usually has very little to do with what you're paid. Examples: sanitation workers, real estate agents & President of the United States.

Historically, MOST all jobs have been dominated by men.

[Benny B]

Those aren't men slaving away in Asian garment factories, cleaning your hotel room or working the checkout line at the Kroeger.

Again... what's with all the Asian references?  Are there not enough Asian students enrolled at MPS to justify the teachers' pay or something.  Or is there some sort of law saying a thread can't go 8 pages without multiple mentions of Asians and their plight?

Historically, MOST all jobs have been dominated by men.

Is it most or all?  Or are you just making an ironic statement about the effect of having a male English teacher at MPS has on one's grammatical prowess?

[mu03eng]

What? No. Your original position was pretty simple - that teacher skills are less difficult to develop than other professions and are not valuable enough to pay more.

"I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more."

My counter-point was that this is a largely sexist view, that careers traditionally dominated by female are seen as less skillful than those traditionally dominated by men - thus justifying the practice that we don't need to pay them more.

Then you tried to skew this all by saying what if the military didn't exist? Wouldn't that cause the country to not exist? Which is a pretty disingenuous statement, as one could make that same point about many industry/fields.

You can think its a sexist view all you want but you are drawing conclusions not in evidence.  Women have been pretty dominant in healthcare and those are some of the toughest jobs to train for.

Let me lay out your moving target for you....
-we need to pay teachers more
-teachers are teaching hard the money is to attract more talent
-the talent in teaching is fine we need to pay teachers more
-if you think teach is something a lot of people could do, you are sexist

What are we paying more money to teachers for in your world exactly?